Comments on: $50,000 She Could Not Afford to Keep

By: merylrunion

merylrunion — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:58:18 +0000

Twist did have good reason to believe the donation was guilt money. Still, I had the same questions Cindy and Robert do about returning the money. Robert makes a great point that it is easier to stand on principle when you yourself have nothing to lose. That’s why I mentioned I wasn’t sure I could have done what she did. At the same time, I find it difficult to criticize someone who has given so much, sitting in the comfort that my own life affords me. She could return 90% of the donations she receives and still be way ahead of me in her contribution to bettering the world.

I am not taking a side when I make these two points, even though they argue one side. First, I imagine there could be some lucrative fund-raising if someone just went around stirring guilt. One could be the fund-raising equivalent of an ambulance chaser. “I see you did X. How would you like to whitewash your image by donating to a noble cause?” This of course goes beyond overlooking the motive to seeking it out, but it does raise the question, “How far down that slope are you willing to go?”

Second, other people can be an excuse for ignoring one’s own code of ethics. One might say, “Yeah, my company is corrupt but I’ve got to put my kids through college.”

So while I don’t know if I could have or would have made the same choice Twist did, and while I don’t know if I agree with her decision, I still see her act as courageous and it certainly raises some interesting questions in my mind. I hope I am never asked to make a choice like hers.

By: Robert Magnan

Robert Magnan — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:38:10 +0000

We can praise Lynne for wanting to accept only money that came from the heart. But we have enough to eat. Lynne certainly had enough to eat. (In her book she describes the affluence she enjoyed.) I wonder how the people who depended on The Global Hunger Project for food would have felt about the principle that was more important than their health.
In her book, Lynne writes, “When I first heard about a commitment to end hunger on earth, I felt that its mission matched deep feelings that I had about responding to human suffering.” There was nothing in that mission about accepting only money from the heart.
She states in the book that she knew going into the CEO’s office that the company had an image problem and that the leaders felt that a donation would help the corporate image. (Check the list of coroporate donors on the Project Web site, http://www.thp.org/invest. Some of those donations were most likley to improve corporate image.) Yet she still made her case and accepted the money. So, to rid herself of guilt feelings, she returns the check. How much food could $50,000 buy?
Yes, she received $250,0000 six years later, most fortunately, but what about those people who suffered from hunger during those six years?
It’s easier to stand up for your principles when you have nothing to lose. It does not seem fair to be making that choice so you feel better about yourself when it means depriving others of a basic necessity.

By: Cindy Mueller

Cindy Mueller — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:26:01 +0000

The ending of this story demonstrates your lesson quite well. However, as I read it, I couldn’t help but think of the 50,000 or 10,000 or even 10 people who went hungry when she returned the initial check.

I don’t know if the story content was truncated for brevity, but did Ms. Twist attempt to verify if what she heard was true before returning the check? What if the “damage control” was just a rumor?

I agree that remaining true to your beliefs and speaking your truth is incredibly important. I don’t know that I could put my need to remain true to a “concept” over someone else’s need to survive. I think I would have had to deposit the check and then perhaps I would have contacted the CEO to verify reason for his donation. I might have tried again to convice him of the worthiness of my cause, after I had used his money to feed the masses. I might have explained to him that I disagreed with his reasons, but still felt it was important to feed people, so I wasn’t returning his money.

Calling the donation “a gift” seems to trivialize the money. It was a donation for a specific cause - to feed hungry people. I can accept returning a gift based on principle, but condeming someone to yet another day of hunger because of your principles is criminal. How would you explain your principles to the mother holding her dead child in arms, telling her that your principles and your need to remain “true” to them was more important than her child’s life?

As I said in my first paragraph, I am happy that the story ended well, but I couldn’t bear to hold my silence regarding those who could have been helped with his initial donation.

By: Mary Hanson

Mary Hanson — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:36:40 +0000

I believe that if you remain true to yourself and your beliefs, you will speak and act honestly. This lady did exactly that….. and she and her organization benefited greatly from it.