Download PDF version of this letter

ANOTHER VIEW: REFLECTIONS AFTER THE ACLU MEMBERSHIP CONFERENCE

We were alerted to the existence of the website "savetheaclu.org" by the 15th negative article about the ACLU written by Stephanie Strom in the New York Times. These articles have been fueled, in the main, by "inside" revelations from two board members. When we checked these stories with other board members and other insiders, we found that the actual situations were more nuanced than the sensationalized stories in the New York Times. Since your site invites members of the ACLU to post statements under a number of categories, one of which is "insider statements", here is ours:

To qualify as "insiders", we have both been members longer than we have been married (57 years in December 2006). One of us ran the Trenton office of the New Jersey affiliate for 18 years. Starting in 1984, we benefited from private briefings in Washington (instituted by Ira Glasser) as members of the Liberty Council. Thus we were present on 9/11 in Washington when Anthony Romero came on board as the new Executive Director of the ACLU. We have followed closely the development of the ACLU since then have been critical when criticism was appropriate, and feel that, after attending the Membership Conference, we have to speak our piece.

Before the Conference began, we were invited to a day long briefing (in the tradition of Ira Glasser's annual briefings in Washington for the Liberty Council of donors.) Highlights of this briefing included the following:

(1) A report on the Strategic Affiliate Support, initiated by Anthony Romero, which, for the first time, has enabled every affiliate to have paid attorney on staff. Contrary to the accounts on savetheaclu.com, these are challenge grants that will enable the affiliates to become more effective at a ground roots level and self-supporting.

(2) A report on Legislative Strategies after the Election. In addition to an expanded lobbying effort, the work of a National Field Director will expand the lobbying and opinion effort outside the New York and Washington offices. This is a new initiative and one which will bring the ACLU to where the problems are.

(3) A report on the strategy of the LGBT project to promote the equal treatment by the government (and other institutions of power) of same-sex partners. The plan that was outlined struck us as reasonable and measured. This was strengthened by the appearance by three plaintiffs from current cases. The message is always: if a wider public knew the people whose lives are affected in serious ways by the discrimination against same-sex partners, then the problem would be solved.

(4) A report by Ann Beeson, Associate National Legal Director, and Nsombi Lambright, Executive Director of the Mississippi Affiliate, on "Bringing Human Rights Home" on the complicated and interdependent interaction between the international and domestic status of human rights.

(5) A free and open conversation with Nadine Strossen (in which we had the opportunity to raise our concerns openly about the lack of a leadership role by the National ACLU on the issue of "verifiable ballots". Our position was supported by Board member, Rob Chester, from Nevada and Howard Simon, Executive Director of the Florida affiliate. Both Nevada and Florida are ahead of National on this issue.)? ?(6) The briefing ended with a report by Steve Shapiro, as ever, authoritative, practical, and principled.

The events of the Membership Meeting are covered in detail on the website of the ACLU. We can only add some highlights. The membership audience of over 1400 was refreshingly young and involved. Microphone placements made questioning on all issues easy and many lined up to use them. These folks will be the supporters of the ACLU when we are gone and they are impressive and energetic. Their presence was a result of vision on the part of the current ACLU leadership that should be commended. They were an important component of the over 1,000 lobby visits made in the rain on Tuesday.

The "clients" present throughout the meeting (such as the Dover, Pa. "intelligent design" case plaintiffs) at plenary and breakout sessions would convince anyone of the correctness of the ACLU's position in their cases.

In their "conversation about civil liberties", Nadine Strossen demonstrated her skills as a professor of constitutional law and, in our view, demolished "Nino" Scalia's position.? ?To summarize, never have we felt the ACLU to be more needed and never have we felt that it was responding to the challenges of the times in a more positive way. The resources that have come in with the doubling of the membership in the past 5 years are being allocated in an inspired and responsible manner to match the growing spectrum of civil liberties problems. The leaders and the staff, from top to bottom, appear to us to follow the principles on which the ACLU was founded. Yes, some errors have been made and admitted to, but injuring the credibility of this great organization seems to us to be a far greater error of judgment. We urge everyone to join us in supporting the ACLU in the many battles ahead.

Harold and Estelle Kuhn
 

[ back to top]