Middlebury is Not a Charity

“Middlebury is not a charity.”

Critics of Go/Refuge, the movement for the College to take an active role in the world refugee crisis, have presented this argument. The criticism, though not yet fully elaborated, seems to base itself on the idea that an institution of higher education’s only obligation is to itself, and that helping the 110,000 displaced refugee students is extraneous. That resources are better distributed to other goals than the worst refugee crisis since Hitler’s time; that the greatest humanitarian disaster since the Cold War is not deserving of higher education’s funds; that aid is “not Middlebury’s job.”

I happen to agree: Middlebury is not a charity. Since our Vermont home is a refuge to a Center for Social Entrepreneurship, we can appreciate notable social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus’ words on “charity:”

“Charity becomes a way to shrug off our responsibility… Charity only perpetuates poverty by taking the initiative away from the poor. Charity allows us to go ahead with our own lives without worrying about the lives of the poor. Charity appeases our consciences.”

The crux of Yunus’ argument is that charity risks helping the donor more than the recipient. Charity can be a one-time toss after which the donor can technically cease to care but convince themselves they do. Donors can happily forget all about cancer research, or African children, or poverty or refugees, when they’re done. They can pat themselves on the back. Most philanthropists do not, fortunately, because they are motivated out of more than their self-interest. Charity, although beneficial, is only one step toward comprehensive solutions that philanthropists and communities seek.

Middlebury is not a charity. It’s an institution of higher education armed with a purpose to “cultivate … the qualities essential to leadership in a rapidly changing global community,” pursuing the implementation of what President Patton coined, “diversity as an everyday ethic.” The fusion of these two moral missions is embedded in Middlebury’s self-concept, repeated or implied in every official action, every administrative speech. Since both missions are long-term and aimed at empowerment, both qualify as extensions beyond charity. Empowerment is the opposite of “taking the initiative away from the poor.” As a result, charity falls short of Middlebury’s purposes.

Middlebury is not a charity. For that reason, I am certain that our administration will take part in the growing comprehensive solution to the world refugee crisis, as Go/Refuge urges. Helping displaced refugees is the most critical and logical step Middlebury can undertake to live its purposes. If it does not, then it “cultivates … the qualities essential to leadership in a rapidly changing global community” without acknowledging the global community’s greatest challenge. If it does not, then it pursues “diversity as an everyday ethic” without behaving ethically on a world stage while many of its peers do.

If it does not, then Middlebury College risks hypocrisy.