Deschooling society? Impossible! Mr. Ivan Illich.

The Law, in its majestic equality, compels the child of the rich as well as that of the poor, to be clothed into a uniform since the age of five.

The very few that, later in life, manage to wriggle out of it, depending on the regime of the country they live, are ostracized, imprisoned or executed.

The philanthropist that uses his uniform to hide the proceeds of his anti-sociality and when has accumulated more wealth than he can possibly consume in his life, throws crumbs to his victims; the ones who have been left without enough to keep body and soul together, will, conversely, be honored .

As for Society, our Society, it would be miles better off without blood suckers that go under the name of philanthropists and do-gooders.

Gina Anderson,

If you ever decided to throw off your uniform, you will find refreshing independence and unbound freedom outside the fence of academia.

If you need an incentive, use Google to see the picture of His Excellency, the honorably fattened Gareth Evans.

If you need a motive, try Justice.

In the mean time direct your attention to the curtain of secrecy that, under the name of ‘privacy’, hides the real beneficiaries of the ‘not-for profit-industry'

Philanthropy is a house with many rooms. Much of what is being done under the rubric of social investment is valuable. However it cannot and must not be seen as the only form of philanthropy for all problems that society faces. An excellent article "Don’t Let Conventional Measurement Wisdom Fragment Your Impact" in Stanford Innovation Review poses a counter argument to some of what the advocates of social investment argue. Not all positive outcomes are measurable. Ask yourself who have been the great agents of social change in your lifetime. How would you have quantified their impact?

A tough topic to fit into a page, Ms Anderson, but good on you for trying.

First up, though, I don't think it is a good idea to link the concept of philanthropy with Porter and Kramer's "Shared Value" essay. The two may ultimately address similar issues, but their approach is diametrically opposite.

Porter's idea ultimately, is that businesses ditch the notion that financial profit is the basic determinant of a company's success. It is so revolutionary, that it will take several more decades before it seeps into the fabric of industry. And then, only because it becomes a survival strategy, not because it makes common, human sense.

A quick glance through the comments that follow the article's precis give an indication of the mountain yet to be climbed.

http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value

Here's the very first reaction, from one Joseph M. Galante:

"Shared Values – are you kidding? Shared Value is nothing more than 21st century cheerleading. Good corporate citizenship…blah, blah, blah. Business has only one requirement. That requirement is to make a profit. Business is not in business to save the environment or create jobs."

Philanthropy - charity, that is - addresses the imbalance that has already been created by the Galantes of this world. Bill Gates is a classic example; having made a huge fortune from a product that extracted excessive rents from the rest of industry (and drove the rest of us to distraction), he now dedicates his time to a form of public penance.

Don't get me wrong, I admire him for it. It's just that if he had built Shared Value concepts into his business model twenty years ago, the money siphoned off in the intervening years could arguably have done more good, earlier. Especially if the customers who paid that excess rent were also working along the same lines.

But there are more - many more - people who currently think along the same lines as Mr Galante. Until that changes, philanthropy will continue to be an afterthought.

And, even more sadly, charity will continue to be "just another business".

"As seen on TV"