ACLU bosses blocking a civil liberty? World gone mad?
You have to wonder whether it rubs off. After 86 years of defending the civil liberties of individuals, the ACLU is beginning to behave more like the organizations against which it defends.
Here's what their mission statement says (excerpted from their Web site at http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html):
"…The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly…"
But here's the ACLU's latest proposal, according to this NYT article:
"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…"
Just three weeks ago, the Supreme Court passed a ruling disallowing individuals, in their capacity as employee, from going public with information about internal corruption (see the June 5 and May 31 blog entries below). You'd expect the ACLU to go bonkers about this; instead, they take on a role similar to a corporation with a big, bad secret to hide and extend the ruling, warning their Board members:
"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…"
When a group insulates itself against criticism and exposure to evidence that contradicts its decisions, disastrous consequences follow. This common, dysfunctional group behavior is clearly explained in a classic book, Groupthink, by Irving Janis--revised in 1982. If you want to understand what's going on at the ACLU (because it doesn't make any sense looking at it in any other way), any academic library is likely to have a copy. Here's a link to it at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395317045/qid=1150827224/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2067387-3327336?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
They probably think we're all going to want to hurry and send our donations to the ACLU, now. Really.
Disastrous consequences to follow.
Here's what their mission statement says (excerpted from their Web site at http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html):
"…The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly…"
But here's the ACLU's latest proposal, according to this NYT article:
"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…"
Just three weeks ago, the Supreme Court passed a ruling disallowing individuals, in their capacity as employee, from going public with information about internal corruption (see the June 5 and May 31 blog entries below). You'd expect the ACLU to go bonkers about this; instead, they take on a role similar to a corporation with a big, bad secret to hide and extend the ruling, warning their Board members:
"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…"
When a group insulates itself against criticism and exposure to evidence that contradicts its decisions, disastrous consequences follow. This common, dysfunctional group behavior is clearly explained in a classic book, Groupthink, by Irving Janis--revised in 1982. If you want to understand what's going on at the ACLU (because it doesn't make any sense looking at it in any other way), any academic library is likely to have a copy. Here's a link to it at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395317045/qid=1150827224/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2067387-3327336?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
They probably think we're all going to want to hurry and send our donations to the ACLU, now. Really.
Disastrous consequences to follow.
