Ex Hubris?
Many advocates of perpetuity say it is not hubris that makes them want to keep their foundations alive. Rather, they do not want to abandon the world they leave behind. "Many conscientious philanthropists say the problems of our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren are going to be just as important in their eras as our problems are now," says Dorothy Riding, president and chief executive officer of the Council on Foundations, which has fought congressional attempts to raise the 5 percent foundation pay-out rate. "I know all of the arguments pro and con. I hear, ‘Well, that’s OK, because other foundations will come along,’ but that’s not a given."

The record indicates philanthropy is not dying out. Two-fifths of all large foundations in existence (with assets of $1 million or more or yearly gifts exceeding $100,000) were created in the 1990s and now account for about one-fifth of total foundation wealth, according to the Foundation Center in New York City. Much of that volume derives from the largest charity in the world, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and much of the rest from the tech boom. It is questionable as to whether the next growth period will generate as much wealth—or as much charity. But Rosenwald never doubted that the economy operates in cycles, and that generosity would surface repeatedly. In a follow-up article published in 1930, at the advent of the Great Depression, he wrote, "We may be confident that if a public need is clearly demonstrated, and a practicable way of meeting that need is shown, society will take care of it in the future." In this way, to spend down one’s foundation requires a profound faith in the future—and enough humility to keep one’s name out of it.

Illustration by Jim Frazier