Jul 10, 2020
As a Former WE (Free the Children) Speaker, I Ask: Was WE Ever Truly a Movement?
The Summary (As this is a long read to commit to. I thank you in advance)
- There has been a whole wave of stories coming forward about WE recently (See below)
- While attention is being drawn to these current concerns with WE, as a former WE (Free the Children) speaker, want to also ask if WE was ever truly a “movement” and compare WE to what a healthy movement would look like. What follows are my thoughts and opinions based on my own experience with WE, experience in the charity sector, and the public discourse:
- WE’s altering of Amanda Maitland’s speech to remove discussion of systemic racism shows WE’s own failure to incorporate systemic social change into its scope. Coming into contact with an actual movement, Black Lives Matter, elucidates that WE really isn’t a movement but rather a corporate brand. Its decisions are motivated by brand sensitivity; perhaps more than a true desire to make lasting structural change. EDIT: WE made a public apology to Amanda here:
- Now is an opportunity to rethink charity culture in Canada as WE dominates that culture. Be sure to check out the @AntiRacistWE Instagram account for calls to action and continuing online dialogue.
- The last section titled “Is WE a Movement” are my concluding thoughts
Wave of Stories for Context:
- This past June, the Federal Government announced a partnership with Canadian organization WE Charity to operate the 900 million dollar Canadian Student Service Grant (CSSG) program. WE Charity is paired with a social enterprise known as ME to WE. They are collectively known as “WE” which describes itself as a movement (@WEmovement)
- The partnership came under scrutiny drawing allegations of government cronyism. Moreover, former WE staff came forward publicly sharing concerns about the organization. I am also a former WE staff member from when it was known as Free the Children.
- Amanda Maitland, former WE speaker, was one of those who came forward posting a video to Instagram saying that an anti-racism speech she wrote for WE was heavily modified, without her permission, by a primarily white panel. The changes removed Amanda Maitland’s efforts to draw attention to structural racism.
- Amanda Maitland’s story was covered by the CBC which reached out to other former staff who expressed concerns about a “culture of fear” where criticism of WE could lead to losing one’s job.
- On July 3rd, it was announced that WE and the Federal Government decided to end their CSSG partnership.
- WE continues to draw criticism about its internal work culture, failing to listen to the experiences of BIPOC staff members, falsely reporting payments to members of the Trudeau family, and a disturbing developing story about the abuse of staff overseas. Much of that is curated here: https://linktr.ee/antiracistwe.
Caveat:
I worked for WE (then Free the Children) in 2007. Between 2007 and present, my knowledge of the organization is incomplete. I am drawing parallels between two freeze frames in WE’s timeline. One frame is from my own experiences, and the second created from present media coverage and statements from peers. My intent is not to write a journalistic piece but rather share my thoughts from comparing these two periods of time.
Because of the personal story elements, this post is a little raw. Solidarity to my fellow FTC/WE’ers, thanks to CANADALAND who has been trying to cover WE for years now, and of course a big shout out to Amanda Maitland who inspired me to join a growing chorus of voices.
****************************************************************
Is WE a movement?
I’ve been hearing the word movement a great deal lately. We all have. People are taking to the streets around the world, marching, protesting, and calling for reforms to end structural racism, defund police, and draw attention to our ever-warming climate. “Have you seen this? Ugh!” was the caption posted by a friend on my Facebook wall regarding the Canadian organization WE Charity signing a 900 million dollar partnership with the Federal Government. I seconded. . .“Ugh.” I have history with WE, as a former staff member, when it was known as Free the Children (FTC). In 2007, I toured over a hundred schools speaking to 50,000 youth about the organization and was with FTC for the first ever “WE Day,”, basically a youth pep rally for social change held in stadiums around the country (now world). My friends and family know that was a difficult time for me, hence the post on my wall. And although I’ve been out of the organization now for a while, it’s hard to avoid (you may have noticed). Midnight snack at the corner store? WE donation box. Buy a movie ticket? “Donate to WE!” Banking…“WE!” Getting a flight? “Donate to WE!” Greeting cards? “Say it with WE!” Start a new job “Guess what everybody! We’re partnering with WE!” Move to the other side of the country? “WE Day Vancouver!”
WE calls itself a movement. Its Instagram handle is literally @WEmovement. Maybe that’s why it’s everywhere.
An ensuing media storm began in the wake of that government deal resulting in both parties backing out and increased scrutiny of WE revealing a toxic work environment, censoring of BIPOC voices (black, indigenous, peoples of colour) as described by former WE tour speaker Amanda Maitland, and allegations of the abuse of staff overseas. All serious concerns that the organization is now trying to address. In addition, I’m worried we’re missing something else in this present media storm. With all this work to dig at the insides of the organization, what’s on the outside also worries me. If WE addresses all these internal issues, or fails and another WE comes to take its place, I still don’t believe we’ll get back what we may feel we’ve lost — a movement that creates positive change — because I’m not sure that movement ever existed to begin with.
How do we identify a movement? It’s one of those terms that’s tough to define. I think that’s also why you can get away with calling yourself one (kinda like giving yourself a nickname). To start the dialogue, I’m going with what I was hoping for when I joined up with Free the Children. I believe a movement is created when people are unified through: 1) transparent work/organization, 2) toward common cause(s), 3) under the direction of open and receptive leadership. Is that fair? Let me know if you think I’m way off here. Most attempts to define movements I could find all seem to fall along those basic lines. What I’m going to do is look at all three, transparency, cause, and openness through my own past personal experiences with FTC and draw parallels to what we’re hearing about WE publicly right now. My hope is to get a sense of whether or not WE is actually a movement and, if not…well…then what is it?
1) Transparency and the Blue Forms
Then…
From the outside, FTC seemed absolutely magical — the sense of community, the feeling that change is possible. I needed that magic at that point in my life. In 2004/2005, I lived in Africa for a year split between Uganda and Sierra Leone as part of my undergraduate degree in International Development at the University of Toronto. While overseas, I made close friends with several people who shaped my experiences and changed my life. One local community leader I met named Grace (name changed), founded her own school for vulnerable women, girls, and former child solders in the midst of the Sierra Leonean civil war. The contrast between their lives and mine, especially as I returned home to Canada, left me with this…blob…of emotions. Guilt over my privilege, feelings of powerlessness, sadness; all wrapped into this amorphous sense of wanting to “do something.” An opportunity to share my experiences overseas with thousands of youth in Canada seemed like the perfect outlet. The Summer leading up to the 2007 school season, I worked at FTC headquarters in Toronto to hone the speech. I would share stories of my travels abroad, challenges faced by those I met in some of the most impoverished places in the world, and why opportunities for education were so important to break cycles of war and poverty. Technically, I was on staff for Leaders Today (LT, now Me to WE) a social enterprise associated with Free the Children. The organization also trained me in all their “Ice breakers”! (Honestly, my introverty self dislikes ice breakers. HUMAN KNOT! However, the games did help when working with smaller student groups to get the conversation started. Shout out to fellow camp counselors). At Summer’s end, the whole organization, as well as Marc Kielburger, gathered at a retreat/planning conference to hear myself and my tour partner deliver our speeches to be vetted. The group cheered. Marc said “We’ll have to up our target goal numbers, everybody!” I was on my way.
I’ve spoken to many audiences since my FTC days, but there is nothing quite like being in front of a group of 2000 high school students. That is one truly incredible part of working at FTC that I will always treasure. This isn’t an audience that individually bought tickets. They are not people at a conference hearing a keynote speech. They heard a school bell and were told to come to the auditorium or gym for first period. It’s such a mixed crowd. You scan the audience for eye contact. Where are the students passionate about social justice and excited to hear about FTC? They will be the ones you look to for the emotional reactions that amplify your energy as a speaker. Where are the jokers? You’ll need to hook them early with a laugh so they know you’re on their side. Who is just hearing about global injustice for the first time — are you overwhelming them? Check their expression. I can think of no more diverse and exciting audience to challenge a speaker. If you’ve done your job, you’ve pulled them from the chaos that is high school life for a moment long enough to convince them that while the world can be overwhelming, they can make a difference. In addition to the stories about people like Grace, our content was to include a video narrated by Craig Kielburger about the (then) 500 schools that FTC had constructed overseas. The video included the story of how Craig, at 12 years old, heard of the death of Iqbal Masih, a former child labourer in Pakistan, and was inspired to form Free the Children. Students who were moved by our talk would come to speak to us afterward sharing their joys, hopes, and fears — I would hand them a blue form.
I wouldn’t have been able to count how many times I heard “blue forms” said during our training and on the road. The forms were sign-up sheets for students to share their contact info. Blue forms were the only metric we were ever given and the only metric we were asked to report. At each school we measured the success of our emotional plea to students by the number of blue forms. The forms were mailed back to the organization in the hopes that the hosting school would champion a fundraiser for Free the Children usually as part of the then “Brick by Brick Program”- Raise $5,000 to build a school overseas. Schools that participated would receive a poster where they could place paper bricks to show the progress of their school construction fundraiser. A month into tours, we had begun to find our flow. I was just about to begin one of my speeches when I was stopped by a teacher. “You know. Before you go on. I don’t think it’s fair you put this pressure on students. Especially when you’re only giving them one clear outlet for it.” I was stunned because I hadn’t considered that the teaching staff might not all be unified in the decision to invite us. “We’re here to make them feel empowered to make change. That’s what we’re here to talk about.” Righteous indignation in my voice. “You’re here for them to fundraise for you. Our school did this once already a few years ago. You know what happened? We got a thank you letter that’s on the wall of our staff room. I don’t even know where the school is that we built or what happened to it since. All of those students have graduated so this is the new batch.” I promised that I would try to follow up with them and headed into the gym — blue forms. But that wouldn’t be the last teacher to raise concerns regarding connections with FTC’s overseas operations while I was on tour. And that made sense. After all, the organization’s slogan to this day is still “children helping children through education.”
I decided to book a meeting with the Director of Leaders Today upon my return from the first leg of the tour. We’d go out for a few weeks at a time then come back until the next batch of tour schools. I was sheepish when I started the conversation which sounded something to the effect of: “Listen, I get asked a lot of questions about our operations abroad. Students wanting to know where our schools are actually located around the world, if they can contact them, can they see photos of their schools? Write the students? Teachers are wondering where these schools are that they fundraised for. To help, I really want to be able to answer them. Is it possible to get more information on these schools or make these kinds of connections possible?” I asked. “Matthew, if you’re worried about whether or not there is good work being done abroad. I can assure you there is. But if you want more details. I can try to get them for you.” Unfortunately, that was about the most concrete answer I ever got. When I raised the matter again, I was told that the organization was looking into new ways of branding ideas around fundraising.
My concerns grew when I asked about Sierra Leone. Toward the end of my time with FTC, I began to feel that sharing stories like Grace’s was disingenuous because it wasn’t my story. I was using other people’s stories to raise money for FTC. Grace herself wasn’t a recipient of any of FTC’s support. What about a general region? Let’s take Grace’s story as an example. If I wasn’t raising support for Grace, then at least for Sierra Leone? When I inquired, a discussion ensued as to whether FTC was even in Sierra Leone as the documentation on file was unclear. Current posts online say that FTC’s work in Sierra Leone “dates back to the end of their civil war.” but doesn’t list a year. The conclusion reached, which was shared with me at the time, was that a pre-existing building in the Kono region of the country was rebranded as an FTC school as early as 2006 and that was the most concrete answer I got about FTC projects in Sierra Leone at that time.
In my experience, the internal workings of the organization were so siloed that nobody really knew what anybody else was doing. All we were told was that the organization was “hitting targets.” Most siloed of all were overseas operations. There was us, and then there was “the world.” Between that world and us (and the donors) were Marc and Craig and the higher leadership. It was difficult to get a sense, beyond the reports that gave one statistic or another, of what living work was going on abroad. I didn’t want to feel entitled to that information, as I wasn’t at a director level within the organization, but as a tour speaker, connected with those actually fundraising for the organization, I found the pushback on wanting more specific details — or even names, places, or anecdotal stories to tell — dissonant.
Now…
The desire for a more tangible connection to the organization’s work is structured into how the organization functions. It’s commodified. One of the main functions of WE is the WE Tours, voluntourism trips that you can take abroad with the organization. You can see more tangibly what the organization is doing abroad if you buy a tour. There has been criticism over voluntourism. One criticism, for example, is that voluntourism prevents the hiring of local community workers. You may literally be taking jobs away from somebody. Hiring local labour costs an organization money. But if you pay to go, well you’re spending your own money to work. Does this apply to WE? Maybe…but I don’t know exactly because the CBC was asked by WE to scrub a documentary on Voluntourism “Volunteers Unleashed” which featured WE. In 2014, I was contacted by the assistant of a journalist looking for insights from former staff about WE. My name was forwarded by other former staff. I gave a quick point form list of what I felt I could speak to but I wasn’t followed up with. I’m not certain, but I suspect that the contact was looking for information to inform that documentary. The film was to be released March 19th, 2015 but was suddenly pulled from the air. A different version of the documentary was later aired but with components related to WE changed or missing. WE’s statement was that the requested changes were to avoid the use of their copyrighted material in the documentary.
Brick by Brick has been replaced by the “WE Schools” program. WE Schools is curriculum focused and encourages students to participate in social change projects within their own communities. I was happy to see this change actually. Other feedback I had received from teachers was a concern that we were taking funding out of their communities to send “out there” into an intangible place represented only by the Brick By Brick poster. There is still emphasis on fundraising for WE and building schools abroad connected to the WE Schools program. However, the method of signing on with the organization has evolved. Blue forms have now become WE Day. Signing a form is boring. What if the incentive to sign up with the organization means you get to attend the most well-known youth rally in the country? As Burnaby, BC educator, Alison Atkinson noted in her written critique of WE Day Vancouver it was emphasized that “You can’t buy a ticket to We Day. You have to earn it!” But…is that bad? What’s wrong with WE Day? Well that brings me to the next element of a movement — Cause.
2) Cause — Social Change! (brought to you by Dow Chemical Company)? and the “Culture of Guilt”
Then…
What is WE’s cause? As a staff member, believing the organization to be a youth movement focused on abolishing child labour, the organization’s mission became confusing to me because of WE Day, and due to a toxic work environment. October 2007: It was all-hands-on-deck for the first ever WE Day — Ricoh Hall, Toronto. As soon as I had started with the organization the previous Summer, I was made aware that WE Day was coming. It was like one of our school tour speeches times a million. Thousands of students bussing in to hear speeches from an astonishing lineup of guest speakers, musical performers, and of course Marc and Craig. My role was to wrangle a group of students volunteers who had come early to help setup for their peers. These passionate young people believed in the organization and were willing to help stuff thousands of loot bags (merch/brochures/advertising) that would be on each stadium seat as youth entered Ricoh Hall. Bristling with energy, the group made quick work of the bags leaving us with time to spare. So, I did what I did with groups for the organization — ice breakers — trying to keep them engaged until the show started. However, within a few moments, I saw out of my peripheral the WE Day director walking toward me. He stated that he was meeting with key important people in an adjacent room, either corporate donors or representatives from Much Music. “Listen. You need to quiet down.” He then turned and left. I faced the group of youth frozen in this awkward moment in time and space — a clash of energies. “Ooookay then! Let’s all have a seat. Hey, who hates poverty?” This was a paradigm shifting moment for me. There was a tension within FTC — a culture clash that wouldn’t be resolved (I think until now very publicly). I had felt that for some time already as a staff member, but WE Day crystalized the feeling. The organization would draw individuals like me because of its outside magic — people eager for social change through grassroots engagement, left leaning, youth wanting to make a difference in the lives of other youth around the world. We made up the rank and file. But the upper echelons, that’s where business was happening. It was a different culture up there. This tension seemed to grow as focus within FTC shifted to emphasize WE Day and its for-profit corporate model. WE Day wasn’t just about this group of super-charged Be-The-Change youth who had to bear witness to this awkward interaction between staff members. It was about that room with corporate partnerships. It was about brand and branding (and brand recognition in the corporate world). And finally, in the convention hall, when those youth were on their feet cheering, in the upper rows above them were seats occupied by corporate reps. I wasn’t sure how I felt about that. I was sure that’s not what I’d signed up for.
“Culture of guilt” was a phrase I heard at FTC over and over again. It was written on chart paper during debrief meetings, I’ve seen it quoted by journalists, and I read it in our own e-mails to one another. As staff we would often hear things like “more resources for you means fewer pencils in Africa.” Generally I felt disposable in contrast to the leadership. There would always be a hundred people behind me who would want my job. Anybody could be one of us. Nobody else could be Marc or Craig. Following WE Day, I was back on the road on a new part of the tour designed to expand FTC out West to British Columbia. The organization rented us an apartment from where we’d hit all the schools in the Vancouver region. The house was unfurnished. The organization indicated that I should buy the furniture for which I would be reimbursed. Normally this would be fine. Common practice for non-profits. Except I was a student making debt payments earning 1200 dollars a month. I tried to explain to Leaders Today that, with the resources I had available, we’d be buying maybe one piece of furniture every two weeks trickling it in until the place was settled. I asked for an advance, or access to a corporate card and both requests were denied. So, we started saving up for beds. In the meantime, our landlord was kind enough to lend us air mattresses. The situation at the house continued for a few weeks until I received a call from the organization about Me to We Style needing help on the West Coast. Me to We Style marketed itself as a clothing line which used sustainable fabrics and ethical labour practices. We were told that even the material for the stiches was certified child labour free. Me to We Style had recently partnered with Jacob clothing but sales had not gone well. To bolster sale numbers, I was asked to visit Jacob stores in the Vancouver region and purchase all the shirts I could find. “How am I going to do that?” but I knew was the answer was going to be (so do you). “We’re going to send a corporate card.” “Ugh!” screamed all of my aching air mattress vertebrae. “Okay sounds good” said conflict-avoidant-Matthew. And so, armed with a corporate card, I bought all the Me to We Style shirts I could from Jacob stores around the BC lower mainland. Internally, we were told that buying your own product was standard practice for companies to do. I returned with a car full of shirts decaled with “Caring Never Goes Out Of Style” in bright white lettering. After several weeks, an associate director of the organization was sent out West to join us. They explained that their arrival was due to my inability to get the BC house setup fast enough. And within a few days, I had a bed. I can’t recall if they paid out their own resources to make this happen or had a corporate card themselves.
I want to be clear, I’m not sharing the BC story to vent as a disgruntled employee. The truth is, I didn’t care about sleeping on a floor if it was needed for us to accomplish “doing good” with the organization and if people were like “hey thanks for sleeping on a floor” once in a while. But as an organization focused on labour practices around the world, it did raise doubts in our minds when our physical and mental health were not being taken into consideration or prioritized. It shook our faith in what we were doing, raised questions about the true intent of the directors, and in the organization’s work overseas.
Now…
WE Day has grown to include locations across Canada, the US, and now London England. Continuing Alison Atkinson’s views of WE Day she summarizes by saying
“Throughout the day, CEOs of We Day’s many corporate partners took to the stage, extolling their companies’ social change initiatives or screening slick commercials that highlighted their overseas work. We saw a video about a group of seniors having a ‘life-changing moment’ at a Cineplex theatre and learned the surprising degree to which the Keg is committed to alleviating poverty, ‘one $30 steak at a time.’ At times, it wasn’t clear to me whether the individual up on stage was there to sell their brand or as one of the inspirational speakers. As an establishment-wary 30-year-old, I’m more savvy to these things than the 15- to 17-year olds in my care.”
We agree to this advertising arrangement when, as educators, decide to participate in WE Day. If you’re a company, WE Day is great because you get to polish your brand by having it associated with WE and the corporate social responsibility model of “doing good.” That “polish” is literally the youth in the seats at the stadium. As the teacher I met on tour was trying to tell me, students who do the fundraising work were not really connected to the overseas projects. Actually, at the time, funds received by FTC were put into a general pool from which the organization drew. Funds raised by a given Canadian school may have not directly contributed to one individual school overseas at all. But I don’t think that was the point of the program. The point of getting the students involved wasn’t to connect them directly to those projects and schools abroad, it was to connect youth to the ‘movement.’ It was to connect them to Marc and Craig. And, through WE Day, it was to connect them to corporate sponsors. Remember — blue forms. (Another sad thing about WE Day I read…that’s where Idris Elba contracted up COVID19. Nobody messes with Idris!)
Recent stories shared by WE staff seem to indicate that a toxic work environment persists. Most notably, Amanda Maitland spoke about her experiences of racism at WE. In a video posted to Instagram, she describes how staff were having internal “siloed” conversations because “they’re so afraid.” Sounds very familiar. She also shares how the content of her anti-racism tour speech was altered and “watered down” with respect to her own personal stories and experiences of racism. Please watch Amanda’s video which inspired me to finally write this. Thank you, Amanda. WE responded to stories like Amanda’s here, and directly to Amanda here.
What about the treatment of staff overseas? In late June, a seriously troubling story developed surrounding WE operations in Kenya involving illegal asset transfers and intimidation faced by former director Sentai Kimakeke. His site, which outlined the intimidation he faced by WE in Kenya, has since posted a retraction. But there was public concern about Sentai’s safety given his site’s previous content and phone call recordings posted online. I honestly don’t know what to make of that whole situation. But former WE staff members who worked directly with Sentai have made public statements about concern for his wellbeing. There is a podcast on CANADALAND discussing the ongoing story here.
In terms of the organization’s greater cause, remember my understanding was that WE was ultimately founded in response to child labour practices overseas. In 2018 some of WE’s partnerships were shown to include companies known for environmental damage and the use of child labour. As far back a 2001 first year anthropology class, I learned about the social ills caused by one of their partners, Unilever. For a movement so connected to and embedded within corporate culture, how rigorous is their vetting process? Dow Chemical, another sponsor, is known for weapons manufacturing, tax evasion, and literally poisoning an entire community of people in India. This partnership isn’t hidden, it’s posted on the WE website. While reading the articles that outlined these corporate connections, what struck me most about this revelation wasn’t the ties to these companies themselves but rather WE’s response. Despite the links to these companies, which WE admitted, the organization internally discredited the authoring journalists. Where did the organization go that wanted to ensure it was child labour free down to the very threads of their T-shirts? Where did that 12 year old Craig go who called out then Prime Minister Chretien on for being too soft on child labour? Now, 25 years after its founding, WE’s quoted response of “No company is perfect” feels like the corporate equivalent of “Hey. Look. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.” Why would leadership respond like this?
Leadership: A Collision of Two Movements
Then…
The darker side to working within a culture of guilt is a “culture of fear.” I often felt I had to choose between cause or brand…or maybe better said cause and celebrity. I think when leadership is run through celebrityhood, it can devolve into a cult of personality. When I wasn’t finding a receptive ear with leadership over my concerns, I began to reach out to other colleagues within the organization. Specifically, there was a small cohort of us who had all come from University of Toronto between the university’s management program, African Studies, and International Development. A few days before the last leg of the tour, I got a call from the director of Leaders Today saying they wanted to connect. I sat down in the meeting, and before starting, they laid out several sheets of paper before me. They were my e-mails, printed, with some grievances that I had shared with my colleagues, specifically ones I knew personally from U of T. “You could have always come to me if you had concerns.” I was told. However, I felt it was because I had shared previous concerns that my e-mails were now being monitored. I issued an apology. I reiterated that I was simply frustrated. And I went back on tour. Following the end of my tour with FTC, I was supposed to have led a Summer voluntourism trip with youth to Ecuador. But, after completing the last of the school speeches, I was told otherwise:
“You’re not going to Ecuador anymore. You’re allowed to stay with the organization if you want to, but we won’t be putting you on tour anymore or doing any trips. What if you were to talk to a teacher, or parent, or youth about how you were feeling.” I was told. “What will I be doing then exactly?” The response, “Well you could help out around the office. Do some photocopying. Directors need coffee sometimes.” I politely thanked them (let’s be honest I ugly cried) and resigned. By the end of the following Summer, a group of three of us in total, mainly those I had been communicating with through e-mail from U of T, had all left the organization. It was for the best. My mental health had taken a serious dive. And so had theirs.
Now…
In Amanda Maitland’s video she says that when she raised concerns regarding the editing of her speech in a staff meeting she was immediately shut down by Marc. CBC covered her story in which cites a “culture of fear” expressed by other staff as well. Her story, and her willingness to share it, paved the way for these conversations. Others since have posted online. James Powell, former global brand manager for WE, indicates he was personally harmed by the organization and wants an open dialogue on how to move forward. In response, the organization has issued public apologies on social media and a call to open a dialogue. However, as James rightly points out, the organization has not yet (at the time of writing this) publicly stated that it is going to release any former staff from their signed Non-Disclosure Agreements.
What we’re seeing is a collision of two movements. WE has never publicly apologized or ever expressed any such desire to dialogue following past criticisms or concerns. But this time WE was confronted by an actual functioning social change movement, and it was found wanting. Had Black Lives Matters not been actively ensuring that organizations like WE are fighting racism and Amanda Maitland not brought her story to public light, I am doubtful that WE would have opened any dialogue with the public about its operations. In the past, WE has turned that culture of guilt and fear against the public itself. When CANADALAND journalists asked WE about their connections to companies with poor environmental and labour records, WE stated that the journalists were endangering children and their mothers (35:38 in this podcast) If an organization is willing to hold up vulnerable people overseas as shields against scrutiny, how can we ever hold them accountable for anything? Once again, my thanks to Amanda Maitland.
My last point on open leadership — while I was writing this, I thought to investigate if the Board of Directors had posted any comments about WE and the current scrutiny. Well it turns out they all recently resigned or replaced given this tweet by former Chair of the WE Charity Board of Directors, Michelle Douglas:
Is WE a Movement?
Still here? Thank you. Okay. Let’s come full circle. Is WE a movement? Was it ever?
Right now we’re seeing effective movements create social change. Black Lives Matter is drawing attention to chronic systemic racism in the US, Canada, and globally. We are seeing a movement to defund police drawing attention to how law enforcement is often used as a lethal tool of racial, class, and colonial oppression. These movements are led by grass roots community leaders, organized in basements, fought in the streets. Do all movements HAVE to look this way? I don’t think so. But common cause, transparency, and open leadership result in a movement’s ability to publicly identify deeply uncomfortable issues and offer not a quick way out of that discomfort but rather give people the tools and resources to really wrestle with them, dig in deep, and foster systemic change. I’m not sure that’s where WE’s strength lies. On tour, our job was to create a discomfort and then a solution provided by the organization. Sign this blue form. Go on a voluntourism trip. Buy a shirt. Go to WE Day. And now you’re “in style” as the piled shirts in the car said. In my opinion, this is why Amanda Maitland’s speech was watered down. The issues she’s trying to address, that of systemic change, don’t fall within the scope of how WE is trying to engage its donors. And THIS is my biggest concern with WE. Yes I’m worried that WE has misplaced its core values, about how it’s treating staff both locally and abroad, and about the ethics of government cronyism. Those things are super important. But my other fear is that WE was, and is, working exactly as it was meant to. Even if the allegations of cronyism stick with the Federal government, the situation in Kenya is explained, and the work culture becomes healthier for staff, WE will still be WE. And what is WE? I see a company, not a movement, that sells a feeling that you’re engaged with social change as a commodified product. I think that feeling is based on saviourhood providing a sense of gratification without truly challenging us to think more critically about the underlying causes of issues like poverty, decline of democracy, climate change, or the impacts of capitalism. It’s saviourhood led by two of the most famous white saviour figures I can think of. Isn’t that model already beginning to show its age? I have similar concerns about a great deal of the charity work done throughout the world, but WE has cornered the market in Canada, is expanding further, and drives the charity narrative. True movements challenge power. WE, though it may call itself a movement, currently seems to be the power we’re challenging.
So it’s not just what may be within WE that worries me, but what’s plainly out in the open. My worry is that if WE is a movement…it might just be — Movement™.
Do we need to be doing charity this way? Is this corporate social enterprise model the only way to reach this scale? It’s hard to wrap your head around the size of WE with all the facts and figures on their website. Do I think they are achieving good in the world? Honestly, I don’t know. I found that hard to concisely articulate or be certain of even when I worked there. Is it worth the concerns raised here by myself and others — worth parading our youth as corporate brand ambassadors? I don’t know if I can honestly answer that either. But I think we should be ALLOWED to ask, especially when WE holds the trust of our youth. The most valuable thing WE has is US. There are many other organizations with direct ties to grassroots initiatives around the world which can, and do, transparently connect donors with the people doing the work on the ground boosting their voices and faces in addition to (or in lieu of) the voices and faces of the organization’s founders. Let’s see those faces and hear those voices more. There are organizations that welcome questions, and scrutiny. There are organizations that are able to engage donors without compromising corporate partnerships. There are organizations that are part of real movements going on right now in the world. Let’s not lose sight of them behind the Blue Square of WE. And youth reading this — if you’re feeling discouraged right now, believe me, I completely understand how you feel. But remember, that incredible feeling surrounding WE was because of YOUR passion and efforts. That belongs to you. Not a brand. There are still so many opportunities for you to make change both locally and abroad. You don’t need the WE seal approval.
Was WE ever a movement? At one time it may have been, but remnants of that movement I think were swept away at the first WE Day. I think that’s why so many of the names you’ll see sharing stories like mine are back from that transitional period in the organization’s history. It was a giant culture clash within the organization between corporate and humanitarian trying to co-exist. Unfortunately, WE chose not to embrace that culture clash and did what it could to suppress it. In the wake of the federal partnership ending and the change in the Board of Directors, it feels like the organization is on its back foot. I’ve never seen WE be vulnerable before, so perhaps the organization will be more receptive to input. Maybe it’s time for a total leadership overhaul. Other organizations move on from their original founders.(sharewithus@we.org).
But let’s also keep this conversation public. A great dialogue is happening at the @antiRacistWE Instagram account which includes calls to action. This is the time for all of us to really look at the culture of charity in our country together.
