Michael Powell's column in the Times New York section attacks the Central Park Conservancy, suggesting that it, the High Line, Battery, and Prospect Park conservancies "tithe 20 percent of the dollars they raise" to support poorer parks. Never mind the absurdity of using the word "tithe," which means to give ten percent of, with "20 percent." The column is flawed in several ways.
First, it's hypocritical. Imagine it applying to the New York Times. Would the Times like to donate 20 percent of its news budget to poorer news organizations? Surely instead of a 1,250-person editorial staff the Times could make do with 1,000 editors and reporters, and the excess 250 staffers could go work at the Nation, or at FutureOfCapitalism, or at the New York Post. The Powell column faults the Central Park Conservancy for the supposed fact that "the top eight employees...are white," and "fifty-four of the 58 current and 'emeritus' board members listed on the website are white." At the New York Times, the chairman, vice chairman, CEO, executive editor, and editorial page editor are all "white," by Mr. Powell's definition, and the Times company board of directors isn't much more of a Rainbow Coalition.
Second, "white" is a broad-brush measure that buys into the social construct of race. When I get these sorts of surveys I usually check "other" and write in "Jew." The Central Park Conservancy board is a mix of East Side people and West Side people, Jews and gentiles, men and women. The management, described by Mr. Powell as "white," includes people with the last names Blonsky, Spinelli, Nolan, Coppersmith, Calvanese, LoCastro, Hall, and McIntosh. If there were no Italian-American representation, do you think Mr. Powell would be writing columns about it?