My point is that the suit was filed by Conservatives. The overall impact if the suit succeeds is yet to be determined.
From the AJC article Fearless Fund lawyer interview
Q: What do you think the potential effects of the ruling could be?
A: What the plaintiffs in our case have been seeking to do is create a chilling effect across this country and maybe beyond that, where people are afraid to invest with Black businesses. They’re afraid to invest in programs that advance equity. And I think this 11th Circuit ruling could just exacerbate this problem where people feel a little skittish about supporting diversity and equity and inclusion programs, whether it be in the charitable space or in the private sector.
Q: What impact do you think this could have on philanthropy?
A: This decision for me amplifies what I see as a blatant hypocrisy within the world of philanthropy. Charitable organizations have been issuing grants to specific demographic groups for decades. And this is the first time that a federal court is stopping an organization from issuing grants to a specific demographic group, issuing grants consistent with their mission.
The implications for this decision, if it were to be applied within the philanthropic space broadly, are immense because it essentially redefines grantmaking. It essentially says you can’t issue grants to people of specific demographic groups, which we know is counter to what philanthropic groups have been doing for decades.
I read the article the day it was posted. The lawyer representing the Fearless Fund spoke the way I would expect an advocate to speak. Nothing in the ruling prevents social justice philanthropy. Nobody will tell MacKenzie Scott to stop giving money to HBCUs and nobody will tell Melinda Gates that she can't spend billions on women's reproductive health issues. That's protected First Amendment speech. The problem for the Fearless Fund is that the judges who ruled against them viewed their contest and grants as "contracts" instead of philanthropy.
My point is that the suit was filed by Conservatives. The overall impact if the suit succeeds is yet to be determined.
From the AJC article Fearless Fund lawyer interview
Q: What do you think the potential effects of the ruling could be?
A: What the plaintiffs in our case have been seeking to do is create a chilling effect across this country and maybe beyond that, where people are afraid to invest with Black businesses. They’re afraid to invest in programs that advance equity. And I think this 11th Circuit ruling could just exacerbate this problem where people feel a little skittish about supporting diversity and equity and inclusion programs, whether it be in the charitable space or in the private sector.
Q: What impact do you think this could have on philanthropy?
A: This decision for me amplifies what I see as a blatant hypocrisy within the world of philanthropy. Charitable organizations have been issuing grants to specific demographic groups for decades. And this is the first time that a federal court is stopping an organization from issuing grants to a specific demographic group, issuing grants consistent with their mission.
The implications for this decision, if it were to be applied within the philanthropic space broadly, are immense because it essentially redefines grantmaking. It essentially says you can’t issue grants to people of specific demographic groups, which we know is counter to what philanthropic groups have been doing for decades.
https://www.ajc.com/news/business/qa-with-alphonso-david-lawyer-for-fearless-fund-after-court-loss/BDB7MJEAGNAEHA36XPO2IAREMA/
I read the article the day it was posted. The lawyer representing the Fearless Fund spoke the way I would expect an advocate to speak. Nothing in the ruling prevents social justice philanthropy. Nobody will tell MacKenzie Scott to stop giving money to HBCUs and nobody will tell Melinda Gates that she can't spend billions on women's reproductive health issues. That's protected First Amendment speech. The problem for the Fearless Fund is that the judges who ruled against them viewed their contest and grants as "contracts" instead of philanthropy.
Hopefully, that will not stand.