The Civility Industrial Complex and how nonprofits and philanthropy keep falling into its trap
Hi everyone, if you’re available on Wednesday October 21st at 10am Pacific Time, please join me and fellow rabble-rouser Aparna Rae for an informal conversation where we bust some of the myths about nonprofit and philanthropy. It’ll be fun, since we’ll probably be trash-talking billionaires (who all suck and should be taxed out of existence!). It’s free. Register here.
I just signed a contract with my publisher, Wiley, to write another book, which shows that I am a glutton for punishment, frustration, and being slumped on the floor in the fetal position while tearfully eating a 1.5-quart container of mint-chocolate chip vegan ice cream (What, do you have a better writing process?).
This time, it will be a deep dive into what MLK called the biggest threat to justice. White moderation. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he called society’s propensity to focus on “civility” and “a negative peace”—which is a type of peace that comes from lack of conflict and tension and not because justice is achieved—the biggest barrier for achieving a just and equitable world.
The book will dive into the various forms white moderation manifests, provide examples and stories, as well as explore potential solutions for addressing it. I’ll need your help writing it. Please read this article I wrote a while ago, The White Moderation Genome Project, and email me at vhl312@gmail.com any anecdotes, horror stories, and any success you’ve had dealing with white moderation in its many forms. You will remain anonymous unless you prefer otherwise.
I feel strongly about this topic and have written many posts on it throughout the years. Our sector has become one giant white moderate sector of well-intentioned people and organizations who serve as a pacifying arm of capitalism, which allows it to run unchecked. Unfortunately, white moderation learns and evolves, and we are often too busy to track how subtly and insidiously it can manifest.
For instance, for the past few weeks, you may have been following the Macklemore and Ed Sheeran situation. Now, an easy analogy is that many people and institutions in our sector are Ed Sheeran: A white moderate who, through his focus on civility and neutrality, is complicit in perpetuating the genocide of Palestinians. And we all (and our entire sector) need to be more like Macklemore, a person who is willing to speak up against injustice and stand in support of Palestine, even if it causes tension and comes with costs to his reputation, career, and livelihood.
But a more subtle dynamic we should all be aware of is how the right-wing and pro-Israel groups have been advancing their agenda by intentionally weaponizing neoliberal’s gravitation toward civility. They use words like “polarization,” “social cohesion,” “diversity of thought,” and “pluralism,” and create a moral panic where anyone who brings up inequity and injustice are seen as “polarizing” and “divisive.” Which is, according to the narrative they’ve been fomenting, is even worse than injustices like genocide and racism.
This tactic has become an entire industry, the Civility Industrial Complex (CIC). Recently, a group of scholars and researchers formed the Uncivil Collective to expose the CIC. The statistics they cite on their website are convincing and damning.
For example, the right has been harping for decades about how conservative students feel like they can’t speak their minds on college campuses. But the reality, according to this survey of students of all political leanings and their experience on campus, is that “Just 2% of all college students, including 3% of Republicans, say they feel they don’t belong on their campus due to their political views.”
So the “problem” of "censorship" of conservatives is just a clever ruse which the right uses to push for more “civil dialogue” and “viewpoint diversity.” At first, that sounds great. Why wouldn’t we want more more dialog among people with differing views?
Uncivil, however, took a deeper dive, and found that of the 23 largest funders of civility industry programs, 20 of them were also invested in conservative or Pro-Israel organizations.
According to Uncivil’s report, “The most deeply committed funders in the Civility Industrial Complex overwhelmingly show strong affinities for conservative and/or ‘pro-Israel’ causes.” These funders of the civility industrial complex donate SIX TIMES more to conservative and pro-Israel orgs than to progressive ones. SIX TIMES! Including almost $34M total to Turning Point USA and $10.5M to the Heritage Foundation.
Our sector falls prey to this tactic all the time, being deluded by nonexistent problems and serving as a cog to perpetuate this civility industrial complex that is used ultimately to shut down progressive efforts and advance right-wing values, often without realizing it.
You may recall, a few years ago a bunch of “liberal” funders and leaders co-wrote an open letter demanding all of us be respectful of funders no matter what they fund as long as it’s legal, since “philanthropic pluralism” is vital to democracy. Even if a funder funds anti-trans legislation, anti-reproductive freedom, or even supporting neo-Nazi groups, we should all respect them, according to the letter. (Of course, I wrote a counter to that, called “Philanthropy’s equivalent of All Lives Matter.”)
This tacit endorsement of conservative values, couched as “pluralism” and fighting “polarization,” continues to this day. The Chronicle of Philanthropy now has a whole section devoted to this both-sides garbage. It’s called “The Commons” and it’s funded by three billionaire-linked foundations: Einhorn Collaborative, the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, and the Walton Family Family Foundation. (Apparently no one at CoP saw the irony in naming this section after the very thing, the commons, that billionaires are stealing and polluting IRL.)
To give you an idea of the white moderate things you’ll find in The Commons, consider an article from July titled “Why Progressive Funders are Now Backing Conservative Groups." It describes how progressive foundation leaders are valiantly supporting right-wing organizations in the name of fighting “polarization." Carnegie Foundation’s president, Dame Louise Richardson, is one of several heads of “progressive” foundations—along with counterparts at Ford, Hewlett, and even Open Society Institute—who have fallen hard for the polarization panic. In the article, Richardson worries that Carnegie’s grantmaking is--gasp!--contributing to polarization!
And here is her response to this imaginary threat: “I invited our staff to think about every single one of our grants that we give and think about how they might look to somebody whose political perspective was the opposite of their own.”
According to the article, “As a result, Carnegie makes grants to fewer organizations that squarely identify as progressive, opting to also support center-right nonprofits and efforts that include people from across the political spectrum […] That includes Be the People, a coalition of groups spearheaded by Stand Together, Charles Koch’s network of conservative donors, and others such as the Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and We the Veterans and Military Families.”
So let me get this straight, “polarization” is such a big issue that some funders like Carnegie are increasing funding to right-wing institutions that have been openly and successfully undermining democracy and advancing authoritarianism.
That’s probably the most depressing thing I’ve read in a while, and that includes this piece on how the midterms are coming up and yet groups on the ground supporting marginalized people to vote are underfunded. (Probably because funders are funding right-wing groups to counter the threat of--eek!--“polarization.”)
White moderates fail to understand that "polarization," along with tension and conflict, is a necessary and natural result when we confront inequity and oppression. According to this vital article by Daniel Kreiss and Shannon C McGregor:
"Groups struggling for equality, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, often cause polarization because they threaten the extant power and status of dominant groups [...] Our foundational claim is that polarization might not be bad for democracy—it might in fact be a necessary outgrowth of efforts to achieve democracy."
A growing body of research tells us that focusing on the boogeyman of “polarization” actually STRENGTHENS anti-democratic forces by implying that extremism is an equal problem on both the left and the right.
Of course, that’s exactly what makes the idea of polarization so attractive to many foundation leaders: it allows them to appear “serious” about protecting democracy without honestly naming the dire threats that face it, which are coming overwhelmingly from right-wing and pro-Israel groups.
As I’ve said before, our sector—nonprofit and philanthropy—has become one giant white moderate that MLK warned us about. And the right-wing also understands that very well and has been weaponizing our propensity for prioritizing civility above justice as a strategy to advance its values, undermine democracy, and usher in authoritarianism.
This is exhausting. We have plenty to do trying to fight against fascism and protect our communities and deal with the regular shenanigans from funders, like the lack of money for advocacy and political engagement. Now we must extend energy dealing with white moderate people and institutions who continue to fall into right-wing traps and continue to delude themselves into thinking "polarization" is the problem, when the real problem is right-wing extremism.
I know you're tired too. But the Civility Industrial Complex is gaining momentum, and we need to stop it. The first step is to be aware of it and to recognize it when you see it. A great place to start is the Uncivil Collective’s latest release, The Civility Files, which documents reactionary statements and actions by billionaire donors, “pluralism” leaders, think tank grifters, and others who shape the Civility Industry. (A number of the people that Uncivil profiles have contributed to “The Commons,” so I won’t be surprised to see an op-ed criticizing Uncivil’s work, likely written by a “progressive” foundation leader eager to pat themselves on the back for joining forces with their anti-democratic besties in order to demonstrate their ability to “build bridges” and “work with opposing viewpoints" or whatever.)
Do not be swayed by think pieces and webinars of how “polarization” and “divisiveness” are the real threats in society. The real threat to democracy, humanity, and the planet is not the tension that naturally results when we work to address injustice…it is injustice itself, the right-wing forces that work to advance injustice, and the white moderates who insist on prioritizing civility over addressing injustice.
--
Thank you to monthly Patreon supporters and Ghost subscribers for keeping these posts ad-free and open to everyone...and not written with AI (Please ignore the typos).
