Advertisement

Strings on gifts a knotty problem

June 05, 2008|By DAN RODRICKS

Now, instead of having no publicity for his gesture, Howard Castleman, the dealership owner, has a dose of bad publicity. And he did himself no service with his quotes in The Sun of Tuesday, saying that his experience with Patterson would also end his involvement in an annual Christmas party for poor kids. "I'll never, ever, ever give money again. This is it. I'll never have another Christmas party for these kids. It doesn't pay."

Doesn't pay.

Pardon me while I have an interlude.

Advertisement

Two years ago, an acquaintance made a generous gift to a nonprofit with which I'm involved. His gift was anonymous, which seemed to be in keeping with the nonprofit's embrace of charity and humility. Still, the donor's identity was no secret; these things have a way of becoming known within organizations.

Ultimately, however, the giver identified himself publicly, something he had every right to do, but something that, at the time, came across as obnoxious own-horn blowing, ego trumping humility.

I mentioned this to a Jewish friend, who pointed me to one of the central tenets of Judaism - tzedakah. This refers to the obligation to give to charity and perform acts of philanthropy, foundations of a rich spiritual life. The medieval rabbi and philosopher, Maimonides, created a kind of Tzedakah Top Ten, listing forms of charity from greatest to weakest.

Near the top, coming in at third, is giving anonymously to some deserving person known to the giver.

The second highest form of tzedakah is giving anonymously to a deserving person unknown to the giver. (No. 1 is helping a poor person in a way that leads them to a life without a need for charity.)

So Maimonides held anonymity of the giver in the highest regard.

In my book, there's nothing wrong with recognition for charitable giving and deeds; it just shouldn't be the givers primary motivation.

But that's exactly the opposite of the proposed Castle Scion/Toyota scholarships - they appear to have been conditioned on publicity.

Brother.

You have to wonder what Howard Castleman expected. Television news coverage and a front-page story in The Sun for a $8,400 donation? His company's donation might have warranted a story and photo in the Baltimore Guide, but probably not much beyond that.

Such recognition could have been achieved despite D'Anna's concern about the awards ceremony being turned into a "media circus." It's hard to believe that would have happened.

Now, after taking some heat, Castleman's wife has offered to make the donations to the Patterson students, but D'Anna told them, in so many words, to take a hike.

That's too bad. Here are grown ups who had a win-win within their grasp, and they've turned it into a lose-lose. Maimonides would not be pleased.

dan.rodricks@baltsun.com

Dan Rodricks can be heard on Midday, Mondays through Thursdays, noon to 2 p.m., on 88.1, WYPR-FM.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|