XPost: la.general, talk.politics.mideast, alt.journalism.newspapers
XPost: atl.general
The Southern Poverty Law Center has less to do with justice than
with fundraising
It had to happen sometime. The Southern Poverty Law Center has
made so many vile, unjustified, hysterical, and hateful
accusations over the years, it was bound to pay a price. When it
did, the bill due was $3.375 million. Such was the amount the
SPLC agreed to pay the British Muslim Maajid Nawaz and his think
tank, the Quilliam Foundation, after smearing them in a “Field
Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz, a former Islamist
radical turned whistleblower who calls for the modernization of
Islam in columns for the Daily Beast and on London talk radio,
had threatened to sue the SPLC for defamation — traditionally
and properly a difficult case to make in U.S. courts. Yet the
SPLC caved spectacularly.
The amusing but uncharacteristically groveling tone of the
SPLC’s apology suggests fear of Nawaz’s lawyers: “We have taken
the time to do more research,” stated the SPLC (doing research —
what a novel idea!), noting that Nawaz has made “valuable and
important contributions to public discourse,” adding that he is
“most certainly not” an anti-Muslim extremist, and concluding,
“We would like to extend our sincerest apologies to Mr. Nawaz,
Quilliam, and our readers for the error.” The settlement further
stipulated that the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, would film
a video apology, prominently display it on the outfit’s website,
and distribute the apology to every email address and mailing
address on the SPLC mailing list. Whether Cohen was further
required to come over to Nawaz’s house every week and iron his
laundry could not be learned.
The Nawaz settlement was the most damaging episode yet in what
has become an increasingly dire situation for the SPLC’s
floundering image. Image, painstakingly built since its founding
in 1971, is its chief asset. Image is what keeps the dollars
flowing in. The Right has long been calling attention to the
SPLC’s questionable tactics, but these days even Politico, The
Atlantic, and PBS are running skeptical pieces about the saints
of the South. Politico wondered whether the SPLC was
“overstepping its bounds” and quoted an anti-terrorism expert,
J. M. Berger, who pointed out that “the problem partly stems
from the fact that the [SPLC] wears two hats, as both an
activist group and a source of information.” David A. Graham of
The Atlantic wrote that the “Field Guide” was “more like an
attempt to police the discourse on Islam than a true inventory
of anti-Muslim extremists, of whom there is no shortage, and
opened SPLC up to charges that it had strayed from its civil-
rights mission.” PBS interviewer Bob Garfield suggested to its
president that the SPLC is increasingly seen “not as fighting
the good fight but as being opportunists exploiting our
political miseries” and that this was tantamount to killing “the
goose that lays the golden egg.” In 2015 the FBI dropped the
SPLC from its list of resources about hate groups.
Lately the SPLC has taken on an increasingly desperate, self-
parodying tone, denouncing such mainstream figures as the
psychologist, author, and PJ Media columnist Helen Smith and the
American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers,
calling them “anti-feminist female voices” and adding them to
its double-secret-probation list under the catch-all term “male
supremacy.” Former Vanderbilt professor Carol Swain, who is
black, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the group had
“smeared” her after she questioned the SPLC’s “misguided focus.”
Mark Potok, then the SPLC’s national spokesman, denounced her
as “an apologist for white supremacists” in a story published on
the front page of Swain’s local newspaper, the Tennessean.
To sum up recent events: The SPLC has been crazily denouncing
highly respected writers who are Muslim, black, and female for
being anti-Muslim, anti-black, and misogynist. All of these
contrived charges are in the service of the SPLC’s core mission,
which is to separate progressives from their dollars.
Founded in 1971, the Alabama-based SPLC, dubbed “essentially a
fraud” by Ken Silverstein in a blog post for Harper’s back in
2010, discovered some time ago that it could line its coffers by
positioning itself as a scourge of racists. Silverstein reported
that in 1987, after the SPLC sued the United Klans of America,
which had almost no assets to begin with, over the lynching
murder of Michael Donald, the son of Beulah Mae Donald, the
grieving mother realized $52,000 from the court case — but the
SPLC used the matter in fundraising appeals (including one that
exploited a photograph of Donald’s corpse) that raked in some $9
million in donations. Today the SPLC typically hauls in (as it
did in 2015) $50 million. In its 2016 annual report it listed
its net endowment assets at an eye-popping $319 million. It’s
now quaint to recall that, when Silverstein called the SPLC the
wealthiest civil-rights group in America, it had a mere $120
million in assets. That was in 2000. President Richard Cohen and co-founder–cum–chief trial counsel Morris Dees each raked in
well over $350,000 in compensation in 2015.
News that has anything to do with the South or with race has
proven to be a bonanza for the SPLC; after the events in
Charlottesville last summer, the SPLC swiftly took action to
capitalize. It placed a digital picture of Heather Heyer, the
young Charlottesville resident who was killed when a white
supremacist drove into a crowd, on its “Wall of Tolerance” and
blasted out press releases about it. What is the Wall of
Tolerance? It’s a gimmick to make donors feel important, neon-
style virtue-signaling in the pixels that light up a giant video
screen that continuously scrolls the names of 500,000 people who
have taken a pledge to be tolerant. After Charlottesville, Apple
CEO Tim Cook pledged $1 million to the group and put an SPLC
donation button in the company’s iTunes store. JPMorgan Chase
promised $500,000.
The SPLC’s publicity machine turns such events into gold,
creating the impression that we’re forever a week away from a
neo-Nazi takeover or a rebirth of the KKK. As both the Nazis and
the white-bedsheet fans have done the SPLC the disservice of
fading into tiny remnants of themselves, the SPLC is forced to
find new monsters, designating the likes of Rand Paul, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, and Ben Carson as extremists.
Some on the left are well aware of what the SPLC is up to. As
Alexander Cockburn put it in The Nation, Dees is “king of the
hate business.” Karl Zinsmeister of Philanthropy Roundtable
notes that the SPLC’s “two largest expenses are propaganda
operations: creating its annual lists of ‘haters’ and
‘extremists,’ and running a big effort that pushes ‘tolerance
education’ through more than 400,000 public-school teachers.” In
2015 the SPLC said it had spent $10 million on direct
fundraising, which is a lot more than it has ever spent on
outside legal services. The group has never spent more than 31
percent of its donations on programs, Zinsmeister pointed out,
and at times has spent as little as 18 percent.
Earlier than others, the SPLC grasped the importance of the verb
“hate.”
An easy way to ratchet up hatred, and the passion that makes
people open their checkbooks, is to accuse others of hate. Hate
sometimes proves tricky to control, however. In 2010, the
Southern Poverty Law Center put the Family Research Council
(FRC) — a conservative Christian group — on the “hate map” that
appears on its website. A gunman guided by the map later walked
into the FRC building, his goal to “kill as many as possible and
smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.” The gunman
who shot Republican House majority whip Steve Scalise and three
others in an attack on Republicans last year was an SPLC fan. To
the SPLC, the learned social scientist Charles Murray is a
“white nationalist” who peddles “racist pseudoscience.”
Professors and protesters at Middlebury College opposed Murray’s
appearance there in a letter that cited the SPLC as its (sole)
source, and when Murray appeared there to give a lecture, the
protesters shouted him down and manhandled a woman professor who
was appearing at the same event.
The SPLC has become a kind of Weimar Republic of hate inflation.
Its list of “hate groups” looks increasingly like a way of
attacking ordinary conservatives. It tagged the Alliance
Defending Freedom as an “anti-LGBT hate group.” The Alliance
Defending Freedom is simply one of the multitudes of legal-
activist groups trying dutifully to win its arguments in the
appropriate courtrooms. The ADF was targeted by the SPLC because
it defended the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop on religious-
liberty grounds, arguing that the cake maker could not be forced
to spell out sentiments about gay marriage with which he did not
agree. If the ADF is a hate group, then I guess so is the seven-
member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that gave Masterpiece
a victory in the case.
In October 2014, the SPLC labeled the great neurosurgeon Ben
Carson an “extremist.” Because this designation made the SPLC
look silly and risked the group’s coveted public perception as
nonpartisan, it backed down. Sort of: “We’ve reviewed our
profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards,
so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson.” Then, in
the same statement, the SPLC resumed hammering Carson as an
extremist for saying things such as “Marriage is between a man
and a woman” and for being one of innumerable talking heads on
cable news to make facile comparisons between the U.S. and Nazi
Germany. We’ll take it as a given that there are far too many
Nazi analogies being made these days, but if the SPLC is serious
about policing those it’ll take note of the many talking heads
on the left who are making them.
Dees, who earned a spot in (I’m not making this up) the Direct
Marketing Association’s Hall of Fame for his service to the
cause of pitching birthday cakes, cookbooks, tractor-seat
cushions, and other junk-mail items, is “more than a little
Trumpian himself,” according to Politico. “I learned everything
I know about hustling from the Baptist Church,” Dees once said,
according to a 2000 piece that Silverstein wrote for Harper’s.
“Spending Sundays on those hard benches listening to the
preacher pitch salvation — why, it was like getting a Ph.D. in
selling.” Dees’s onetime business partner Millard Fuller told
Silverstein, “Morris and I . . . shared the overriding purpose
of making a pile of money. We were not particular about how we
did it; we just wanted to be independently rich.”
Dees once told his donors that he would stop fundraising when
the SPLC endowment reached $55 million. When the SPLC blew by
that milestone, he upped it to $100 million. Today it continues
to build its huge endowment while its six-story, multi-million-
dollar headquarters is “the most architecturally striking
structure in downtown Montgomery,” according to Politico.
Stephen Bright, a lawyer and longtime director of the Southern
Center for Human Rights who actually defends the indigent in
death-penalty cases, wrote in 2007 that “Morris Dees is a con
man and fraud. . . . He has taken advantage of naïve, well-
meaning people — some of moderate or low incomes — who believe
his pitches and give to his $175-million operation.” He added
that because Dees “spends so much on fund raising, his operation
spends $30 million a year to accomplish less than what many
other organizations accomplish on shoestring budgets.”
The SPLC can no longer be fairly termed a nonpartisan watchdog
group. It has become a hate group itself. Actual political
violence is of no interest to it unless it can be deployed in
service of the SPLC’s thinly veiled campaign to damage the
Right. Bafflement ensued when, in 2012, National Review’s
Charles C. W. Cooke called up the SPLC to ask whether the outfit
was adding Occupy Wall Street to the list of hate groups it
tracks after three anarchists linked to the movement were caught
plotting to blow up a bridge in Cleveland (all three later
pleaded guilty). An SPLC flack explained that his group “only
tracks those who commit violence or who seek to destroy whole
systems in the name of an ideology.” Since this was exactly what
the Occupy fanatics were up to, Cooke was puzzled. “They were
anarchists,” the spokesman told Cooke. Yeah. So?
Well, the spokesman added sheepishly, “We’re not really set up
to cover the extreme Left.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/09/10/southern- poverty-law-center-essentially-a-fraud/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)