Staff Editorial: Who Deserves Charity?

In the Era of Occupy flaunting one's wealth is a problem, but it is often not the public's only issue. Not only do people have strong opinions about the way people use their money to benefit themselves, they also often have feelings about the way individuals, companies, and philanthropic organizations alike decide to use money to benefit others.

One of the main sources of controversy is the issue of global versus local or domestic charity. Oprah Winfrey found herself under attack a few years ago when she decided to open an all-girl boarding school in South Africa. Many people questioned why Oprah did not open a school in one of the many underprivileged neighborhoods in the United States that lacked adequate schools, and they became even more incensed when Oprah implied that American children would not appreciate such an effort.

However, the incident was reflective of a larger attitude that often pits needy groups against one another in a battle over who should be deemed more deserving and where a person's philanthropic loyalties should lie.

Many people support a more domestic focus on charity. They believe that one cannot and should not help anyone abroad until the needs of the people in his or her own backyard are met. In many ways, global philanthropy has become a fad that makes giving charity to faraway lands interesting and exotic, while local or national problems get downplayed, ignored, or lose their appeal because they have become commonplace.

One's loyalties and priorities should be with one's own community first and foremost. For example, for every child Brad and Angelina adopt from overseas, there is one in the United States who does not have a home. There are also cultural and political complexities, differences, and boundaries that establish a fine line between charity to different countries and Western interference and imposition.

At the same time, emphasizing local and domestic charity over global initiatives takes our existence in a global and interdependent world for granted. In this sense, one's backyard is not just the land right outside of our homes, but it is the world at large. The United States' limited definition of neighbor, as well as its overall lack of knowledge of global affairs, has earned the nation a negative international reputation that hinders both our worldview and our national security.

As United States citizens who have especially benefited and continue to benefit from the labor and resources of the nations of the world, many of us are in the position to help everyone as much as we can.

Just because there are children in the United States in need, does not mean that children in other places are not also in need. Helping a disadvantaged group overseas does not automatically diminish or negate the effect of helping the one in the United States.

Our View: It is always important to remember the needs of one's own citizens, but in an increasingly global world, it is also important to acknowledge that everyone who needs charity deserves it.