Philanthropy Today

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.

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.

Harvard: citadel of brilliance or fortress of privilege? For decades, liberals slammed it as an elitist gatekeeper—legacy admissions, donor perks, and wealth dressed up as meritocracy. Now, conservatives aim to gut its funding, branding it a woke factory. Different flags, same battlefield. Reform or revenge—the motives have shifted, but Harvard remains rich, elite, and untouchable. The question isn’t whether it deserves criticism. It’s whether you’d bankroll an empire of inherited advantage… or gamble on the promise of change.