Skip to main content

Mourning loss as a philanthropy worker and mom


As a new mother, I see my daughter growing up in a world in which there is no Mohammad Ali.  I am writing as a mourning mom. By the time my daughter goes to a healthy school, and learns about Dr. King, will she also learn about Muhammad Ali? Who will she look up to as the ethical leaders of her generation? Who will she look up to, to show her how to laugh in the face of xenophobia? How to joke in the face of racism? Sure, we will watch the videos, read the books, and do our best to teach our kids what is truly important. That social emotional skills matter. That people matter. That culture matters. That faith matters. That what matters most is that we are all in this together.

 Our interdependence requires us to step outside of our comfort zones and engage people who are different from us who don’t think the same way we do. Philanthropy seems more akin to academia, removed from the actual needs of people, producing and disseminating research to the people who are our obvious audiences, and completely oblivious to the realities people experience. For example, we can ignore the mourning that mothers do every day because they are raising black and brown children in an ever increasingly socially segregated, technologically connected world. 

We raise our kids to be obedient to police officers. We live in a world where you can be killed for the color of your skin, where it is acceptable to "kick out" immigrants who grow our food or paint your toenails, and to be ever vigilant about your coworkers and neighbors since anyone different from you could be a terrorist. Children imitate their parents. And children experience the racism early, even on playgrounds. We live in crazy times. 

 And philanthropy, institutional philanthropy, will not solve any of complex challenges of our times. We are complicit in the crime, grow the 10B endowment, and won't spend the $10,000 admin costs to hire a people of color, a youth worker to help grow a new generation of philanthropists, to inform strategy. We will not "grantmake" our way out of persistent, racial, economic segregation if we can't operationalize the principles we espouse.  We are complicit in inequity, unless we look internally to the ways that we are complicit in maintaining the status quo. 
 
Along with the world, I am mourning the loss of this beloved American hero who stood up for so much injustice. He was black. He was Muslim. He was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He played by rules that people often did not understand. He was an ambassador and inspired so many people to learn about my faith. Faith is one of the ingredients for resilience. My husband drove the 10 hours to attend Muhammad Ali's funeral, and was joined by thousands of loving supporters from around the world.

It’s also something that brings people together who otherwise might not talk with each other. The legacy of interfaith leaders in this country working together to bring change and make this a better country for my daughter and for all of #ourkids is most certainly a foundation on which we can build a culture of health. The Ford Foundation supported MLK. It took a side. Will we stand by and watch as babies drink lead-water in Flint? Will we stand and watch as moms bury their sons and daughters because of the color of their skin? We can play lip service to social inclusion, and only elevate the bright spots. Or we can actually stand for something. Policy will always lag behind social and moral consciousness. The foundation of movements are the people who risk their lives, their wealth, their livelihood for things that matter. Where do you stand? And more importantly, I ask where do I stand?

In a culture of health, in which no one is excluded, how do we accelerate and expand our efforts to include people who don't speak "public health" or "research" or "policy"? We talk to ourselves all day long and then wonder how can we authentically listen to people. Let's start by asking, what do you stand for? What do you mourn? What do you celebrate? What do you believe?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions" http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html Major themes: 1. Passion is a significant contributor to success. 2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion. "Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools: One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams). I ...

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their ...