A mural of Ruth Bader
Ginsberg in Washington.
By Sarah Green Carmichael
It’s now abundantly clear that the foundation responsible for administering an award named for Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) did not understand the assignment.
What’s much less clear is what the heck the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation was thinking when it transformed the award, established with the late Supreme Court justice to honor “women of leadership,” into a co-ed event honoring a single woman (Martha Stewart) and four men. And not just four random men, but these four dudes: Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Milken and Sylvester Stallone. The backlash was swift and furious. The awards ceremony has been canceled.
There’s been a lot of debate since RBG’s passing about the value of single-sex spaces— whether they are prizes or investment funds. But the fracas over the Ginsberg award shows one reason we still need them: If you open women-only spaces to men, less-qualified men can too easily supplant exceptional women.
That may come as a surprise to the Opperman foundation, which trumpeted “EQUALITY” (yes, in all caps) in its defensive response. Some have noted that Ginsberg was particularly excited to have Stallone involved with the award in earlier stages.
Yet Ginsberg herself said that the goal of the award was to honor women who showed “empathy and humility.” Are those words anyone would associate with Musk, whose ego couldn’t fit in one of his own Cybertrucks, or Milken, who went to jail after pleading guilty for securities fraud?
And not to insult Stallone, but his most famous roles— Rambo and Rocky aren’t exactly known for telegraphing such gentle human qualities. Nor is Murdoch, the nonagenarian best known for his conservative media empire and Succession-inspiring family life.
None of these honorees seem to have much in common with the first awardee, and the only one to receive her award directly from Ginsberg. That was Agnes Gund, a famously attention-shy philanthropist who has supported causes like literacy, the arts, AIDS research and criminal justice reform. She has been described by the New York Times as a “torchbearer for the obligation of the rich in an era dominated by vanity and hypocrisy.”
For all its talk of “EQUALITY,” even the most cursory look at this year’s honorees reveals that in making the award co-ed, the Opperman foundation lowered its standards.
In granting its award to Musk, the foundation lauded his entrepreneurshi— which is undoubtedly impressive. But the timing is curious given that Musk’s most recent business achievements include reducing the value of X (formerly Twitter) by over 70 per cent and making his flagship company, Tesla Inc., the worst-performing member of the S&P 500.
Then there’s Murdoch, who the Opperman foundation called “the most iconic living legend in media” in its press release announcing his win. That may come as a surprise to, say, Oprah Winfrey. No insult to nepo babies, but Murdoch got his start working on his father’s newspaper. Oprah got hers in a Mississippi shack without indoor plumbing. Murdoch’s media empire has been embroiled in scandals over phone-hacking and sexual harassment. Not so, Oprah’s.
And even if Ginsberg herself enjoyed a good Stallone movie, his list of achievements is notably paltry compared with, for example, previous RBG award winner Barbra Streisand. Streisand has won the quadruple crown of show biz, the EGOT— an Emmy, a Grammy, an Oscar, and a Tony. Stallone doesn’t have even one. The only category he can beat Streisand in is the Razzie awards, which are given to the worst films and actors. Stallone has won a dozen.
Then there’s the award to Milken, which was supposed to honor his philanthropic efforts. Surely a more deserving recipient would have been MacKenzie Scott, who has pledged astronomical amounts to a range of charities. Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge publication called her the “single most influential figure” in philanthropy in 2023. That was several hundred million dollars ago. Scott has been a welcome breath of fresh air with her willingness to give money to organizations doing good work and then get out of their way.
If the Opperman foundation had stayed true to the vision of the Ginsberg award, and committed to honoring a woman or women of empathy and humility, the organization would now be busily preparing for its April gala— rather than defending men who are so clearly less qualified.