By: Zainab Arain
Like most policy issues subject to public debate and scrutiny, the issue of hate funding — how groups that engage in harmful, dangerous, or extremist activity or speech receive and raise resources — has proven complex and multilayered. Since the launch of the Hate is Not Charitable Campaign in 2019 by the Amalgamated Foundation, dozens of foundations and nonprofit organizations have pledged their commitment to ensuring that their funds do not directly or indirectly support hateful activity and speech. However, practitioners and stakeholders have noted that creating and implementing anti-hate policies and practices is far more difficult than may initially appear due to the legal nuances, ethical debates, and competing approaches to dealing with the challenge. Indeed, this is the case for actors in across multiple sectors and not just for those in philanthropy.
Although most stakeholders and practitioners in philanthropy note broad and deep consensus within their organizations for implementing anti-hate policies and do-no-harm principles, the procedural practice of carrying out such policies have alluded most. To date, there are only a few dozen community foundations who have publicly announced their adoption of anti-hate policies. The number is far less for corporate, national, and family foundations. That said, the Horizon Forum has found, through consultation with community foundations across the country, that there are a number of organizations that have de facto and ad hoc practices that screen out the most egregious extremist groups, but it is not the case that these practices are part of a formal, replicable, or transparent due diligence process. Moreover, the practices that currently exist are not standardized, uniform, or consistent across the sector in any way. Without the appropriate infrastructure, foundations fear implementing inequitable processes that break with institutional and industry precedent. They also risk threatening long-standing relationships with community partners and supporters who may or may not be aware of their intended grantees harmful practices.
There are two areas that practitioners have identified as fundamental to both developing and implementing anti-hate policies and practices within an institution. The first relates to institutional and organizational culture related to anti-discrimination and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The second area concerns due diligence processes of defining, identifying, and blocking hateful groups from receiving grants.
Conversations with stakeholders across the field have made evident that on the first point, practitioners recognize that anti-hate policies can and should be a natural extension of DEI practices that already exist within most institutions. For example, at the human resources, recruitment, and retention level, most institutions likely already have hiring and staffing principles that seek to ensure organizations represent the communities they serve and strive to create workplace environments free from discrimination and bias. Many practitioners believe that such principles serve as a baseline of existing institutional alignment around issues of equity and safety and that they can and should be extended to define institutional grantmaking. Indeed, foundations and philanthropic advocacy organizations across the country are becoming increasingly responsive to problems such racial justice and socioeconomic equality as can be seen by United Philanthropy Forum’s racial equity and justice commitment, and the National Center for Family Philanthropy’s Racial Justice Symposium. Practitioners report providing more training and professional development opportunities for staff and board members dedicated to increasing learning and literacy in areas of structural racism and historical inequality. Without developing such institutional and cultural infrastructure dedicated to these principles, it would be difficult to move board members, staff, and stakeholders towards anti-hate and anti-racism work.
Procedural and due-process mechanisms are the other challenge related to implementing an anti-hate policy. That is, while an institution might be internally aligned on the “what” — that hate speech should not be considered a charitable activity — they are quickly confronted with the “how”— how to define, identify, and block grants to hate groups that enjoy 501c3 (and c4) status. While there are numerous existing due diligence tools that account for IRS status and compliance, as well as Department of Treasury controls related to foreign terrorism and money laundering, there does not exist a tool of comparable scale to screen out hateful groups. Practitioners have reported capacity challenges related to subject-matter expertise and staff time when conducting independent analysis for this level of due diligence. Because some hate groups enjoy nonprofit status, practitioners report the need for an objective, third -party rubric to guide their due diligence review process.
Although some philanthropic practitioners simply engage with online information provided by political advocacy groups, they simultaneously express concern that such groups may lack objectivity, depth, and reliability. No organization is free of its own biases, and by relying on a single source for screening purposes, foundations are effectively allowing SPLC to make the funding decision. The GuideStar affair is an unfortunate example of the effects of the reliance on one organization. In early 2017, GuideStar used SPLC’s data on hate groups to add a note to the records of 46 of the 1,676,746 active nonprofit groups GuideStar tracked that year. Soon thereafter, GuideStar’s staff and leadership received harassment and threats from supporters of SPLC-designated hate groups, leading to GuideStar eventually removing the SPLC data from its website.
Another challenging dimension of the due diligence process reported by both community and commercial foundations is what has been described as the so-called “gray area.” That is, how can foundations retain their identity as “big tent” civil society institutions for issues such as reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and immigration which are often subject to polarized public debate wherein advocates often use terms such as hate and extremism to describe their opponents. For example, there may be a church that does not support or condone same-sex marriage. Some donors have expressed concern that their first amendment rights would be in effect curtailed if, for example, grants were not allowed to faith-based nonprofit organizations which engage in legal discrimination. On this point however, if the issue is reframed away from a legal discussion and reoriented towards an ethical standards and impact-driven perspective, then the “grayness” of it is decreased. The focus instead becomes the prevention of human and social harm. Here again, foundations have pointed to the need for objective, verifiable third-party resources to guide their decision-making processes. The Aspen Institute has in fact sought to address this concern through the publication of a brief guide for funders on how to partner with faith-inspired grantees with clear boundaries and integrity. It has been designed for both those new to the space, and those who would like to improve their working relationships with their current faith-inspired grantees.
Ultimately, practitioners report that in order for anti-hate policies and practices to be successful, they must be part of a larger and more robust anti-hate infrastructure which includes an organizational commitment to racial justice and equity, and due diligence processes that prevents hateful groups from receiving grants. In fact, there is a considerable degree of risk involved in implementing anti-hate policies without the proper infrastructure. Toward this end, the Council of Foundations has launched its Values-Aligned Philanthropy project to provide a resource hub which includes a toolkit and sample policy documents for foundations. Additionally, through a stakeholder-centered applied research process, Horizon Forum has developed tools and frameworks to help grantmaking institutions as they embark upon the process of ensuring their grants do no harm and remain hate free. To date, it has worked with dozens of community foundations in the development of their anti-hate infrastructure. To learn more about these tools, please contact us at [email protected].