Pluralism in Philanthropy

Including:

• What has caused the latest furore, and what has the reaction been?
• Is philanthropic freedom genuinely under threat, and if so why? Or is this just a straw man?
• Should donors and foundations be free to “engage in the unfettered pursuit of their own mission, interests and prerogatives”, or are there arguments for constraining this freedom?
• Is there an inherent tension in philanthropy between individual liberty and systemic equity? How can we balance these competing demands?
• Should we value pluralism because it enables diversity of thought and values, and provides the material for a healthy “battle of ideas” that can strengthen democracy?
• Is pluralism a necessary part of allowing marginalised groups and communities to overcome the “tyranny of the majority” and drive social change?
• Is accepting that civil society will contain things we may not like or agree with the necessary cost of pluralism? Is this a price worth paying?
• Is pluralism a noble idea in theory but naive in practice, when in reality power is skewed towards defence of the status quo and vested interests?
• Can everyday giving help to produce a form of pluralism that avoids some of the problems that come when we rely on elite philanthropy?
• Do we need to constrain pluralism, and if so how?
• To what extent is this a US-specific debate?
• Do nonprofits need to be “civil” or “polite” when they disagree? Or does this ignore the historical reality of social change?

Related links

• The letter to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that has sparked this debate, “We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism“
• Vu Le, “Philanthropy’s equivalent of “All Lives Matter””
• Edgar Villanueva, “Debunking the Myth of Philanthropic Pluralism“
• Phil Buchanan, “Who Is Threatening ‘Philanthropic Freedom?’”
• Philip Rojc, “The End of Philanthropic History and that Pluralism Op-Ed“
• Philanthropisms podcast with Edgar Villanueva
• Philanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-Hastings
• Why Philanthropy Matters article, “Voluntary Woke? Philanthropy, Civil Society & The Culture Wars“
• Rhod’s article for Beacon Collaborative, “Can we agree to disagree when it comes to philanthropy?“
• Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell verdict in “Bob Jones University vs United States”
• JS  Mill, “Endowments“

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT:

Philanthropisms Podcast: Pluralism in Philanthropy

Hello, you’re listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I’m your host, as ever, Rhodri Davis, and this week it’s just me taking a bit of a deep dive into an issue that has come into the news in philanthropy circles recently and caused some pretty fierce debate, particularly in the US, and that is the question of pluralism and philanthropy.

Now, I will explain what the debate’s all about and kind of why it is causing so much consternation at the moment in a bit, but I just wanted to say up front: this is a really interesting topic to get into because it really gets to some fundamental questions about the role of philanthropy in a democracy and some of the inherent tensions in the very idea of philanthropy. These are things that I’ve been interested in for a long time and hope to bring some historical and theoretical perspective to today.

However, it’s also quite a difficult topic to get to grips with in some ways because the very notion of trying to take a measured approach to the question of pluralism has itself become something that actually draws ire. In some ways, it’s one of those questions where if your response to general complaints about binary thinking is to say, “Oh well, we just need a bit of nuance and let’s try and understand both sides,” that response in itself is seen as contributing to the fundamental problem. And there is a grain of truth in that as well. There is certainly a danger of “both-sidesing” issues that don’t actually have a reasonable second side, or in trying to be nuanced and balanced, legitimizing points of view or values that are abhorrent.

Equally, I think there is a danger of a kind of moral absolutism on the other side and a refusal to engage with the idea that there might be people who have different points of view or values that you don’t agree with. You might criticize them in the strongest possible terms, but they still have a legitimate right to hold those views. As we go through the episode, we’ll see that that tension runs through a lot of what we’re talking about here.

The Catalyst: A Plea for Pluralism

The background to why I wanted to talk about this is that if you follow philanthropy at all, you might already be well aware that there’s a debate raging in US philanthropy circles at the moment. This was all sparked—or at least the most recent version of it, because it’s definitely not a new debate—by a letter written to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which is the paper of record about philanthropy in the nonprofit sector in the US.

This was a joint letter from a group of about six foundation heads and senior figures in philanthropy. Essentially, they were making a plea for the importance of pluralism and making a case that pluralism is currently under threat and needs to be preserved and protected. I want to dig a little bit into the detail of the letter because it’s worth unpicking three broad points that come across:

• The Threat to Pluralism: The letter tries to convey the idea that pluralism is under threat because the freedom for philanthropists and institutions to express their own ideas and follow their own motivations is being imperiled by an unseen force trying to constrain everyone. The signatories write that as a result of these pressures, “however meritorious and morally urgent… foundations and philanthropists are often expected to pledge allegiance to one or another narrow set of prescribed views.”
• Donor Freedom: There is an argument in favor of respecting the fundamental right of donors to choose where and how to give their money. The letter states: “A critical way philanthropy does this is by helping to make pluralism possible,” adding that philanthropy makes its greatest contribution to democracy when donors engage in the “unfettered pursuit of their own mission, interests, and prerogatives.” (Note: That word “unfettered” is a major red flag that we will unpack later).
• A Plea for Civility: The authors make a separate but linked plea for civility, writing: “Philanthropy can and should become skilled at effectively engaging in disagreements on approaches or even outcomes… we must commit to productive, not destructive negotiation.”

The Backlash and Pushback

While a plea for civility seems unproblematic on the surface, it is often used as a coded way of undermining the ability of organizations to engage in advocacy, campaigning, or speaking out. Consequently, the response to this letter has been quite fierce.

One of the quickest responses came from Vu Le, who writes the Nonprofit AF blog. He essentially characterized the letter as philanthropy’s version of the “All Lives Matter” response to the Black Lives Matter movement—an unhealthy “both sidesing” of an issue where two legitimate sides don’t exist. He argued that not all philanthropy is good; some foundations fund anti-trans hate groups, white supremacist movements, voter suppression, or efforts to ban abortion. In his view, those funders should never be equally respected alongside those fighting for human rights, voting access, and reproductive freedom.

Other notable pushbacks included:

• Edgar Villanueva: The philanthropy activist voiced similar criticisms regarding the danger of holding plurality above all other values.
• Philip Roic: Writing in Inside Philanthropy, Roic framed the debate around Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis and criticized the classical liberal approach to pluralism in philanthropy.
• Phil Buchanan: Writing for the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Buchanan questioned the basic premise of the letter itself, challenging whether pluralism is actually under any real threat in a meaningful way.

Who Signed the Letter—and Why It Confused People

The signatories of the letter formed an odd coalition if you know the US nonprofit sector. The group included:

• Kathleen Enright (Council on Foundations)
• Heather Templeton Dill (John Templeton Foundation)
• Sam Gill (Doris Duke Foundation)
• Brian Hooks (Stand Together)
• Darren Walker (President and CEO of the Ford Foundation)
• Elise Westhoff (CEO of the Philanthropy Roundtable)

Seeing Darren Walker (a prominent progressive figure) and Elise Westhoff (head of the right-leaning Philanthropy Roundtable) signing together was clearly intended to demonstrate a broad consensus behind pluralism. However, it ended up confusing people.

Because Westhoff has made strong, public statements regarding “wokism” and “cancel culture,” her presence framed the letter through that specific lens. It made the initiative look like an argument that “you can’t say anything anymore in philanthropy,” which ultimately flattened the nuance and complexity that others might have brought to the topic.

Is Pluralism Actually Under Threat?

Is the basic premise of the letter true, or is it a total straw man? Who has suddenly emerged to threaten donor pluralism?

There are vague insinuations in the letter about donors being forced to toe a line, but in any legal or practical sense, no one is stopping foundations from doing whatever they want. It bears a striking resemblance to general free speech debates, where public figures with massive platforms complain on radio and TV that they are being “cancelled” and prevented from speaking.

While society has certainly become more polarized and filter bubbles exist, this doesn’t mean cancel culture is running rampant over donor intent. The challenge is that discussions in philanthropy quickly become tribal, making it hard to navigate complex issues without people feeling forced to pick a side.

Micro vs. Macro Views: Donor Freedom vs. Systemic Justice

When analyzing arguments in favor of pluralism, it helps to distinguish between two ways of viewing philanthropy:

1. The Micro (Agential) View: Focuses on the rights of individuals to freely give away assets they own for the public good. Here, individual choice, freedom, and liberty are paramount.
2. The Macro (Structural) View: Looks at all acts of giving in the aggregate as a systemic mechanism alongside the state and market to allocate resources. From this perspective, the focus shifts toward justice, equity, and fairness.

As political theorist Rob Reich highlights, philanthropy can be viewed as individual giving or as a complex policy structure for funding public benefits. The core argument for pluralism—that donor freedom is sacrosanct—ignores the inherent tension between these two views.

Furthermore, donor choice is never truly unfettered. It is constrained by law (e.g., prohibitions on funding illegal acts or hate speech) and regulated by tax codes that grant tax-exempt status only to certain public-benefit activities. Prioritizing individual donor liberty above all else ignores macro-level systemic responsibilities.

The Historical Case for Pluralism: Uncustomary Modes of Thought

A long-standing argument for pluralism is that it acts as a engine for innovation by allowing a thousand flowers to bloom. It creates space for unconventional ideas to exist outside of majority rule.

Historically, this defense dates back to thinkers like John Stuart Mill, who argued in his 1833 essay Endowments that while endowments can be misused, time-limited private endowments serve as a vital “precious safeguard for uncustomary modes of thought and practice” against the conformity imposed by wider society or the state.

Similarly, 19th-century social reformer Thomas Hare argued that endowments allow for experimental social progress. Major steps in human progress often run counter to the prejudices of the public and leaders of thought; philanthropy allows idealists to fund counter-cultural ideas without needing immediate majority tax approval.

This philosophy was captured in US legal precedent by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in the 1983 Bob Jones University v. United States ruling. While Powell agreed with stripping the university of its tax-exempt status due to its racially discriminatory policies, he explicitly warned against requiring non-profits to conform to “governmental orthodoxy,” arguing that tax exemptions exist to encourage diverse, conflicting viewpoints.

Ironically, defenses of pluralism often arise when trying to protect indefensible edge cases. Just like in free speech debates, people often retreat to defending the general right to hold a view when the view itself is too abhorrent to defend directly.

From the Margins to the Mainstream

The strongest argument for pluralism is its role in protecting marginalized groups against the “tyranny of the majority.” Majoritarian democracies naturally favor what the majority votes for, often ignoring outgroups.

As historian R.J. Morris noted, voluntary societies historically allowed excluded groups—such as women, the working class, and minority groups—to formulate new identities and build power outside of official state structures. Economist Friedrich Hayek similarly pointed out that major historical reforms (the abolition of slavery, prison reform, ending child labor, animal welfare) began as the isolated campaigns of a few idealists striving to change majority opinion.

Social progress follows a predictable cycle:

1. Ideas start on the radical margins held by minority groups.
2. Philanthropic and voluntary support allows these groups to organize.
3. The cause gains public awareness and political traction.
4. The idea becomes mainstream policy and law.

Without pluralism, we risk freezing societal values in place at a single point in time. However, the double-edged sword is obvious: what if the marginalized views getting oxygen are extreme, hateful, or harmful?

As David Callahan notes in The Givers, we tend to have an à la carte reaction to pluralism. When donors support causes we hate, we view them as distorting policy with money; when they fund causes we love, we view them as heroic counterweights.

Theory vs. Reality: The Simpson’s “Three Stooges” Fallacy

The theoretical model of pluralism assumes that all views will naturally balance each other out. I compare this to the “Three Stooges Syndrome” from The Simpsons, where Mr. Burns has every disease known to man, but he stays healthy because all the germs are trying to cram through the door at the same time and cancelling each other out.

In reality, elite philanthropy does not balance out equally. Money and power skew heavily toward the status quo and conservative, wealthy interests.

• Ben Whitaker (1974): In The Foundations, he noted that standard incantations about pluralism ignore the fact that foundation trustees belong to privileged segments of society predisposed to maintain the existing structure.
• Joan Roelofs: In Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, she argues that the system is not open to all interests because the powerless lack the resources, time, and access required to organize effectively.

Legal scholar Matthew Harding and political philosopher Emma Saunders-Hastings both suggest that the true ideal of pluralism is far more achievable through mass philanthropy (a large volume of small-dollar donations) rather than plutocratic elite philanthropy. Large concentrations of wealth tend to drown out grassroots voices and amplify elite preferences, whereas small-dollar giving democratizes pluralism.

How Do We Constrain Pluralism?

If pure, unfettered pluralism is a myth, how should society draw the lines around what is acceptable?

• Legal & Regulatory Boundaries: Governments set baseline rules through tax codes or charity law. (For example, the UK requires charities to pass a formal “public benefit” test, whereas the US relies primarily on tax designations, creating more contentious edge cases).
• Sector Consensus: Expecting civil society to voluntarily agree on what counts as “acceptable” philanthropy is a pipe dream given current polarization.
• Tech Platforms as Gatekeepers: Increasingly, digital giving infrastructure, payment processors, and social networks act as de facto boundary-setters by deciding who can or cannot use their tools to fundraise. This raises serious questions about democratic legitimacy and platform neutrality.

Civility as a Weapon vs. Social Change

The plea for “civility” within pluralism deserves a critical look. While polite engagement sounds ideal, calls for civility are frequently weaponized to tone-police activists and weaken advocacy.

History shows that major social change does not happen because activists were polite to those in power. The Suffragettes did not win voting rights by hosting gentle tea parties; they used direct action and disruptive tactics. If pluralism is truly about fostering a “battle of ideas,” we must accept that real battles are inherently combative, unpleasant, and disruptive.

Conclusion

Pluralism is both a practical reality and a valuable theoretical ideal, but it comes with real costs. If you embrace pluralism, you must accept that people will use philanthropic freedom to fund things you vehemently oppose.

If those pushing back against pluralism feel that price is too high, the correct path forward is not arbitrarily cancelling individual organizations, but challenging and redefining the legal frameworks, tax codes, and public benefit tests that govern philanthropy at a state level.