Hey Philanthropy, Stop Fighting Each Other.

Last week’s edition was about philanthropy under fire. This week is about why it shouldn’t be under friendly fire.

When chaos, confusion, and overwhelm are the enemy’s strategy, turning on each other only strengthens their hand.

Yet some in the sector are doing exactly that—publicly taking aim at their peers, allies, and fellow doers of good over matters of degree.

This week is a bit of tough love on why that needs to stop—and how we can fight smarter, together.

Let’s do (more) good (better)—with a little more grace—together.

A Good Quote

“Fight your enemies, not your imperfect allies”

A Good Note

Fight Smarter, Not Each Other

There’s been a troubling pattern lately in philanthropy: allies attacking allies—publicly, performatively, and in ways that feel more like call-outs than calls forward.

Let’s name what that really is: counterproductive, poorly timed, and—whether intended or not—damaging.

Here’s why it needs to stop—or at least shift:

🔸 It plays right into the enemy’s hands. In a moment when external forces are trying to undermine philanthropy, public infighting only fuels their efforts. It creates chaos, fractures trust, and forces leaders to fight on multiple fronts—including against people who should be standing with them. It’s not just unhelpful—it’s harmful.

🔸 It’s a bad use of time, talent, and energy. Time spent dragging peers online could be time spent building better partnerships, mobilizing more resources, or pushing real reform inside systems. Critique is easy. Constructive collaboration is harder—but far more valuable.

🔸 It creates a chilling effect. Well-intentioned people doing their best start to pull back. Leaders get cautious. Collaboration stalls. The cost? Innovation, progress, and impact.

🔸 Intent doesn’t equal impact. Even if you're coming from the right place, perception matters. Public takedowns often look like grandstanding, even if they’re meant as accountability. The internet can’t tell the difference. And when good intentions land badly, the damage is done.

🔸 There are other ways to move the needle. Want to disrupt for good? Great. Keep going. But do it with intention and integrity. Reach out directly. Offer support. Ask better questions. Invite collaboration. There’s a big difference between being a positive disrupter and being a loud one.

🔸 Sector realities matter. Not every leader has full control. Not every board moves fast. Not every org can pivot instantly. And not every criticism is aimed at the right target. Nuance matters. Context matters. If we ignore that, we lose credibility—and we lose each other.

🔸 There is no one-size-fits-all standard. Your version of “enough” may not be mine. One person’s ideal may still fall short for another. That doesn’t make one right and the other wrong. It makes this work complex and human. That’s why the path forward is progress, not perfection.

So is public critique always wrong? No. Is positive disruption a good thing? Absolutely.

But timing and process matter.

Right now, the sector is in the middle of a firefight—political, legal, and cultural. This is not the moment to map the enemy’s path of attack for them.

Be bold. Be better. But be strategic.

Let’s push each other forward—not over.

A Good Example

Less Shade, More Shine

Proof that doing more good, better, is  happening.

Last week, we applauded the Marguerite Casey Foundation for quadrupling its giving—from $30 million to $130 million this year, with $40 million already out the door.

This week, the Mellon Foundation stepped in with $15 million in emergency funding for humanities councils nationwide after sudden federal support was pulled.

Progress, not perfection. Direction, not speed.

This is how a sector moves forward.

A Good Recommendation

Speak Truth. With Care.

If this week’s newsletter stirred something in you—sit with this. I am too.

Frustration is real. It’s valid. It’s often the spark for progress. Wanting more from a sector that feels like it’s shrinking when it should be rising? That’s fair—and it’s fuel.

I get it. I’ve also leaned into challenging the status quo and helping disrupters push old systems to do (more) good (better). It’s messy work. It’s more art than science. And we all miss the mark sometimes.

My point is about timing and context.

Right now, philanthropy is shaken. Defensive. Strategically scattered. Many of the critiques being made publicly? They’re already being whispered internally. The frustration you feel? Many of them do too.

So yes—keep pushing. Keep asking the hard questions.

But remember: big ships turn slowly. Leaders answer to boards. And one person’s bold is another’s not enough. There’s no getting it perfect. It’s hard to get it right. And we all know this. 

This isn’t about silencing critique. It’s about channeling it wisely. This reflection isn’t a retreat. It’s a recalibration.

Hopefully this helps.

A Good Question

Where do you draw the line? Public callout or private conversation? Push hard or show grace? Everyone’s line is different. Where’s yours—and why?

Answer

Share the Good!

Share this with your favorite disrupter.

Ask them where they think the line is!