A.C.L.U. Reveals True Colors

By

The ultimate liberal hypocrisy was revealed today by the announcement that the A.C.L.U., purported defender of free speech rights, construes them as applicable only to those in agreement with its own dogmatic liberal views —— much reminiscent of  the speech—stifling students who demonstrated this principle so publicly in the recent commencements at Columbia University, The New School, and Boston College, where attempts were made to prevent Sen. John McCain and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice from presenting their views.
 
As reported in this morning's New York Times:

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.

Anthony D. Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union: "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. [....]

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. [....]

"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 only surprise here is that the Times reported the news in an objective manner to which its readers are unaccustomed for topics of this nature, particularly after this week's hysterical speechifying at New Paltz by publisher Pinch Sulzberger in which he revealed the 60s illogical which drives his thinking and undoubtedly effects the work of staffers who, humanly enough, understand the advantages of pleasing the boss.
 
Richard N. Weltz   5 24 06

The ultimate liberal hypocrisy was revealed today by the announcement that the A.C.L.U., purported defender of free speech rights, construes them as applicable only to those in agreement with its own dogmatic liberal views —— much reminiscent of  the speech—stifling students who demonstrated this principle so publicly in the recent commencements at Columbia University, The New School, and Boston College, where attempts were made to prevent Sen. John McCain and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice from presenting their views.
 
As reported in this morning's New York Times:

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.

Anthony D. Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union: "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. [....]

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. [....]

"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 only surprise here is that the Times reported the news in an objective manner to which its readers are unaccustomed for topics of this nature, particularly after this week's hysterical speechifying at New Paltz by publisher Pinch Sulzberger in which he revealed the 60s illogical which drives his thinking and undoubtedly effects the work of staffers who, humanly enough, understand the advantages of pleasing the boss.
 
Richard N. Weltz   5 24 06