Yes, I'm assuming an individual who has finite (but possibly significant) resources. Let's assume s/he wants to do as much good as s/he can.
Who determines whether some proposed action is sufficiently good, so as to allow them to take that action?
In your view, should it be left up to the individual, who wishes to give, or should the decision be someone else's?
For example, if Bill & Melinda Gates wanted to donate a great deal of money to help the poor, would you say that someone other than Bill and Melinda had a right to say how their resources may be distributed?
As a private citizen, wishing to donate their money-or other resources, I believe it should be left up to the individual to decide. There are edge cases, such as donating money to support illegal activity--such as "terrorism", or if the donation will be counted towards tax benefits.
In your scenario, you only have fixed set of resources and wanted to do as much good as you can.
I would imagine in that situation, to make things "fair" you would have some set of criteria in which a poor person could qualify for assistance.
As long as those criteria were objective (geographic, income based, etc) I would support your organization.
If you only wanted to help poor whites, or poor men, or otherwise discriminated against protected classes, then I wouldn't be okay with that.
To put this back to MIT and Harvard: They made learning accessible to everyone except for people who are deaf and those without internet access. The law protects the first group, and not the second.