FEATURE

An Interview with Robert L. Payton

Michael O’NeiZl

OBERT L. Payton is a professor of philanthropic studies at Indi- ana University and the holder of the first such tenured fac- R ulty position in the United States. He was the founding

director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University He has also served as president of the Exxon Education Foundation, presi- dent of Hofsua University, president of C. W. Post College, and U.S. Ambassador to Cameroon. He was interviewed on March 29, 1994, by Michael ONeill, associate editor of NML, on the subject of edu- cation for philanthropy.

O’Neill: Much attention has been paid to the William Aramony/ United Way of America problem, the PhilndeIphiu Inquirer‘s series on nonprofits, Congressman J. J. Pickle’s hearings on nonprofits, and the like. Is there a “confidence crisis” or “accountability crisis” in the philanthropic sector or is this largely a tempest in a teapot?

Payton: There is a crisis of confidence, but it is at least as much within the nonprofit sector as it is within the larger society. Many of us are worried about the loss of mission and the erosion of philan- thropic values, which are always rationalized by reference to finan- cial pressures. But I think it’s more serious than that. Philanthropy is beginning to suffer from the same loss of confidence that has afflicted other institutions. It’s evidence of a decline of trust through- out the society. The third sector has been accorded more trust than the other two sectors in the past, but i t may now be on the same downward path.

O’NeiZl: Are you referring to specific events like Watergate and insider trading?

Payton: Underlying these symbolic events is ideological change. The intellectual community, including the media, has adopted a posture of skepticism, even cynicism, a negative attitude toward all institu- tions. Watergate symbolizes what many intellectuals would like to

303 NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 5. no. 3. Spring 1995 0 Jossey-Bas Publishers

304 OWEILL

There is nothing educated people fear worse than

being gullible

assume they’ve known all along: that we can’t trust anyone. It is very difficult for intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals to trust because their training reduces them to rely solely on their own empirically based critical reason. Intellectuals don’t know how to build and sus- tain mst beyond that rational framework.

O’Neill: Was there a turning point in the public’s perception of the nonprofit sector?

Puyton. The most important events were the scandals of the televan- gelists, perhaps because they betrayed both religion and phlanthropy- both historically thought to be trustworthy Although the scandals involved only a relatively small fraction of total giving, they raised the specter of self-serving exploitation of those who weren’t on guard. There is nothing educated people fear worse than being gullible. Most of us expressed a sense of superiority to those taken in by the tele- vangelists, but it made us all more conscious of fraud and perhaps less inclined to take philanthropic activities for granted. When that doubt spreads to an institution as venerabIe as the United Way, it tends to confirm doubt and increase suspicion. I should add that telemarket- ing and intensified m a s fundraising only add to the problem.

O’Neill: How should the nonprofit sector respond to this crisis of confidence?

Payton: There are some good things happening, such as the more mature way of thinking and talking “professionalism” in our field. The emphasis on ethics generally is helpful. INDEPENDENT SEC- TOR, the National Society of Fund Raising Executives, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, the Association of Healthcare Philanthropy, and other organizations are exhibiting a new seriousness that is encouraging. (The almost-exchsive empha- sis on how-to sessions at national meetings continues to be a prob- lem, however.) The wave of interest in communitarianism, led by Amitai Etzioni and others, is another indication of a changing mood in the field. A few years ago I gave a talk (that met with little response) in which I argued that we build trust in our society through voluntary association. Associating with others where you’re neither paid nor compelled to participate is a good environment to cultivate the trust that is the basis for community. It’s up to scholars to try to understand that phenomenon, but it’s up to the people liv- ing and working in voluntary associations to make it happen.

O’Neilt: It is often said or assumed that the voluntary or nonprofit sector is uniquely value-driven. Is this true, or are value differences between nonprofits and government or even for-profits exaggerated?

Payton: Some exaggeration, some caricature, is necessary to bring

A N I N T E R V I E W W I T H R O B E R T L. PAYTON 305

out the differences in the first place, after which we can debate how important they are. The only justification I can find for the third sec- tor is that it is moral at its core. Intervening in other people's lives for their benefit or for the benefit of the community is moral action, by my definition. If you removed the moral aspect from the third sector, you wouldn't be able to distinguish the third sector from the other two. Unlike government, it's voluntary; unlike business, it's public.

The agenda of the third sector is filled with moral claims that most people take seriously (unlike commercial advertising). It's the sector in which we shape our social and moral agenda. I quote Clif- ford Geeru's phrase "the social history of the moral imagination" to identify the philanthropic tradition. That is another good reason for including religion, the principal institution (along with the family) for expressing and transmitting moral values, in the third sector. We lose our sense of mission when we minimize or neglect the moral dimension and overstate the importance of power and wealth. The search for financial resources is a false goal if philanthropic values are lost in the pursuit.

03JeiZt. How, specifically, are nonprofits different with regard to Val- ues, and how can this characteristic be enhanced?

Payton: Each sector can be thought of as having a fundamental mis- sion. Mission in this usage addresses the compelling social condition that calls organizations and institutions into being. Our principal problem is that we don't give enough time to serious discussion about why we exist. Jim Douglas's book, Why Charity? made an important contribution, but we spend more of our time talking about technique and practice and almost no time at all on mission and purpose. Most of us don't have a carefully thought-out answer to the question Jim Douglas asks: Why charity? Why do we have special privileges? Why are philanthropic activities tax-exempt? Why do we encourage philanthropic giving by tax deduction? If there isn't a broad base of shared understanding of the rationale for doing the public's business this way, the public may suddenly decide to turn elsewhere when it loses confidence. Where will it turn? To the government and to the marketplace. There are many people armed with strong arguments for doing just that.

O'NeilZ: What should colleges and universities be teaching about philanthropy?

Payton: We should teach about philanthropy both in its liberal and its professional dimensions: the why as well as the what and how. "Liberal" as in liberal education; I think the study of philanthropy is a wonderful example of what liberal education is all about. A lib- eral education is about understanding lived human experience in its particularity and uniqueness. Professional education is about

Ifyou removed the moral aspect from the third

sector, you wouldn't be able to distinguish the third sectorfrom

the other two

306 O’NEZLL

Those of us who want to encourage our facuZty

coZZeagues to join us in this

new fieZd [phiZan thropy] have to develop

the knack of connecting this subject to theirs

competence, first, but not only about that. We might look to medical education as a model for linking theory and practice in one environ- ment. There are abundant opp.ortunities for students to participate in the practice of philanthropy if we can devise ways to link their expe- rience to what we teach-use experience to test theory, use theory to frame experience.

You can’t understand philanthropy unless you grapple directly with good works, just as you can’t understand religion without corn- ing to grips with faith. I often use Richard McKeon’s book title, Thought, Action, and Passion, to help make the point. The book is a collection of essays on other subjects, but the title expresses fully for me what philanthropy necessarily entails. I know that’s a challenge to the academy’s Freudian sense of neatness, but coping with the whole of the philanthropic experience means thinking, engaging, and caring.

O’NeilZ: Is this possible in the university culture?

Puyton: 1 think we’re at the beginning of a change of the culture of the university The MITOW model of cognitive rationality, as Tal- cott Parsons labeled it, has lost much of its force as the dominant mode of thought. In many fields there is a search for more inclusive modes of thought and discourse, efforts to bring experience more into focus. Much of the credit is owed to people in fields like wom- en’s studies, ethnic studies, and cross-cultural studies. Interdiscipli- nary studies are again on the rise. Why? Because they are better suited to the real problems of the larger world beyond the campus.

ONeiIl: What do you see in the near future, with regard to teaching and research on philanthropy at the university level? What advice would you give to faculty members and administrators who would like to do at their institutions some of the things you’ve done at Indi- ana University?

Puyton: I’m pleased with the extent to which we’ve been able to engage faculty members with very diverse interests in structured dis- course about philanthropy I’m convinced that when that sort of dia- logue develops, anything is possible. Without that dialogue, on the other hand, nothing is possible. Kate Hayles of the University of Iowa once observed that a new field is a voluntary association. New fields can’t be forced on people. Faculties can be very bureaucratic in resisting change. I remember the wise old Washington hand who told me about the experience of the young people of the Kennedy administration. The newcomers came to Washington eager for change and reform; the civil servants simply hunkered down and waited for the storm to pass over.

Those of us who want to encourage our colleagues to join us in this new field in some way have to develop the knack of connecting

AN I N T E R V l E W W l T H ROBERT L. PAYTON 307

this subject to theirs. The advantage we have is that making con- nections is easy to do because the subject of philanthropy is so per- vasive. For example, historians of science have long studied Galileo’s career. How was Galileo supported in his work? What did patronage mean in that time? What does it mean now? Is there a “bias of patronage”? When is patronage philanthropic?

Almost every human being has had direct personal experience both in giving and in receiving philanthropy It would be hard to find anyone without some sort of philanthropic autobiography, especially in this country where philanthropy is so highly organized. It is equally difficult to find any intellectual compartment of the univer- sity that isn’t touched by it. There are thirty-two members of the adjunct faculty of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana; each has a base in another department or school. We have identified as many as two hundred faculty members across Indiana University who have some formal connection with the Center on Philanthropy That’s beginning to look like a critical mass-that is, enough people to sug- gest there is a subject worth working on.

O’NeiZl: Has there been opposition to your efforts to establish this new field at Indiana-for instance, from faculty who believe philan- thropy is a bad substitute for the welfare state?

Payton. When I first came to Indiana some people thought the Cen- ter on Philanthropy would either be an extension of the fundraising arm of the university or a hypocritical gesture to make the univer- sity look good. But there hasn’t been much opposition, either orga- nizational or ideological. A former colleague of mine held a Marxist position that philanthropy is false consciousness, a facade to hide the oppressive power of the system. I still urged her to teach about philanthropy. She said that I wouldn’t like what she taught. I said, “Probably not, but if you taught what you believe we would have the chance to argue about it.” The subject needs to be discussed and debated, warts and all. Critiques of philanthropy have to be exam- ined in as balanced a way as the rationales favoring philanthropy

O’NeiZl: Indiana is a state institution. Does this make any difference with regard to support for teaching about philanthropy?

Puytun: The Center on Philanthropy is an almost entirely privately supported enclave within a public university, although the univer- sity is increasing its participation steadily. The most serious support is in establishing faculty lines-permanent positions explicitly linked to philanthropic studies. But we wouldn’t be here without external financial support. Clark Ken; when he was president of the University of California, gave a series of lectures at Harvard titled “The Uses of the University” One of the points he made was that most of the major changes in universities come from outside rather

We have identijied as many as two

hundred facuhy mei&ers iicross Indihna Univer- sity who have some formal

connection with the Center on Philanthropy

308 O W E I L L

Critiques of philanthropy

have to be examined in as balanced a way as the rat ionales favoring

philanthropy

than from within. Few new fields would emerge without strong impetus and support from outside because of the zero-sum struggle for territory. In our case, we’ve been able to share the funds we’ve raised with other schools and departments, even other institutions. We’re able to be allies rather than rivals.

O’iVeill: At the Exxon Education Foundation and at Indiana Uni- versity, you’ve been deeply involved in philanthropic education efforts at the college and university level. What about the K-12 level? What would you like to see happen there? Do current K-12 curricula in, say, social studies give appropriate attention to philan- thropy?

Payton: For several years I’ve felt that the most important work we can do is to bring the study and practice of philanthropy into ele- mentary and secondary education. The justification for starting at the university level is that higher education is where knowledge is developed and where teachers are taught. You can’t embark on teacher education without faculty involvement and commitment and with- out the knowledge that research of recent decades has produced.

The highest priority of the society should be, in my opinion, the weI1-being of its children. By the time children reach the university level we may have much less impact on their values and morals. (The moral environment of universities today might suggest that we keep our distance from the innocent.)

I’m persuaded that children and young people will enhance their lives significantly if they become engaged in voluntary service to oth- ers and to the community One of the best things you can do for a child is to help the child learn about meaningful and constructive association beyond the family-voluntarily joining with others, going beyond self-interest. Voluntary association gives children and young people an opportunity to develop and practice social and moral values. It also gives hope.

Much of this is going on in schools, but it’s not coherent or con- sistent. There’s no conceptual framework to bring things together. If you can connect with the teachers, you will discover the same thing you find working with university faculty: There are many things related to philanthropy already implicit in the curriculum. I remem- ber the long effort to bring economics into the curriculum of the ele- mentary and secondary schools. Bringing philanthropy into the curriculum might be easier than that.

OWeill: Some say that philanthropy is primarily an upper-class phe- nomenon, even that it is largely a means of the upper class protect- ing and advancing its own interests.

Payton. One could say that only if one didn’t understand how phil- anthropy works. The most common error is to reduce philanthropy

A N INTERVIEW WITH R O B E R T L. PAYTON 309

to money. The most important gift is the gift of oneself, and that means everyone has something to give. Exemplars like Mother Teresa demonstrate that it is possible to give one’s whole life to ser- vice to others. One’s life and one’s time are more important than one’s financial resources. But even with money the parable of the widow’s mite comes to mind: No one is so poor they have nothing to share with others. And no one is so rich they have no need of the friendship, love, and compassion that can’t be bought. The television series that claim money can buy everything are pandering to the gullible (including the young)-hogwash as it has always been-as is the cynical view that material well-being is what life is really all about. One can’t buy trust or purpose, and no. one can buy respect. There is no one so naive as a cynic.

ONeiIl: You are the nation’s first tenured professor of philanthropic studies. What are your personal plans for this role, in terms of your teaching, writing, speaking, consulting, and so forth?

Payton: It is symbolically important that Indiana University has tenured someone in this new field. It declares a long-term commit- ment to the subject (it doesn’t take much risk in making a long-term commitment to me at age sixty-seven).

I hope to spend more time reading and writing; I have a duty in conscience to read and write more. I’m at an age where my writing has to be given priority. So far I‘ve found it impossible to break the habit of thinking of wonderful new things that need doing, by me or by someone. I postponed my own work for five years because the claims of the new Center didn’t permit the kind of cloistered time I need to finish the two books I’ve been working on. One may be about two-thirds drafted, the other about one-third. There may be still another if I make it through those two. Meanwhile my energies are devoted principally to two things: to what I call missionary work on behalf of the field; it could also be thought of as an endless polit- ical campaign. The other is my teaching, limited to a small number of students in the Jane Addams Fellowship Program. I t is such a privilege to teach, such a privilege to work with young people, such a privilege and such a wonderful responsibility.

Voluntary association

gives children and young people

an opportunity to develop and practice social

and moral values

MICHAEL O’NEIU is professor at and director of the Institute for Non- profit Organization Management, University of San Francisco.