next »

[august]

Hello All:

Before I proceed, I teach women's studies in my humanities discipline and was hired for this reason (in the south).

I've read the standard histories of the discipline, but of late been particularly disconcerted to note the copious references to big name funding sources for the discipline, in the U.S. and abroad (China, for instance).  These include the Rockefellers, the Henry Luce Foundation, the Ford's and others. 

I am searching for essays, research, etc., on the history of these alliances.  Any suggestions?

 

[tuxedo_cat]

I'm truly curious about your note of dismay here.  The Ford Foundation has been one of the most high-profile supporters of minority research scholars for years.  I don't know about the politics of the other foundations you mention, but you do realize that Women's Studies programs are being _axed_ altogether at some campuses around the country?  Including the firing of full-time tenured faculty.

[august]

Thank you for the response.  Yes, I am aware of the situation of women's studies, I am in the field.  Why should that impact my motivation to learn about the funding sources?

I do know that Ford foundation, as well as the Rockefellers, have been funding programs for a very long time.  I didn't know they were funding minority research.  I am wondering why they are?  That is all.  What motivates them to do so?

[tuxedo_cat]

I don't know the history of why the Ford Foundation has supported so many progressive social causes (and yes, a Ford Foundation grant ranks as one of the most prestigious grants for scholars in my field working on minority lit), but can we simply be glad that they do? 

I'm not quarreling at all with your interest in learning about the history of these foundations.  But I believe that in every case you will find that families and corporations that have accumulated massive wealth have done so on the backs of hundreds of thousands of underpaid and exploited workers.  If in subsequent decades these families and foundations have decided that they would like to put some of that wealth behind more progressive causes, particularly to support educational enterprises, that seems. . . I dunno. . . good?

Is there such a thing as "clean" money?  That's an honest question.

[kedves]

Each foundation has its own history, but American foundations have a collective history as well.  Here is a partial list of books and bibliographies if you would like to read about it. 

[bread_pirate_naan]

A lot of philanthropy is intended to keep fortunes from being taxed, as well as distributing potentially taxable monies as the earner/heir sees fit. 

[hestia]

A lot of philanthropy is intended to keep fortunes from being taxed, as well as distributing potentially taxable monies as the earner/heir sees fit. 

While that is certainly true of small and recent family foundations, foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations are at this point older, large, professionally run foundations. As such, they have boards of directors and program officers who are either philanthropists or professional non-profit employees charged with finding needs based on what are usually fairly broad mission statements and funding them.

[goldenapple]

There's a great deal of research on philanthropy -- check out the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University (they have a good online bibliography with books on the history of philanthropy)

http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/history_and_traditions.aspx

Or check out the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at CUNY, or the National Philanthropic Trust.

If you're really interested in the connection to women's studies, why not ask the people in the development office at a university that received a large gift for women's studies? I'm sure they'd have piles of information on exactly why a certain foundation is connected with a particular gift or funding stream. And usually, people in the development office are happy to tell you why the Ford Foundation (or whoever) is so enthusiastic about their school/program/building fund/ whatever.

[bread_pirate_naan]

A lot of philanthropy is intended to keep fortunes from being taxed, as well as distributing potentially taxable monies as the earner/heir sees fit. 

While that is certainly true of small and recent family foundations, foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations are at this point older, large, professionally run foundations. As such, they have boards of directors and program officers who are either philanthropists or professional non-profit employees charged with finding needs based on what are usually fairly broad mission statements and funding them.

Large, professionally run, and non-profit doesn't alter the fact that they are private fortunes and missions are in generally in keeping with the founder's interests.  See also; Getty, Carnegie.  The bigger the fortune, the more professionals it takes. 

There is not really anything about being old or bureaucratic that contradicts my post. The size of the monopoly fortunes and the conditions that made them possible don't make them much different than the Gates Foundation. 

[hestia]

A lot of philanthropy is intended to keep fortunes from being taxed, as well as distributing potentially taxable monies as the earner/heir sees fit. 

While that is certainly true of small and recent family foundations, foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations are at this point older, large, professionally run foundations. As such, they have boards of directors and program officers who are either philanthropists or professional non-profit employees charged with finding needs based on what are usually fairly broad mission statements and funding them.

Large, professionally run, and non-profit doesn't alter the fact that they are private fortunes and missions are in generally in keeping with the founder's interests.  See also; Getty, Carnegie.  The bigger the fortune, the more professionals it takes. 

There is not really anything about being old or bureaucratic that contradicts my post. The size of the monopoly fortunes and the conditions that made them possible don't make them much different than the Gates Foundation. 

I disagree, Naan.  The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have extremely broad missions and independent trustees.  Carnegie is different in that it was chartered by Congress for education, and Getty is much smaller and in the arts alone.  But by the third generation, most foundations cease to be family foundations in any real sense (either they go out of business, or they become professional).  The direction of professional foundations tends to be to broaden the original mission of the foundation substantially.  (The Luce Foundation pretty much illustrates the process.)

The Gates Foundation is interesting precisely because they started broadly and had to narrow a bit in order to be effective; I would be highly surprised to find any Gates family members sitting on the board past the third generation.

[bread_pirate_naan]

You are free to disagree, but the broadness or narrowness of a philanthropic mission doesn't alter the fact that founders have a hand in establishing mission.  Even if you consider the Getty Trust small($9 billion), the narrowness of its mission is a result of the founder's philanthropic interests, which was my point. 

(Carnegie Corp $3B)
(Rockefeller $3B)
(MacArthur $7B)
(Ford $13.7B)
(Gates $35B)

[hestia]

No question the founders have a hand in establishing the mission.  Just saying that as a foundation ages, the mission often broadens considerably beyond the original founders' intentions (both because the professionals are now in charge, and because the assets have grown).  Obviously, whether this occurs or not is also controlled by the original bylaws of the foundation.  A small family foundation, even if established with a broad mission, often chooses to focus on narrow funding areas because it is unstaffed and has fewer resources (and yes, has a stronger sense of trying to fund what "Grandpa and Grandma" would have felt was important).