When you're looking for a quick #snack and you grab your #favorite pretzel from #auntieannes because they support #alexslemonadestand which is a #philathropy of #gammasigmasigma our #weeoop moment of the day and one of my favorite Organizations we ever did a #serviceproject or #service #friendship #equality #SFE (at Auntie Anne's Pretzels Patrick Henry Mall)
So I guess this would’ve been easier to do as a day by day pots, but I did this and sunny, everyday while bathing my sister this past week. Day 6 is my favorite one. Mgs winter games A4.
A new report in Esquire delves into the multibillion-dollar fortune of the Sackler family and its ties to the opioid crisis.
“Do museums have a responsibility to reckon with the source of a donor’s wealth?”
Just like a coin, there are two sides to everything. The Sackler family have been one of the largest benefactors for the museum world, specifically in the arts and culture sector. However, no one has truly questioned where they earn their funds to make such large contributions - until now.
America was recently declared to have a public health emergency by President Trump and his administration due to an opioid crisis. This public statement has opened the eyes of many US citizens as to where the opioids have come from. Trump stated in his speech that a majority of them are coming from south of our border, but the drugs actually originated right on our own soil. The Purdue Pharma company created and sold Oxycontin, the main ingredient in Opioids, on a mass scale to medical practitioners across the country in a illegal miss-branding campaign. They have already paid a substantial sum in fines for this situation, however it did not prevent the drug from being served out into our population.
Ingeniously, the family never connected their name to the pharmaceutical company, but after some digging into the facts of where these drugs have been coming from due to the increase media pressure, the family are now under fire. What does this mean for nonprofits? Well, the museum world has many galleries, buildings, collections, etc., thanks to donations by the Sackler family. Some of the largest, most prominent art museums in the world have received money from them. Is it acceptable for these museums to keep the family’s name on their buildings and donor lists? Or, will it hurt their reputation to be affiliated with the family after the new information has come to light? I feel this is a great example of the dark side of philanthropy and the tough decisions nonprofits have to face when it comes to donor relations.
The Philanthropist's New Clothes: How Causes Are Better Served When Money Isn't Hoarded by the Ultra-Wealthy in the First Place
"While fortunes for the already well-to-do continue to rise at incredible rates, many of them have turned to the ostensibly irreproachable act of extreme philanthropy - with great fanfare and little criticism. Look no further than the onslaught of gushing PR, image boosting puff pieces heralding the simultaneous birth of Mark Zuckerberg's daughter and his "charity" in her honor this past week alone."