They come closest to articulating the value of discovery when they write:
During these turbulent times, diversity in philanthropic giving can help shape and inform discussions about the most important issues of the day. It is through this diversity that philanthropy can proffer, study, and test a multiplicity of ideas and approaches to confront society’s greatest challenges.
However, they say little about the value of clashing, contesting, and arguing across different ideas and approaches. And this is too bad because it is from the messy cacophony of competition and struggling to convince each other that we generate knowledge that leads to innovation and progress. Yes, the contest should be respectful as they say, but there is a furious battle at hand about the purpose of public life. The terms of the struggle are important, but it is the fact that we are contesting not only the foundations whose prerogatives they seek to protect, but the actual foundations of our society, that is the reason we need to remind ourselves of the rules of civilized combat.
Many critics zeroed in on the essay’s historical justification and the implication that each different conception of the public good has equal standing:
The history of philanthropy is a history of using private capital to supplement, not replace, other approaches to investing in and supporting a prosperous and just society. A critical way philanthropy does this is by helping to make pluralism possible. Philanthropy as a whole makes its greatest contribution to democracy when all foundations and donors engage in the unfettered pursuit of their own mission, interests, and prerogatives.
In response, Vu Le argued that odious practices, attitudes, and laws have received unwarranted legitimacy under the cover of pluralism. Edgar Villanueva argued that the politeness of a middle ground that validates all perspectives puts marginalized communities at a disadvantage. Craig Kennedy pointed to the self-interest of the six authors who represent the philanthropic establishment at a time when the purposes of their institutions, as so many others, are being brought into question. Phil Buchanan bristled at the definiteness of the “manifesto” and sought to open up the space for critique about what is in and out of bounds amidst our plural conceptions of the good.