The ACLU’s Fading Light Of Liberty
The Statue of Liberty holding the torch high to show the light of liberty to the world is a symbol that the ACLU decided to adopt. So as the ACLU boasts about protecting our Bill of Rights most people expect them to set the example. While some people are still clinging to the false hope that the ACLU truly believe in what they claim to, in many eyes their light is fading.
Several board members of the American Civil Liberties Union expressed concerns at a meeting yesterday over proposed standards that would prohibit board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal operations.
“I cannot vote for these proposals, as I have violated them nearly every time I have written an op-ed piece or spoken to the press,” said Mary Ellen Gale, an at-large member.
Bennett Hammer, a board member representing the organization’s New Mexico affiliate, cited examples of decisions in the last few years that he said had embarrassed the A.C.L.U. and contended that adopting the proposals would be yet another of “the things that have made us a laughingstock with the public.”
The board nonetheless voted against motions to strike the controversial provisions from the proposals and instead opted for further discussion.
Emily Whitfield, an A.C.L.U. spokeswoman, said the failure of the motions was not an endorsement of the proposals. “A vote at this early stage would have been a departure from the board’s deliberative process, and to suggest otherwise would be unfair and misleading,” she wrote in an e-mail message.
One of the provisions said, “a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board and staff.”
Another said, “Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement.”
The provisions have attracted criticism from several newspaper editorial boards, members and donors, who said they clashed with the A.C.L.U.’s historic defense of free speech.
“I truly believe the A.C.L.U.’s finest moment was its defense of the Nazi party,” said Alan Kahn, a longtime A.C.L.U. member, referring to the organization’s legal support of the party’s right to march through a heavily Jewish Chicago suburb in the 1970’s. “How can the A.C.L.U. not support the same right for its board members?”
Mr. Kahn, a retired Wall Street executive, said he was working to form a group to provide external oversight of the organization’s governance. “This is too important an institution,” he said. “I can’t just sit by and let it go awry.”
The controversy over the proposals even persuaded Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the A.C.L.U., to attend the meeting yesterday, despite an oath he made at his retirement five years ago to stay away. “I had never thought I’d come to another board meeting,” Mr. Glasser said, “but I came to listen to this debate because I had received an unusual amount of calls and e-mails asking me what was going on at the A.C.L.U., and I decided to come and see for myself.”
The controversy has even gained the concern of the NY Attorney General’s office.
A lawyer in the New York state attorney general’s office informally warned the American Civil Liberties Union that his office had concerns about proposed standards that would limit the group’s board members from speaking publicly about policies and internal operations, according to three board members.
The executive committee of the A.C.L.U. board was told about the warning on Friday, the day before the board met in New York for its quarterly meeting. Board members, who discussed the proposals on Saturday but took no action, had no knowledge of the warning and the meeting ended on Sunday without the executive committee revealing it.
“What if we had voted to approve the proposals?” said Wendy Kaminer, a board member who has criticized the proposals and other actions taken by the board and the A.C.L.U. leadership over the last couple of years. “We had a need and a right to know that if we passed them, we might get into trouble with the attorney general’s office.”
Nadine Strossen, the board president, confirmed in an e-mail message that “someone” in the attorney general’s office had called in his personal capacity to tell the A.C.L.U. of concern about the issue and that the executive committee had discussed it.
If the ACLU want to retain any credibility for its causes it will vote down this ridiculous and hypocritical proposal. The public has a right to know should know (corrected for nit pickers) about conflicting issues in an organization that so powerfully effects the decisions of courts and reach down into all of our lives. If the ACLU are truly concerned with the mission of protecting free speech, then they will not restrict and censor the free speech of its own board members. I praise the members that are standing up to this hypocrisy. The ACLU needs a change in leadership. They need a leader that truly believes in the ACLU’s stated mission more than fundraising. Any intellectually honest member of the ACLU should burn their membership cards if this policy is passed. I will praise the ACLU if they shoot this hypocrisy down. If they vote to enstate it, they will become the epitiomy of hypocrisy. They will stain their already damaged reputation, and destroy any credibility they might still have. It will just be Conservatives, whom already realize how hypocritical they are, that condemn them; they will also lose all credibility with any honest liberal that truly believes in free speech. They will pay a high price, one that will most likely cost them more than they realize.
Of course they are a private organization and have every right to do this it will only result in a tarnished credibility and reputation. The whole reason that they even proposed this policy was for fundraising concerns. If they are really concerned with fundraising, they should drop this proposal like the hot potatoe it is. They will lose a lot more money adopting it than they would ever save by it. More importantly, they should drop it if they are truly concerned with the cause of free speech.
Others:
Blue Crab Boulevard
Junkyard Blog
The Corner
Email This
Posted by Jay on June 18, 2006 10:37 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL:
- Conservative Thinking: Does The ACLU Believe In Free Speech?
- Xtreme Right Wing. Scratching the Rash of Liberalism! pinged this post.
- Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Meanwhile, in Moscow pinged this post.
- Macker's World: ACLU Delenda Est
- Conservative Outpost: Daily Summary
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Irony at the ACLU pinged this post.
- Right on the Right » The ACLU’s Fading Light of Liberty pinged this post.
- pretend pundit: ACLU Promotes Censorship — When It’s Good For Them
- Blue Crab Boulevard: We Are The Champions
- Conservative Culture » Blogburst - ACLU’s Hypocricy Legacy pinged this post.
- Conservative Thinking: ACLU Hypocrisy Files
- Xtreme Right Wing. Scratching the Rash of Liberalism! pinged this post.
Comments
5 Responses to “The ACLU’s Fading Light Of Liberty”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Another example of liberal tolerance. It is only liberal and tolerant if it agrees with those who hold the power.
Bosun,
You made a very valid point. That is one reason the UN remains a liberal organization. It was established by liberals and screens all NGO’s each year in order to make sure they hold to liberal policies.
This is right on par with a video I made a few days ago.
Basicly its about the ACLU, and about “freedom of speech”.
You all might find it funny. If you dont, shame on you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYTqUaTpNyc
ACLU delelda est.
Shoot…that should be delenda. PIMF.