When a charity strays from its supporters' wishes
S.J. Schwaidelson is a Minnesota writer who blogs at The Wifely Person Speaks.
Before the great Susan G. Komen debacle fades into the sunset, I have a few things to say about charities and foundations.
People with agendas start charities. Charities are made up of people with like minds donating time and money to a shared cause.
Nancy Brinker started her foundation to raise money for breast cancer research after her sister, Susan, succumbed to the disease. She started with a fine premise and grew it into one very large organization whose popularity is reflected by the huge pink ribbon movement. Komen has raised a lot of money and brought great awareness to the disease.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
But somewhere along the line, the Komen Foundation seems to have lost its way. It has become a corporation with a direction and agenda set by the board and its well-paid executives. It is a private foundation, after all, and what it does with its money is its business.
And what I do with my money is my business. I stopped giving the Susan G. Komen Foundation money a while ago. For me, the disconnect came when I heard about a friend being harassed by the foundation because a pink ribbon was handed out at a non-Komen organized breast cancer fundraising event. The foundation insisted that if pink ribbons were used, there needed to be an agreement signed, lest there be trademark infringement.
I was outraged. Did Tony Orlando and Dawn have agreements for all those POW yellow ribbons that grew out of the song written for them by Irwin Levine and L. Russell Brown? I won't even mention my response to the Susan G. Komen Pink Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets.
When the Susan G. Komen Foundation board withdrew funding for Planned Parenthood breast cancer screenings, I was not in the least surprised. Nor was I surprised by the decibel level of the uproar. It was loud, and bright. It shone a long-overdue light on the foundation's board and its less than well-known leanings on specific women's health issues. To be honest, I was relieved that some of this stuff was coming into the public view.
There is more to a woman's life than her breasts.
The board's conservative bent in the area of women's reproductive health is at odds with many women's organizations who take the position that reproductive rights are, for better or worse, part of the package. The addition of Karen Handel as a major player on the board raised eyebrows. She is an anti-reproductive rights advocate, with a record of supporting the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Many Komen supporters questioned the wisdom of making Handel senior VP for public policy. Handel has left the Komen organization in the wake of the controversy.
Donors rarely get a significant voice in how a charity operates, unless they are serving on the board or are throwing pot-loads of money at the organization. They have no guarantee that their opinions will even be discussed, much less implemented. When they participate in Komen events, they are making an endorsement of the Komen Foundation and its policies. They've made a conscious choice to support the cause, and if that choice works for them, it's a good one.
But if not, they get to vote with their checkbooks.
Those who believe that women's health issues encompass more than just breasts and that there are other, equally important cancer research programs to fund can find another organization — like Planned Parenthood, the American Cancer Society or Hadassah — all of whom treat the whole of a woman's body.
If it's your dollar, it's your choice.