For a long time I’ve been giving about $100 a year to Swarthmore, and now that our Fiftieth is coming up I’ve been pondering how much more to give.  I’m not rich, but I could certainly afford to give a larger gift; on the other hand, I’m wondering if I should.  Many of my classmates, I imagine, are debating the same question, on a larger or smaller scale.

Let me call it the Swarthmore Paradox, if that’s not too grandiose.  I had a great time there, and learned things more intensely and lastingly than before or since.  I’m still arguing in my head, with great affection and respect, with some of my professors; I wish they were still alive so I could sit down with them and go over a few things.  For them, for many friends, for the beauty of the campus, for the Quakerly spirit and the air of excitement and commitment over civil rights and stopping the war in Vietnam, I am deeply grateful.  And gratitude, you would think, would lead to some kind of repayment.

But in a Romantics seminar at Swarthmore I also read about William Godwin’s argument that gratitude should not be a factor in our decisions about what is morally the best act.  (He caused a lot of outrage when he argued that, if you could rescue from a fire either a great philosopher or your mother but not both, you should leave your mother to burn.)  In a seminar in philosophy I read about utilitarianism and the “optimific” act.  (Peter Singer, of course, has been pushing the idea of “effective altruism” very cogently for years.)  And like all of us I learned about black Americans in the South, beaten, even killed, for trying to vote or get served a hamburger, not to mention the unfairness of the school system in nearby Chester.  I learned about the massive slaughter of civilians in Vietnam at the hands of US troops.  I owe to Swarthmore, then, at least something of my periodic impulses to do a little good in the world, and to do it, at least with my money, where the world most needs it.

Swarthmore doesn’t need my money.  When Eugene Lang gave the College $50 million recently I pretty much decided never to give more than my annual token, if even that much.  If I had $50 million to give, even if it had to be for education, I would not give it to Swarthmore, which is ranked number two among liberal arts colleges in endowment size per student.  I would give it to a South African college fund I have contributed to in the past, or to the Black or Indian college funds, or even to the University of New Hampshire, where I teach, which gets almost nothing from the state and whose students graduate with the highest debts in the nation.  I would do more good to more students in those ways than anything I could do for Swarthmore.

So there it is.  Swarthmore encouraged me to think of those who need help the most, and suffer the most, and I am grateful that it did.  But should my gratitude be factor in how I spend my money?  I would love to hear from my classmates their own thinking about this dilemma.

PS: Needless to say, if I were to give more than usual, I would want it to be withheld from the College until it divests from fossil fuels.  The College that taught me to try to make the world a little better is complicit in making it a little worse. 

You're so thoughtful. Perhaps if you do donate,you could specify your gift is to be used for the summer intern working with the children of Chester. That might satisfy your impulses, which I share.

Thanks for your note, Jill.  I had been in touch with Alex Capron and sent a small donation to the Internship Fund, and now that we have the letter from him and Barbara Dingfield about it, I'll send some more--a good cause.

I think I'm coming to the reunion.  Are you?

Nicely argued, Mike!  No doubt about it, I would have saved my mom....

Earlier this morning, I was thinking about my 2016 contribution to Swarthmore (and to our 50th reunion fund).  And, serindipitously, just now I clicked on the Discussion Forum on the class reunion web site.  Like you, I'm not rich (and share what I have thoughtfully); Swarthmore is well endowed; fossil fuel divestment ought to be a no brainer; and small contributions matter and credit the college with a high giving rate (signalling gratitude?).  On the other hand, Jill makes a good point about the class gift benefitting the education of students who need the resources and the support.

Still thinking about it.  But I am attending the reunion.

Cheers, Tom.

Yes. And I'm reminded to let them know, when I send in my next contribution (already sent $100 for the internships), that it can be used only for the interns unless they have divested from fossil fuels. 

Hoping to see you there, as are most people in our class, I suspect.

Jill

Michael, such a good idea!  And Jill, good to add the condition to your donation that it "can be used only for interns unless they divest from fossil fuels." 

As for me and climate change, I have "taken the leap" and signed the LEAP Manifesto, Canada's multi-partisan declaration of intent to end fossil fuel use and do everything possible to mitigate climate change, bring justice to First Nations and all of Canada's Indigenous Peoples, and to end rising income inequality. The New Democratic Party, of which I am a member, just passed a resolution at its convention to send the Manifesto to its constiuency organizations for disucssion and debate... and I guess - by implication - adoption if they so see fit. Kinda like what Canadian Yearly Meeting did with gay marriage in 2003, but not as strong as Quakers put it. Our minute stood up for gay marriage and gay and lesbian people as members and for local meetings marrying gay couples and did everything except commit to a Yearly Meeting endorsement.

leapmanifesto.org   (It has nearly 39,000 signatures, including David Suzuki, Leonard Cohen, Arcade Fire, Propagandhi, Naomi Klein - one of the organizers, Donald Sutherland, Neil Young, and 36 initiating national organizations ... in the US, such a participation rate would mean about 350,000 signatories )

- Carl Stieren