May 24, 2006--"The Look On Her Face"

I remember the time during the Cold War when being a Liberal was considered by some to be very much like being a Communist. One of the worst things that could be said about such a person was that he (it was pretty much always a “he”) was “a card-carrying member of the ACLU.” The “card-carrying” was also supposed to evoke the thought that the person might be carrying a Communist Party card. Get it?

And so to some of us being a dues-paying member of the ACLU was not only a good thing in and of itself, since the organization was doing all sorts of courageous things to protect our freedoms, but it also had a little cache of its own since there was something excitingly transgressive about being a member.

Well, from the reports about the recent struggles within the leadership of the ACLU, maybe, if one still has such a card, it might be time to do something else to evoke those days—consider burning it.

Here’s a little background to the NY Times story (linked below) about the internecine warfare within the ACLU. About a year ago there was a huge uproar when it was disclosed that the ACLU’s Executive Director, in order to receive its annual Ford Foundation grant, had signed a statement that the organization did not support terrorism or anti-Semitism. This was because the Foundation had gotten burned for funding various groups worldwide that espoused the elimination of the State of Israel and were in other ways overtly anti-Jewish. Thus all grantees were required to renounce this to get their cash, including the ACLU.

Many board members were outraged that the ED, Anthony Romero (a former Ford staffer) would do this in such a craven and back-channel way, so at odds with the organization’s values—not because they were anti-Semitic, perhaps quite the contrary, but that by signing such a letter they were tacitly agreeing to what they saw to be Ford’s attempt to restrict free speech.

As a result of this stir, the ACLU board set up a committee to devise rule to govern board members’ behavior. Including, the Times reports, if the new guidelines are approved, restricting the rights of individual board members to publicly criticize the organization, its board, and executive staff.

You can only imagine how this is being received—the ACLU, the nation’s, perhaps the world’s preeminent guardian of free speech is considering muzzling itself!

Things have gotten so heated that the Executive Director has allegedly attempted to purge members of the board who have criticized him or other members, including, it is claimed, taking one member out into the hall during a meeting to tell her that he didn’t like “the look on her face.” And implying that she should be careful because they had “a thick file on her.” (The ED denies that they have such files.)

But there is clearly considerable verifiable evidence that the Executive Director and many of his board supporters see imposing these kinds of restrictions on their colleagues to be in the best interest of the organization. For example, one member, Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School faculty member, said that of course board members have a right to disagree, but when doing so they should take into account, “their fiduciary duty to the ACLU.” Translation—such public airings of internal differences will have an effect on the ACLU’s ability to raise money.

It will. Because as soon as I post this I’ll be burning my membership card.