The Giving Review co-editor William A. Schambra is a senior fellow emeritus at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He directed Hudson’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal from 2003 to 2014. Prior to joining Hudson in ’03, he was Director of Programs at the The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee. At Bradley, among other things, he spearheaded creation in 1997 of the National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.
Before joining Bradley in 1992, Schambra was a senior advisor to and speechwriter for U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Constance Horner, and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan. He was also Director of Social Policy Programs for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Co-Director of AEI’s “A Decade of Study of the Constitution.”
From 2003 to 2006, Schambra served on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service. From 1984 to 1990, he served as a member of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, to which he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Northern Illinois University.
Schambra has written extensively on the Constitution, the theory and practice of civic revitalization, and philanthropy, including in The Wall Street Journal, The Public Interest, Public Opinion, Policy Review, RealClearPolicy, The Christian Science Monitor, Philanthropy, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Philanthropy Daily, Nonprofit Quarterly, First Things, and Crisis. He has edited several books, including As Far as Republican Principles Will Admit: Collected Essays of Martin Diamond.
The NonProfit Times named Schambra among its 2013 Power & Influence Top 50, complimenting him for “consistently sticking his finger in the eye of the sector’s elite” and raising questions “designed to broaden the idea of philanthropy’s role in America today.” When he retired from running the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal in 2014, Adam Keiper lauded it in National Review for being “a think tank project like no other, since the subjects it focuses on rarely get the kind of thoughtful intellectual attention that Schambra and his colleagues have devoted to them.” Keiper concluded that “[i]f there is any consolation to be had in the fact that the Bradley Center is winding down its work in the next few months, it is that Bill still has a great deal of youthful vim, and will hopefully now have more time to pick up his pen and write.”
In the framework of the “parallel polis” for which N. S. Lyons called at the National Conservatism conference in Brussels, there already exists a latent one in America’s central-city neighborhoods.
Observations on The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “The Commons” debate about whether philanthropy can bring America together.
Progressivism and donor-advised funds in local charity.
Democratic self-governance is a rare and precious thing, all too readily surrendered by citizens to professional experts who are all too happy to take charge.
Progressivism “certainly came to dominate the first modern foundations, the universities, journalism, and most other institutions of American intellectual life. But … it nonetheless failed in its effort to change entirely the way everyday American political life plays itself out.”
Remembering an active, faithful Milwaukee citizen.
And what it is.
From a Philanthropy Roundtable debate after original publication of the 2008 book by Dan Pallotta on which the new documentary film is based.
Remembering Cordelia Taylor and her love for others.
Approaching Labor Day, remembering Penn Kemble … and Robert Nisbet.
Remarks at the Council on Foundations annual conference a decade ago.
Remarks from a panel discussion on populism at the “Foundations on the Hill” event for foundation leaders and officials in Washington, D.C.
From the Carnegie Corporation’s promotion of eugenics to—as Maribel Morey’s new book provocatively argues—its furthering of white supremacy, establishment philanthropy in America has much to answer for, and to resolve. It will have to do so in the coming years, in what will likely be an uncharitable cultural and political context. In all of American establishment philanthropy’s… Continue reading Philanthropy’s original sin
Christopher DeMuth’s is a deeply insightful critique to be taken seriously, including by conservative philanthropy.
Considering the proper distance between charity and politics.
As establishment philanthropy defends its position in American society, it would do well to tend to more than just one flank.
As shown in and by Sanford, Mich., starting one year ago, it’s often when massive devastation is visited on a population that it discovers its true character.
A letter to the editor of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
In any real-life revision of the parable so often cited by philanthropists, there’s a strong likelihood that the philanthropists forging their way upstream to the source of the problem will never get there. As with the challenge of homelessness in L.A., they will instead become hopelessly entangled in the real-world obstacles that invariably complicate the drive for simplistic, root-cause solutions.
Conservatives would be wise to push for a bolder plan that addresses the conflation of political and charitable causes—and clearly defines what constitutes legitimate charitable goals. That’s the only way to ensure philanthropy doesn’t lose all credibility and become completely politicized. Let’s focus on what really matters.
Theda Skocpol and Caroline Tervo tell the story of Indivisible and its donor-driven succumbing to the siren call of “the DC-based nonprofit industrial complex.”
The appropriate context within which its eugenic past should be considered.
The arcane, demanding jargon of strategic philanthropy is being replaced by an equally arcane, demanding jargon of social justice.
The reaction to Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination shows how the notion of God presents a challenge for the liberal intelligentsia, the cutting-edge moral and philosophical doctrines of which raise serious questions about any form of transcendent truth. For conservatism, a religious understanding of brokenness can only better it.
Conservatives need to face that truth.
Assessing the adverse implications of intellectual intransigence.
Sector-bending has always been a symptom of a larger intellectual problem: utopianism.
Why did Candid so suddenly shrink in horror from one of the central premises of Big Philanthropy?
Including for those progressive foundations that supported and promoted it.
Conservative philanthropy should be constantly on the lookout for young people deep within the heart of progressivism who are beginning to realize that, however noble its ends, its means always turn out to be illiberal and oppressive.
As shown in and by Sanford, Mich., it’s often when massive devastation is visited on a population that it discovers its true character.
Populist wave of resentment not likely to be turned back by an abstruse discussion of the finer points of tax law.
“For the souls that are within us, no one can degrade.”
An exhortation—and legislation?—about charitable endowments.
At last, our largest foundations may see benefit in foregoing all their restrictions, processes, and expectations—opting instead for trust in grantees.
Surveying crisis-caused civic involvement—and appreciating, and supporting, it.
Generate the moral energy for a reinvigorated central government, or rely on a bewilderingly diverse and dispersed network of local, decentralized civic institutions?
Progressive philanthropy will be frustrated in its ultimate aim to achieve a fully just and equal society, because it is working against the grain of our order, in pursuit of an abstract, utopian goal.
And foster continued healthy discourse within and among all of them.
In the current context, it certainly raises several important questions, large and small.
Familiar takes on interests and institutions, among other things.
From more than a decade ago, thoughts an what can best and most reliably be done by foundations.
It’s not so unique. Nor are small, local, hometown ones like it built by national government as easily as the large-scale interstate-highway system.
The arrogance of assuming all people automatically agree with “taking action” on a progressive agenda.
Once giving, volunteering, and self-help are seen by the public for what they have always been to the philanthropic professionals—mere myths that complicate the work of the credentialed experts—what will happen to the legitimacy of those professionals?
The approaches of some grassroots activists and conservative philanthropies are much closer to each other than those flowing from progressivism—which shift power away from the local grassroots to distant intellectual elites, who consider grassroots efforts mere “Band-Aids.”
By suggesting that our vast network of social services isn’t adequate to the task of meeting human needs, the everyday charitable acts of Americans “threaten” to carve out islands of independent civic initiative, free from the heavy-handed guidance and arrogant expertise of philanthropic reformers.
Progressive critiques of private philanthropy ignore prior public experience with government spending.
As establishment philanthropy defends its position in American society, it would do well to tend to more than just one flank.
And another option for grantmakers to at least consider.
In wake of USC Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy’s must-read report, third of three-part series offers different take on applying theory, facing reality, and learning lessons for future giving.
In wake of USC Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy’s must-read report, second of three-part series tracks depressingly increasing evidence of failure.
In wake of USC Center on Philanthropy & Public Policy’s must-read report, first of three-part series overviews initial ambitions and aspirations of effort led by city’s funders to deal with “wicked problem.”
Not skew corporate pronouncements and practices toward philanthropic purposes.
Sector-bending has always been a symptom of a larger intellectual problem: utopianism.
A (merely) diversity-minded progressive donor should indeed venture with utmost caution into the unsettled new world of cultural philanthropy.
Conservatives should rethink their giving and look elsewhere.
And where to look for rebuilding self-governance.
On Labor Day, remembering Penn Kemble … and Robert Nisbet.
Are management training and statistical measurement really the keys to solving our deepest social problems?
Reflections on my co-editors’ conversation with Howard Fuller.
Too tidy and convenient an explanation for today’s conservative policy activism.
And for conservative philanthropy, a small measure of comfort.
In Milwaukee, it didn’t start with any grantmaker. The indispensable groundwork was laid by parents concerned about the education of their children.
Searching for isolated, but incredibly powerful voices of authentic experience with utopian progressivism, who can speak about its excesses with an authority that scholars and activists don’t possess.
Civil society should not be seen by experts, or funders, merely as a tool to solve social problems.
Introducing our effort to provide independent analysis of and commentary about philanthropy and giving.
Restoring a more patient philanthropy means backing away from the obsession with immediate policy and political outcomes.
A documentary that details the fight over the stewardship of a $25-billion art collection raises enduring questions of donor intent.
American philanthropy is thoroughly, fundamentally elitist. In the Trump era, it will be tempted to pursue political activity that will only make that fact painfully apparent to the American people…
