Plutocratic Influence in Education: Democratic (Un)Accountability of Philanthropic Actors

• In Event: Philanthropy and Education Reform: New Models and Persisting Challenges

Abstract

The philanthropic contributions and political influence of wealthy, private actors in the provisioning of public goods has a long and complex history in the United States, one that is both celebrated and contested. More recently, scholars and the public have turned a critical eye toward the role of private philanthropists and philanthropic foundations in education and education reform efforts. In exploring the role of private wealth and influence in the provisioning and governance of public institutions and goods, I ask what tensions are produced by the discursive and material involvement of plutocratic actors in k-12 public education when such actors are not subject to democratic accountability? In this paper, I evaluate the legitimacy of philanthropic actors as political participants where they influence institutional decision-making, as well as exert power over institutional configurations. I contend that philanthropists and philanthropic corporations are plutocratic private actors in that their wealth permits them to interact with, influence, and, in certain instances, manage the provisioning of public goods through the institution of public education. However, they are inconsistently recognized as plutocrats due to the recurrent framing of their acts in terms of generosity, noblesse oblige, or managerial efficiency.

This paper engages philosophical inquiry to examine and critique the persistence of philanthropy as a means for addressing sustained economic inequality through education reform. I see the initial stakes of increasing entanglement between private plutocratic actors and the policies governing public education as an issue of political legitimacy, of regulatory capture, and of reproducing and maintaining the dominant, unequal political and economic arrangements. Due to the near ubiquitous interaction between U.S. residents and the public education system, this influence over educational priorities, curriculum, and institutional structures allows for meaningful integration into the lives of nearly all. In drawing out this argument, I consider ethical concerns about the persistence and legitimacy of philanthropy in democratic society where it exists with limited accountability or oversight (Cordelli, 2020; Reich 2018; Saunders-Hastings, 2018). In education scholarship, analysis largely focuses on the highly networked behavior of wealthy individuals and foundations acting in a philanthropic capacity (e.g. Reckhow 2013; Scott, 2009; Tompkins-Stange, 2016). Here, I typologize and interrogate the ways wealthy actors politically leverage their capital and clout as plutocrats, enjoying outsized political influence as a result of their accumulated wealth (Green, 2016).

Using the philosophical method of conceptual analysis, this paper takes up and evaluates theoretical efforts to reform philanthropy. These efforts include a more limited or specific role that restricts philanthropy to ‘cultural projects’ (Pevnick, 2016); prohibition from certain ‘issue areas’ like education (Saunders-Hastings, 2018); or a narrowing for philanthropy to projects of ‘innovation’ and ‘discovery’ (Reich, 2018). Likewise, I interrogate interventions to better advance egalitarian democratic ideals including regulatory changes to tax policy or a redistribution of control over philanthropic funds away from donors (Saunders-Hastings, 2018). Finally, I assess efforts to privatize education through public-private partnerships and other jurisdictional challenges, addressing how such activities that disperse political power into private hands raise issues of political legitimacy.

Author

• Nora Reikosky, University of Pennsylvania
  Presenting Author