– A Special Investigative Editorial From the Publisher –
By Steven D. Mills
President and Publisher, On The Dial, a Diviunity Company
November 12, 2026
America has always demonstrated an extraordinary ability to help people in need. We organize fundraisers for children battling cancer, families devastated by fires and strangers confronting unimaginable circumstances. I’ve witnessed that generosity firsthand, and I continue believing compassion is one of this country’s greatest strengths. But something unfolding in the aftermath of the University of Mississippi racial controversy has me questioning whether we’ve begun confusing genuine generosity with rewarding behavior that deserves accountability.
Apparently, refusing to apologize has become a fundraising strategy.
And a remarkably profitable one.
A GiveSendGo campaign titled Stand with Lauren has now raised approximately $60,000 toward a $75,000 goal following a disturbing incident at Ole Miss.
Not for reconciliation. Not for racial understanding. Not for the Black students whose experiences sparked this controversy.
But for a campaign whose organizer explicitly discourages an apology.
When did acknowledging racial harm become a weakness, while refusing to do so became something strangers were willing to finance?
Three Students, One Video and a Disturbing Response
On November 6, a Ring security camera captured three young women outside an apartment occupied by three Black University of Mississippi students. Two appeared to make monkeylike sounds and gestures.
The recording spread nationally, prompting university officials to condemn the behavior and launch an investigation. One woman involved, Alaina Kunes, apologized and withdrew from the university.
The Black students described the experience as deeply hurtful. They deserve to be heard, treated with dignity and given the same consideration we would expect for anyone experiencing humiliation.
Instead, the controversy produced something extraordinary: a fundraising campaign that appears to treat an apology as an outcome to be prevented.
We’ve reached a troubling moment when acknowledging another person’s pain can threaten financial support, while refusing to acknowledge it attracts thousands of dollars.
Tom Hennessey, What Exactly Are You Raising Money For?
Tom Hennessey organized the GiveSendGo campaign, identifying Lauren Mayfield as its intended beneficiary. The fundraiser describes its purpose as assisting with lost income and opportunities.
Supporting someone facing public criticism isn’t inherently wrong. People deserve fair treatment, and consequences should be proportionate.
But Hennessey’s campaign goes considerably further.
Its description explicitly discourages apologizing and reserves his right to cancel the fundraiser if Mayfield rejects his support and does so.
Let me understand this.
If this young woman decides tomorrow that she regrets what happened and wants to acknowledge someone else’s pain, the organizer could cancel the campaign?
What kind of financial assistance discourages personal growth?
A scholarship in stubbornness?
An anti-apology retirement account?
Tom Hennessey, are you helping this young woman rebuild her future, or attempting to make her a permanent symbol of somebody else’s political argument?
The campaign identifies Hennessey as its creator, but the publicly available information does not establish that Mayfield authorized the arrangement or received its proceeds.
GiveSendGo requires recipient verification before funds can be disbursed.
That is an important safeguard.
The Donation Messages, Where the Real Story Gets Uncomfortable
I have examined screenshots showing contributions and messages associated with this fundraiser.
Some donors simply offered encouragement. Those statements alone do not establish racial prejudice.
Others went considerably further.
A $1,000 contribution explicitly urged the intended recipient never to apologize.
An anonymous $500 donation invoked God’s love while encouraging resistance to apologizing.
A $300 contribution included a deeply disturbing message making a sweeping, degrading allegation about an entire culture, portraying its members as inherently violent toward white people.
Another $25 contributor dismissed the incident as an innocent joke that had attracted excessive criticism.
These statements represent different attitudes and should not all be characterized identically.
But the racially hostile language deserves unequivocal condemnation.
There is a difference between defending someone’s right to fair treatment and using that person’s controversy as an opportunity to express contempt for an entire race.
Freedom of expression does not require the rest of society to applaud what someone chooses to say.
And generosity does not automatically make the message behind a donation morally defensible.
Religious Leaders, There Is a Higher Standard
While examining names associated with these fundraising efforts, I recognized individuals, including names that may correspond with people involved in religious leadership.
That concerns me.
But there’s an important distinction.
Anyone can enter a fictitious name online. A donor might use someone else’s name, and multiple people can share identical names.
A displayed donor name is not proof of identity, and a donation alone does not establish racial prejudice.
Any allegation involving a religious leader must be independently verified before conclusions are drawn.
Nevertheless, if credible evidence establishes that a pastor or other spiritual leader has personally endorsed racial hatred, I believe congregations and denominational authorities have a responsibility to examine that conduct fairly.
Spiritual leadership carries obligations beyond Sunday morning.
Micah 6:8 reminds us:
“What doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” — KJV
Justice. Mercy. Humility.
Three expectations about how we should live.
Not three suggestions from which we select whichever happens to support our politics.
If someone entrusted with spiritual leadership openly expresses racial hostility, that individual should be prepared to explain those beliefs to the people who trust them.
The cross was never segregated by skin color. Why should Christian compassion be?
GiveSendGo, Your Own Standards Demand Answers
GiveSendGo presents itself as a Christian crowdfunding platform emphasizing generosity, compassion and prayer.
Its published terms prohibit fundraisers whose stated or demonstrable purpose is promoting racism or hatred toward protected groups. Those same rules permit lawful support for controversial individuals.
That distinction matters.
The question isn’t whether people have a right to support Lauren Mayfield. The question is whether this particular campaign, its conditions and its administration comply with GiveSendGo’s own standards.
The organizer explicitly discourages an apology.
Questions remain about the intended recipient’s authorization.
And publicly displayed donor messages contain deeply troubling racial language.
Those circumstances warrant examination.
On The Dial calls upon GiveSendGo to immediately suspend the Stand with Lauren campaign pending a formal review.
Verify the intended beneficiary. Review the organizer’s conditions. Examine the donor messages under the platform’s policies. Determine whether the fundraiser complies with the company’s published standards.
If violations are established, discontinue the campaign and handle the contributions according to those rules.
I believe this campaign should be shut down in its present form.
If GiveSendGo reaches a different conclusion, its leadership should explain why.
A company cannot expect the public to respect its standards if it refuses to demonstrate how those standards are applied.
GiveSendGo is welcome to respond directly to On The Dial, and we will give that response fair consideration.
An Apology Is Not a Defeat
I believe young people deserve opportunities to grow beyond their mistakes. I also believe people harmed by those mistakes deserve acknowledgment, dignity and respect.
Those principles are not mutually exclusive.
An apology does not have to destroy someone’s future. It can demonstrate the courage to recognize another person’s humanity.
What concerns me most about this fundraiser is the message its conditions communicate.
That standing your ground matters more than examining your conduct. That apologizing represents weakness. That refusing to reconsider your actions deserves a financial reward.
Those are dangerous lessons.
We can defend due process without celebrating offensive conduct.
We can support second chances without pretending nothing happened.
And we can disagree about appropriate consequences without surrendering our commitment to human dignity.
America, What Are We Really Rewarding?
I continue believing generosity is among America’s greatest strengths. But generosity without conscience can become something entirely different.
Money can support a family, relieve suffering and provide extraordinary opportunities.
But money cannot transform every cause into a righteous one.
And raising tens of thousands of dollars does not automatically establish that a campaign deserves admiration.
To Tom Hennessey, I challenge you to reconsider whether discouraging an apology truly serves the intended recipient’s future.
To religious leaders, I challenge you to demonstrate the principles you profess.
To GiveSendGo, I challenge you to examine this campaign and enforce your published standards.
And to America, I offer one final thought.
We should never become a society where people receive greater encouragement for refusing to acknowledge harm than they do for finding the courage to make things right.
Our character isn’t measured by how much money we can raise when we’re angry. It’s measured by whether we can still recognize another person’s humanity when doing so requires humility.
Seventy-five thousand dollars may finance a controversy. It cannot purchase integrity, forgiveness or a clear conscience.
And if we lose sight of that distinction, the cost to our country will be considerably greater than anything appearing on a fundraising page.
With conviction and unwavering faith,
Steven D. Mills
President and Publisher, On The Dial
A Diviunity Company
On a personal note, my search for a compatible kidney donor continues. To learn more or help, please visit https://FindMyOne.org.
Hashtags
#OleMiss #GiveSendGo #AccountabilityMatters #StandAgainstRacism #ChristianLeadership #HumanDignity #OnTheDial #LoveOutLoud #FindMyOne