“Even more surprising than the legal attacks is the dissipation of public will and support and the reluctance of funders and the public sector to double down on their racial justice commitments.”
— Activist Marc Philpart on a legal settlement that disbands a race-based grant program
The settlement of a case last week that would have tested whether charities can make grants based on race — and perhaps put the decision before the Supreme Court — has left the issue in a legal gray zone, reports my colleague Alex Daniels.
In the settlement, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a litigation nonprofit run by conservative activist Edward Blum, agreed to drop its suit — and the Fearless Fund, an Atlanta venture fund that has an associated foundation, agreed to discontinue a grant program that gave money exclusively to Black woman entrepreneurs.
As affirmative action lawsuits proliferate across the country, some grant makers said they would continue making grants that specify grantees based on race
“We’re going to stick with it,” said Toya Fick, president of the Meyer Memorial Trust in Oregon. “We’re not dampening or changing our language about what we’re aiming to do, who we are, and who we serve.”
Joanna Jackson, president of the Weingart Foundation in California, is of a similar mind. Weingart is not “directive” in how grantees use its money because it largely gives unrestricted grants. That approach may reduce the foundation’s exposure to affirmative action opponents.
Still, Jackson said, “there’s nothing against the law about having a mission that is advancing racial justice.”
Legal experts offered varying interpretations of the settlement’s implications.
By coming to terms on the case, the Fearless Fund avoided a final judgment and the creation of a legal precedent, said Scott Curran, a legal consultant to foundations and the former general counsel at the Clinton Foundation.
“The settlement takes it out of the courts and relieves everyone of a judicial disposition of the case,” he said.
Skylar Croy, a lawyer at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a conservative legal nonprofit, sees it differently. The settlement is “an undeniable win” for opponents of affirmative action, Croy said, adding that while no final judgment was reached, the preliminary injunction would be cited as precedent outside of the 11th Circuit.
To learn more about the settlement, read the article. To understand how the settlement will impact nonprofits and college campuses with race-based grants or scholarships, be sure to attend the Chronicle’s free Sept. 24 online forum, The Future of Race-Based Grant Making. Stacy Palmer, CEO of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, will talk to three experts about what comes next.
How the Buffett Children Might Give to Charity. Warren Buffett announced in June that he would donate his fortune, now valued at nearly $144 billion, to a charitable trust managed by his three children when he dies, instead of giving it to the Gates Foundation, as he indicated 18 years ago. The next generation of Buffetts will then have 10 years to give the money away, Warren Buffett said.
How they will share that fortune with charities is something many are wondering, reports Thalia Beatty, who covers philanthropy at our partner the Associated Press. In a relatively rare interview, Howard Buffett, 69, said he couldn’t predict exactly how he and his siblings would give away their father’s fortune. However, he said they would continue to take risks and find ways to make the biggest difference as their father recommended.
“I can tell you, we’ll sit down in a room when the time comes, and we’ll get it figured out pretty quickly,” he said, acknowledging that the directive to donate all the money within 10 years was a challenge.
The siblings’ different ways of thinking and approaches to giving are assets, he said. “We’re going to bring all of our collective experience together,” he said. For more, read Thalia’s entire story.
