Read on Twitter
Ok. Let's chat about professionalizing fundraising, and why it's problematic.
First off- requiring specific education keeps poor, racialized, Disabled, trans, and other marginalized folks out.
First off- requiring specific education keeps poor, racialized, Disabled, trans, and other marginalized folks out.
How?
Cost- many marginalized people make lower wages, when they're able to get jobs.
Secondly- higher education is an oppressive space. There is racism, ableism, transphobia, etc, in the classes we take. The people we study with. The structures of power.
Cost- many marginalized people make lower wages, when they're able to get jobs.
Secondly- higher education is an oppressive space. There is racism, ableism, transphobia, etc, in the classes we take. The people we study with. The structures of power.
There are also the issues of physical accessibility for Disabled folks, racial discrimination in student selection (can also happen with "ethnic" names), the dangers of finding a washroom of trans/gnc folks.
There is also the issue that marginalized folks are less able to do unpaid or low paid internships in order to gain experience.
I personally did 2 minimally paid internships in non-profits. I was able to manage this with a lot of scrimping, living with roommates, housing subsidy.
I personally did 2 minimally paid internships in non-profits. I was able to manage this with a lot of scrimping, living with roommates, housing subsidy.
The next issue is that turning fundraising into a profession ends up reducing the value of lived experience.
Fundraising can be learned on the job (ask most fundraisers how they got into it!). Lived experience with the marginalizations that many charities "help", cannot be.
Fundraising can be learned on the job (ask most fundraisers how they got into it!). Lived experience with the marginalizations that many charities "help", cannot be.
If you're not valuing lived experience, you're maintaining the status quo of who is welcomed into the field, and maintaining the white saviour complex that runs through the field.
If we're looking at encouraging membership in professional organizations as a mark of a profession, we're again closing the door on marginalized folks.
Professional associations can be extremely oppressive spaces (I could write a whole thread on that).
Professional associations can be extremely oppressive spaces (I could write a whole thread on that).
Conferences are full of white, cis, abled, middle/upper middle class speakers. The practices our field is based on come from old, white, middle/upper middle class people who...learned on the job. And this is what is taught in professional association classes.
And the leadership in professional organizations is often dominated by the same folks-who then also hire people who "fit the culture" aka look like them.
Then we have our various professional designations.
They are based on a standardized test, and like all standardized tests possess certain biases, which disadvantage those who don't fit certain characteristics.
They are based on a standardized test, and like all standardized tests possess certain biases, which disadvantage those who don't fit certain characteristics.
They can also be cost prohibitive, time intensive, and challenging for people with a variety of disabilities.
It comes down to this- many people have learned fundraising on the job, and with attentive hiring, using transferable skills, and excellent on the job training, I believe many more people can.
Professionalization in many fields is unnecessary, as is a way to build a wall between "us" and "them". I think we're better off as a field learning how to welcome in people, help them learn best practice (and challenge it!), and encourage the growth of our field.
