Pipe Dream interviewed the four speakers featured at this year’s TEDxBinghamtonUniversity event, themed “Refractions,” which centered around the exploration of unique ideas and new perspectives.
Clay Jeon, a sophomore majoring in philosophy, politics and law, focused his talk on philanthropy and charitable giving. He is a part of the Dickinson Town Council’s E-Board, the New York Public Interest Research Group, the Binghamton Policy Project and the Pre-Law Education Organization. His interview responses have been slightly edited for clarity.
Q: You said your speech is about how we should feel compelled to give to others. Can you tell me a bit about that?
A: “Primarily, I want to discuss one impetus for why we should feel the need to give to others more, at least more than we’re doing now. I know that the total amount of people that have been giving, in the United States at least, has been falling although total donations are up. It just means that there are fewer individual people who are feeling compelled to give, and I think that is a very bad sign for our country and also our democracy, but more so as a society.
There is a natural inclination for people to want to help one another, but the fact that we’re reverting away from that doesn’t necessarily mean that that inclination is going away. People are feeling like giving, or charitable giving, is not the right means to do that, or they feel like it’s ineffective.”
Q: Why do you think that is?
A: “I think people are feeling very disillusioned with our societal infrastructure. One thing that I’ve noticed recently is a lot of people are very distrusting of our existing systems, and that applies to a lot of things, like media and government and even higher education — although higher education is one of the more trusted institutions — these days, people are very untrusting of large institutions in general.
Perhaps charity is one of those, and people may see it as ineffective. It’s a complicated issue, there’s definitely not just one reason why people are deciding to give less. Maybe people just are feeling less compelled, but I’m sure it’s some combination of distrust in institutions and feeling like giving is ineffective.
It’s also maybe a shift more towards this tribalistic view. There’s a lot of rhetoric these days about ‘America First’ or ‘We gotta protect our own country’s interests first, over anything else.’ I think that isolated view really restricts how we view helping other people, especially considering that a lot of the most effective help is primarily distributed to impoverished countries that are not in North America or Europe.”
Q: When you talk about giving and philanthropy, is there a specific type that you’re talking about, like foreign aid, or are you talking about all kinds of philanthropy?
A: “It’s a little bit of a nuanced issue. I talk about effective altruism, which is an idea by Peter Singer, who’s a philosopher, who discusses how, like the name suggests, we can be the most effective in our giving. He suggests that we should give primarily to areas that are the most impoverished and the most desolate because that’s where each dollar has a much greater impact. In areas where people are not even making $2 a day, giving $2 is a really big deal, as opposed to giving $2 somewhere in a developed country. So in that sense, I bring up his idea to get people thinking about how we can give effectively.
But at the same time, I don’t want to endorse his philosophy wholly because I think there’s more to it. By no means am I saying it’s an end-all, be-all, or it’s the philosophy that I’m prescribing, but I am bringing it up because I think there are a lot of valuable things we can learn from it.
Giving is a very personal thing. For example, Singer argues that we shouldn’t be giving money to help charities that help train guide dogs for the visually impaired because it costs an immense amount of money to train a guide dog — upward of $40,000, $50,000 — versus if we paid $100, we can buy preventative treatments or medicines, for people in impoverished countries, to prevent against trachoma, which causes blindness.
So he’s saying that by diverting our money to something like that, we can prevent a lot more and solve a lot more, just numbers-wise, than training a guide dog. That’s not something I bring up in the talk, necessarily, but that’s just a general foundation of his philosophy — that we should be giving to the most effective charities.
I really just bring up effective altruism to get people thinking about why we should feel compelled to give and why we should feel like we should give in general. But I also mention in my speech that giving can mean a lot of different things. Even if you are showing your empathy toward somebody, even if you spend an hour of your time to listen to somebody, that’s a way of giving also.”
Q: You’re saying giving doesn’t just have to be money?
A: “Yeah, it could be our skills, our experiences, our knowledge, our empathy, our research, anything. I want to embrace a more broad definition of giving and philanthropy so that more people feel like they are philanthropists and that they can do what philanthropy prescribes.
Philanthropy, in the traditional sense, might seem very elitist — it seems like something Bill Gates does, or only people with billions of dollars. I bring up effective altruism to point out that even $5 can make a very significant difference when you put it into areas or people that really need that $2 or $5.
At the same time, I don’t think we should put a ban on giving to less effective charities because, for the most part, all charities do very good work. I think you can make a good argument to provide support for the arts or support for more social issues, like LGBTQ rights or women’s rights, rather than basic needs, like ensuring that people survive. Of course, ensuring that people survive is very important — I’m not saying that that’s not important — but I think there’s more to it.
Giving can mean a lot of different things, and I think that just having the intent of wanting to give is a perfectly good step in the right direction, especially considering that a lot of people haven’t even gotten to that point.”
Q: Tell me about the inspiration for your subject.
A: “In my freshman year, I took a class, with Professor David Campbell — he’s a PPL professor — called Philanthropy and Civil Society. In that class, we spent the whole semester really diving deep into what it means to give to other people, what it means to be part of a community and a society, and how we can integrate giving into our lives. That class was really helpful in making me realize the importance of giving, not only in a practical sense but also in a more symbolic or figurative sense — what it means to want to contribute or give to others and feel connected to others. I would say academically, at least, that was probably my primary inspiration. I think that class is fantastic. I highly recommend it for everybody whether a PPL major or not.
Also, more broadly, a lot of my extracurricular work has been working with low-income areas around Broome County. I’m part of NYPIRG, which is the New York Public Interest Research Group, and within the higher education campaign, we had a tutoring program last year where we would go to the Union-Endicott middle school and high school and tutor kids there every Friday. A lot of the kids there had some difficult times with school for a variety of reasons. It could be issues at home, or issues with family, or basic needs, or whatever the case is. I think interacting with those kids made me realize that this is not just some far-off issue on the other side of the world.
I think distance is, at least intuitively, something that’s very difficult for people to reconcile with. When something’s physically far away, it’s easy to ignore it, obviously. There’s that common phrase, ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ So having face-to-face interaction with people who are struggling, really made me feel like I should do something.
That’s also something that Singer talks about, too. That’s a big part of his philosophy — that most of us would save somebody if they were in trouble right in front of us, but when somebody’s across the world, it feels less important to do so, at least from an intuitive sense, and he’s trying to get at why that is. I think that’s an important question to ask.”
Q: What do you want listeners to take away from your speech?
A: “The No. 1 thing is that I really don’t want people to think that there’s any right way of giving. Obviously, with very few exceptions, but for the most part, if you have the intent to want to contribute, to want to give, to others, those who you feel need it. I think just the fact that you’re thinking of that is important, and you should act on it in whatever way that you see fit.
Am I saying you should only donate to causes that prevent preventable diseases like malaria and measles? Those are highly important, of course, and often, they are highly effective charities because they can save the most lives with the least amount of money. This is a very utilitarian approach to it. That’s perfectly reasonable, but if you also want to donate money to construct a sculpture for an important social figure that you think is important, that’s also philanthropy. Just because it’s not as effective, in the Peter Singer sense, I don’t think that has to mean that it’s not valuable.
Essentially, what I want people to take away is that giving is a lot broader than people think, and it’s a lot easier than people think. I touched a lot upon the broader aspect — it could be anything — but in the easier sense, I think the No. 1 thing people feel when you ask them to give is, ‘What is my $5 really gonna do?’ People feel disconnected from it, and obviously, there’s no easy way to reconcile that. That’s just how it is. It’s a hard fact that when you’re donating through some mechanism, as opposed to helping somebody directly, you’re removing the personal element of it. But even $2 certainly has the potential to save somebody’s life.
For example, the Against Malaria Foundation uses all of its donations to purchase nets for families in impoverished areas that protect them against mosquitos that carry malaria. In impoverished areas, malaria is a very deadly disease because there are often not enough resources to provide hospital treatment. Just $2 can provide a net that protects at least one person against malaria, which could inevitably save their lives, so even $2 can certainly make a difference. My point is that philanthropy is a lot easier than people think it is, and it’s also a lot more accessible than people think it is, as long as we reshape how we define it.”
Q: Can you tell me a bit about the philanthropy you’re doing in your personal life?
A: “In my time here, I’ve tried to pursue as many different avenues of philanthropy as I can because I think as a college student, you have more time — there’s no better time to pursue items that are more to your interest, or more your passions, as opposed to the most effective or efficient charity.
For example, I mentioned NYPIRG. We ran a tutoring program all last year — I consider that a means of philanthropy. I’m also part of the Binghamton Policy Project. In that club, we spend the whole academic year basically writing up policy proposals aimed at different areas of campus life These include environmental protections, the criminal justice system, protections for undocumented students, community engagement, etc.
Last year, our community engagement group was actually able to create a new UNIV 101 class called “Making Binghamton Your Home.” That class allows students to learn about the history of Binghamton and Broome County, the context of it, and what Binghamton’s needs are — where it came from. It connects students with ways to be more engaged in their community, and in that way, I also see that as philanthropy.
More directly, I donate to Meals, which is a nonprofit in the Maine-Endwell School District. It’s run by a teacher at the high school, and essentially, they provide meals and food for students who don’t have access to a regular supply of food. That’s probably my most traditional philanthropy, giving money to that organization because it really speaks to me. It’s not fully comprehensive, but my point is I’m trying to just pursue different kinds of philanthropy, whether that’s doing research or actually donating money or volunteering my time — I think those are all ways that I’ve tried to contribute.”
Q: In the future, as you move through your career at Binghamton and in the world, what do you want to do next philanthropically and in general?
A: “My goal right now is to go to law school, but more broadly in terms of philanthropy, I hope that I can continue to contribute in two different senses. In one way, I do see Peter Singer’s philosophy as very convincing, so hopefully, I can give to those effective charities and try to be efficient in how I give my money. At the same time, I also want to try to get other people to realize that philanthropy is much more open than we think.
As people get older, they tend to have less time but more money. As you grow out of being in college, your primary means of giving is probably through money, that’s the case for most people. Hopefully, I can contribute to projects that I think are very valuable — even in an artistic sense or a more symbolic sense, rather than a logistical one — and I hopefully can give back to Binghamton students, in particular, that I think are pursuing interesting initiatives.”