The better critique of the Oprah critique

The Foreign Policy Passport notes Oprah's extravagant Leadership Academy for Girls, the $40M campus that she is funding outside of Johannesburg. They make this very cool-headed observation:

The better critique of Oprah's charity, though, is to ask whether she is doing the most good she can with the money she spends. I have no doubt that one $40 million super-school will do a lot of good in South Africa. But wouldn't four $10 million schools do more?

This is top notch thinking, and exactly the kind of question being taught in International Development programs around the world. It is also utterly missing the point.

Why are we so quick to engage our critical thinking on issues in philanthropy when that critical thinking part of our mind lies dormant through the vast remainder of our media-fed lives? Where were our quick-to-the-punch FP authors during Steve Jobs' recent announcement on the $599 iPhone? Trying to get one, I am sure.

Because amidst all the drooling, I didn't hear any thoughtful and cool-headed voices asking how many South African children's school fees and uniforms could be paid for by the price of a gadget that does what your other gadgets already do. Of course not - that's the kind of comment that makes you the dismal guy that nobody ever wants to talk to.

It's not about the techno-lust, but about the Pavlov response to philanthropy. It so happened that I was in Canada with family members when Oprah came on the television from South Africa to talk about her school. The response in the room was uniformly negative - we were roused from our Christmas cookie-induced lethargy to make our snide comments - "Oh, BROTHER, what is she on about NOW??" "And I bet she wants us to help by giving our money to Oprah..." "I was right! There IS an Oprah foundation, I can't believe it..."

I admit the tears and the drama were all a bit much, but they were hardly worse than the other holiday selections on the tube. Amidst soap operas, commercials with talking beavers and an unending stream of news stories about unseasonal weather, why is it that only Oprah's $40 million school wound us up enough to complain? Could our cynicism be the defense mechanism established to assuage our own personal discomfort about the vast inequalities in the world?

Who wants to think about children in Africa who can't afford school uniforms, especially when it is interrupting your opening of Christmas gifts and plans for post-Christmas sales? It's a lot easier to let yourself believe that everyone out there talking about poverty is a crook and a liar, out to tickle your conscience and steal your money.

Well there are a lot of crooks - I work with some of them - but they are not all crooks, and the immediate and massive criticism that meets any new effort to make a difference in the developing world does a disservice both to the poor and to those who are trying to help.

This is the challenge of being a member of the wealthiest 10% of people in the world. Our two easiest responses to global inequality - (1) Blindly throwing money at the problem; and (2) Criticizing all attempts to help and then doing nothing - both of these turn out to be ineffectual. What is needed is engagement, asking the question of why inequality exists, what does and does not make a difference, and how our consumption patterns in the West impact the lives of the poor elsewhere in the world.

So next time you see someone with a Master's degree puffing out his chest and asking, "Aren't there better ways to spend 40 million dollars?", take a step back and ask yourself, "Why are there only 40 million dollars, and why is it all coming from one person, and what does that tell us?" But if you ask those things out loud, don't puff out your chest, because there are too many people doing that as well.