This week, my 8th grade daughter’s long-anticipated, two-week school trip to Japan with the Nueva School was canceled.  The impact of this decision goes beyond disappointment and sadness. This trip is a culminating event of years of studying a language, the last of which was spent digging into Japanese culture and history in-depth, hosting Japanese exchange students, practicing Japanese customs. This trip represents the apex that sits upon the foundation of Nueva principles and the pinnacle of curricular integration. They were not to be tourists. They were to steep in the lessons learned and bask in the grace, elegance, and poetry of the country and the people.

They will now head to China with the Mandarin students to a vastly different cultural experience. The faculty will do their best to put together the top of a pyramid for which there is no solid base. A rudimentary base, made of sticks versus steel, will be thrown together over the next few weeks prior to departure. Better than nothing. And I certainly trust that the faculty will do the very best they can to tie things together, but at the end of the day, it is not the apex they sought. It is picking them up off the side of one mountain as they approached the top, and dropping them at the top of another mountain wondering where they are. But they will have each other, they will have caring adults there to help them get their bearings, and (presumably and most importantly), they will have their health.

First explorations. First grade.

I have had an admittedly strong and negative reaction to the Japan trip cancellation — one that is not the norm amongst my fellow Japanese-student parents. However, over the last two difficult days, I have come to accept the decision to abort the trip. Despite coming around to accept, understand, and embrace the decision, I am left with a lot of sadness, and, unfortunately, a lot of anger. The latter emotion has been tough to beat down. It has caused me a good deal of soul-searching to sort out what is going on for me and my relationship with Nueva to cause me to continue to get teary-eyed at the thought of it, and to want to avoid being there altogether.

The former (sadness) is easy to understand. I love my daughter and the person she is. She chose Japanese as a first grader when, during choice time, she gravitated immediately to Yukiko’s offerings to sample the language and the culture. She was hooked right away, and signed up for “Japanese Odyssey” sessions during the Nueva Summer Challenge twice before school renovations.

Her room holds many little Japanese trinkets. There was never a thought about which language she would choose, and it is easy to see why. She embodies so much of what she intuited from her early Japanese experiences. Class, elegance, a keen aesthetic, poetry, respect for boundaries, kindness, patience, humility, confidence, and an acceptance of others and of situations. I’ve described her as my zen buddhist with a great sense of humor. I am heartbroken that she won’t be going to Japan in May, but I know she will go there one day. And I am proud of her resilience and her unknowing guidance toward my own acceptance.

"Madeline" July 2004 in Japanese Odyssey at Nueva Summer Challenge

I have come to understand also what is causing me to feel so thrown by this decision, and ultimately, I feel a loss of partnership. As far as I am concerned, this decision was a total and complete shock. The administration of the school sent a note out on March 21st that they were “monitoring the situation” in Japan, and that as of that time, the trip was still on. In the last two days, we have come to learn that a lot has been going on behind the scenes and we have not been included. Just the knowledge that so much was going on would have been great. They have had many expert opinions and have conducted much research and due diligence in order to make the right call here, as well they should. In retrospect, I should have assumed it was going on. We have also come to find out that many parents spoke out to say they would not allow their child to go to Japan at this time. They did not hear from parents who were in favor of their child going. Why? Well, because we did not realize there was a huge decision being weighed on a daily basis and the decision was in our favor as far as we knew, so no need to say anything. The school ultimately has the right to decide — I agree with that. They own the liability, and I respect the decision.

What I do not agree with, and why I am so hurt, is that a lot of great information was available and was not shared with the parents or students. Had discussions been taking place — not votes, not consensus-building, but discussions and information sharing — we might have been brought along and not have been so taken by surprise. We would have had the benefit of the same education as the administration. Sure we can all do our own research, and have read the news, but the administration apparently had access to nuclear physicist opinions, in-country expertise, and, rightly, drew upon every possible inside and reliable track they could. Why not share that? The President doesn’t hold “town hall meetings” to take a show of hands and act upon the results. He is there to listen, inform, gain buy-in. I feel discounted, ignored, unimportant, and incidental. Offers to come talk after the fact are feeling empty and uninteresting because if my thoughts, feelings, and knowledge were not important enough to consider before, how can I possibly believe the people I had considered my partners for the last 10 years have any sincere interest in those things now. I don’t need to be placated, and for support, I don’t feel comfortable going there right now. That hurts, and surprises me, a lot.

Friends

I have raised money for the school for 9 years. I sing its praises at admissions events, and practically everywhere I go. I trust and defend methods that others question. As a friend who started last year said: “Nueva is not just a community, it is a lifestyle.” She’s right. And because I have trusted so completely, and perhaps naively, I now feel particularly stung that such trust was not reciprocated. I was not trusted nor deemed deserving of the same information that my partner, the school, had. Apparently fear of losing control of a decision obfuscated, and eclipsed, transparency and partnership. I felt trustworthy. I felt I have proved myself a champion, advocate, and believer. And I now feel as though I’ve been told I was not those things.

All of this may seem an awfully small nuance in the grand scheme of things, and that is generally true. Highly sensitive kids come from highly sensitive parents, and I have a strong need to write down what swims around in my brain and in my soul so I can rest. At the end of the day, it still holds true that I am so grateful that my family has afforded my children the chance to flourish at Nueva, and believe that they have benefitted, and will continue to benefit, tremendously. I can imagine no better place for them, and no place that would allow the extension of their innocence a far as possible. If it means one more chip out of my own, its worth it, and I’ve learned chips can be repaired.

MC & Emi at Hillsdale

Today is Earth Day. Last night, someone described this event to me as “boring”, which, in combination with other complaints I’ve heard about the event (mainstream, insincere) caused me to toss and turn despite my weariness. What is the value of everyone focused on the health of the planet and our impact on it? Are they really invested, or just participating in “slacktivism“? To this I say, who cares?

Today is the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day. It’s first instance in 1970 led to the formation of the EPA and the Clean Water Act. John Kerry writes about these developments (and his participation) on change.org today as a reminder of “people power”. True – not everyone in the country participated in these early instances of Earth Day, and it really took off as a more mainstream concept in 1990 with huge efforts that spawned current recycling programs. I won’t go through the entire history of Earth Day, as there are plenty of sources for that. The question is about the quality of engagement. Does it being “mainstream” make the issues presented less pressing or interesting? What do you think?

Obviously, I don’t think so. Present conversations around climate change and emissions standards are incredibly pressing. Does everyone find the conversations interesting? Definitely not. Is it useful to invoke “slacktivism” among those not very interested day-to-day? Definitely.

There is, absolutely, a sense of conjured-up concern and false investment on a day like today. But don’t let that diminish what can be achieved by putting a spotlight on an issue and invoking the power of the people — activism or slacktivism. There are those who will scarcely notice Earth Day, and there are those who look forward to the amount of media attention put on issues important to them. There are those who are reminded and encouraged to look up from the every-day hamster wheel and participate to the best of their present ability. There are young people, or perhaps retired people, who will become aware of an aspect of environmental work in which they can get involved  — raptor-tagging, soil testing, drip irrigation, methane digestors, bird counting, extended producer responsibility (environmental design thinking) — the list is endless.

And there are the nay-sayers. This last category includes a wide variety of people.

There are the Rush-Limbaugh-like-minded people in denial of the science around climate change, or as I like to call them, the non-intellectual reactionaries. Related are the people who truly just don’t care. They order Blue Fin Tuna because you might as well enjoy it — it will be gone soon anyway. Earth Day can write them off. Or, if you have the time to move them, more power to you!

There are those who don’t like Earth Day because it is too “mainstream”. These are the people who stopped liking their favorite band in high school because too many people starting liking it (wait – did the music change?). But not to worry, this group will continue to listen to the band/”go green” in secret if it is in their heart. They just have that in-the-know, too-cool thing going that prevents them from publicly talking about the band/Earth Day in a positive way.

And there are those who don’t like the lack of intellectual rigor around Earth Day. These are thoughtful, analytical people who demand well-researched, well-considered theories that may or may not lead to action, but that pose insightful and moving discourse. They love a good think-tank. They may be great Earth Day allies, just not on April 22nd because they would then be mixing with those who just looked up from the hamster wheel and are taking actions that they may not have thought about carefully.

I’m sure there are other categories of nay-sayers (and this does not include the agnostics). But to these last two groups, I urge you to come out from under the sanctimony and embrace the power of the people at whatever level that has a chance to make a difference. Without crawling inside our skin, you cannot understand our spiritual or intellectual investment, nor pass judgment on it. Celebrate that we have this day, have the courage to participate, know that the only threat to your reputation as becoming mainstream or less intellectual is self-imposed and false.

Happy Earth Day! Great Inspiration Here:

PhotoPhilanthropy highlighted photo essays (disclosure – I am their Executive Director, which is among the reasons this is listed first)

Change.org

Care2.com

Earth Day Network

Given the number of non-profits in the US alone (roughly 2 million), and increased adoption of Twitter, Facebook, etc., it seems we will continue to see more of such requests.  We’ve seen several notable examples before, and many others that fly under the radar.

In my career as a professional fundraiser, I have spent concentrated effort to build relationships with prospective donors who are, or have the potential to be, emotionally connected to the organization and who believe in the mission, and then I facilitate a “meaningful” contribution from them that reflects their commitment while respecting their budget. As a professional grantmaker, I have led and witnessed great effort and resources spent on responsibly deploying funds in a way that will best achieve particular outcomes that the donors to the fund have decided are important to them. As a philanthropic advisor, I have worked closely with donors to define the parameters of their giving based on their interests, desire for involvement, social change philosophy, and giving capacity, among other factors.

Twitter (and similar) fundraising efforts turn these approaches up-side-down.

A common characteristic of requests on social media sites, is that, for the most part, people are asking for very small amounts – micropayments – of anywhere from 25 cents to 5 or 10 dollars from anyone regardless of whether the person is interested in the cause.  I find the psychology behind this really interesting. The implication being that, of course I can afford to give $5, or some other very painless amount, to your cause.  I just gave $5 as a quid-pro-quo gift to Jolie’s efforts on behalf of ACS, but I can’t say I feel good about it.  Nothing against ACS in particular, they are a respectable organization worthy of 3 stars on Charity Navigator, but I would not have otherwise given to them. I would rather have given my $5 to my charity of choice, and asked Jolie to give an additional $5 to ACS, and regret not having suggested that. But I know there will be a next time!

If all 2 million charities ask me for $5 and I comply, then I’m out $10 million! I can’t actually do that, so no risk there, but the question is: where do I draw the line? Jolie herself admits that the fundraising goal has been surpassed in part by “guilting her online friends” into contributing.  Guilt just doesn’t feel good, so is it possible that these campaigns may have negative implications for philanthropy overall? Or do the awareness and funds raised outweigh minor guilt hangovers?

Issues and ideas I see coming include:

• Twitter spam. Is roughly 30 requests in 24 hours (the number I count from Jolie’s profile) too many for her roughly 1000 followers? Would a non-profit organization be able to do the same thing without being spammy? Certainly for-profit organizations who overly-promote their wares via Twitter get called out for spamming, so how long before all of these requests lose their novelty and become as annoying as the direct mail pieces in your mailbox from organizations with which you have no affiliation? Does Twitter spam for a good cause get a spam hall-pass?

• Uninformed giving. While ACS is a respectable organization, there are many others that don’t fare as well, and while their cause may be compelling, they may be poorly managed or engaging in practices or means that the donor may actually be opposed to. Organizational due diligence doesn’t usually come out in a 140-character plea (although it could).

Upon taking up a cause and promoting on Twitter, I believe the sender has an obligation to have done some base-level of research that the organization is handling donations responsibly and not engaging in practices that donors are likely to find controversial. The same is not true for “causes”. It is only when specific organizations are suggested that some care should be taken. Adam Jackson, for example, has suggested doing a “Charity of the Week,” and I think if he does this, he is taking on a certain level of responsibility. Similar to the assumption that bloggers have done some level of research on the topics about which they write, twitterers, as micro-bloggers should be held accountable to the same standards by the community. This happens now to a degree, and hopefully will continue to happen with regularity.

Charity Navigator and Guidestar are terrific and easy resources to research specific organizations. Perhaps the plea should contain a link to the organization’s profile on one of these sites.

• Disconnected vs. Connected Giving. To get the most out of giving, the donor needs to be connected to the issue, the organization, the results. Guilt giving has the potential to turn people off to giving at all (a separate topic altogether, but worthy of mention here). That is why I really like the idea of Change.org, Bloggers Unite, Everywun, Facebook Causes, etc., because they ask you to think about what it is that you care about, and take action in many different forms, accordingly. Relationship building with prospects and donors will continue to prove the most lasting and financially valuable strategy for non-profits.

In the end, Twitterers and other social network users who donate this way are motivated to help out, do what we can, and take care of the people and places that need us. There are many people out there with some capacity to give, who won’t think about it unless tapped in this way, or who might not be aware of organizations doing good work in an area that does mean something to them. This new level of awareness and community effort is so encouraging, and I know that these efforts spurn a new level of curiosity and connection to the parts of our world we may not see everyday, or ever, but that are critical. These efforts are especially useful for immediate needs and emergency funding. It is the dawning of a new era in fundraising and philanthropy, and I’m enjoying the view, the debate, and finding our way.

@nancycole

http://linkedin/in/nancyclarkecole