Our culture is shifting. Word, phrases, and actions that were generally accepted a generation ago have now been re-examined and acknowledged as racist or sexist or homophobic, etc. Cue most comedic sitcoms from the 1980s and there will be cringe-worthy scenes. It is a positive change that we are learning how our words and actions affect others.
As an unforeseen consequence over the last few years, we have also seen a number of employees in high profile positions fired as a result of statements made 10, 20, and 30 years ago. This cancel culture has become widespread across various sectors.
I am concerned when it reaches the donors to the nonprofit sector as a binary choice of canceled or not-canceled.
To be clear, when a Board member – who is also a donor – is making racist or sexist comments publicly, they are an ambassador of the nonprofit. The leadership of the nonprofit, the Board and Executive Director, has to confront, request a public apology, and, depending on the reaction, require a resignation. An ambassador cannot be allowed to undermine the mission of the organization.
Back to the donor. If a donor is making racist, sexist or offensive comments publicly, should the organization maintain a relationship with the donor?
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has written on how people change long-standing beliefs. In his book, The Righteous Mind, he discusses how to disagree constructively and how to persuade a person to re-consider their positions. Spoiler alert: mocking or ostracizing or yelling at them doesn’t change their position. Instead, persuasion and change involves continuing a relationship – with the right boundaries.
When a donor makes a sexist remark to a staff member, it is easy to react by not reaching out again and canceling them from receiving future contact.
There might be a better way.
In the words of Jesus, “where the treasure is the heart is also.” When a donor gives,* they are showing us that they value something about the cause. They feel a sense of belonging to our cause and our organization. It is more than just a transaction between retailer and consumer. They are showing us a part of their heart.
That gives nonprofits a unique opportunity on the journey of change with the donor.
If we reject their donation – their heart – and remove the relationship with the donor, it is likely the donor will move further into their racist or sexist beliefs and into a group with similar beliefs to find that sense of belonging again. That is not good for the donor. And, when that racist or sexist group grows in numbers, it is also not good for the wider society.
If we choose to remain in the relationship with the donor, we can look for openings to persuade them to re-consider their long-held beliefs. Or, we may help them realize how their words are harming others unintentionally. My grandma used an outdated word for a specific ethnic group that was used commonly in the 1970s. We saw how she respected members of that group, so – in relationship with her – we could gently remind her to replace that word with a less hurtful word. Either way – whether it’s belief or unintentional harm – the key is to remain in relationship.
As we remain in relationship with the donor, be mindful of the appropriate boundaries. For example, if a donor makes sexist comments, be sure each visit has a mixed gender team. Then, give each team member a forewarning of the donor’s past offensive comments and an opportunity to opt-out of the visit. During the visit, give the team members the explicit permission to speak with kindness and gently confront any offensive comments. Finally, follow up with a note – in all genuineness – of a thankfulness for the continuing relationship with the donor. If any offensive words grow in abusiveness or become offensive actions, then it is important to end the donor relationship.
An unintentional consequence of remaining in relationship with the donor is that the donor is likely to increase their donations out of gratitude for the kindness and their transformation in beliefs.
*Note: I am not referring to quid pro quo donations.