This paper uses critical legal studies (CLS) and critical nonprofit studies (CNS) to examine the charitable exception to the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP). In the middle-ages, RAP sought to lessen the worry that the so-called “dead-hand” of landholders would exert outsized influence over subsequent generations. RAP forbids people from putting conditions on property transfers unless those conditions expire no later than 21 years after a life in being, but an exception is made for charities. The exception exists because charities are assumed to be almost always beneficial to society; an assumption CLS and CNS question. By questioning such assumptions about the charitable exception to RAP, we reveal the extent to which the nonprofit sector is deliberately constructed to benefit the powerful, and the extent to which it can be deliberately remade.
ArnoveR. F. (1980). Introduction. In ArnoveR. F. (Ed.), Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad (pp. 1–24). Indiana University Press.
Candid. (2021, June). Key facts on U.S. nonprofits and foundations. https://doi.org/10/gjz2m9
8.
Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (2007). Patterns of household charitable giving by income group, 2005. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/5838.
9.
ChaevitchA. (2016). When charity meets racism: The story of cy près in the United States and England. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 54(2), 502–530.
10.
CordelliC.ReichR. (2016). Philanthropy and intergenerational justice. In González-RicoyI.GosseriesA. (Eds.), Institutions for future generations (pp. 228–244). Oxford University Press.
11.
CouleT. M.DodgeJ.EikenberryA. M. (2022). Toward a typology of critical nonprofit studies: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(3), 478–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020919807
12.
DahiyaS.YermackD. (2021, April). Investment returns and distribution policies of non-profit endowment funds. Finance Working Paper N° 582/2018. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25323
13.
DanleyS.BlessettB. (2022). Nonprofit segregation: The exclusion and impact of white nonprofit networks. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(3), 507–526.
14.
DarityW. A.MullenA. K. (Eds.). (2022). From here to equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). University of North Carolina Press.
Du BoisW. E. (1935). Black reconstruction in America. Simon & Schuster.
17.
Dunbar-OrtizR. (2014). An Indigenous Peoples' history of the United States. Boston.
18.
FaberD. R.McCarthyD. (2005). Introduction. In FaberD. R.McCarthyD. (Eds.), Foundations for social change: Critical perspectives on philanthropy and popular movements (pp. 3–32). Rowman & Littlefield.
19.
FisherD. (1983). The role of philanthropic foundations in the reproduction and production of hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences. Sociology, 17(2), 206–233.
20.
FishmanJ. (2005). Encouraging charity in a time of crisis: The Poor Laws and the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.868394.
21.
Foundation Center and Women’s Funding Network. (2009). Accelerating change for women and girls: The role of women’s funds. Foundation Center.
22.
FriedmanL. M. (2009). Dead hands: A social history of wills, trusts, and inheritance law. Stanford Law Books.
23.
FrumkinP. (1998). The long recoil from regulation: Private philanthropic foundations and the Tax Reform Act of 1969. American Review of Public Administration, 28(3), 266–286.
24.
GiridharadasA. (2018). Winners take all: The elite charade of changing the world. Knopf.
GuoC.MetelskyB. A.BradshawP. (Eds.) (2013). Out of the shadows: Nonprofit governance research from democratic and critical perspectives. In Nonprofit Governance (pp. 47–67). Routledge.
31.
HecklerN. (2019). Whiteness and masculinity in nonprofit organizations: Law, money, and institutional race and gender. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 266–285.
32.
HoweB. (1980). The emergence of scientific philanthropy, 1900–1920: Origins, issues and outcomes. In ArnoveR. F. (Ed.), Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad (pp. 25–54). G. K. Hall.
33.
INCITE!. (Eds.) (2007). The revolution will not be funded. South End Press.
IvesE. W. (1967). The genesis of the Statute of Uses. English Historical Review, L07349149241282109II(CCCXXV), 673–697.
39.
JenkinsJ. C. (1989). Social movement philanthropy and American Democracy. In MagatR. (Ed.), Philanthropic giving: Studies in varieties and goals (pp. 292–314). Oxford University Press.
40.
JensenC. (2013). Foundations and the discourse of philanthropy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(1), 106–127.
41.
JordanW. K. (1959). Philanthropy in England, 1480–1660. George Allen and Unwin.
42.
KansasE. Conf. of United Methodist Church, Inc., v. Bethany Med. Ctr. Inc. (1998).
43.
KennedyD. (1982). Legal education and the reproduction of hierarchy. J. Legal Education, 32(4), 591–615.
44.
KennedyD.KlareK. E. (1984). A bibliography of critical legal studies. Yale Law Journal, 94(2), 461–490.
45.
La Fond v. City of Detroit, 98 NW 2d 530. (1959).
46.
LechtermanT. M. (2022). The tyranny of generosity: Why philanthropy corrupts our politics and how we can fix it. Oxford University Press.
LisleR. M. (1894). Remoteness of charitable gifts once more. Harvard Law Review, 8(4), 211–219.
49.
MacleanM.HarveyC.YangR.MuellerF. (2021). Elite philanthropy in the United States and United Kingdom in the new age of inequalities. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(3), 330–352.
50.
MadoffR. D. (2010). Immortality and the law: The rising power of the American dead. Yale University Press.
51.
MatthewsD. (2013, May30). Only a third of charitable contributions go to the poor. The Washington Post.
52.
McCullyG. (2008). Philanthropy reconsidered: Private initiatives, public good, quality of life. Catalogue for Philanthropy.
53.
MirabellaR. M.CouleT.EikenberryA. M. (in press). Introduction: The landscape of critical nonprofit and voluntary action scholarship. In MirabellaR. M.CouleT.EikenberryA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Perspectives on nonprofit organizing and Voluntary Action: Concepts, applications, and Future Directions (pp. 1–23). Edward Elgar Publishing.
54.
Nathan Report. (1952). Report of the Committee on the Law and Practice Relating to Charitable Trusts. H.M.S.O.
55.
OdendahlT. (1990). Charity begins at home: Generosity and self-interest among the philanthropic elite. Basic Books.
56.
OstranderS. A.SchervishP. G. (1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as a social relation. In Van TilJ. (Ed.), Critical Issues in American philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice (pp. 67–98). Jossey-Bass.
57.
ParachinA. (2009). Charities and the rule against perpetuities. The Philanthropist, 21(3), 256–289.
58.
ParmarI. (2012). Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the rise of American power. Columbia University Press.
59.
PerkinsA. (2011). Edwin Rogers Embree: The Julius Rosenwald Fund, foundation philanthropy, and American race relations. Indiana University Press.
60.
PictonJ. (2020). Regulating egoism in perpetuity. In PictonJ.SigafoosJ. (Eds.), Debates in charity law (pp. 52–80). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Statute for the Punnysshement of Sturdy Vacabundes and Beggers. (1536). In the statues of the realms, printed by command of his majesty king George the third (pp. 968–970). Dawson of Pall Mall, 1810–1828. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000017915533
77.
Statute of Charitable Uses. (1536). In The Statues of the Realms, Printed by Command of His Majesty King George the Third. Dawson of Pall Mall, 1810-1828 (pp. 539-542). https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000017915533.
78.
Statute of Uses. (1536). In the statues of the realms, printed by command of his majesty King George the third (pp. 539–542). Dawson of Pall Mall, 1810–1828. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000017915533
79.
Statute of Wills. (1536). In the statues of the realms, printed by command of his majesty king George the third (pp. 744–748). Dawson of Pall Mall, 1810–1828 Great Britain. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000017915533
SwansonS. R. (1986). Discriminatory charitable trusts: Time for legislative solution. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 48(1), 153–200.
82.
SzymborskaH. K. (2022). The evolution of gender wealth inequality in the United States in a changing institutional context. Feminist Economics, 28(2), 32–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2022.2042583
83.
The Social Workers of Philadelphia versus the Dead Hand: A Review of the Ellis College Case. I. (1929). Social Service Review, 3(3), 422–447. http://www.jstor.org/stable/300093
84.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518. (1819).
85.
Trustees of Philadelphia Baptist Assn. v. Hart’s Ex’rs, 17 U.S. 1 (1819).
86.
VallelyP. (2020). Philanthropy –From Aristotle to Zuckerberg. Bloomsbury Publishing.
87.
VargasN.Villa-PalominoJ. (2019). Racing to serve or race-ing for money? Hispanic-serving institutions and the colorblind allocation of racialized federal funding. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 5(3), 401–415.
