They don't know it all

There’s a website – www.ohnothereisnt.com – where the world of UK philanthropy offers itself up for real debate about strategies, issues, directions. Here, the really controversial issues are debated – currently, for example, the role of philanthrocapitalism. It’s a place where there are links to the really interesting stuff from the broadsheet press (such as the excellent piece by Marina Hyde in the Guardian recently (sample: Charity may begin at home, but philanthropy begins with paying tax…Even a man of Stanford's preposterous bluster would struggle to explain how enabling tax dodging has anything to do with giving a toss about other people. He and his ilk are fauxlanthropists. ). This site is very much in the spirit of open debate so fully embraced by the UK foundations. The Association of Charitable Foundations now has a section (ohnoitdoesnt.com) of its much-improved website where the public, and especially grant seekers, are encouraged to submit their views about organised philanthropy, and to debate these with each other and with the trustees and directors of the foundations – and a very lively debate it is too. What’s also very encouraging is how many of the progressive foundations have themselves opened their websites to 2-way traffic (e.g. www.ohnotheyhavent.com ); instead of just using them to provide information and guidance for potential applicants, or even allowing applications via their websites, an increasing number invite comment on their policies in an attempt to shape them with the benefit of the insights of those actually doing the hard work out there in the field. The world of philanthropy is clearly not afraid of open debate.

OK, I lied. And I’m sorry if anyone wasted time following those dummy links (the Guardian one is for real, and the article to which it links is, in my view, spot-on). But you get my point.

To be fair, Philanthropy UK – and a real link is coming up – does at least seek to cover the controversies in its quarterly newsletter but unless I've missed something, even P-UK is one-way traffic. So why isn't all that stuff above true? What kind of insecurity is it that makes UK philanthropy afraid of real debate? This isn't just a matter of responding to the zeitgeist. By saying, in effect, “we don't know it all and we value the views and ideas of others”, the field would also be doing just a little about the unequal power relationship between grant seekers and grant makers. I’m not sure whether they do this kind of thing better in the USA – I surfed a bit but with no great discoveries. Hey, we could be first!