Vision-based planning

Mission-centered marketing

Social Justice: Fair and equal treatment for all in social systems; often concerned with equality with respect to race or class.

“With liberty and justice for all.” The idea of social justice is deeply rooted in the origins and history of the United States. At the same time, the reality of pervasive justice has only gradually evolved over the course of that history. Moving from enfranchisement limited to free, white, male, landowners, the “blessings of liberty” have gradually opened to broader elements of the population. The tension between the vision of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all and the reality of lived experience has been at the core of political and social dialogue throughout our history. The “Founding Fathers” split the difference in creating a popularly elected House of Representatives and a Senate elected not by the people but the Senates of the individual states. Its supporters assumed that this approach to the Senate would provide a safety valve limiting the ephemeral passions of the masses (of free, white, male landowners). It is instructive to realize that direct election of U. S. Senators did not occur until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1914—only 90 years ago and over 135 years after the adoption of the Constitution.

Yet it is the vision of justice that inspires and binds together most citizens of our country and it is this vision, however removed from reality, that has provided the U.S. with the moral authority it has from time to time enjoyed in the community of nations. Acknowledging that the state of social justice in our country has evolved over time and that it is not today as comprehensive as it should be does not seriously diminish the worth of a nation dedicated to such ideals. A distance exists between beliefs and actions in all humans and human institutions. It should, however, continue to serve as a call to improve.

The process for improvement must be rooted in the institutions through which collective action are channeled. At this moment in our history there are three that constitute the vast majority of social enterprise: for-profit corporations, the government, and not-for-profit agencies (sometimes called the Third Sector). Yet in each of these there are structural impediments to the pursuit of social justice, and it is that fact with which this paper is concerned.

For-Profit Corporations
There is no one who would suggest that the for-profit business sector is the engine through which the pursuit of social justice should be carried out. Nevertheless, an examination of its basic structure will serve as a good introduction to the topic. This sector is organized for the pursuit of profit. The central moral premise held in a capitalist economy is that enlightened self-interest will create a rising tide that lifts all boats. There is merit in that argument in the abstract; however, the structure through which capitalist enterprise is carried out in the U.S. today has some features that serve to mitigate that effect.

Public stock ownership of large corporations has put those in control of corporate decisions in a position removed from the responsibility for corporate actions. Stockholders’ primary interest is in profit–dividends and capital gains. To point this out is not a moral condemnation of the system, merely a statement of fact. This has led, especially over the last fifty years, to a fixation on short-term results. Quarterly financial statements must show profit and the promise of more or the jobs of executives leading the company will be placed in jeopardy. Many economic analysts see this as detrimental even to business interest in that it discourages investment in things that would yield substantial gains in the future but would do nothing to improve performance results immediately.

In addition, arms-length ownership makes concern for the moral implications of corporate actions, except in truly egregious cases, at best a secondary concern, and sometimes not even in egregious cases. It is the structure of the corporation that makes this so. The notable examples of corporations acting on behalf of social justice are driven by exceptional dynamic executives. They are generally individuals of considerable stature in the corporate culture (founders, heirs, or corporate stars) who make use of their authority to pursue personally held beliefs. To understand the exceptional nature of such individuals, one need only imagine the reaction of stockholders to a less respected leader who suggested acting in ways that took away from the bottom line for the sake of interests that lay outside the purview of the corporation.

Furthermore, for-profit corporations are legal entities that have, through court readings of the Fourteenth Amendment, been given the rights of individual human beings but do not, as corporate entities, possess the conscience (or at least suffer the moral dilemmas) that individuals do. At the same time, corporations are not accountable in the way that human beings are. Currently, a murderer can be put to death in our society. There is no comparable punishment that can be meted out to a corporation that is responsible for murder.

It is not a slander upon the institution of the corporation to point these things out. There is nothing inherent in its structure that serves to support the ends of social justice. Those corporations that do so are being steered upstream of their natural state. Awareness of the system simply aids in understanding the corporation’s role (or lack thereof) in the pursuit of justice.

Government
Ideally, it is the government that should be most involved in ensuring social justice, and, to a large extent, that is the case. However, ensuring justice for those without wealth or power means advocating for minority constituencies. In the abstract, minority concerns are at risk in a democratic society. It is, after all, the majority that, at least in theory, has the final say in democratic decision-making. For this reason, many citizens of the original thirteen colonies demanded the Bill of Rights as a precondition to their support of the Constitution.

But this problem is exacerbated by the reality of democratic processes. All governments are magnets for and sources of wealth and power. This has been no more (and sometimes less) true in the United States than in other countries of the modern era. The interests of those privileged with wealth and power are disproportionately represented in getting individuals elected to office and, inevitably, in governmental decisions. This is demonstrated today in the enormous amount of money required for success in politics and the influence that candidates’ financial supporters enjoy. While those with wealth and power may well be concerned with the situation of the poor and powerless, that sensibility requires swimming upstream of the natural system in the same way as the corporate executive championing social causes.

To a large extent, concern for social justice does play a prominent part in public life in the United States. That is in no small way a tribute to the passion for justice shared by its citizens. However, as history has demonstrated, significant blindspots have existed and continue to exist. This is true both because of the inherent nature of the democratic process and the practical relationships between governments and those with power.

Not-for-Profit Corporations
The last fifty years have seen the rise of legally constituted organizations that have taken on the role of the voluntary charitable associations of earlier times. These 501(c)(3) institutions exist for the sole purpose of pursuing missions that serve the public good. They have the luxury of being able to focus on the concerns of minority and under-served populations. It is these entities that should be expected to serve as the engines powering social justice movements and, in the main, they are. The proliferation of not-for-profits in the face of government service cutbacks of the 1980’s serves as a demonstration of this point.

Nevertheless, even the Third Sector has structural elements that can limit its responsiveness to social justice. In both governance and funding, it has considerable dependence upon those with power. Not-for-profits are often organized by people outside of the constituency being served, people who have become sensitized to a justice need. While not common, there is a danger of paternalism in such cases.

Not-for-profits are led by Boards of Directors, volunteers whose responsibility is ensuring that the organization serves the public good. The long-standing tradition has been that those Boards should be populated by individuals with money and power. This has largely been the result of the need to secure funds from private donors. Wealthy board members are in a position to give money themselves and to encourage their friends to do so as well. Plus, it is easier to raise money from others if it can be demonstrated that the members of the governing body give substantially. This means that the decision-making process of not-for-profits, entities often devoted to redressing social injustices, is run by people who come from the social, economic, and/or political elite—the group(s) that are at least to some extent responsible for the injustice. Make no mistake, the overwhelming majority of Directors governing not-for-profits are passionately committed to the causes that their organizations serve. It is that passion which compels them to swim upstream of the structural tendencies of the for-profit world and majority political interests. At the same time, theirs is usually not the experience of the communities being served. Their world-view is not that of the constituencies living with a lack of justice. Blindspots exist when people do not know they do not know what other lives are like. It is a tragedy when well-meaning Boards implement policies that are counter-productive to the interests of their constituencies. Well-meaning assistance provided in a way that undermines the self-respect of the recipient is no contribution to the cause of social justice. It is equally unfortunate when Boards reject constituent suggestions because they run counter to the deeply-held convictions of the Board members. It is not a stretch to imagine the Board of a public school advocacy organization rejecting, without serious consideration, a proposal for redistributing PTA funds across a school district because it seems too much like socialism.

The Third Sector demonstrates admirable vigilance in seeking to combat the natural tendencies fostered by the conundrum of its funding. It is in areas where unacknowledged conflicts between governance and mission exist that care must be taken. Progress is being made in efforts to include the voices of constituents in Boards of Directors. Nevertheless, private funding of not-for-profits will always mean that the point of view of those with power will be structurally privileged over other views.

Conclusion
The central problem is that social injustice is rooted in lack of access to money and power. The solution to social concerns lies in institutions and virtually every human institution is supported, to one extent or another, by those with money and power. This is the paradox of social justice.

One solution would be to investigate alternative institutions. Some exciting work has been done in community grassroots organizing. Saul Alinsky’s “Back of the Yards” prototype that generated the Industrial Areas Foundation and the community organizations created from it provides one example. There is much to recommend the strength of moving from the bottom up in creating social change.

Coop business enterprise as an alternative to the for-profit corporate model is also worth considering. People working together in a business that they all “own” keeps the actions of the business directly tied to the humanity of those who run it. (It also keeps the business small, relatively speaking.)

Still, for the foreseeable future, most work for social justice will take place in the three sectors considered here. We as a nation, in exchange for the remarkable benefit given to corporations recognized as having Fourteenth Amendment rights, should demand accountability for their actions and demand the creation of a culture of true corporate responsibility. Social critics have said that in the 1980’s corporate executives lost their sense of shame for financial excess. The result was obscenely high CEO salaries and the debacles that Enron and Worldcom represent. It is possible for those outside a system to create such a clamor that standards of decency inside are compelled to change.

In the political realm we need to consider means to limit the influence of money on government. Campaign finance reform does and will help. However, money plays such a huge role in campaigns today that finance reform by itself will not suffice. While money will always find paths to power, public financing of political campaigns may represent a solution.

Those concerned with social justice must be part of the political process, highlighting the depth and breadth of existing injustice. The citizens of this country, for the most part, have generous hearts. The success of voices opposing social and economic change lies in their ability to hide from the bulk of the public the extent of the problems that exist in our society. To be sure, no one wants to know that evils exist in their own back yard, but people of good will do respond when confronted with the reality of their neighbors’ pain.

The Third Sector should continue to be the prime mover in fostering social justice. It is today and it will continue to be so. The welcome addition of constituent voices on Boards of Directors holds great promise. The willing hearts of “traditional” well-to-do Board members means that they should only need to be made aware that their own status places limitations upon them—limitations in evaluating programs and in understanding the needs of those they serve. This sort of education should bear immediate fruit. Their service is rooted in commitment to mission. Awareness of this potential blindspot can be expected to be its own cure.

Return to top of page