Author: Viken Mikaelian

Nonprofits aren’t “exploring” AI—they’ve already outsourced half their workload to it, mostly without policies, guardrails, or governance. Our latest sector poll shows AI has crossed from experiment to infrastructure while leadership naps. Staff are using it to survive; organizations pretend it’s optional. This is the wake-up call: AI won’t level the field—it will widen it. The competent will soar, and the careless will get exposed.

American philanthropy is funded by people whose success the nonprofit sector increasingly treats as a moral problem. Fundraisers rely on donors who built businesses, accumulated assets, and believe in choosing where their wealth goes—while supporting policies that would reduce both wealth creation and charitable giving. This essay examines the uncomfortable contradiction at the center of modern fundraising and asks a simple question: why solicit voluntary generosity while endorsing systems designed to weaken it?

When the Classical Theatre of Harlem lost $60,000 in NEA funding, outrage followed. But let’s strip away the emotion and apply business logic: if your organization can’t survive without a government grant, the problem isn’t the funding cut—it’s your model. The arts shouldn’t have to beg. They should thrive. Planned giving isn’t flashy, but it works. It’s time to move from panic to planning—and build financial independence that doesn’t hinge on politics or pity.

In 2017, the Wall Street Journal warned: “Many Colleges Fail in Teaching How to Think.” Eight years later, was it prophecy? Alumni giving is down. Public confidence has collapsed. Colleges are closing almost weekly. Donors now ask: Am I funding thinkers—or just diplomas? Real education, or expensive amenities? If students leave no better at reasoning than when they arrived, why should anyone keep writing checks? The warning was clear. The collapse was inevitable.