When it comes to making decisions, choices rarely boil down to a simple right vs. wrong, despite the rhetoric we get out of Washington, D.C., these days that promote a showdown atmosphere.
In the world of cutthroat politics, we often hear one side vilifying the position of the other side, casting decisions as good, pure and satisfying vs.
evil, dirty and insuffcient. A few things in life come down to such absolutes, but the vast majority of decisions we make are in the grayish area.
Well-intentioned and necessary decisions, however, can still have negative impacts.
Our case in point today is Tyson Foods.
The Springdalebased meat producer has a long history ofphilanthropic eft orts within the communities of Northwest Arkansas.
Practically any good cause that wanted to involve chicken in its charitable eftorts could get a donation of meat from Tyson. It’s been that way for years, and many organizations have been accepting this largesse for so long it’s hard for their organizers to think about Tyson’s donations in any way other than “that’s just always the way it’s been done.”
As with everything in Northwest Arkansas, change happens with time. Tyson Foods since 2000 has worked with nonprofit campaigns focused on the reduction or elimination of hunger. The cause seems a perfect fit for a company that feeds so many across the land. Tyson’s involvement has included giving more than 85 million pounds of meat to food banks, food pantries and relief organizations in 48 states. Most recently, Tyson decided to focus its philanthropy more intensely on its core goal of ending hunger.
Who can argue with such a goal? We’re thankful to have such a major corporate neighbor with the resources to tackle a daunting challenge like hunger.
By intensifying its eftorts, Tyson also decided to constrict its free-wheeling donation of meat to other local charitable eftorts that do good but aren’t focused on hunger relief. That includes the in-kind donation for events such as galas, cooking contests, golf tournaments, athletic team fundraisers and the like. That left some event organizers trying to fi gure out how they will continue to raise money without the contribution of meat their causes have benefi ted from in the past.
That’s a tough situation that local organizations will have to figure out. We suspect they will do that with the same creativity with which they’ve raised money for their causes over the years.
But the hard fact is Tyson’s commitment to hunger relief really should be a priority over fundraisers for sports teams, scholarships, Boy Scouts and the like. It can direct its contributions most effciently in its war on hunger.
Tyson has provided the fuel by which other good causes have raised untold sums of money for good causes. The company isn’t suggesting those causes are not deserving of community support.
They are simply focusing on the company’s core philanthropic goals, just as the smaller organizations will remain focused on their goals.
There is a lot of good being done by all these other organizations, many of which are supported by Tyson employees and those of other major corporations in the region.
If you’re in a giving mood this Christmas season, please consider local organizations that make significant impacts for our community through youth programs, educational eftorts and other missions.
When one door closes, others will open.
Sometimes it just takes a while to fi nd them, especially if you’re still fixated on the door that’s closed.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 12/12/2012