Giving and Receiving with Respect; A. Wortham

Disclaimed as something suspect by many, charity has been largely replaced by administered reform. It has been turned into a tool of appeasement for the givers, and the receivers look upon it as the spoils of social pressure. Intellec tual and political reformers argue for the acceptance of a philosophy of social welfare "based on need Following graduation from Tuskegee Institute, Miss Wortham served a term in the Peace Corps and has worked since as an informa tion research specialist in communications and educational policy. 422 as the sole criterion" - welfare as a matter of entitlement.! This idea of giving in response to the demands of potential re cipients or under political and so cial duress wasn't always so preva lent in our society. There was a time· when voluntary charity was deemed proper - a measure of re spect between giver and receiver. Those in need usually deserved the assistance they received and those who gave were determined in their efforts to see that their giving did not become a crutch. This was gen erally true whether the giving and receiving of help was between pioneer neighbors or between wealthy philanthropists and the "disadvantaged."

Through their philanthropy not to mention their accumulation of capital, their entrepreneurship and technical ingenuity - Ameri can businessmen have probably 1973 GIVING AND RECEIVING WITH RESPECT 423 contributed more than any other private sector of Americans to the prosperity of those who could not have done so themselves. Yet they are least appreciated for the vol untary aid they have given untold millions. An indication of how little many of today's young peo ple know of the good done by busi nessmen is seen in a national study of more than 54,000 college bound black high school students published by the National Scholar ship Service and Fund for Ne,gro Students in 1972. A majority of the respondents reported that they felt that military figures, actors or entertainers, athletes and busi nessmen (in that order) contrib uted the least to society.2 It is ironic that many of the colleges and universities these young peo ple now attend could not exist ex cept for the enormous financial support they receive from busi nessmen.

Much has been written on the subject of philanthropy and char ity, but not often is the subject treated from a view held in com mon by both benefactor and bene ficiary. However, in the case of wealthy .benefactor Andrew Car negie and Booker T'. Washington, ex-slave beneficiary in behalf of black students, a common view was held; and perhaps their atti tude toward their relationship was just as important as the relationship itself proved to be. There is a great deal of insight to be gained from the views of Car negie and Washington on the matter of philanthrophy. Carnegie, the Benefactor In 1900 Andrew Carnegie wrote an essay in which he stated: "A man's first dutyis to make a com petence and be independent. But his whole duty does not end here ... It is his duty to contribute to the general good of the com munity in which he lives . . . To try to make the world in some way better than you found it, is to have a noble motive in life."3 For the businessman this could be expressed best by plowing his wealth back into society. In sup port of this belief Carnegie. had donated $350 million to various projects by the time of his death in 1919.

John Hope Franklin, historian of the American Negro, believed that while men like Carnegie were interested in stimulating the pub lic to recognize certain existent needs as yet unfelt by society, they also hoped to encourage the principle of self-help that would benefit their capitalist goals. Their interests in the post-Civil War South, for instance, were as much to train a working force to sup port the industries they brought to the Southern economy as they 424 THE FREEMAN July were to improve the black and white Southern citizenry. According to Franklin, the char i ty of businessmen also stemmed from their sense of noblesse ob lige. Comparing wealthy indus trialists with a feudal aristocracy, he wrote: "[They] had a feeling of duty toward those whose profit from the economic order was not so obvious."4 Ludwig von Mises refutes this characterization of industrialists, saying: "The wealth of an aris tocrat is not a market phenome non ; it does not originate from supplying the consumers and can not be withdrawn or even affected by any action on the part of the public. It stems from conquest or from largess on the part of a con querer."5 As he points out repeatedly in his essays, Carnegie knew full well that his role as a business man was a market phenomenon.

His wealth was not the spoils of the conquest of men, but made possible by his conquest of na ture. However, his status in the market was always dependent on the consumers' vote of confidence. And to maintain a creditable status, his economic obligation was to produce those goods and services that satisfied what the masses perceived their needs to be. This is a far cry from feudal aristocracy. Condifions of Freedom No producer can profit except that he meets the demands of a willing buyer. As voluntary ex change of one's property is the rule of the free market, so should the respect of the property be the rule of humanitarian endeavors between individuals. One man's poverty does not entitle him to the wealth of another; neither does one man's wealth obligate him to another's poverty. However tempting it may be, it is very difficult to conclude from Carnegie's writing that his phi lanthropy was motivated by a Rense of guilt for his success. Nei ther did he give his wealth as a peace-offering to the masses who had not fared as well in the mar ket place. Carnegie was not an apologist. In answer to critics of wealth, he said: "Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who· have had the ability and energy to produce it."6 Unlike many of today's giants of industry, Carnegie felt entitled to his wealth and power. As his defense he offered the principle of property rights: " . . . upon the sacredness of property civilization itself depends - the right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions." He believed that 1973 GIVING AND RECEIVING WITH RESPECT 425 "the best fruit of society was pro duced from the soil of Individual ism, Private Property, the Law of Accumulation of Wealth, and the Law of Competition."7 He believed that the only way to be assured of saving free enterprise was to instill the principles of self-help in the masses who constituted his customers.

Neither was there any thought of using philanthropy as a tool of oppression as has been suggested. s If anything, Carnegie and others wanted to lift the rest of human ity to their own level of thought and performance. Notes On A Beneficiary Nowhere in the chronicle of his fund-raising campaign for his school, Tuskegee Institute, did Booker T. Washington even be gin to imply that he felt the rich owed their wealth to the members of his race or that they had a moral obligation to help Negroes per se. He was as hardheaded in his asking as his donors were in their giving. Washington believed very much as Carnegie did that "... In be stowing charity, the main con sideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to pro vide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never do all. Neither the individ ual nor the race is improved by almsgiving."9 It took ten years of work be fore Washington was able to se cure Carnegie's interest and help.

During their first meeting, Car negie seemed to take no interest at all in Washington's schooL De termined to show the industrialist that Tuskegee was worthy of his aid, Washington waited until after ten years of hard work before he wrote to Carnegie in 1901 re questing a sum of $20,000 to build a library. In a very concise letter, he outlined how the money would be used: "[it] would not only sup ply the building but the erection of the building would give a large number of students an opportun ity to learn the building trades, and the students would use the money paid them to keep them selves in school. . . ."10 Carnegie. sent the following re ply to Washington: "I will be very glad to pay the bills for the library building as they are incurred, to the extent of twenty thousand dol lars, and I am glad of this oppor tunity to show the interest I have in your noble work."ll During the years of Washing ton's fund-raising some narrow minded people accused him of beg ging-of seeking alms. But Wash ington knew well the manner of 426 THE FREEMAN July men he dealth with. They were not the kind of men who looked kindly toward begging. In reac tion to those who called him a beggar, he wrote the following: . . . I have· usually proceeded on the principle that persons who pos sess sense enough to earn money have sense enough to know how to give it away, and that the mere making known of the facts regarding Tuske gee, and especially the facts regard ing the work of graduates, has been more effective than outright begging.

I think that the presentation of the facts, on a high, dignified plane, is all the begging most rich people care for.l 2 Like Washington, Carnegie· be lieved that one should give to only the causes he deemed worthy. "... It is better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drun ken and the unworthy," wrote Carnegie. 13 Washington was fully aware of the significance of the assistance he received. Unlike many critics of businessmen, he understood and respected the source of wealth and the men who produced it. His praise of his benefactors for their gifts was not tainted by any con demnation of the wealth that made those gifts possible. He was keenly aware of a potential benefactor's option to refuse his re quest, understanding that the prime business of the business men was business: My experience in getting money for Tuskegee has taught me to have no patience with those people who are always condemning the rich be cause they are rich, and because they do not give more to objects of char ity ... Those who are guilty of such sweeping criticism do not know how many people would be made poor, and how much suffering would re sult, if wealthy people were to part at once with any large proportion of their wealth in a way [as] to disor ganize and cripple great business en terprises. 14 Perhaps Washington understood better than many of his· benefac tors that their primary role as businessmen was to make a profit, and not to give it away. He cer tainly did not expect them to sacrifice their economic role in the market to serve his needs - how ever noble they might have been.

A Voluntary Response Rather than in response to so cial pressure or political coercion, Carnegie chose to share his wealth because he felt a moral obligation to do so. Whether one agrees with his ethics is not the issue here. The point is that the idea of hav ing a social responsibility origi1973 GIVING AND RECEIVING WITH RESPECT 427 nated with the businessmen them selves. It was a time during which the businessman suffered a min imal amount of duress from polit ical quarters and was .looked upon favorably by most people. Being left alone to produce, his personal sense of good will moti vated him to go beyond what was his eco nomic role in the community. The degree to which business men were free to function on their own terms in an unregulated mar ket corresponds to the degree of their willingness and ability to give assistance to others. Dr. Frederick Patterson of the United Negro College Fund points this out in a speech discussing the plight of the private Negro col lege - a maj or beneficiary of wealthy businessmen and philan thropic organizations. Patterson noted that, "These colleges 'thrived' during a period when large fortunes were not unusual and taxes were comparably low.

"In the late 20's, as taxation be gan to increase - and particularly in the 30's under the Roosevelt Administration - a substantial de crease took place in the funds available to the private colleges for Negro youth. "The steadily worsening effort in fund-raising by the individual private college had reached a low point of diminishing returns by 1940.... "15 It is no mere coincidence that at a time when our economy is being interfered with by the Fed eral government and the demand for social welfare is increasing, black colleges, museums and li braries all over the country are in dire economic straits, unable to enlist the amount of economic as sistance from the private sector that they have enjoyed in the past. A man owes no man his prop erty, but if he gives his wealth of his own free will, and does so with the scrutiny of men like Car negie, it is likely that his sincerity will be appreciated and regard for him held high by the recipient.

Washington set down his impres sion of the industrial benefactors to his school, and he found them to be "some of the best people in the world."16 A Form of Blackmail If we do not hear much of this kind of praise from those who are beneficiaries of the businessman's philanthropy, perhaps it is be cause the giver and the receiver has each allowed his individual responsibility to shrink and be re placed by social and political blackmail. When the distinction between benefactor and benefi ciary is removed, the dignity of both is short-circuited and what ever respect they might have had for themselves and each other is 428 THE FREEMAN July dissolved into a murky inter change of insincerity and deceit. The man who is in a position to aid others must not forget that, in the words of W. A. Paton, "ev ery man deserves the precious op portunity to assume responsibility for his own course, whether he is swimming courageously upstream or paddling lazily, with plenty of company, in the other direction."17 So too has each beneficiary a responsibility toward those who are his benefactors, and it is to denounce all efforts by govern ment, intellectuals and pressure groups to deny a man his right to give or refuse assistance - to say "Yes" or "No" as his con science dictates. "The element which gives meaning to charity,"

wrote Russell J. Clinchy, "is per sonal consideration and responsi bility but that element is lost when the edicts of the state are substituted for the voluntary de cisions of persons. The means have destroyed the ends."IS This is the esence of the two sides of volun tary charity as it ought to exist. ~ • FOOTNOTES • 1 See Improving the Public Welfare System, The Committee for Economic Development, New York, April, 1970. 2 A National Profile of Black Youth: The Class of 1971, National Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students, New York, 1972. 3 Carnegie, Andrew, "Thrift As A Duty," The Empire of Business, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., 1913, p. 80. 4 Franklin, John Hope, From Slavery to Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956, p. 38l. 5 Mises, Ludwig von, The AntiCapi talistic Mentality, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956, p. 6. 6 Carnegie, Andrew, The Gospel of Wealth, A Carnegie Reprint, Carnegie Corporation of New York, p. 5.

7 Ibid., p. 6. 8 In her article, "Notes Toward a Process of Afro-American Education," (Harvard Educational Review, August, 1972), Dr. Thomasyne L. Wilson says the following: "It is time to remind ourselves that even when Anglos waxed philan thropic in the 1870's, they (and we) per ceived Afro-American education as some thing for 'special people,' instituted to keep us in our places at the bottom of the social scale ... At best, [education] was a tool to remake Afro-Americans in the images of Anglos." 9 Carnegie, Ope cit., p. 15. 10 Washington, Booker T., Up From Slavery, New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1970, p. 135. 11 Ibid., p. 135. 12 Ibid., p. 129. 13 Carnegie, Ope cit., p. 14. 14 Washington, Ope cit., p. 128. 15 Patterson, Frederick D., "The Black College: In Conflict and Challenge," Con tact Magazine, 3 :16, October, 1971. 16 Washington, Ope cit., p. 130. 17 Paton, W. A., "Let's First Mend Tommy's Trousers," Essays on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, 12 :426-27, 1965.

18 Clinchy, Russell J., "Charity: Bib lical and Political," Essays on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, 1: 159-60, 1952.