Editorial note: this essay originally appeared at The Giving Review.
***
On February 26, Stupski Foundation president and author Glen Galaich published an intriguingly thoughtful response on Substack to an Atlantic magazine article earlier that month. By Tyler Austin Harper, the article described the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s concentrated and decidedly outsized influence—and criticized its cultural effects—on the study and teaching of the humanities in American higher education.
Both Galaich’s and Harper’s pieces were, in their ways, healthily heterodox. Courageously so, actually, though perhaps moreso in the eyes of a conservative reader.
In Galaich’s piece, “Don’t Miss the Gold Mine for the Gold,” the foundation president explicitly credits a foundation critic with at least having an idea of value, worthy of more-than-passing attention. In the unmistakably establishment, left-of-center Atlantic, Harper’s “The Multibillion-Dollar Foundation That Controls the Humanities,” was pointedly criticizing a pillar of establishment, progressive Big Philanthropy in the U.S.
While clearly and unapologetically in general disagreement with most of Harper’s analysis and certainly opposed to his conclusions, Galaich was significantly complimentary of Harper and his work. Even if only impliedly, and backhandedly, so.
Specifically, Galaich writes that Harper “stumbled onto” something “genuinely important” and later that he “found a nugget of gold.” With more back of hand, Galaich writes that while Harper “couldn’t quite name it” and “missed the mine,” he gets close to a big truth about the risky roles that Big Philanthropy’s concentrated influence—as well as its desire for control—can and do play in the country.
Galaich’s new book Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short explores the many potentially adverse consequences of this consolidated power and its exercise. The author and the ideas offered in his book, his Substack newsletter, and elsewhere are worthy of our attention; they should be considered, taken seriously.
In the February Substack post, Galaich adopts Harper’s central premise as legitimate, calling it a “real concern that should trouble all of us.” Galaich disputes no facts presented by Harper, nor does he dispute Harper’s diagnosis, essentially arguing only that it’s incomplete.
Dismissing Harper would mean “we will have missed something,” according to Galaich. Again, Harper is “right to be concerned about outsized influence,” Galaich says, which he thinks an issue that applies “regardless of ideology.” That Harper “found gold, but missed the mine” sounds dismissive, yes, but it acknowledges the gold is real, and its discovery matters.
We should all perhaps look for more, together.
Or not
Galaich later took the post down. Apologetically so. Literally. And, unfortunately, probably also tellingly.
On March 3, in a Substack article announcing the previous one’s withdrawal—one could say self-suppression, no?—Galaich even refused to use Harper’s name, referring to him merely as “The Author,” or link to his original Atlantic article. Harper’s Atlantic article “contained an unfair attack on one of the most important progressive foundations and leaders in America,” meaning Mellon president Elizabeth Alexander, Galaich writes in the March post.
Decidedly non-courageously.
“I wanted to broaden the topic from one foundation to the foundation sector, but in promoting that link, I amplified negative impact on a colleague whom I deeply respect,” Galaich continues. He questions The Author Harper’s motives in writing the Atlantic article. The Author and his ideas aren’t worth attention or consideration and they shouldn’t be taken seriously, apparently.
Harper’s “mission is to undermine Mellons’ critical funding to advance art and culture related to all forms of social justice—especially the rights of Black and Brown communities, trans people, and other groups who have faced ongoing oppression,” according to Galaich. “Upon reflection this weekend, my piece made equivalent all forms of foundation influence related to health, education, climate, and more with racial and social justice issues. But, due to the historical, structural, and systemic inequities embedded in American society, there really is no equivalent. I should have known better.”
Racial- and social-justice grantmaking isn’t subject to critique or even discussion? From anybody? Even self-critique from those at foundations engaging in it?
“I failed to properly vet the material I was amplifying,” Galaich dutifully confesses, “and I regret the negative impact that failure had. … I am grateful that several people I so admire were willing to share their feedback with me, encourage me to reflect on what I had missed, and offer me the opportunity to learn about my own gap in awareness.”
Recall that in his original February piece, pre-suppression, Galaich warned that dismissing Harper means “we will have missed something.” From the monoculturally progressive groupthink of Big Philanthropy, perhaps we shouldn’t look for more.
Maybe we should’ve known better, too.
