One hire at a time, the last five years have offered hope to those longing to see the once-overwhelmingly white environmental sector transform into a movement that is representative of all Americans.
Nonprofits slowly but steadily diversified staff and leadership ranks, annual reports from Green 2.0 showed. Environmental funders — or at least those grantmakers who shared such data — also diversified. And most visibly, three of the country’s biggest green groups chose men of color as their leaders: the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Resources Institute and the Sierra Club.
So when news broke last week that the Sierra Club had fired its executive director Ben Jealous — the environmental group’s first Black leader — the decision inevitably carried on its shoulders the fraught legacy of the green movement’s still-incomplete efforts on racial equity.
On top of that, the dismissal comes as the Trump administration is rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and all but banning the words themselves. Foundations have scrubbed their websites of such language and billionaire donors like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have moved on from previous social justice commitments.
Jealous’ departure also bears its own history, also fraught. The operations of the Sierra Club have been highly scrutinized almost since the former NAACP president was hired in January 2023. There’s been a steady drip of stories about layoffs, no confidence votes, racist treatment of Jealous and even a cryptocurrency lobbyist in a top position at the Oakland, California-based nonprofit. In July, reports indicated Jealous had been placed on leave — and last week, Politico’s E&E News revealed the Sierra Club had terminated Jealous for cause.
Given the sector’s history, this situation feels like an opportunity for philanthropy to reflect on its own role and responsibility. This case is still developing, and its particulars may hold little wider significance, but the reactions this episode has already sparked deserve reflection, regardless of our own assumptions about Jealous and the Sierra Club.
What do Ben Jealous’ detractors and defenders say?
Those inclined to side with Jealous can point to the comments from two former members of the Sierra Club board of directors, Chad Hanson and past Board President Aaron Mair, who wrote a July letter to the organization alleging Jealous was treated differently than past directors and was the victim of a “smear campaign.”
“Ben is under attack by many who, through a pattern of misinformation, character assassination and discrimination, seek to oust him from his position and drive him out of the Sierra Club,” they wrote, according to a story in the Amsterdam News.
After news broke of Jealous’ termination, several other Sierra Club members, including chapter managers and past employees, told the Amsterdam News that they were frustrated with the decision or saw racism in how he was treated. “The welcome mat was not laid out for Ben Jealous,” Virginia Sanders, a former staffer, told the news outlet.
The Rev. Al Sharpton also weighed in, saying there were “serious racial implications” to the Sierra Club’s termination of Jealous, according to Politico.
When Jealous took control of the Sierra Club, it was facing serious budget issues, cultural turmoil and once-in-a-generation federal challenges. It adds up to a familiar tale: a person of color given an opportunity amid a crisis and then blamed for the measures they take.
Yet it’s also clear that Jealous rapidly lost the support of those he was seeking to lead. Votes by the organization’s union, managers and at least two chapters showed there were serious doubts about Jealous among employees and volunteers.
In May 2024, some 330 union members — represented by the Progressive Workers Union and the Sierra Employee Alliance, and accounting for about 40% of all Sierra Club staff — passed a no-confidence resolution with 91.2% in support. Another 117 staff, who called themselves the “majority” of the organization’s nonunionized staff, i.e., mostly managers, signed a different no-confidence letter in 2025, according to NOTUS. Leaders of the Oregon and Missouri chapters also voted unanimously to request a no confidence vote by the board as well, reported the New York Times.
Jealous also lost the admiration of at least one legend in the field. Dr. Robert Bullard, known as the father of environmental justice, accused Jealous of “empty promises” in a blog post and, in a private letter to the Sierra Club board reported by Inside Climate News, issued his own request for a board no-confidence vote in Jealous. (Incidentally, another environmental justice champion, Rita Harris, currently sits on the Sierra Club’s board, which voted unanimously to terminate Jealous.)
Then there’s the curious case of former staffer Kevin Harris, who, while earning $240,000 a year as the organization’s chief strategy officer in 2023, was also serving as a registered lobbyist for Crypto.com, according to Inside Climate News. The Sierra Club has heavily criticized the cryptocurrency industry for its energy use.
Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:
For Subscribers Only
What can we learn from the case of Jealous and the Sierra Club?
There is much that remains unknown about this situation, particularly the exact cause for which Jealous was terminated. More revelations are almost certainly ahead, given that Jealous has said he plans to contest his dismissal.
“It is disheartening, unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising that the board has chosen an adversarial course that the facts so clearly cannot support,” he said in a statement reported by Politico. “I have begun the process under my contract to fight this decision. I am confident that we will prevail.”
Perhaps something yet to be reported will change this, but in examining what has been uncovered by my peers to date, I find myself struggling to understand observers’ conviction.
I would hope even Jealous’ fiercest defenders would admit, after so many lopsided votes against him, that he fell short of winning the confidence and trust of staff and volunteers. And I would also hope that even his biggest critics would acknowledge, amid several Sierra Club veterans making the difficult decision to go public about their concerns over racism, that such sentiments must not be waved away.
Instead, it feels like this departure runs the risk of being flattened into a binary. One group charges racism, the other mismanagement; some hold up organizational flaws, others flag leadership choices; some cite sector biases, others point to specific failings; and on and on.
A simple narrative, after all, slots more neatly into larger philanthropic debates, such as the merits of funding big greens versus grassroots groups; whether the former or latter are more accountable to funders and less vulnerable to waste or dysfunction, or which type is more effective, or uses funding more efficiently; how Black leaders and others of color are treated by boards and staff; and on, as well.
Yet when I have spoken to employees with serious concerns about their boss or organization, or to leaders about their issues with the sector, seldom are they so categorical. In fact, many emphasize the contradictions or note that despite serious breakdowns in one area, other valuable goals were achieved. Statistics do show serious funding gaps, such as for people of color-led nonprofits versus those with white leaders, but look closely at a single case and there is almost always nuance.
I wonder if we would all learn more, and even help the sector become what so many hope it can be, by being open to these complexities — and what they can teach us.
The environmental movement’s transformation is still — unfairly and unfortunately — a work in progress, like that of our society itself. The specifics of why the Sierra Club fired Jealous are critical. Yet for the sector, the symbolic significance may be more important, regardless of what the details ultimately show. Thus, it feels like a call to all of us, regardless of which side we sympathize with, to hear the anger and frustration it has surfaced.
Michael Kavate covers climate philanthropy and billionaire donors. He welcomes feedback, disagreements, tips and requests.
