I am not sure what exactly led Google Inc. (GOOG) to decide to celebrate the 400th anniversary of theKing James Bible by making it harder for religious groups to dotheir work. But that is the practical effect of a set of changesin pricing policies adopted by the tech giant this year.
Until recently, Google offered discounts on many of itspaid services to nonprofit organizations, including churches.This past spring, with little fanfare, the company changed itspolicy. It created a new suite of applications, known as Googlefor Nonprofits, that includes significant discounts andadvantages for a range of Google products such as grants foradvertising on AdWords, free licenses for Google Earth Pro andthe option to raise funds through a "donate" button at GoogleCheckout.
Google also added a remarkable list of restrictions foreligible charitable groups and institutions. Among those notable to apply for the program are websites where people donatecars to charity; child care centers, unless the "entire"purpose is to serve a disadvantaged community; hospitals;websites "that result in a poor experience for the viewer";and -- most troublesome -- "places or institutions of worship(e.g., churches, ministries, temples, synagogues)."
This last restriction caught religious groups by surprise --and, according to an article in Christianity Today, which firstreported the story, many have cut back on services in responseto the unexpected price increases on Google's applications.Another program, the cloud computing service Google App Engine,recently beset with controversy because of price increases, mayalso soon see discounts for non-profits -- with similarrestrictions, one assumes.)
The evangelist (and Watergate veteran) Charles Colson haslabeled Google's action as "corporate cowardice." That isclearly over the top -- the only entity that I can imagineGoogle might fear is Facebook -- but I do believe the new policyis a serious mistake. I am a great fan of Google and itsproducts, and, like most everyone these days, I rely on itssearch engine. But Google for Nonprofits is poorly conceived.
The premise of the policy seems to be that there are twokinds of nonprofits in the world -- the good ones and the badones -- and Google wants to support only the good ones, in syncwith its do-no-evil corporate philosophy. Well, Google is aprivate company and, within broad limits, is free to deal withwhom it chooses, on whatever terms it likes.
Many corporations exclude religious groups from theircharitable-giving programs. But there is a vast differencebetween a company's considered decision on where to spend itscash in pursuing the social good, and its rules on the prices itcharges different customers. It is unusual indeed for a companythat discounts products and services to nonprofits to excludereligious organizations.
One might respond to Google's restrictions by citing thesignificant philosophical, historical and psychological work onwhy and how religions are different from other entities -- andwhy they need to be. But we need not reach for the esoteric.There are strong secular reasons for Google to change itspolicy.
For starters, the new rules ignore the enormous charitableservices provided by religious organizations. Without discounts,many religious groups would have difficulty undertaking seriouscharitable work at all.
My church, for example, runs a much-needed lunch programfor poor women and their children. No similar service exists inthe neighborhood. The program relies almost entirely on donatedor discounted food from restaurants and stores. Were these for-profit companies suddenly to decide that churches were noteligible for their largesse, the lunch program would almostcertainly be shut down.
The program is not unusual. In many parts of the U.S. --and in many suffering corners of the world -- the charitablework done by religious groups is pretty much all the charitablework that is done. During the worst of the attacks on Darfur,for example, it has generally been religious groups rather thanthe secular nongovernmental organizations who have stuck it out.
Religious charities, moreover, tend to be more efficient than secular nonprofits, with lower costs for administration anda larger portion of the money they raise going directly toservices.
Other large corporations that restrict giving to religiousgroups recognize the difference among religious activities. Forexample, the Walmart Foundation's national giving program excludes "Faith-based organizations when the proposed grantwill only benefit the organization or its members" -- leavingroom, say, for a soup kitchen.
To be sure, Google for Nonprofits has its defenders. ErwinDe Leon, blogging at Nonprofit Quarterly , asked: "Aren'tchurches the first ones to exclude those who disagree orchallenge their beliefs and those with lifestyles they judgesinful?"
Certainly, religious groups tend to limit their ranks tothose who support their mission, but it is difficult to imaginewhat nonprofit would do otherwise. And few religious charitiesmake distinctions among those they serve.
Besides, if one genuinely wants to help secular nonprofitgroups, one way to do so might be to give to religions. How so?According to research compiled by the social scientist Arthur C. Brooks, people who regularly attend religious services are morethan twice as likely to volunteer for entirely secular causesthan those who do not attend church. They are also significantlymore likely than the nonreligious to give money to secularorganizations, and the amounts they give are larger.
Like most large corporations, Google already subsidizes thenonprofits it likes in the old-fashioned way, with millions ofdollars in direct donations . This is all to the good. But withrespect to the pricing of Google's products, there is nocompelling reason not to give religious organizations the sametreatment accorded other nonprofits.
Google for Nonprofits is a fine idea, but one has the sensethat the new program was poorly vetted. Google says it is takinga second look at its eligibility guidelines. Let's hope thatversion 2.0 gets rid of the bugs.
(Stephen L. Carter, a novelist, professor of law at YaleUniversity and the author of "The Violence of Peace: America'sWars in the Age of Obama," is a Bloomberg View columnist. Theopinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column:Stephen L. Carter at stephen.carter@yale.edu .
To contact the editor responsible for this column:Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net .
No comments:
Post a Comment