I caught the yahoo news article on Oprah Winfrey's academy for girls in South Africa. The $40 million project is viewed by many critics as a personal vanity project for Ms. Winfrey.

And it is quite definitely possible that it is just that. My question is, since when did that become a bad thing?

One of the worst conditions that many people seem to attach to charity is the condition that it be anonymous, the condition that it be done solely out of the goodness of one's own heart with no thought of recognition. That sort of motivation may play out well in fairy tales, but in the real world, where most of it lives, it makes more sense to recognize people's desire to be recognized for their accomplishments. How many libraries bear the name of Andrew Carnegie, how many charities have the names of Rockefellers or Kennedies attached to them? Are we to dismiss the good these organizations have done simply because they bear the names of their benefactors?

When I walk into my public library, I log onto a computer that bears the name of the Gates foundation. When I channel surf on Labor Day each year, I will eventually come across the Muscular Dystrophy Telethon and the reminder of "Jerry's kids" because of the work Jerry Lewis has done over the years to help out this cause. The truth is, most charity is vanity of some sort or another; whether we are appealing for recognition from man or God, we are ultimately driven to charity out of vanity on some level.

I have serious doubts as to whether most people who are truly homeless or hungry would turn down a meal because of the name of the person who provided it, as I have my doubts that young African women would turn down an opportunity to attend Oprah's school simply because of the name of Oprah Winfrey. The truth is, even if Ms,. Winfrey's school only slightly improves the standard of living of these young ladies in Africa, then their communities will benefit, and if Ms. Winfrey gets kudos for doing that, those are kudos that are well earned.

So, whether Ms. Winfrey's act is one of philosophy or vanity, the truth is, it's her money to spend. While there may indeed be  better ways for her money to be spent, it's frankly not our place to dictate them. Ms. Winfrey's act stands to create a future for a few young women who might not have had one, and that is something that we should appreciate, not condemn. There's a thin line between philosophy and vanity, and it's only those of us who DON'T have the money to make such large scale contributions who can be sanctimonious enough to look down our noses at the wealthy.