Anyone who starts thinking along the lines of “who else is going to pay for it?” or “is he expected to do everything for free?” I suggest to look at the situation closely and even past the arguments of the Lakota and to consider what happened directly.
This wasn’t a business that showed up, made some recordings and people didn’t want to pay the bill. I actually think a for-profit organization could be more ethical here. At least the tribe would have a clearer picture of what was going on and appropriately have their guard up.
This is a non-profit organization. Multiple tribes have been surprised when they didn’t have access to the created materials. When this happens to so many people, the only conclusion can be that the NGO is misleading them. If after the first time this happened they didn’t make it extremely clear to the people they’re helping “we will own the copyright on everything we write down or record and sell the books back to you for $40” then they don’t deserve to be called a charity.
These non-profits are taking millions in federal money and paying the co-founder a combined $210k. I’m actually all for higher charity pay if it gets people in the door who can deliver better results. But when your charity isn’t just giving to but also taking from marginalized communities while you’re paying yourself quite a handsome salary for a linguist, I don’t think that’s okay.
I personally find this distasteful because I have created recordings and gotten translations from the Shipibo people in Peru and it is not that hard to act reasonably ethically. This isn’t some moral hazard minefield. You tell them what you plan to do with it, get permission, then share it back.
The last piece is that by capturing this language and selling these books to outside schools, they make it harder and less likely for some other organization to come in and do it right. Another charity would have less opportunity to use book sales to outside schools as a source of funding.
1 comment
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 11.7 ms ] threadAnyone who starts thinking along the lines of “who else is going to pay for it?” or “is he expected to do everything for free?” I suggest to look at the situation closely and even past the arguments of the Lakota and to consider what happened directly.
This wasn’t a business that showed up, made some recordings and people didn’t want to pay the bill. I actually think a for-profit organization could be more ethical here. At least the tribe would have a clearer picture of what was going on and appropriately have their guard up.
This is a non-profit organization. Multiple tribes have been surprised when they didn’t have access to the created materials. When this happens to so many people, the only conclusion can be that the NGO is misleading them. If after the first time this happened they didn’t make it extremely clear to the people they’re helping “we will own the copyright on everything we write down or record and sell the books back to you for $40” then they don’t deserve to be called a charity.
These non-profits are taking millions in federal money and paying the co-founder a combined $210k. I’m actually all for higher charity pay if it gets people in the door who can deliver better results. But when your charity isn’t just giving to but also taking from marginalized communities while you’re paying yourself quite a handsome salary for a linguist, I don’t think that’s okay.
I personally find this distasteful because I have created recordings and gotten translations from the Shipibo people in Peru and it is not that hard to act reasonably ethically. This isn’t some moral hazard minefield. You tell them what you plan to do with it, get permission, then share it back.
The last piece is that by capturing this language and selling these books to outside schools, they make it harder and less likely for some other organization to come in and do it right. Another charity would have less opportunity to use book sales to outside schools as a source of funding.