What Oprah and Bill Clinton Have in Common
Some would argue that while big-name celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and U2's Bono can be effective in bringing about initial socioeconomic and cultural changes, they may not produce long-term results unless they are genuinely committed to their cause. Each of these four celebs have lent their brand names to causes ranging from education to the environment to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Myles Spar, an HIV/AIDS specialist in Los Angeles who advises Doctors Without Borders, told The Christian Science Monitor that the "best" brand of celebrity involvement comes from those who "know their limitations better and are usually more genuinely interested in discovering how best to use their status." Oprah, for example, has consistently exercised her desire to help those in need by maximizing on her larger-than-life persona over the last two decades. Oprah's recent endeavor, building a $40-million school for impoverished yet high-potential South African girls in January, wowed most audiences. Some were more critical, arguing that the media diva should have opened such a school for children in the (See also: Why Are People Picking on Oprah? It's a Diversity Issue and The Oprah War Continues—Most Readers Defend Her) But are we setting our expectations too high for celeb philanthropists? In an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, "Celebrities are like other people who do this ... some of them will stay at it for a lifetime, some of them will quit," How is your company making a difference? Read DiversityInc's exclusive Q&A with Bill Gates: How Corporate Philanthropy Can Change the World in the December 2006 issue of DiversityInc magazine, and learn how DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity inspire change by tying business to philanthropy. (See also: The Oprah Effect)
|