Ouch.

I remember reading a goodreads review of Three Cups of Tea One Man's Mission to Promote Peace ... One School at a Time which criticized the book for sounding almost defensive in its relentless hero-worship of Mortenson -- as if the author were responding to attacks on Mortenson's character, the reviewer observed. Looking back, I think that reviewer was remarkably prescient.

In Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way, Jon Krakauer accuses Mortenson of fabricating many of the vivid anecdotes in Three Cups of Tea One Man's Mission to Promote Peace ... One School at a Time, failing to follow up on his schools once they're built to ensure that they are fulfilling their purpose (many of the buildings stand empty), mismanaging funds and stubbornly refusing to be transparent about his use of his non-profit organization's money, being a difficult boss to work for and a poor team player, etc., etc. Some accusations seemed petty and poorly established; others were more serious and difficult to dispute.

It's hard to know how to react. "My inclination is to reserve judgment until we know more, for disorganization may explain more faults than dishonesty," says Nicholas Kristof in his interesting New York Times article. And if there's one thing everyone agrees on, even Mortenson's supporters, it's that Mortenson is disorganized.

Kristof adds that "in their struggle to raise money, aid groups sometimes oversell how easy it is to get results. Helping people is more difficult than it seems, and no group of people bicker among themselves more viciously than humanitarians." This is one of the difficulties of working for a good cause, in my view -- the legitimate and pressing need for funding can tempt people to resort to all kinds of false advertising and marketing techniques, to an almost Machiavellian extent which seems rather inconsistent with the supposedly altruistic raison d'etre of the institution.

Another tendency I've observed in people spearheading non-profit organizations is a blurring of boundaries between their personal needs and the needs of their organization. Certainly, in order for humanitarian individuals to devote full days to their organization, they need to earn a living wage from the organization's funds if they're not independently wealthy. They need to be able to eat, travel for the organization, present themselves well...where do you draw the line?

A non-profit founder I know of travels first-class from Israel to America, justifying the expense by explaining that he works tirelessly during his brief visits and sleeping comfortably on the flight beforehand is a necessity, not a luxury. Is this entirely self-serving, or is there some legitimacy here? I'm sure there are lots of gray areas like that, particularly for Mortenson.

It's hard to know how much slack to cut. Krakauer doesn't seem to want to cut Mortenson any. I just don't think it's that simple. After all, the guy did build his schools as promised even if some of his efforts were misguided and the results were overhyped.

As Kristof sums up, "the greatest loss will be felt not by those of us whose hero is discredited, nor even by Greg himself, but by countless children in Afghanistan who now won’t get an education after all. But let’s not forget that even if all the allegations turn out to be true, Greg has still built more schools and transformed more children’s lives than you or I ever will."