The Pot Is Simmering

The categories of inequity are multiple: class, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, etc., etc. Awareness of and response to each varies hugely depending on which side of the have/have-not divide one finds oneself. The have-not side always has a far greater awareness and understanding of inequity than is ever possible on the have side. As an over-educated white male of a certain age, it’s astonishing that I can ever see clearly enough to get out of bed in the morning. (And for all my effort to “see,” in the few short months I’ve been blogging here, Roberto Bedoya has already had to call me out, justifiably, once here.) The have side predictably sees all the good it is doing (in its own eyes). The have-nots see much more clearly how far there is to go.

Inequity is incredibly complex. There is not nearly enough room here to fully address it or even fairly introduce it. (For a truly valuable overview of many of the issues, see Arlene Goldbard’s post Equity in Cultural Funding: Let Them Eat Pies.) I am simply presenting an explanation, from my point of view, of why the discussions are so difficult and often veer off-topic.

Going forward, as a reminder, there is a difference among private foundation funding, individual donor funding, and public funding. Each has its own rationale; “equity” in each may have slightly or substantially different meanings. There is also a related, but separate, conversation to be had about the public benefit nature of 501(c)(3) structures and what that demands of us.