Can we talk about...? A podcast on leading for racial equity in philanthropy · Philanthropy Northwest

Se-ah-dom Edmo and Esperanza Tervalon on funding the movement, what’s really “radical” and wooden clogs

July 22, 2025·51 min·2 clips

Abbey Sarmack frames the episode around the messiness of leading for racial equity in philanthropy. She brings in guests to talk through what funding the movement looks like when the stakes are lived, local, and political. The guests push back on the idea that community care is radical. They argue that families and home communities have been doing this work for generations. From there, the conversation turns toward the systems that deserve the label instead. White wealth protection, tax policy, and the tactics used to keep people poor, sick, and divided come up as the more radical force. That framing keeps the discussion on structures and the conditions they create. The episode does not stay abstract for long. It keeps returning to resourcing movements and shifting decision-making as practical work. That emphasis matters because it links values to operations. The guests describe this as a core part of how the organization understands its role. Leadership is another throughline. The conversation highlights an ongoing commitment to women of color and Black and Indigenous women of color leadership in the institution. The presence of Native women in chair and CEO roles is treated as meaningful and concrete. Oregon’s political history gives the episode its wider frame. The state is described as a testing ground for the right and for the left. That dual role helps explain why the conversation keeps circling back to polarized conflict and practical solutions. It is part of the backdrop and part of the argument. The episode also connects that context to the Oregon Relief Fund and to Oregon’s long sanctuary state identity. Those details show how policy lineage and community response can move together. The show treats those links as evidence of what institutions can build when they stay close to the people most affected. Throughout, the tone remains measured and relational. Ideas are reflected back, extended, and grounded in lived experience. The episode favors context over heat. It asks listeners to think carefully about where power actually sits and who has been doing the work all along.

As heard by us

A grounded case for calling care, not survival, radical.

The episode centers racial equity in philanthropy by asking who gets labeled radical and who is simply trying to survive with dignity. It draws a sharp line between the communities being funded and the tax and power structure built to protect white wealth and power, then keeps…

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Press play if you want a clear-eyed take on who power calls radical.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Can we talk about...? A podcast on leading for racial equity in philanthropy