Anthony Romero, A Creature Of The Ford Foundation?

Is the ACLU’s current executive director, Anthony Romero, a creature of the Ford Foundation? Is he a puppet more concerned with fundraising than civil liberties? These are the kind of accusations that some former and current ACLU executives and members are saying.

The NY Sun has an article today that focuses on Anthony Romero (read the whole thing). Here is what Micheal Myers, former vice president of the ACLU, had to say:

“He’s not a civil libertarian,” one of Mr. Romero’s most persistent critics, Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, said. “He doesn’t have civil liberties in his bones. He’s a creature of the Ford Foundation. This guy acts just like a foundation executive.”

This type of criticism seems to be a common theme from many former and current ACLU members. Many seem to think that Romero’s focus on fundraising instead of civil liberties has put the ACLU’s priorities in the wrong place. Romero is drawing fire from more than just Myers.

In 2004, Mr. Romero was faulted by the group’s board and many of its affiliates for signing an agreement to abide by a sanctions blacklist connected to the charitable donation program for federal employees, the Combined Federal Campaign. He also drew fire for agreeing to a Ford Foundation stipulation that grant recipients not “promote or engage in violence, terrorism or bigotry or the destruction of any state.”

More recently, the ACLU has drawn unwanted attention for considering proposals to bar board members from publicly expressing disagreement with the organization’s policies or disparaging the performance of its staff. At an ACLU meeting in April, Mr. Romero lashed out at a board member who has been openly critical of him, Wendy Kaminer, and chastised another board member for the expression on her face during his verbal fusillade. He later apologized.

While the ACLU find time to get involved in international affairs such as complaining to the U.N. that the U.S. is committing human rights violations, many members are complaining that when it comes to real free speech issues on the international level that the ACLU’s silence brought out the wrong message.

Some members have complained that the organization was surprisingly meek earlier this year as Islamic radicals used threats of violence to dissuade newspapers in Europe and America from publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

An author and former trustee of the ACLU’s Massachusetts affiliate, Richard Rosenfeld, said he urged national leaders of the organization to speak out. “Frankly, I got nowhere,” he said.

Mr. Romero told the Sun that the controversy was playing out overseas and that intervening would have constituted “very dangerous mission creep” for a group devoted to American civil liberties.

“Who was shutting down the Muslim cartoons? The Danish government. We don’t weigh in with the Mozambique government when it shuts down Mozambiquan newspapers,” he said.

Mr. Rosenfeld called that explanation “a ducking” and said the ACLU missed a teaching moment. “The truth is the chilling effect of these threats is everywhere. Those threats basically amended the First Amendment here,” he said. “That’s an act of terrorism.”

While the ACLU did become involved in the controversy on the correct side of the free speech when objecting to the firing of editors at the University of Illinois for printing some of the cartoons (which we praised), many seemed to feel that this was too little, too late. I think that many thought the ACLU should have been at the frontline on this issue. If they wanted to reach out to conservatives this would have been an opportune time to do so. I think they missed that opportunity and the chance to teach the world what free speech is really about.

It seems the main qualm with Mr. Romero is where his priorities lie. Many seem to think that fundraising has taken over as the number one priority putting civil liberties on the backburner. This seems to be the common worry among many.

Mr. Rosenfeld said he worries that the episode signals a reticence driven by the ACLU’s financial and organizational growth. “As the ACLU becomes larger and wealthier and has more members, it tends to be more conservative and more interested in donations than in taking the stands that are necessary,” he said.

Romero doesn’t seem to take the criticism very well. When the dissent becomes too loud Romero’s first instinct seems to be in wanting to silence it, something most will agree is not a trait of a true civil libertarian.

Two former members, Mr. Meyers and Ms. Kaminer, contend he attempted to purge them because they had repeatedly criticized his leadership.

The effort to impeach the pair was dropped, but morphed into a committee to define the duties of board members.

The proposals that emerged, which said board members could not criticize the ACLU’s officers or staff and should avoid disagreeing publicly with the organization, caused great consternation among some loyal members and have contributed to a nascent effort to change the leadership of the organization.

At a board meeting earlier this month, Mr. Romero spoke out against the proposals. However, some active members of the group assert his comments were driven not by principle, but a desire to head off another burgeoning controversy.

“They staged that,” a member of the Florida ACLU board, Richard Johnson said, noting that a New York Times reporter was invited to the session. “Anthony Romero came out and denounced it. It was all his idea to begin with.”

The infighting at the ACLU is revealing the organizations hypocrisy. They desperately need a change in leadership and direction. Even if this happens the ACLU will still be a controversial and dangerous organization. However, if this group of dissenters can accomplish these changes it will be a step in the right direction.

Blonde Sagicity wonders if the dissenters don’t think the ACLU is liberal enough.

Comments are closed.