CHAPTER 7 – A Matter of Personal Responsibility
Oprah’s rise to stardom is a tale for all to admire. Born to unwed teen parents in
Mississippi, she lived her early years in poverty with her grandmother. Then she moved
to Nashville to be with her father and subsequently to Milwaukee to live with her mother.
There, she was sexually assaulted several times by family members and ultimately
landed up back with her father, who set her on a disciplined course during her
adolescent years. Her grandmother had cultivated in her a passion for reading and she
was a naturally gifted public speaker. At 19, upon being named Miss Black America,
she began her broadcasting career at a TV station in Nashville. After a stint as a news
anchor in Baltimore, she moved to Chicago to host a morning talk show. Two years
later at the age of 32 she became host of the Oprah Winfrey Show, and the rest is
history. Today, Oprah is one of the most recognized and beloved personalities on
television as well as a multimillionaire. Her story is testimony that in America anything
is possible. 1
We all know the script: if one is determined and hard working, there are no limits
to what she can do with her life. You are undoubtedly familiar with stories of others like
Oprah. They also may be media moguls – celebrities such as the late Steve Jobs, Jim
Carrey, and Hilary Swank. Or they may be people you know who are not in the public
eye yet whose lives have taken a similar path: they were born into families with modest
means yet grew up to attain considerable financial success. These people are all
embodiments of the great rags-to-riches tale that is so definitive of our history and
culture. Self-made Americans are often profiled in magazines like Forbes or People,
and they are the subject of countless popular films such as The Pursuit of Happiness,
Page | 1
Pretty Woman, and Trading Places. Their stories reinforce the widespread belief that
personal ambition is what matters most in getting ahead.
One of my favorite cartoons, which appeared some years ago in the New Yorker,
depicts five business executives standing huddled together having an informal
backroom meeting. The caption says, “O.k., guys, now let’s go out and earn that four
hundred times our workers’ salaries.” The dark humor here is that CEOs do not simply
“earn” the inordinately greater compensation they receive relative to most workers. The
vast income disparity between executives and ordinary workers largely stems from
people in the U.S. having unequal access to economic opportunity.
Despite this sociological reality most Americans believe otherwise. Due to a
variety of powerful social influences, most notably the news media, we tend to see ours
as a society where people have equal access to opportunity and where economic
inequalities stem from some individuals making more of this opportunity than others.
What we believe to be true about opportunities for getting ahead in the U.S. largely
stems not from empirical evidence but from mental images we carry in our heads.
These images suggest that low-income Americans who are not upwardly mobile have
only themselves to blame. Even though most of us know that people are born into
families with vastly different amounts of education and wealth, the belief prevails that
anyone, irrespective of background, can achieve upward mobility.
2
Seeing low-income people as largely responsible for their economic failures
significantly impacts our motivation to help them. It has long been the case that our
steadfast belief in the American Dream as equally available to all has fueled public
opposition to social welfare spending. Welfare is often seen as a handout that destroys
Page | 2
a person’s incentive to get ahead through hard work. This line of thinking also poses a
barrier to our willingness to tap the potential of charity to mitigate economic inequality. 3
On rare occasions amidst extraordinary bouts of deprivation, Americans have
temporarily called into question the view that low-income people are personally
responsible for their lot in life. During the Great Depression as tough times grew amidst
years of rising unemployment, people increasingly started attributing their difficulties to
the dearth of jobs rather than to a failure to land what little work there was. Similarly,
news reporting about Hurricane Katrina, which depicted New Orleans residents
stranded on their rooftops fighting for their lives as the floodwaters kept rising,
highlighted that so many people could not evacuate the city in advance of the storm
because they did not have cars, they could not afford bus tickets, and they had no place
to go. Yet, just as the end of the Depression restored Americans’ faith in self-reliance
as the central pathway to mobility, this belief also soon returned following Katrina. 4
Thirteen days after the storm devastated the Gulf Coast, New York Times Public
Editor Byron Calame wrote that he had just taken a look back at the paper’s coverage of
New Orleans during the 10 years prior to the storm. His startling discovery: in contrast
to the concentrated post-Katrina reporting about how the storm had particularly affected
low-income people, over that 10-year period there had not been a single article focusing
on the daily hardships experienced by New Orleans’ poor. In November 2000, there
was a feature story that included vivid descriptions of poverty and its devastating
effects, but this discussion did not appear until the article’s 16th paragraph. Reading
Page | 3
that deeply into a news story is beyond the attention span of most media audiences
these days. 5
When there is news coverage about the poor, their struggles typically appear to
be of their own making. Stories focus on the deviant behavior of particular individuals,
depicting them as an affront to mainstream middle-class values. Such stories may
include portrayals of adults abusing the welfare system, teenage girls getting pregnant
and dropping out of school, parents high on drugs and neglecting their children, and
youth committing violent crime. The message in these stories is unambiguous: not only
is such deviant behavior the primary reason people are poor but also why they stay
poor. Rather than explore how crime and delinquency are consequences of the poverty
brought about by unequal access to opportunity, media accounts reinforce the belief
that the poor have only themselves to blame for failing to elevate their status.
6
Reporting about teen pregnancy is a case in point. This issue strikes a chord
with millions of parents, feeding anxieties that their daughter’s ill-timed pregnancy will
spiral her on a downward path: in raising a child on her own, she will drop out of school,
work dead-end jobs, and become dependent on welfare. Giving birth at such a young
age often does lead a girl down this path, yet these problems are often not merely the
result of her irresponsible behavior. The weight of evidence indicates that girls who get
pregnant as teens are overwhelmingly likely to start out life poor; thus, even if they stay
in school and delay childbearing, the reality is they still face dim prospects of getting
ahead. Yet, news reporting rarely highlights this reality. 7
Similar misconceptions prevail in coverage of violent crime, which is often
portrayed as something that can occur at any time, be perpetrated by anyone, and just
Page | 4
as easily happen to you or me as to anybody else. Yet, these images obscure the truth.
Media reports tend to feature the exceptional story, such as when a “good” kid tragically
crosses paths with a stray bullet in a drive-by shooting. The fact is that most violence
occurs in low-income neighborhoods. The poor are not only disproportionately likelier to
be perpetrators of violent crime but victims too. 8
Media stories highlighting poor people’s deviant behavior were especially
prominent in the years leading up to the passage of welfare reform in 1996.
Disparaging images of welfare abuse appeared in a variety of media outlets that
spanned both the liberal and conservative press. For example, in 1994 the Boston
Globe ran a series of stories about Clarabel Ventura, a single mother of five who was
pregnant with her sixth child. The series highlighted a number of abhorrent behaviors:
Ventura had been selling her food stamps to buy drugs; she had let her children play in
the streets after midnight; and she had recently been arrested for abusing her four yearold son by putting his hands in scalding water and then locking him in his room.
9
By depicting Clarabel Ventura’s behavior as typical of welfare recipients, this sort
of news story fed public antipathy toward low-income people. In truth, those on receive
welfare are mostly people like you and me. In order to fathom how this could possibly
be true, we must recognize that most Americans receive public assistance at some
point in their lives. Washington University Professor Mark Rank has documented that
by age 65 nearly two-thirds of all Americans have received at least a year of cash
assistance or in-kind benefits, such as food stamps, housing subsidies, or Medicaid.
Over 40 percent have been on welfare for five or more years. 10
Page | 5
However, mainstream news typically masks this truth, and instead presents
stories of welfare abuse as if they were indicative of poor people’s behavior more
generally. These powerful images come across to the average media consumer simply
as facts. Such images reflect the longstanding stigma attached to welfare. Beginning in
the 1960s and continuing steadily over the next few decades, Americans increasingly
opposed government entitlements to the poor. This antagonism was pivotal in the
passage of welfare reform with bipartisan support in 1996. The main belief fueling the
legislation was that entitlements fostered dependency, making people unmotivated to
work their way out of poverty. This belief rested on the assumption that those receiving
welfare are a small fraction of Americans who deviate from middle-class values. Such
“facts” seemingly provide justification for the government downsizing the welfare system
and for the public becoming dissuaded from making charitable investments that might
enable poor people to escape poverty. 11
We can more concretely see how media coverage contributes to public hostility
toward the poor by considering a study done by Princeton political scientist Martin
Gilens. Gilens looked at reporting about the poor in magazines and network TV news
over a 5-year period. Although at the time about 11 percent of America’s poor were
over 64, the elderly appeared in only 2 percent of the coverage. Whereas 51 percent of
working-age, low-income people were employed during the years of the study, only 21
percent of those depicted in news coverage were either working or looking for a job.
Reporting, therefore, underrepresented the deserving poor and overrepresented the
undeserving poor. Moreover, these skewed images of the poor’s deservedness went
hand in hand with racial misconceptions. African Americans comprised over 60 percent
Page | 6
of the people depicted in Gilens’ data, yet in truth the majority of poor people in the
United States – about 55 percent – are white. 12
These data help explain what I have repeatedly seen when I teach college
students about poverty in America. I point out that there are different types of poor
people and that we need to recognize the importance of those differences. I list some
of these types on the blackboard and ask my students to discuss how worthy they think
each is of government aid and private charity. In line with public opinion, students
strongly view children, the elderly, and the disabled as deserving and able-bodied
unemployed adults as undeserving. To most students, the latter are people who could
be working but aren’t because they are lazy. These “undeserving poor,“ whom Gilens’
study found are prevalent in media discourse, are the people who typically come to
mind when we think of America’s poor. These images, consequently, can easily
motivate us not to want to lend a helping hand when contemplating how to express our
generosity to people in need. 13
Thousands didn't leave New Orleans because they couldn't leave. They didn't have the
money. They didn't have the vehicles. They didn't have any place to go. They are the
poor, black and white, who dwell in any city in great numbers; and they did what they
felt they could do -- they huddled together in the strongest houses they could find. There
was no way to up and leave and check into the nearest Ramada Inn. (New York Times,
September 4, 2005)
The immediate dangers are greatest for 100,000 or more low-income residents who
don't own a car or were otherwise unable to evacuate. (Wall Street Journal, August 30,
2005).
These words offer an account of why, in the days preceding Hurricane Katrina,
so many New Orleans residents did not heed official orders to evacuate the city. These
articles provide a very different media image of the poor than is the norm. Here they
Page | 7
are not deviant and despicable but deserving of help because they experience
systematic disadvantage. In contrast, people of means could easily get out of town
since they had transportation and either friends to stay with or money to pay for a hotel.
But, many others had no car, knew nobody outside the city, and had little disposable
cash. They either huddled on the rooftops of their flooded homes desperately waiting
for help or, like the Jackson-Brown family chronicled in the introduction to this book,
found refuge in crowded and sweltering city shelters.
An investigation I did of the New York Times’ and Wall Street Journal’s coverage
during the month following Katrina indicates repeated mention of how the
disadvantages low-income people routinely face intensified the storm’s impact upon
them. Fifty-six articles in the Times and 36 in the Journal presented this view – a stark
departure from conventional reporting where, as we have seen, the poor are either
invisible or presented as undeserving of help. In the aftermath of Katrina, however, the
reality that these people experience unequal access to opportunity temporarily became
unmasked. 14
In addition to articles highlighting the constraints low-income Katrina victims
faced in evacuating their homes, other articles exposed why the storm exacted
particularly severe damage on poor neighborhoods. The Times reported on September
2nd that victims “were largely black and poor, those who toiled in the background of the
tourist havens, living in tumbledown neighborhoods that were long known to be
vulnerable to disaster if the levees failed. Without so much as a car or bus fare to
escape ahead of time, they found themselves left behind by a failure to plan for their
rescue should the dreaded day ever arrive.” Among the factors that contributed to this
Page | 8
heightened vulnerability were that lower-income neighborhoods were more likely to be
below sea level – therefore acting as flood plains – and the homes in these
neighborhoods were less likely to be built with materials capable of weathering a severe
storm. A September 7th Journal article indicated that another factor may also have
contributed to low-income people’s greater vulnerability to hurricanes. The article
pointed to the “longstanding suspicions among some poorer residents that the levee
system provides more protection for well-to-do areas than lower-income ones.”
This news story that Hurricane Katrina particularly victimized low-income people
due to preexisting social inequalities coheres with what we saw in Chapter 2: there is no
such thing as a wholly natural disaster. However, media coverage often does not
highlight these economic inequalities. Consider the 1995 Chicago heat wave, where
more than 700 people died of heat-related causes over the span of 5 days in July.
Although most of the victims were low-income senior citizens living alone, a study by
New York University sociologist Eric Klinenberg reveals that media coverage did not
draw attention to how this fact explained why the death toll was so astronomical. The
heat wave, Klinenberg argues, was not just an abnormal weather pattern; it also
exposed a social disaster that plagues Chicago and many other U.S. cities 15
Nonetheless, coverage of the heat wave still depicted a sympathetic portrait of
those afflicted by depicting them as innocent victims of a natural disaster. Indeed,
people who experience heat waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, droughts,
famines, cyclones, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanoes have long been regarded as
blameless victims of forces beyond their control; a view played up in news coverage of
Page | 9
these events. Such coverage is noteworthy for how it contrasts with unsympathetic
media images of Americans chronically in need of help. 16
With an eye on this contrast, I did a second investigation of Katrina reporting to
see how it characterized the event as a natural disaster. This time I focused on the
New York Times’ and Wall Street Journal’s coverage during just the first 10 days after
the storm made landfall on August 29, 2005. This period immediately following the
hurricane was when reporting was most likely to fuel charitable giving. Seventy-one
percent (222) of the 311 Times articles and 74 percent (201) of the 272 Journal articles
about Katrina over this 10-day span characterized the storm as a natural disaster.
There were 91 instances where articles used this phrase explicitly. More frequently,
they implicitly conveyed this idea in a variety of ways, as the following table illustrates.
Message
New York Times
Wall Street
Journal
Total
frequency
Explicit use of phrase
“natural disaster”
50
41
91
Storm Personification
174
224
398
Storm Power
34
25
59
Sensory Images
Divine Event
114
20
66
6
180
26
The most common portrayal was storm personification; there were 174
references in the Times and 224 in the Journal. These articles indicated that the storm
alone was responsible for Katrina’s destructiveness. The Times reported on August
31st: “The people of New Orleans and southeastern Louisiana, as well as of other
devastated areas along the Gulf Coast, are suffering terribly as a result of Hurricane
Katrina.” The tone was again very matter-of-fact in the Times the following day:
Page | 10
“Hurricane Katrina has left a portion of this country homeless, jobless and in shambles.”
Notice that there is no mention of the possibility that other factors besides the storm’s
sheer force also may have contributed to the damage.
A closely related theme is storm power, which refers to instances when articles
dramatized Katrina’s naturally destructive force. There were 34 illustrations in the
Times and 25 in the Journal. An August 31st Journal article described the scene as
follows: “The storm's intensity, even hours after barreling ashore with 145-mph winds
yesterday morning in the marshes of southeastern Louisiana, left no doubt that Katrina
spread misery and destruction from the Louisiana bayou to the Florida Panhandle.” A
September 1st Times article similarly reported that “Hurricane Katrina's storm surge –
the wall of water it pushed ashore when it struck the Gulf Coast on Monday – was the
highest ever measured in the United States.”
Sensory images provided another way of dramatizing nature’s power to wreak
havoc on innocent victims. In the Times there were 114, and in the Journal 66 such
references. These images highlighted the haunting ways Katrina’s floodwaters
destroyed property and threatened human life. On September 1st, the Times reported:
“The water that now covers much of New Orleans is a fetid broth of sewage, with
gasoline from gas stations, solvents from dry cleaners and chemicals from household
cleaners mixed in.” And then on September 4th the Times described “corpses still
floating in the waterways of New Orleans five days after the disaster that caused them.”
Since water is such a pure symbol of nature, these images reinforced the overall theme
in the news reporting: that Mother Nature alone produced this disaster.
Page | 11
The final media image underscoring that Katrina’s destructive force was beyond
human control was divine event. There were 20 references in the Times and 6 in the
Journal. On September 5th the Times reported: “Seven days after Hurricane Katrina
devastated the Gulf Coast, the New Orleans known as America's vibrant capital of jazz
and gala Mardi Gras celebrations was gone. In its place was a partly submerged city of
abandoned homes and ruined businesses, of bodies in attics or floating in deserted
streets, of misery that had driven most of its nearly 500,000 residents into a diaspora of
Biblical proportions.” A few days earlier, the Journal had similarly characterized Katrina
as producing an “almost-Biblical level of flooding in New Orleans” and a Times article
had claimed, “Some may talk of a divine hand behind all of this.” These examples
painted Katrina as an “Act of God,” one of the clearest ways of characterizing those
afflicted as innocent victims. Historian Ted Steinberg has studied how people have
responded to natural disasters over the past couple hundred years. He documents that
seeing them as divine events was a central current of American religious thought well
into the 19th century and remains a prominent view to this day. 17
What is noteworthy about the sympathy that media coverage bestows upon
victims of natural disasters is how this reporting contributes to a distorted, black-andwhite picture of which victims in our society do and do not deserve help. Whereas
victims of hurricanes or heat waves seem worthy of assistance due to forces beyond
their control, in a society where people are seen as personally responsible for their lot in
life the poor do not garner such sympathy.
Page | 12
Meet Joe and Kate. They live in a picturesque California suburb and asked us to
conceal their identity because what their neighbors don't know is that they are on the
verge of losing it all. Joe was laid off eight weeks ago. Kate still has her job but $11 an
hour doesn’t feed a family of four. They use their savings to pay down their credit card
and have little cushion. Kate once volunteered at a soup kitchen. On this day, she was
the one asking for help for the first time.
Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi offered these words in a March 16, 2010 segment on
ABC World News with Diana Sawyer. As Alfonsi spoke, the camera zoomed in on the
family’s beautiful home located in a pristine suburban neighborhood. Alfonsi’s report
was part of the series “The Fight for the Middle Class” that ABC broadcast in 2010 as
the unemployment rate was hovering around 10 percent. The New York Times ran a
similar series called “The New Poor” and many other news sources also provided
extensive reporting about how the recession was causing solidly middle class families to
tailspin into poverty. Stories like Joe and Kate’s story painfully highlighted that in hard
times poverty can touch even decent hard-working people – people just like you and
me. 18
A study by the media-watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
found that whereas there was network TV reporting about poverty roughly every three
weeks prior to the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, between October and
December 2008 the frequency this type of story aired increased to every 4-5 days. Yet,
how the recession was affecting those who had been poor long beforehand did not
become a subject of elevated coverage. The spike in reporting largely consisted of
stories about the precarious fate of middle and upper-income workers after losing their
jobs. These people, like Joe and Kate, unexpectedly found themselves in dire financial
need and in many cases faced the possibility of a home foreclosure. Impassioned writer
Barbara Ehrenreich, who has devoted her career to chronicling the struggles of lowPage | 13
income Americans, cynically characterized the heightened media attention being given
to the new poor: “The super-rich give up their personal jets; the upper middle class cut
back on private Pilates classes; the merely middle class forgo vacations and evenings
at Applebee’s.“ 19
News audiences can easily relate to recession-related reports about the newly
poor since such coverage taps people’s fears that they too might find their financially
secure lives suddenly upended. These stories are like disaster coverage in that they
profile decent people who, through no fault of their own, suddenly fall on hard times and
therefore deserve help. The backdrop of these stories about the new poor – and what
these stories obscure – is that so many people who were poor before the onset of hard
economic times also need and deserve help.
There is one time during the year when the chronically poor become a subject of
journalists’ and public compassion: the period between Thanksgiving and the New Year.
Since for lots of people being in the holiday spirit involves giving to those less fortunate,
many news sources make special charitable appeals to help the needy. Reporters
chronicle stories of adversity – such as a parent being layed off or an illness sapping
family savings – and showcase examples of charity making a difference in these
people’s lives.
For example, a piece published on Christmas Day, 2009 featured Theone
Ferron, a woman recently helped by the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund after
losing her $17,500 a year job and not getting severance pay. Ferron lived in a twobedroom apartment in the Bronx and was eight months pregnant with her second child.
Family members provided emotional support but could not afford to help her financially.
Page | 14
After being unable to find work, she aspired to return to school to fulfill an ambition to
become a special education teacher. But, she could not get a student loan because
she had longstanding debt. She was not only unable to pay off this debt but was falling
behind on her rent and utility bills. After meeting with a social worker from Catholic
Charities Archdiocese of New York, the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund paid her
bills and bought her a computer for school. 20
The upshot of heart-wrenching yet ultimately heart-warming stories like Theone
Ferron’s is that low-income people deserve a helping hand and that even a little bit of
assistance can go a long way. Unlike the images news audiences are apt to see the
rest of the year holiday coverage paints the poor as people worthy of charity because
their hardships stem from forces beyond their control. Holiday appeals, therefore, are a
temporary departure from typical depictions of the poor’s troubles as largely of their own
making. At the end of each calendar year, some of the neediest people – or at least
those whom reporters characterize as the neediest – get help and their lives become all
the better for it.
Still, these appeals are about assisting particular individuals, not about helping
the poor more generally. This distinction matters given that reporting about a person or
family in acute financial need seldom widens the lens to expose the obstacles that limit
access to opportunity for low-income people as a whole. Moreover, holiday giving
campaigns are a Pyrrhic victory for America’s poor. Although their struggles get
exposure for a concentrated period of time, the charitable public is let off the hook from
demonstrating concern the rest of the year. The poor disappear in early January, not to
reappear until we are eating our Thanksgiving dinners. 21
Page | 15
It could be this disparity of concern reflects compassion fatigue – the idea that in
time people stop caring about problems that get repeated media exposure. Perhaps for
just 6 weeks out of the year are we able to muster up concerns for fellow Americans
who are chronically in need. Maybe we simply cannot do more than that. This sort of
reasoning certainly helps to keep hearts warm during cold, dark December days. But it
is ultimately a smokescreen for the ways the news media aid and abet our muted
generosity toward the poor. We must not sugarcoat the fact that for most of the year
the elephant in the room is the everyday struggles faced by low-income people living in
a society that casts aspersions on them for experiencing these struggles.
Page | 16
Notes
Oprah’s story is chronicled on many websites including her own. This synopsis is from
http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/Oprah%20Winfrey2.htm and
http://sun.menloschool.org/~sportman/ethnic/individual/winfrey/index.html.
1
2
This cartoon appeared in the April 24, 2000 New Yorker.
3
Gilens, Why Americans Hate Welfare (1999), 8.
Hunt, “The Individual, Society, or Both?” (1996), 295; Pew Charitable Trusts, “Katrina
Has Only Modest Impact on Basic Public Values” (2005), retrieved from http://peoplepress.org/commentary/?analysisid=117.
4
5
Calame, “Covering New Orleans: The Decade before the Storm” (2005).
6
Iyengar, ““Framing Responsibility for Political Issues” (1990), 23.
7
Luker, Dubious Conceptions (1996), 107; Males, “Behaving Like Children” (2011).
8
Best, Random Violence (1999).
9
Williams, “Race, Rat Bites, and Unfit Mothers” (1995), 1159.
10
Gilens, Why Americans Hate Welfare (1999), 3; Rank, 105-06.
11
de Goode, “Ideology in the US Welfare Debate” (1996).
12
Gilens, “Race and Poverty in America” (1996), 522-24.
13
Katz, The Undeserving Poor (1989).
14
Since the Katrina charitable campaign spanned the entire United States, I sought out
news sources that had a national reach. Although television is a prominent medium of
disaster reporting, I opted to look at newspapers because their content is more
accessible and easier to track. Comparing coverage in the New York Times and Wall
Street Journal offered a rich comparison since the two papers have different political
leanings (the Times more liberal, the Journal more conservative) and different
orientations (comprehensive coverage v. mostly financial news). I identified all articles
during the ten-day period that matched a keyword search for “Hurricane Katrina.” They
spanned national coverage, business, sports, editorials, op-eds, and letters to the
editor.
15
Klinenberg, Heat Wave (2002).
Page | 17
Steinberg, Acts of God (2000); Ploughman, “The American Print News Media
‘Construction’ of Five Natural Disasters” (1995).
16
17
Ibid.
ABC World News with Diane Sawyer, “Economic Troubles Push Some Middle-Class
Americans to the Edge of Poverty, “ Aired March 16, 2010.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/americas-middle-class-families-edge/story?id=10116754.
18
DeMause, “The Recession and the Deserving Poor” (2009); Ehrenreich, “Too Poor to
Make the News” (2009).
19
20
Haskell, “No Work, Two Children and a Mounting Pile of Bills” (2009).
Edelman, “Forgotten Stories about Forgotten People” (2001); Kendall, Framing Class
(2005), 94-95, 124-28; Loseke, “The Whole Spirit of Modern Philanthropy” (1997), 42930.
21
Page | 18