Celebrity charity stirs controversy
3/1/07 -- CARISSA MARSH -- A&E Editor Some say there is no such thing
as a good deed, and that altruism is dead. But these cynical views have not
stopped people from donating, volunteering or, if you’re Oprah Winfrey, building
an extravagant $40 million school in South Africa.
The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls opened in January. The talk show
diva
handpicked 152 young girls out of 3,500 applicants to attend her school, just 40
miles
south of Johannesburg.
While most people would not cast stones at Oprah for building a school that will
help
hundreds of poor girls who would otherwise not get an education, some are
skeptical
about the specifics.
According to MSNBC, Oprah spent the past five years developing plans for the
school.
And in classic Oprah style, she had big, extravagant plans for the project.
Set on 22 acres, the complex boasts 28 buildings featuring oversize rooms
reminiscent of
five-star hotels. The resort-like campus also includes a yoga studio, beauty
salon, indoor
and outdoor theaters, hundreds of pieces of original tribal art and colorfully
tiled sidewalks.
This seems a bit much for impoverished African girls. Had the yoga studio been
left out, I
think they would have hardly missed it. Sadly, just the idea of running water
and a safe,
clean place to sleep is a huge step up from the living conditions in South
Africa.
In fact, the South African government planned to collaborate with Oprah in
building the
school but backed out as news outlets began reporting criticism that the
luxurious
academy would be too “elitist” for such a poor country.
Of course the media mogul shoos away any criticism that she has gone overboard.
Money
is no object, and she said the girls deserve the best.
Still, it is hard to ignore the sinking feeling that celebrity charity is not at
least partly for
show. Oprah could be called the biggest do-gooder in the world— a modern day
Mother
Teresa— but her media visibility puts her generosity on display, leaving it open
to praise
and criticism. Suddenly a charitable action looks like a publicity stunt.
Oprah’s giving spirit should not be discounted and it would be impossible for
her to avoid
scrutiny, but she could take it down a notch.
Better yet, the funds used to build the yoga studio and beauty salon could have
been used
to build another school, a well or a clinic. Though Oprah was quoted saying it
takes $50
million to build a good school, I would hazard to guess a school could be built
for less,
freeing up more of Oprah’s checkbook to finance other good deeds, or admit more
deserving applicants.
Oprah’s buddy Bono is also in on the celebrity charity trend. He created the new
(RED)
campaign that works to fight AIDS in Africa by appealing to our nation’s
materialism. When
consumers purchase (RED) products— such as Motorola phones, Gap T-shirts and
Apple
iPods— part of the profits is used to buy and distribute anti-retroviral
medicines in Africa.
I will give it to Bono, this is a smart business model that will work because
Americans love
to spend and can’t pass up a new trend. But it’s disturbing that in order for
people to
donate they need to get something in return. It is convenience charity and the
American
public is a good target audience.
Just $10 from every $200 iPod purchase goes to buying life-saving drugs. People
should
be able to donate $10 on their own, or forgo getting the latest thing and
instead put all
$200 to good use.
At the end of the day, I believe helping others, no matter what the motive, is
all that really
matters but it is still something to think about. Compassion and goodwill are
not dead, but I
would like to see a return to true altruism.
