Linsey McGoey - THB that Modern Philanthropy is a Tool for Reputation Laundering - Proposition

[applause]

>> Well, I'm delighted to open this debate

on behalf of my teammates and our

opponents.

Thanks so much to the chairs for

organizing.

In keeping So, I'll let my team

introduce themselves in turn when they

come up to the podium. And in keeping

with tradition, I'll spend a bit more

time introducing our opponents.

But I wish to note, too, that initially

there was four against three, and I was

given the bios of three people on the

opposing team. Then at dinner,

I was told a secret fourth had been

added.

I was told I couldn't know who it was.

It was a sort of secret weapon.

I got the name in the queue. I got the

college. And I got what they're

studying.

Toby Bowes-Lyon,

history in Christ Church. And I was told

any other reason for why he's here is

top secret.

So, our first opponent tonight is Shamir

Aziz.

He's a Rhodes Scholar

studying for his DPhil here at Oxford.

And he's been quoted in the media as

noting that he wants to use his skills

in science and diplomacy

to give back to less privileged

communities,

including in his own home nation of

Pakistan.

And that's a very noble goal.

>> [applause]

>> So noble that it's difficult to think of

ways to oppose a student who sees

philanthropy

as a route to giving back.

But I will still oppose the sentiment.

And I'll argue that those

who want a truly

more equitable society

also need to oppose it.

Next is Professor Megan Tompkins Sting.

She's a dear acquaintance of mine who

I've known for years.

And she has been critical of

philanthropy in the past, but who's

arguing against the motion today.

And I really value her willingness to do

so.

I value people who can change their

minds.

And feel free

to speak against decided opinions. We

toasted tonight to free speech. And that

is such a valued, hallowed thing for us

to toast to.

So, I respect Megan's willingness to

fight a an opposition to the motion

tonight.

But I will also argue tonight

that it is billionaire philanthropy

that shrinks the space for dissenting

opinions,

especially when a rich donor

doesn't like what you have to say.

Speaking of rich donors,

let me introduce our fourth opposition

speaker who will speak after Toby

Bowes-Lyon.

He's American.

He's very rich.

He has spent uh decades building his

fortune in the city of Seattle.

It's not Bill Gates.

I don't know where Mr. Gates is tonight.

I hope he's not being indicted.

But who knows when you have friends with

people like Epstein.

In contrast, I'm really honored that we

have here tonight Nick Hanauer.

And I can sincerely say that he's

actually someone who I personally admire

a lot.

After the financial crisis of 2008,

Nick was a rare member of the

uber-wealthy elite who was willing to

say something that activists around the

world have lost their lives for saying.

Which is that trickle-down economics

does not work.

Capitalism often preys on the most

valuable the most vulnerable people in

society. It doesn't prey on the most

valuable. It

claims to profit the most valuable, but

are they the most valuable?

Let's ask Epstein.

It's a system that shrinks the resources

of the many

to enrich the very few.

And Nick said that about capitalism.

He gave a TED Talk making some of those

points, and it was so controversial, it

was so anti-capitalist

that the TED heads refused to stream it

until a public backlash ensued.

And he's here tonight, a billionaire who

actually wants to say something rare,

which is that billionaires should pay

more tax.

Who admits that capitalism doesn't work.

But what does work?

Well, according to Nick and his team,

philanthropy works.

Philanthropy can solve our problems.

And it's doing such a great job.

So, we might hear talk this evening, for

example, about the value of the Rhodes

Scholarship, which my colleague Mr. Aziz

has won, for example.

Let's think about that scholarship for a

minute.

Let's compare two dates.

1918.

1918 was the year that some women in the

UK became eligible to vote.

1977.

1977

was the year that, thanks to the recent

passing of the UK Sex Discrimination

Act, women were finally eligible

to be Rhodes Scholars.

Before that year, only men were

eligible.

1991 was the year that black South

Africans were eligible.

Parliaments might achieve full suffrage

on paper,

but behind the scenes, you will often

find some philanthropic fund working to

ensure that the dead hand of the past

advantages

only the few, often at the expense of

others. That's the real problem with

philanthropy.

Not only that it's a way for wealthy the

wealthiest people in society to buy

favor

or to wipe clean their conscience, but

that it wipes out opportunities for

those lucky not lucky enough to be

favored by a donor's biased and often

self-serving

whims.

Philanthropy shrinks some people's

futures while appearing to advance

humanity. That is the ingenious trick.

And what happens

when they shrink our common future?

What's expected of us?

It's thanks.

We're expected to thank our donors.

To show gratitude.

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu once

wrote that a gift can be even worse than

debt, because at least debt has clear

repayment terms.

So, you know when it's squared.

Too many students here tonight have

burdensome debt.

Why? Because it's profitable profitable

for others.

Because your debt is fueling the market

economy that gave Nick his wealth.

But even debt, for all its

perniciousness,

can be harder to fight than a gift. A

gift gives the power of a type of

control

that can't be squared by repayment or

through being voted out.

Yesterday, it was Cecil Rhodes.

Today, it's political donors like Peter

Thiel. Must

we bow

to Peter Thiel

in thanks?

That's for you to decide tonight by your

vote.

Thank you.

>> [applause]