A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board

NY Times ^ | 24-May-06 | STEPHANIE STROM

[Jay777]

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.

“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 committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

“Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising,” the proposals state.

Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals. Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. “You sure that didn’t come out of Dick Cheney’s office?” he asked.

“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists,” Mr. Hentoff added.

The proposals say that “a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board or staff.” But Wendy Kaminer, a board member and a public critic of some decisions made by the organization’s leadership, said that was a distinction without a difference.

“If you disagree with a policy position,” she said, “you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position, board or staff.”

Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting.

[rfp1234]

"the largest group of unbridled bigots in the United States are Leftists."

Sad but true. They aren't even worthy of having the L in 'leftist' capitalized.

[WinteryDays]

What they are doing is absolutely not hypocrisy. It's not. No-one is fighting against free speech here. Exercising a persons right to associate with whom they will is not hypocrisy.

Remember the board member is still free to express themselves however they want. No one is impeding that. But the ACLU has the right to NOT associate with that person for whatever reason.

A defense lawyers defense of a criminal is not hypocrisy on the part of a defense lawyer.

[WinteryDays]

I think we both saw the same thing when we read the original post.

Personally I think the ACLU has done way more harm than good (if any) to our society. -I'll leave it at that in order to remain civil.

Do you think an ACLU lawyer will take this case and sue the ACLU over this? That would be classic.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Do you think an ACLU lawyer will take this case and sue the ACLU over this? That would be classic."

lol was that a serious question?

Somehow I seriously doubt it.

[joebuck]

This is the same organization that fights to protect the rights of Govt. "whistleblowers" and "annonymous sources". How can anyone take them seriously in that regard now?

[Randy23649]

I agree that the ACLU has every right to set its own policies since it is a private, non-profit group. What is so surprising is that the ACLU doesn't want other such groups to have this right. For example, the ACLU and its ilk have been trying to destroy the Boy Scouts of America for years due to the Boy Scouts' insistence on setting its own policies on membership and employment. Members of the ACLU have threatened, harassed , and libeled the Boy Scouts in an attempt to force their morality on the Boy Scouts, and to force the Boy Scouts to allow the government to reset the Boy Scouts' moral codes.

[goldstategop]

The ACLU doesn't even believe in its own members' right to express dissenting views. It stopped being a civil liberties organization years ago. Today, its another Far Left agenda cult.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")