I'm all in favor of supporting fancy museums and elite schools, but face it: These aren't really charities as most people understand the term.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Most philanthropists would still rather donate to elite schools, concert halls or religious groups than help the poor or sick.
Charities are really good. To a certain extent, the ones you pick are arbitrary.
But there are many, and I'm a supporter of a great deal of charities.
My charitable donations go to educational efforts, such as Teach for America, Vanderbilt University, Berkshire School.
If you're an enthusiast and you love the world like I do, it comes naturally. But I think charity must become more fun to give, more interactive and imaginative.
Charity work is very important to me and gives me an opportunity to give back to my community. I've always been a big supporter of many different charities, have donated millions of dollars to them, and it just feels great to do and be able to help others, especially children.
Strangely, charity sometimes gets dismissed, as if it is ineffective, inappropriate or even somehow demeaning to the recipient. 'This isn't charity,' some donors take pains to claim, 'This is an investment.' Let us recognize charity for what it is at heart: a noble enterprise aimed at bettering the human condition.
Too often in our communities many families have not even been aware that certain charities exist; and at the same time, there are many who are willing to volunteer their energy and their resources to help these charities, yet they do not know these charities even exist.
Charity is a fine thing if it's meeting a gap where needs must be met and there are no other resources. But in the long term we need to support people into helping themselves.
I have a soft spot for charities that help children.
No opposing quotes found.