"A lack of compassion and constructiveness"

Download PDF version of this letter

Dear Friends:

It was not clear to me if the title of David France's New York Magazine article, "Freedom to Backstab," was meant to be a description of Anthony Romero's foes or of the article itself.

What does not come across in this highly unbalanced reporting is exactly how much the newfound steam, ingenuity and dedication of the ACLU – nationally and throughout the states –is due to the genius and leadership of Anthony Romero. Before Romero became its leader, the ACLU was an important, but small, and dare I say somewhat backwards, organization mired in the past and its own inertia. It is none of that now, with new ideas, new leaders and new methods, all attributable to Anthony Romero. I know this, as a member of the board and a vice president of the ACLU at the same time as was Michael Meyers, one of the oft-quoted and most harsh of Anthony Romero's critics.

I'm afraid that some people just don't like the new ACLU that is tackling not only the panoply of issues the ACLU always tackled, but is now clearly the most important voice dealing with the government’s abuses of power since 9-11. Mr. France gives the impression, by quoting them extensively, and by innuendo, that these people, the save the ACLUers, and a handful of discontented staff, are more numerous than they really are. But the principled leadership of the ACLU has until now chosen to fight the harassment with civility.

France is right in one respect: the vast majority of the board and staff are solidly behind Romero, not because he is a prodigious fundraiser, which he is, but because his leadership has produced results. Anyone who follows the accomplishments and activity of the ACLU over the past few years, and these accomplishments have been discussed by some of those interviewed by Mr. France as well as other civil rights leaders and past ACLU leaders, knows that the ACLU and its works have been taken to another level of importance and prominence by Romero and his staff.

So the preoccupation of Meyers, Wendy Kaminer, and now, most disturbingly, Ira Glasser with what are almost all essentially internal issues and character attacks seems particularly galling and dangerous for the ACLU's future. Meyers and some others never wanted Romero in the job. Some were on the selection committee, and their candidate was not chosen. They never got over it. In fact, once Romero was chosen by the selection committee, they immediately began attacking the process, and the other members of the committee. This attack was unrelenting, eventually calling for the new executive director to submit to a "commission of inquiry." Practically from the first executive committee meeting Meyers, who characterized himself in the article with the relatively mild term of "shrill," began sparring with and attacking Romero, both at meetings and via widely disseminated e-mails. Kaminer soon joined in. At a time when the staff had to be putting their energies into matters of critical national importance, the demands to respond to these essentially internal matters were made with a deadpan stocatto – answer them NOW or risk the further accusation of hiding things from the board. To treat a newly hired executive director in this manner is nothing short of outrageous. Over time it became clear, as it is now explicit, that what Meyers and Kaminer really wanted was for Romero to resign in frustration.

Others have called it sad, but I call it destructive and dangerous, that Ira Glasser has joined the ranks of those who, from the beginning, did not like the look and feel of the new ACLU. Mr. France quotes Glasser as experiencing some sort of existential moment of realization, when, walking down a beach, he heard Romero commit what Glasser claimed was a lie. Here is Glasser at his rhetorician’s best, spinning his story to make himself a hero. Who knows what was said then, and who really cares? On some level the endless describing and re-describing of these accusations and events is ultimately boring and feels like the melodrama of soured adolescent love affairs at a summer camp.

But what is important is that Glasser, long after that conversation, continued to advise Romero, and that Glasser and Romero had a much later falling out. Now Glasser seems to be willing to see the amazing work and accomplishments of Romero and his superb staff go down the drain for reasons that appear to be ego driven and using character-based, rather than action-based, criticisms. Because of his prestige, Glasser is risking the organization he claims to love. Maybe he thinks he is going to ride back in over a fallen Romero and "save the ACLU." That is not just sad. It does not just attack Anthony Romero. It also attacks an organization that is essential to protecting the rights of all Americans.

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with internal criticism when it is offered with good will and with an eye towards helping an organization and an individual an opportunity to improve or change. This was never the kind of criticism that was leveled at Romero. What is disturbing is the lack of compassion and constructiveness in their comments and in their portrayal of the ACLU and Anthony Romero. While I would fight for their right to free expression it does not mean their words carry either integrity or truth, or a regard for the ACLU.

Sincerely,

Milton Estes, M.D.

Dr. Estes is a member of both the ACLU’s national board and its executive committee.
 

[ back to top]