In an age when the nation’s leaders routinely label opponents as “evil,” can we find a way to disagree better?
Tim Shriver believes we can. In recent years, the chairman of Special Olympics International has turned his attention to the idea that division in America is not the result of our differences. Rather, he thinks it’s a byproduct of how we treat each other when we disagree. Shriver is the co-creator of the Dignity Index, which ranks rhetoric — particularly that of politicians — on a scale to measure the contempt or respect we show one another.
Shriver joins Chronicle of Philanthropy deputy opinion editor Nandita Raghuram to talk about the index and how demeaning discourse deepens our polarization and increases the risk for violence.
Register now for this free, live event on LinkedIn on Tuesday, September 23, at 12 p.m. ET.
Recommendations: Go to the Source
When we asked leaders to recommend books, movies, TV shows, and podcasts for late summer enjoyment and enrichment, a few folks went off script and pointed to classic texts and historical primary sources. Sarah Cross, vice president of free speech and peace at Stand Together, advised a close and modern reading of the Declaration of Independence, courtesy of the Declaration Book Club, run by the historians and staff at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.
Cross acknowledged that “this sounds like it’s coming straight out of a school summer reading list” but added: “Civics could be the make-or-break difference in bringing people together and shaping the future of the country. And the team over at Monticello sees that.”
“The core principles at the heart of American civics — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — aren’t new ideas,” she added. “They still are more relevant than ever. This moment is an opportunity to show it. And Monticello’s rich mix of content gives people a chance to take a fresh look at what they mean and how they can propel us forward.”
Of the Moment — ‘The End of the Age of NGOs’ Era?’
That’s the headline of a much-circulated Foreign Affairs essay by scholars Sarah Bush and Jennifer Hadden that captures the worst fears of a civil society whose funding and principles are under attack. The piece, which looks exclusively at international relief and development organizations, takes a decades-long view of what Bush and Hadden see as the rise and fall of these groups — a short history that offers lessons for the nonprofit field as a whole.
The argument: The 1990s were a “golden age” for NGOs, as their numbers and political influence grew to the point they were “pushing governments around” and “setting policy agendas.” But their clout and funding have slipped away since.
Where nonprofits failed: The essay points to external factors for the decline, but the NGO field itself shares in the blame, Bush and Hadden argue. Notably, they cite internal competition that made collaboration difficult if not impossible: “The perception that NGOs are primarily focused on courting donors and the media — regardless of whether such behavior takes place — has weakened the notion that they are different from for-profit firms.”
The argument’s longer form: The essay is drawn from the book Crowded Out, in which Bush and Hadden describe NGOs battling for funds and attention as they chase the same goals.
What’s changing: “The loss of [NGO] influence is already being felt,” writes Euan Wilmshurst, who leads an advisory working on education, climate, and social impact globally. “And it is often those already most at risk who pay the price.”
What’s next: Several NGO leaders say this is a moment for transformation. “If the big, centralised, donor-driven NGO is fading, perhaps the future belongs to lighter, faster, more rooted forms of organising, ones not just in communities but of them,” writes Muleya Mwananyanda of UNAIDS.
