Rebellion Within The ACLU

Posted on June 26, 2006

Can we save the ACLU? What am I saying? Don’t I want to stop the ACLU? I’ve said it before, America needs an organization that fights for our civil liberties and protects the bill of rights. Is the ACLU worth saving? Not in its current form. It should be obvious to any intellectually honest person that the ACLU has a left wing agenda that bypasses any claimed mission statement of unbiased protection of civil liberties. They protect the civil liberties of abortion supporters, but have a completely different set of standards when it comes to anti-abortion protesters. They are falling apart within just like all corrupt organizations do when they put greed above the ideals they are supposed to stand for. Hypocrisy eats away at their core when an organization that claims to be the protector of free speech considers censoring the speech of its own members. When an organization that claims to care deeply about people’s “right to privacy” begins to monitor its own members emails, and delve into their finiancial history, only the blind sheep can continue to follow without question.

A rebellion is growing within the ACLU that I have to support. Our mission from the get go here, despite what some claim, has nothing to do with being against civil liberties. Our mission is to help stop the dangerous left wing agenda that is going on at the ACLU. If a group of dissenters from within the organization can reform the ACLU to represent the values written in its mission statement, and purge at least part of the hypocrisy from within, it is a cause worth supporting.

Supporters of the American Civil Liberties Union who have become disillusioned with the group’s governance are gathering the support of former officials, donors, and other ACLU members to challenge the organization’s leadership, according to people involved in the discussions.

The target of the nascent campaign is the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony Romero, 40, who took over day-to-day operation of the group in 2001.

One troubling sign for Mr. Romero is the emergence in the opposition camp of his predecessor, Ira Glasser. Since his retirement in 2001 after 23 years at the helm of the ACLU, Mr. Glasser has had little involvement in the civil liberties group’s affairs.

However, he appeared at a board meeting earlier this month where proposals to limit speech by board members were debated. Mr. Glasser, 68, did not address the session, but told associates he hoped his presence would be interpreted as a sign of his distress.

Mr. Glasser declined to be interviewed for this story. However, a longtime ACLU donor, Alan Kahn, said Mr. Romero’s actions over the past five years have caused him to lose Mr. Glasser’s confidence.

“Apparently, he gave a strong recommendation to the hiring of Romero. He sees this was a poor recommendation and has now realized he has no choice but to take some action,” Mr. Kahn said in an interview. “I have heard it said to me that he feels that he has to atone for what he’s done and now is maybe willing to become activist.”

A change in leadership is exactly what the ACLU needs. They need a leader that is actually more concerned with civil liberties than fundraising, and someone that believes in free speech for everyone despite what side they are on politically. I’m not an absolutist on unlimited free speech. I think that philosophy has its own dangers. Absolutist philosophies, just as any extremist view, endangers the very civil liberties it claims to protect. This is especially true when the issue at hand is national security. However, an absolutist view on whose free speech is worthy of protection is a much better way of going about things than the current politically biased and hypocritical way of the ACLU. If this group of dissenters can push the ACLU into this area it will be a big step towards reforming the ACLU to what is should be.

One catalyst for the reform drive was the report from an ACLU committee urging constraints on speech by board members at odds with the organization. One provision said, “A director may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU board and staff.”

Another said board members “should refrain from publicly highlighting” any disagreement with the organization’s policies, in part because public dissent could hurt the ACLU’s “public support and fund-raising.”

Mr. Kahn, a former investment company manager from Forest Hills, said what moved him to action was the ACLU’s decision to endorse a bill that would regulate advertising by counseling centers operated by groups that oppose legalized abortion.

“That got me because I’m a firm believer in content-neutral defense of free speech. The fact that the ACLU would abandon that position was an earthquake,” Mr. Kahn said. “The organization has lost its way.”

After The New York Sun reported on the ACLU’s endorsement in March, the group withdrew its press release about the bill. However, the ACLU has not made a public statement clarifying its views on the subject.

The formation of the dissident group, tentatively called the Committee to Save the ACLU, is in its earliest stages.

The Sun has learned that last Monday, a day after the ACLU meeting concluded, a Virginia man, Todd Mercer, registered savetheaclu.com and related Internet domains. The sites are not yet active.

Mr. Mercer, who is connected with a Virginia-based graphic design firm, did not reply to phone calls or an e-mail seeking comment for this article.

Mr. Kahn said he was unaware of the registrations. However, one individual, who asked not to be named but has been involved in discussions about ousting the ACLU leadership, said attempts to establish an online presence were under way.

I have to root for this group of dissenters within the ACLU for trying to salvage the organization from the corruption of hypocrisy. If they are successful the ACLU will have taken one giant step in the right direction. There will still be many things to be critical of the ACLU about especially in the areas of national security where the absolutist philosophy is dangerous, practiced recklessly, and potentially deadly. If they can root out and cleanse some of the major hypocrisy in the ACLU it will be something that should be applauded. As I said before, they need new leadership and a change of direction. I will still be critical of many of the ACLU’s other goals, but if these people can push the ACLU in a new direction, I welcome them making my job here as a critic more difficult. There will always be issues to argue against with the ACLU such as church and state, but after all hypocrisy is the ACLU’s easiest target.

I am optimistic, yet doubtful that this group can bring about much needed change at the ACLU. Their name will always be tainted. If they fail, it won’t hurt my feelings to watch the ACLU crash and burn, but I have to applaud this group of dissenters for trying to change the ACLU for the better. And if they fail, maybe the dissenters can form a real civil liberties union. I wish them luck.

Also see Life News

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “Rebellion Within The ACLU”

kerwin_brown on June 26th, 2006 9:32 pm

Even if the dissenters win the ACLU will be a corrupt organization. They might just be slicker about their corruption. I like clumsiness as it makes them look foolish.

Someone needs to start another organization that truly supports Civil Liberties and is not supported by liberal activists such as George Soros. It should also be seperate from the U.N. unlike the ACLU.