Executive Commentary
During coming weeks and months we will feature short articles and commentaries by leading foundation executives to highlight their insights and experiences relative to contemporary diversity in philanthropy issues and opportunities.
Read previous commentary by Gara LaMarche, President & CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies
Our second featured field executive is Sherece West, president of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas. Previously Dr. West served as Chief Executive Officer of the Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Carrier Foundation and co-manager of the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Rebuilding Communities Initiative. Dr. West holds a Doctorate in Philosophy and Public Policy and serves on the boards of the Council on Foundations and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
This comment, completed with support from Diversity in Philanthropy Project consultant Robin Templeton, illuminates Dr. West's conviction that a structural analysis of racism and inequity is essential to effective philanthropy and a highly functioning society.
Sherece Y. West
Sherece Y. West, Ph.D. is President of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas. Previously she served as Chief Executive Officer of the Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Carrier Foundation and co-manager of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Rebuilding Communities Initiative. Dr. West holds a Doctorate in Philosophy and Public Policy and serves on the boards of the Council on Foundations and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Paraphrasing the Aspen Institute, structural racism refers to a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Within the field of philanthropy, we have to deal with these historical and continuing realities of structural racism which, by their nature, produce and reinforce deeply embedded inequities.
Many institutions reflect this. Consider the fact that the nation’s higher education system has principally been designed for and of the greatest benefit to white, social and economic elites. Those who have historically been able to afford higher education have primarily been white. This is not to say that many African American and Latino people are not in college, or that many poorer white people don’t go to college. But it cannot be denied that, structurally, white men with a certain level of educational attainment have comprised the vast majority of those who own and control wealth in our society, as well as the vast majority of those who sit on the boards of directors of most foundations, corporations and leading independent sector institutions.
This is why a structural analysis is paramount in the work that foundations do. White Americans remain significantly more likely than racial minorities to have access to what it takes to fulfill their inborn potential to succeed in life, and to be rewarded fairly for their efforts. Silly notions to the contrary, there is nothing innate about that fact. Under de jure and de facto segregation, schools populated by people of color by law and practice did not receive adequate investment. Over time, the lack of investment produced the poorly functioning school systems that students of color and many poor white students presently populate. Thus, there should be no surprise at the poor education outcomes for students of color.
The implications of these historical patterns of non-investment yield more than mere embarrassment to school systems. If you haven’t invested in equitable and quality schools, then you have a poor quality school system which produces a smaller pool of students prepared and qualified for present and future opportunities. Given our country’s demographics, the prepared are likely to be less diverse; while the underprepared will prove less educable and employable. Fewer and less diverse individuals going into higher education in the face of a burgeoning less prepared and more diverse population bodes ill for our society.
Many industries report the lack of an available, qualified and prepared work force as a reason for disinvestment in the United States. As a consequence, they take their capital to other countries and merely market in the US. Nevertheless, where we perpetuate inequities or fail to address their historical and structural anchors, we risk creating racial and ethnic inequities in some fields and industries. Until philanthropy deals with this phenomenon in a meaningful way, we’re going to continue to have limited diversity in the pools from which we draw foundation leadership. Moreover, unless we equate philanthropy with beneficent rescue, continuing our present pattern may limit impact and traction of our field in an increasingly diverse America.
Ultimately, I find that an aspect of effective philanthropy is about undoing structural racism. It’s about making investments that change these structural imbalances. This requires the field to make conscious and intentional decisions about striving for diversity and inclusion. One of the reasons for the development of artificial interventions like affirmative action is that, in the absence of sufficient leadership by the powers that be to create space in the middle and higher end job markets for diverse candidates, the power of the elite will maintain itself.
In our profession, diversity is about mainstream leaders and institutions taking greater responsibility and initiative. It is about formulating grant making strategies that intend to make a meaningful difference at the structural level, not merely at the grantee or neighborhood level. If grant making is really going to be about social justice, sometimes we need to force this point. Diversity is a moral and social objective, not a legal requirement of foundations. There aren’t any specific laws that require private foundations to pursue an agenda of equity and inclusion. But for foundations that really choose to be effective, that really seriously intend to make an impact, diversity is an essential ingredient. And as our national demography shifts towards greater degrees of multiculturalism, this will be even more critical in the years to come. In this context, the field’s commitment to diversity has to depend on the values and commitment of boards of directors and trustees. They must be able to champion expanded diversity as the best way to achieve their missions and strategic objectives. These are things that you can’t legislate.
The interview that formed the basis of Dr. West’s “Leader Commentary” was conducted by Robin Templeton for the Diversity in Philanthropy Project.