Never thought I’d link to the Nation
Posted on January 20, 2007
But Scott Sherman has an extensive piece about the ACLU’s internal controversies that have sprung from executive director Anthony Romero’s hypocritical strong-arm tactics resulting in a purge the organization of dissent, “datamine” his donor base and make a string of dictatorial decisions.
The Nation: ACLU v. ACLU
Tension at the upper echelons of the ACLU has been evident for some time. On April 22 of last year, the ACLU national board converged on the Princeton Club in Manhattan for its quarterly meeting. A few weeks earlier, in an interview with the conservative New York Sun, board member Wendy Kaminer had criticized a statement by the ACLU’s Washington legislative director. What Kaminer did was hardly unusual: For more than two years she has been an indefatigable critic of the ACLU leadership.
The principal target of her criticism–Anthony Romero–had apparently reached his breaking point. Halfway through the meeting he denounced Kaminer for “attacking his staff” in the Sun. While he was speaking, one board member, Alison Steiner, made a facial expression Romero didn’t appreciate. Kaminer recalls, “Anthony strides down from the podium, he points at Alison, and essentially orders her out of the room.” Romero berated Steiner in the hallway, leaving her shaken. Later in the meeting, South Carolina representative David Kennison belatedly rose to defend Kaminer, after which Romero asked Kennison, too, to step outside. Kennison later claimed that Romero told him that he would “never” apologize to Kaminer, and that he was accumulating a “thick file on her.” “I got frustrated and lost my temper,” Romero subsequently told the New York Times. “I do not have a file on Wendy.”
Civil libertarian, huh?
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Never thought I’d link to the Nation”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
You’re talking about private individuals and a private organization. Everything they do, good or bad, is an exercise of civil liberties. Their personal behavior and ethics have no bearing on the merit of their legal arguments.
Jeff-s into the old “do as I say not as I do” philosophy I see.
The ACLU doesn’t only make “legal arguments” (I would argue that they make no real legal arguments at all:)
The ACLU also claims to stand for a broad set of principles. Hypocrisy doesn’t bother you much Jeff, does it?
Hypocrisy bothers me very much. The difference is that when you cry “hypocrisy!”, it’s often apples to oranges. A private person or organization can insist that the government act in a way that that person or organization would not.
I have the right to insist my governments make their financial statements readily available to me. Do you think there’s any chance I’m going to even hint at what my personal numbers say? I certainly wouldn’t ask you for information like that, so I’m not a hypocrite by refusing to offer it. It may constrain the number topics we can talk about effectively, but that’s a choice we each have the right to make. I don’t have any more right to insist that the ACLU make its internal disagreements public than I do to insist that you tell me when you fight with your wife.
You’re right, however, that the ACLU doesn’t constrain itself to legal arguments. When they address something to you, feel free to call them hypocrites and tell them to go fly a kite. But when they address our governments, their arguments must be addressed on their merits.
Jeff–
I don’t think you know what this whole dust-up is about, otherwise I think we may agree. You might want to educate yourself on the totality of Romero’s misdeeds. You may come to a different conclusion with a little knowledge. It’s pretty apparent from your above comment that you don’t really know what is happening there.
Search this site. Jay has covered this topic pretty extensively. Read the entire article I linked to.
What do you think of Ted Haggard?
I don’t care about his misdeeds at all. He could very well be the biggest ass in the country; I’ll take your word for it. It’s just that I reject the constant insinuations that the faults of the individuals bear any relevance to their positions on matters of law.
Honestly, I don’t know who he is. I’ve seen the name before and Google shows me that he’s some sort of religious figure.
“It’s just that I reject the constant insinuations that the faults of the individuals bear any relevance to their positions on matters of law.”
So it’s OK that the ACLU, in court and on the public scene, claims that free speech is inviolable, yet tries to silence members of its own organization when they dissent from the leadership? It’s OK to accuse the government of fascism while practicing it yourself? That’s rich Jeff.
Yes. “Free speech” refers to speech protected by this sentence: “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
As such, it is fundamentally impossible for a private organization to violate one’s freedom of speech. Best Buy has no obligation to hire or retain an individual who openly advocates Circuit City. Coke has no obligation to hire an individual or retain an individual threatens to divulge their secret recipe. The individuals may say whatever they please (Assuming they haven’t signed an NDA), but the organization doesn’t have to tolerate it.
The primary definition of fascism is “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator…” Since the ACLU isn’t a “system of government”, that definition clearly doesn’t apply. I’ll assume you meant the broader, secondary meaning “Oppressive, dictatorial control.” Yes, it is possible to run an organization that could be characterized as having “oppressive, dictatorial control.” Obviously the law places limits on how much control an organization can exert over its members, but it can be a legal and effective management strategy.
Most people chafe under such management and would exercise their right to move on, but some people thrive under it. Scotty Bowman, Mike Ditka, and Donald Trump have all succeeded with such a strategy.
Is it the right and proper strategy for the ACLU? I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t care. I’m not a member. I just happen to agree with them on a lot of issues. Someone(s) with a significant stake in the organization chose the guy. One way or another, they’ll live with the consequences of their choice.