Gann Discusses Expanding Claremont McKenna's Focus, Is It A Good Idea?

CJ's note: (This blog has been more than friendly with Mr. Kravis, one of our more distinguished and generous alums. In the past, I've criticized some of the more outlandish attacks on his character and his enterprise. For the sake of brevity, I will not address some of the more substantive arguments I have against this kind of philanthropy and how it disincentives the very necessary reforms. I haven't yet made up my mind on the most recent prize winners, though I think I'm in favor of 2006's winner, Roy Prosterman, and his work.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


President Gann wants you to give back, but at what cost?

President Gann was quoted in today's The New York Sun about the $250,000 Henry R. Kravis Prize in Leadership and how such philanthropy is consistent with our school's motto.

Here is a snippet of what was written about Claremont McKenna College and what was said by President Gann.

...the annual prize is one way the college is working to increase student awareness and preparation for leadership roles in the nonprofit sector. (Traditionally it has emphasized leadership in government and business.) U2 band-leader-turnedphilanthropist Bono has come to speak on campus, and students are encouraged to pursue summer internships in the nonprofit sector.

The president of Claremont McKenna, Pamela Gann, said preparing students for the nonprofit sector is in line with the college's historic mission: to provide an education "tied to the world of action" that is "grounded in the market economy, with respect for democracy and liberty." She noted that these are the sentiments expressed in the college's motto, Crescit cum commercio civitas, or, "Civilization prospers with commerce."

I reject the notion that Bono has done any good with the massive amounts of capital he has thrown all over Africa. I've already written about that silliness here, here, and here. (I'm sure he's still working on convincing audiences that AIDS is curable, or some such other nonsense.)

As for President Gann, I frankly expect better than that statement that somehow nonprofit sector work is "grounded in the market economy." If anything, all of the studies show just the opposite. Nonprofit sectors more often than not distort local economies. It is the kind of paternalism embodied in Gann's statement that is keeping Africa (and much of the rest of the world) in chains.

But what is paternalism? Paternalism is the presumption to expertise, to believing that you know how to better run a man's life than he himself does. It is the assumption that we must give a hand out rather than encouraging a man to walk on his own two feet. Paternalism is the antithesis of commerce because it does not recognize an exchange between equals. Paternalism is the opposite of what George C.S. Benson and others advocated.

Moreover, I doubt paternalism can coexist with civilization. The Civilized Man believes culture is the sum of interactions between traders each acting in his own self-interest. It is paternalism and sacrifice that destroys individual will and subverts it to the collective's bidding.

It is this very paternalism that Gann calls nonprofit sector work.

If Gann were really trying to encourage leadership in nonprofit sector, it's beginning to show. Not only did the Ath bring Bono here, it also brought national service proponent David Gergen. (You might remember I strongly disagreed with his insistence on a national service program.)

Ritika Puri has forcefully argued on this blog's comment section in favor of her own charity work and more and more Claremont McKenna students seem to believe that old saw of doing well while doing good.

We hear the buzz word social entrepreneurship bandied about without ever considering that maybe all entrepreneurs are social entrepreneurs, as Carl Schramm of the Kauffman Foundation brilliantly pointed out in his Ath lecture. (Full disclosure: I'm going to work for the Kauffman Foundation soon.)

The problem with these "we can save the world" types is that they rarely consider the people they are actually helping and the local economies they end up distorting. Their quest to save the world is an ego trip that ends with their own self-satisfaction, not with systematic change.

It may well be true that it is emotionally fulfilling to give to others. No one is disputing that contention. Some scientists have even suggested that the sensation we get when we do good is akin to that which we receive when we have sex.

But, as CMC's own Ben Casnocha points out in his bit for Marketplace, rarely do we consider the people who are receiving the services. We ought to.

After all, civilization depends upon assessing ideas and their worth in the great marketplace of ideas. Ideas that cannot stand up to the test must retreat, lest we all suffer.

Clarification: Slip Into Something More Comfortable

CJ Note: Here's the photo. We believe it's disgusting and sincerely hope you agree. Just so you know, this photo got Pitzer's seal of approval. Dean Wood has yet to make a public statement. (Please pardon the grayscale. The scanner wouldn't scan it!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people think my recent posts on sexuality were in poor taste. I understand their complaints, but I believe they missed the satire. I do not, of course, believe that we should judge posters on how sexy their models are. In fact, I very much oppose posting obscene materials in public (or private, for that matter). I decided to mock the Asian American Sexuality Workshop with a crude, tongue-in-cheek tone because that seemed to me to be the most effective way to poke fun at their own crude tactic (shocking the public with a gross image of a naked woman holding a towel that only manages to cover her breasts and genital area).

Perhaps I was too coarse in my response. But regardless, it seems to me that events like this are not only intellectually vacuous, they actually distort how people see the world. What exactly is the difference between women's sexuality and Asian women's sexuality? Do you really believe Asian women are being oppressed by pernicious "stereotypes" about their sexuality? Have you been in the real world?

Events like this have helped train an army of drones at the Claremont Colleges, especially at Pomona, Pitzer, and Scripps, that think one's "identity" is more important than the human nature that is common to all people. They have a disdain for real academics--some even major in their color--and they tend to think everyone in the world is out to get them. Unseen racial and sexual power structures are somehow holding them back.

And furthermore, specific events like this seek to teach kids that sexuality is something to "embrace" without any shame at all. Fine, but their form of sexuality has no limits, and as such it is not anything beautiful or exalted. It's cheap, easy, and selfish. I find it deeply troubling how many normal college students constantly pursue empty and pointless the sexual conquests--as if this were the sole purpose of life. So no, I have no problem mocking a workshop that would encourage a young Asian women (or any woman) to embrace her inner tigress. Rrraw!

Also, I deleted my posting making fun of the Women's Forum event. I acted with haste and assumed they were doing one of their events where they pass out condoms or raffle off vibrators. In fact, they were offering advice on nutrition. So I made a mistake and should have found out what was going on before I made fun of it. My apologies. Sometimes I am too quick to the draw--and I especially enjoy attacking feminists who have decided that "liberation" means the freedom to act as crudely and promiscuously as men do. But this is not what the Women's Forum was up to on Friday. As one of the organizers explained to me, they are trying to "change the face" of the organization. Good for them.