Post Reply
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 8:35PM #1
Ironhold
Posts: 9,606
Got to talking with my former business ethics professor about a situation that I researched for another class.


You are a decision-maker for a major non-profit organization. Your charity has set lofty goals for itself, goals that will require a lot of money to achieve.

You are approached about a rather large donation.

The person who wishes to make the donation is going to raise the money through the sale of items that, while perfectly legal, you feel has a corrupting influence on people.

What do you do?

Why?




**


In 2008, Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax passed away. After consulting with his family, the execs behind the annual gaming & comics convention known as GenCon opted to make the Christian Childrens' Fund - Gary's favorite charity - the recipient of their annual charity auction.

A lone CCF worker shot them down flat; some of the money would have come from the sale of items relating to D&D, and the worker wanted nothing to do with money so "tainted".

In the process, this person failed to actually go through the proper channels to get a decision; rather, they took upon themselves authority they didn't have. In fact, the people in charge of the charity would have gladly accepted the money had they even known about the matter. Instead, when the news was leaked to the general public, CCF's reputation wound up so badly battered that they ultimately had to change their name. IIRC, within a week of the first reports the head of the company was drowning beneath several thousand hostile e-mails.

But by that time it was way too late. Fisher House, a charity that operates housing units near military hospitals so that the family of wounded soldiers can be near them during their treatment, was #2 on the list; they were more than happy to recieve the $17,000 raised in Gary's memory.
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 11:19PM #2
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 327

It was not up to the "lone worker" to make the decision to refuse the charitable donation.  He apparently violated policy and overstepped his authority.  


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 28, 2012 - 12:00AM #3
smcisaac
Posts: 6,737

Even assuming (just for the sake of argument) that there was something insidious about D&D, the money had already been made.  It was going to be an immediate gift, not a pledge to be paid from future profits.  So I think it was foolhardy for CCF to decline it.  Why not allow it to be put to good use?  Even if the money was made in a troublesome way the donation might be seen, in a sense, as similar to atonement or reparations.  Here's an analogy:  should people in the Gulf states have declined to accept the money BP paid into the restoration fund after the oil well blowout, just because BP engages in questionable business practices?


It sounds as though the higher-ups at CCF actually understood this, and the mistake was made by someone who had no authority over such issues.  The damage to CCF's reputation was unfortunate.  I wonder if that person still works there.

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way."  Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 28, 2012 - 10:24AM #4
Iwantamotto
Posts: 6,123

If the charity felt they'd be poisoned by the money, just hire a healing mage and reverse the damage.  :P

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 10:10PM #5
Beautiful_Dreamer
Posts: 4,929

LOL IWAM!


Personally, I agree with smcisaac...if there were something wrong with D&D, putting the money to good use could be some sort of 'reparation' or turning something bad into something good. Although I seriously doubt that anyone who was helped by CCF would care where the money came from.


I don't know much about D&D, though, so I have no idea if something is 'wrong with it' or not. Either way, the person who made the 'decision' overstepped his bounds and, if I were his boss, he'd no longer be employed.


More where that came from...

A new-ish forum for women

Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 30, 2012 - 2:15PM #6
voice-crying
Posts: 5,938

May 27, 2012 -- 8:35PM, Ironhold wrote:




**


A lone CCF worker shot them down flat; some of the money would have come from the sale of items relating to D&D, and the worker wanted nothing to do with money so "tainted".



[If] CCF had to (actually) sell D&D items, I could understand not wanting to have anything to do with it...but it was not the CCF's workers decision to make. Bad situation. 

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 1:02PM #7
Thetanager
Posts: 421

First off, I agree with you all in the specifics of the example here and the more general point about who has the right to make the decisions.



More generally, though, if I was the decision maker for a charity, I'm a bit torn. On one hand I see good in good things being done with even ill gotten money. On the other hand, (in a way) the charity would be validating how the money was received. Perhaps this money (if given into good hands) should only be put into stopping the ill-gotten way the money was received in the first place. And on another level, using the money could be seen as implied positive assocations with the "evil" source of the money and be quite bad publicity and damage the charity's overall goals to better meet their needs.


For instance, getting money from those who traffic in sex slaves, who give you the money without any remorse for their actions. Might as well put the money to good use, but perhaps good use for that money is to go only to stopping the sex trafficking.

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 7:11PM #8
Beautiful_Dreamer
Posts: 4,929

Welcome, thetanager!


I see what you're saying, but I do wonder if it matters if the 'evil' the money came from is something that is clearly harmful and has no real benefit whatsoever (like sex trafficking), or if it came from something more ambiguous that only a set group of people have a problem with (like D&D).  A positive association with the former would *definitely* be permanently harmful to CCF's reputation.  The latter, on the other hand, *may* be harmful in a way that CCF could rise above. If that makes sense.

More where that came from...

A new-ish forum for women

Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 1:57PM #9
Thetanager
Posts: 421

Absolutely, beautiful dreamer.  I agree.

Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 5:56PM #10
Estacia
Posts: 1,846

In 2008, Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax passed away. After consulting with his family, the execs behind the annual gaming & comics convention known as GenCon opted to make the Christian Childrens' Fund - Gary's favorite charity - the recipient of their annual charity auction.
A lone CCF worker shot them down flat; some of the money would have come from the sale of items relating to D&D, and the worker wanted nothing to do with money so "tainted".
In the process, this person failed to actually go through the proper channels to get a decision; rather, they took upon themselves authority they didn't have. In fact, the people in charge of the charity would have gladly accepted the money had they even known about the matter. Instead, when the news was leaked to the general public, CCF's reputation wound up so badly battered that they ultimately had to change their name. IIRC, within a week of the first reports the head of the company was drowning beneath several thousand hostile e-mails.
But by that time it was way too late. Fisher House, a charity that operates housing units near military hospitals so that the family of wounded soldiers can be near them during their treatment, was #2 on the list; they were more than happy to recieve the $17,000 raised in Gary's memory.


______________________________________________________________________________


 


Some won't take " tainted money" due to thier religous beliefs.


For others, money is money?


To each beliefs.


Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook