Martin Levine writes in the Nonprofit Quarterly about the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, expressing his concerns about transparency and democratic values.
The concern has been that in structuring such a large commitment as an LLC rather than as a trust or another form of charitable gift, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg upset the norms that have protected the public interest. In an earlier NPQ story, I raised this concern directly, writing that What Zuckerberg and Chan have done is more an act of investing in themselves than a decision to give away their assets. It privatizes the way these funds will be directed and minimizes the public’s control of how charitable dollars are spent. In a time when there is a growing concentration of wealth in the United States, as illustrated by a study recently published by the D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, the difference this makes presents a great danger to our nation’s civil society in general and to the nonprofit sector.
Levine asks the important questions about CZI:
Will Chan and Zuckerberg see the value of openness and democracy? Will they recognize the difference between the public and private sectors? Or as successful entrepreneurs, will they see no need for public checks and balances? With each step forward by CZI it appears that they see themselves as capable of balancing public and private interests with little input from the public. They are asking us to trust their good intent and their ability to protect the common good. Despite their being smart, successful, and generous, this does not bode well.
This young couple is worth about $50 billion, more or less. Because of Z’s success as a tech entrepreneur, many fear that CZI will put more money into “personalized learning,” meaning “depersonalized learning,” or replacing human teachers with machines. As with all such projects started by billionaires, we wonder, who elected them to redesign our public schools?
Open the article to see the picture of Mark Z.
I don’t mean to engage in “lookism,” but I can’t help but think “middle school” when I see him.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“They are asking us to trust their good intent….”
Remind me what the road to hell is paved with?
Anyway, I’m still don’t even see a reason to trust that their intent is, in fact, good. I know this gets bandied about a lot around here, but the Maya Angelou quote remains relevant: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, we need to understand that the Zuckerberg Chan invasion of public districts is driven remorseless, dynastic greed, or we can’t fight them. “Summit” isn’t good intentions gone awry.
LikeLike
Look what he did in Newark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOOK, and remember, and make it repeatedly public; those who suffered in the train-wreck of Newark deserve more than the fact that rich “do-gooders” simply say oops and move on.
LikeLike
Trust but villify!
LikeLike
http://theconversation.com/students-test-scores-tell-us-more-about-the-community-they-live-in-than-what-they-know-77934?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20myth%20of%20screen%20timeLatest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%205%202017%20-%2077806162&utm_content=The%20myth%20of%20screen%20timeLatest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%205%202017%20-%2077806162+CID_d5ba6594793b5364a58d5094a94e1314&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Students%20test%20scores%20tell%20us%20more%20about%20the%20community%20they%20live%20in%20than%20what%20they%20know
LikeLike
I would never trust anyone that uses an LLC as “charity.” Zuckerberg-Chan are seeking ROI for an opportunity to insert themselves into public policy over which the public has no say. I also believe these types of arrangements lead to collusion between the 1% and the government. The more the billionaires insert themselves the less obliged the government feels to serve the “Common Good.” Public education must be a common good, not a for profit entity, which will serve the corporation first seeking ROI and profit for investors. This does not make for good policy for our young people. Our young people must be the reasons we make decisions about education, not for political or economic gain. Subjecting education to the marketplace has resulted in a disinvestment in our public education. Despite a healing economy, complicit governors deliberately slash school budgets, make deals with corporations in order to destroy the public institution of public schools. If this is not illegal, we should call it what it is: IMMORAL!
LikeLike
During the early days of Facebook, Zuckerberg was asked by an incredulous fellow Harvard student if people were actually supplying him with their personal information. His answer was, “Yeah, the dumb f&$#s.”
That should tell us all we need to know.
As for Ms. Chan, I’ve asked this question before, which is, Is this woman even a practicing physician anymore? My sense is that she got the license, had a cup of coffee as a doctor, and is now busy trying to be the human face of her and her cyborg husband’s for-profit “philanthropy.”
LikeLike
I do NOT trust Zuckerberg and his wife, Chan. They sued the people of Kaua’i over Rights of Way and Kuleana (responsibility) Laws of the Hawai’i. Who does this? Granted Zuckerberg took back his law suit, but the “poor” locals had to pay a huge price ($$$$$ they do not have).
I find Zuckerberg and Chan to be reprehensible and just billionaires. I really have no respect for billionaires at all. Their egos are huge and so is their GREED for $$$$$$ and power. It’s GROSS.
LikeLike
I am sure you are aware, but i would point out that he only withdrew the Hawaii lawsuit because of all the negative publicity he was getting.
Zuckerberg has been unethical since day one in his business dealings.
Why anyone would trust him on anything is a mystery wrapped in an enigma contained within a nested Russiasn doll.
LikeLike
The only way I would feel comfortable participating in their plan would be to have Professor Ravitch in on the decision making, teachers from public schools, parents and students involved in the process.
LikeLike
I do not think that any of the Chan/Zuckerberg Initiatives in education will be made with attention to the relevant risks, benefits, and uncertainties for students, teachers, or parents/guardians/much less the welfare of the nation.
They seem to regard students as lab rats or guinea pigs, with parental consent off the table for their entrepreneurial activities.
In education, they ask the question: “Can today’s children learn and experience 100 times more than we did? …We believe the answer is Yes.”
They are looking for breakthroughs, as if learning in human can be rushed into existence, accelerated. They are looking at learning as a quantity as if nothing else mattered than data points, not the underlying meaning and significance of what is learned.
“We focus on developing breakthrough products and practices that address the needs of each student, bringing together the best teachers, researchers, advocates and engineers to tackle pressing problems and growing a movement to support the development and broad adoption of powerful personalized learning solutions.” …The Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative is uniquely positioned to design, build and scale software systems to help…teachers bring personalized learning tools into hundreds of schools. From the website: https://chanzuckerberg.com/initiatives
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is organized as an LLC, a structure that allows for profit-seeking investments (e.g., software), and advocacy (e.g., Education Funders Group) and philanthropy.
As a physician, Chan is well aware of informed consent as a principle in her work. So far, there is no evidence that she and Mark Zuckerberg are even thinking about the ethical dimensions of their work in education, especially as it bears on public education.
The President of the Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative in education is James H. Shelton, III, former Assistant Deputy Secretary of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education. This is another clear signal that profits will be the driver of the Chan/Zuckerberg initiative.
Shelton served as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Innovation and Improvement under a very detailed “ethics waiver.” The waiver was multifaceted because Shelton had also served for five years as an executive with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Shelton was also well connected with venture capitalists, had worked at McKinsey& Co., and managed charter school startups. His credentials in education are actually as “thin of substance as the air”–Shakespeare. Shelton shoveled grants to the tech industry for “innovations.” See more about his ethics waiver under the Obama administration here: http://www.schoolsmatter.info/search?q=ethics+waivers
There are other examples of this revolving door between former USDE officials, their favorite “partnerships with business,” and billionaire-led initiatives in education.
Arne Duncan has become a managing partner of the Emerson Collective, organized by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple’s co-founder, Steve Jobs. The Emerson Collective also has an LLC structure that allows for profit-seeking investments, and advocacy, and philanthropy.
Duncan, of course, became famous for bad-mouthing of parents who wanted to opt out of testing to say nothing of other and workers in education, especially teachers. He had no experience in public schools or teaching (except tutoring) and during his eight years as Superintendent of Chicago Schools, starting in 2001, had little to show except failure masked by simple-minded managerial schemes: close schools, fire staff, move students around like pieces on a chessboard, alienate teachers, and so on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mercedes-schneider/school-ironies-the-fizzle_b_6504252.html
The concept of “do no harm” should be front and center with these billionaires and others (including too many educators) who think nothing is wrong with delivering “interventions,” especially software and gadgets into schools, for testing, tweaking, profit seeking, and mind-filling exercises.
LikeLike
Zuckerberg & Chan= Bill & Melinda.
Villainthropists, all, & ignorant meddlers, to boot, who want to experiment on other people’s children.
By now, everyone reading this blog must’ve heard about the story of company workers who were asked to have microchips inserted in their hands, supposedly to make their lives easier. Horrifying…something out of sci-fi.
LikeLike