Posts tagged ‘NAACP’

August 11, 2020

What Can You Learn from the Moral Failing of the NAACP?

While the recent moral failing of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is distressing to all who oppose bigotry, the situation offers seven important lessons for every nonprofit organization.

Before I get to those critical lessons, let me offer you some background.

It’s been 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau as well as the other concentration and extermination camps run by the Nazis to murder Europe’s Jewish population and others. Now, three-quarters of a century later, liberals and conservatives continue to find common ground by embracing anti-Semitism.

For its part, the NAACP has failed to fire Rodney Muhammad, President of the NAACP Philadelphia chapter, following his anti-Jewish social media posting in defense of anti-Semitism. The NAACP headquarters has not apologized for Muhammad’s comments, nor has it insisted that he apologize. Nationally, the NAACP’s inaction shows it condones anti-Jewish rhetoric while, at the local level, Muhammad and his board have turned the Philadelphia chapter into a hate group.

On July 24, 2020, the news website BillyPenn first reported on Muhammad’s anti-Semitic Facebook post from July 23:

[On] Muhammad’s public Facebook page, the meme referenced the backlash against Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson, actor/rapper Ice Cube and comedian/TV host Nick Cannon, who have all attracted attention recently for advancing theories that blame Jewish people for the plight of Black Americans. Cannon and Jackson have since apologized for their recent posts, while Ice Cube doubled down.”

Muhammad shared the meme as a defense of sorts on behalf of Jackson, Cannon, and Ice Cube:

The post included a caricature of a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke and pressing a large, bejeweled hand down on a faceless mass of people. Similar caricatures trace back to before the Holocaust, and were often used to depict Jews as a force of greed and oppression. Next to the image was a quote falsely attributed to French philosopher Voltaire: ‘To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.’”

After being questioned by a BillyPenn reporter, Muhammad removed the post while denying any memory of having shared it. Later, he issued defensive statements that were devoid of apology. The closest he came was an expression of “regret.”

In the meantime, a number of community and religious leaders have called for Muhammad to either resign or be removed from his position. For example, Gov. Tom Wolf, Attorney General Josh Shapiro, and State Sen. Anthony Williams joined the calls for Muhammad’s removal. While the Pennsylvania NAACP condemned Muhammad’s action, Kenneth Huston, President of the state conference, said that he was powerless to take any action which would have to come, instead, from national headquarters.

Unfortunately, the NAACP national office delayed its response by more than a week. Furthermore, its tepid statement supported Muhammad. Making matters worse, the NAACP headquarters has apparently failed to provide any direction to the Philadelphia chapter, according to WHYY:

Bishop J. Louis Felton, first vice president of the Philadelphia branch, said in an email that local leadership has not gotten any direction from the NAACP national office on the issue. ‘Congratulations on actually getting a response from the National office, as we certainly could not,’ said Felton.”

The Jewish Exponent reported on some of the community reaction:

‘We are truly saddened,’ the Pennsylvania Jewish Coalition said in a statement, ‘by such a prominent leader’s rejection of this alliance and inexcusable failure to recognize his own role in perpetuating racist stereotypes.’ The Philadelphia Muslim Jewish Circle of Friends, convened by the American Jewish Committee, asserted that Muhammad’s actions were ‘in direct violation of the very principles upon which the NAACP was founded.’”

So, what can we learn from the NAACP’s moral failing?

read more »

November 15, 2016

Will the Election be Good or Bad for #Fundraising?

[Publisher’s Note: This is not a political or partisan post. Instead, this post will explore the affects the recent presidential election is likely to have on fundraising and philanthropy in the short-term and beyond. As always, civil and on-topic comments are encouraged, whether or not you agree with the points covered in the post. However, overtly political or partisan comments will not be published nor will the rants of internet trolls.]

 

Donald J. Trump appears to have secured enough electoral votes to become the USA’s 45th president. His election will become official when the Electoral College votes on Dec. 19, 2016.

After a bruising, though not unprecedented, election cycle, the nation remains deeply divided and emotionally raw. What does this mean for fundraising and philanthropy?

Impact of Election Donations on Charitable Giving:

At the 2016 Association of Fundraising Professionals International Fundraising Conference, research from Blackbaud was presented that looked at the impact of political giving on charitable donations in the 2012 election cycle.

Chuck Longfield, Senior Vice President and Chief Scientist at Blackbaud, observes:

Fundraisers have long debated whether or not political fundraising affects charitable giving and, for decades, important fundraising decisions in election years have been based largely on the conventional belief of a fixed giving pie. The study’s overall assertion is that political giving during the 2012 election did not, in fact, suppress charitable giving. Donors to political campaigns continued their support of charitable causes.”

According to the study, donors who gave to federal political campaigns in 2012 gave 0.9 percent more to charitable organizations in 2012 compared to 2011. By contrast, donors who did not give to political campaigns reduced their giving to charities in 2012 by 2.1 percent. These data findings held true across all sub-sectors as well as the demographic segments of age range, household income, and head of household gender.

The research only provides us with a snapshot. It is not predictive. More research will need to be done to identify whether or not the results will be consistent over multiple election cycles. However, based on the analysis of the 2012 campaign cycle, we certainly have room to be cautiously optimistic about 2016.

Year-End Giving:

If history is an indicator, the 2016 election will have little or no impact on overall year-end philanthropy, according to Patrick Rooney, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

voting-by-becky-mccray-via-flickrAt times, elections have had an effect on the giving of some individuals. For example, in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected, some major donors feared that he would secure a 28 percent cap on tax deductions.

Out of fear that the cost of giving would, in effect, be going up in 2009, some of these individuals front-loaded their 2009 philanthropic support to 2008 year-end. Nevertheless, the impact on overall giving was modest.

While Trump has promised major tax reform, it’s doubtful that donors will expect significant changes to the tax code to be enacted and go into effect in 2017. Therefore, it’s equally doubtful that major donors will shift 2017 giving into 2016.

Given that the 2016 election was unusual in many ways, it is certainly possible that year-end giving will deviate from the historical norm. For example, the stock market reached a record level following the election. If stock values continue to grow, we could see an increase in year-end gifts of appreciated securities. However, regarding overall philanthropy, I think the smart bet is on history.

Giving to Individual Charities:

It is very likely that certain individual charities will see an uptick in donations as a result of the election outcome.

Many years ago, Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of conservative direct response fundraising and Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said that people would rather fight against something than for something. We’ve seen it before; we’re seeing it now.

For example, when Obama was elected, the National Rifle Association received significantly more contributions as some feared that the new president would impose more stringent gun control measures.

Now, Kari Paul, of MarketWatch, reports:

read more »

%d bloggers like this: