Epicurus
Reasonable
Ugh. What do you think you know about that crook Morris Dees and the SPLC?
GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Ugh. What do you think you know about that crook Morris Dees and the SPLC?
Crimes should be punished for what they did/caused. Becoming the "thought police" is too subjective and that's what makes "hate Crime" legislation unjust.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Moris Dees is a greedy, racist attention-whore.
So having just heard his name here and just reading his bio here what's bad about the guy? It at least sounds as though he is pursuing a cause he believes in? I disagree with hate crime legislation as I believe it is too subjective, but I understand how/why there exists another perspective.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I don't believe that he actually believes in it. Here are some criticisms of him I wrote a few years back:
One of the unique characteristics of the Dees SPLC was its direct targeting of the hate group infrastructure itself. Damages awarded against the Aryan Nations, the United Klans of America, and other branches of the KKK forced some of these organizations to disband rather than pay the large legal fees incurred in the lengthy trials. This method has subjected Dees to some criticism from allies including at times the NAACP and members of the Center’s own board who felt that the organization’s funds could be better allocated to fulfil its objectives. In 1986 Dees saw a mass resignation of his entire legal staff in protest of the Center’s repeated refusal to address issues such as homelessness, voter registration, and affirmative action- issues that they considered much more pertinent to poor minorities than Dees’s highly publicized war against the now uninfluential and waning Klan. Gloria Browne, a senior Center lawyer who resigned a few years later, told reporters that the Center’s programs were carefully calculated to cash in on “black pain and white guilt.” The SPLC has also taken criticism for its consistently almost entirely white leadership and staff. The Center has hired only two black staff attorneys in its entire history since 1972, both of whom left unhappy. Twelve of thirteen former black employees interviewed by the Montgomery Advertiser complained they experienced or observed racial issues within the SPLC organization itself. Several boldly declared that the SPLC was “more like a plantation.”
In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been subject to a great deal of criticism on many aspects of its operation. Much regards its aggressive fund-raising tactics and sometimes deceptive and unaccountable use of funds donated to the Center by private individuals. The organization’s tax exempt status requires a certain degree of accountability in its financial records and use of donated funds. In 1993, the American Institute of Philanthropy assigned the SPLC a grade of ‘D’ on their A to F scale. The Center is known for its frequent, persuasive mailings urgently requesting funding for some new endeavor. In 1978, when the SPLC had less than $10 million, Dees claimed that his organization would end its aggressive fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment reached $55 million. Upon reaching that amount, the bar was upped to $100 million, a sum that the Center’s 1989 newsletter said would allow SPLC to “cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising.” In 1996, USA Today reported that the SPLC was the “nations richest civil rights organization”. But even that figure would prove insufficient for Dees. Today the SPLC’s treasury has bloated to at least $120 million that the Center has disclosed. It is not a crime to be proficient at fund-raising, but being financially successful is not the goal of a charity.
The SPLC has not increased its spending enough to make use of these new funds, frequently choosing instead to use them for more fund-raising. The Center spends twice as much on fund-raising (around $5.76 million), as it does on legal services for victims of rights abuses (around $2.4 million). The Institute of Philanthropy estimates that the SPLC could operate for another 4.6 years without any incoming funds. Since August 1, 1984 the Center has taken in around $62 million in donations yet only spent about $21 million on actual programs, according to federal tax records. Morris Dees himself is not faring poorly either, with a salary of over $300,000 a year from the Center’s tax-exempt treasury.
Much criticism of the SPLC is not about its fund-raising or spending, but rather its effectiveness. As mentioned earlier, Dees directed the Center’s resources toward targeting the infrastructure of the white supremacist groups at the expense of supporting other poverty-relief programs. Such a strategy was easily publicized and looked good on paper to potential donors. SPLC cases became the subject of vast media attention which Dees was quick to capitalize on. In a series of fund-raising letters sent out after the Center’s legal victory over the United Klans of America, Dees boldly declared the UKA had been forced to pay $7 million to the family of a lynched man, forcing the organization to disband to settle the damages. What was not mentioned in the letters was that the UKA’s sole asset had been a single warehouse which was subsequently sold, netting the family only a total of $51,874.70 for their ‘landmark victory.’ The SPLC strategy was also widely criticized because it permitted the same white supremacists to simply reorganize under a new name.. While the infrastructure and resources of the SPLC may someday be put to more efficient use, the Center has thus far produced a history of mixed effectiveness combating racism and poverty.
One of the unique characteristics of the Dees SPLC was its direct targeting of the hate group infrastructure itself. Damages awarded against the Aryan Nations, the United Klans of America, and other branches of the KKK forced some of these organizations to disband rather than pay the large legal fees incurred in the lengthy trials. This method has subjected Dees to some criticism from allies including at times the NAACP and members of the Center’s own board who felt that the organization’s funds could be better allocated to fulfil its objectives. In 1986 Dees saw a mass resignation of his entire legal staff in protest of the Center’s repeated refusal to address issues such as homelessness, voter registration, and affirmative action- issues that they considered much more pertinent to poor minorities than Dees’s highly publicized war against the now uninfluential and waning Klan. Gloria Browne, a senior Center lawyer who resigned a few years later, told reporters that the Center’s programs were carefully calculated to cash in on “black pain and white guilt.” The SPLC has also taken criticism for its consistently almost entirely white leadership and staff. The Center has hired only two black staff attorneys in its entire history since 1972, both of whom left unhappy. Twelve of thirteen former black employees interviewed by the Montgomery Advertiser complained they experienced or observed racial issues within the SPLC organization itself. Several boldly declared that the SPLC was “more like a plantation.”
In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been subject to a great deal of criticism on many aspects of its operation. Much regards its aggressive fund-raising tactics and sometimes deceptive and unaccountable use of funds donated to the Center by private individuals. The organization’s tax exempt status requires a certain degree of accountability in its financial records and use of donated funds. In 1993, the American Institute of Philanthropy assigned the SPLC a grade of ‘D’ on their A to F scale. The Center is known for its frequent, persuasive mailings urgently requesting funding for some new endeavor. In 1978, when the SPLC had less than $10 million, Dees claimed that his organization would end its aggressive fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment reached $55 million. Upon reaching that amount, the bar was upped to $100 million, a sum that the Center’s 1989 newsletter said would allow SPLC to “cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising.” In 1996, USA Today reported that the SPLC was the “nations richest civil rights organization”. But even that figure would prove insufficient for Dees. Today the SPLC’s treasury has bloated to at least $120 million that the Center has disclosed. It is not a crime to be proficient at fund-raising, but being financially successful is not the goal of a charity.
The SPLC has not increased its spending enough to make use of these new funds, frequently choosing instead to use them for more fund-raising. The Center spends twice as much on fund-raising (around $5.76 million), as it does on legal services for victims of rights abuses (around $2.4 million). The Institute of Philanthropy estimates that the SPLC could operate for another 4.6 years without any incoming funds. Since August 1, 1984 the Center has taken in around $62 million in donations yet only spent about $21 million on actual programs, according to federal tax records. Morris Dees himself is not faring poorly either, with a salary of over $300,000 a year from the Center’s tax-exempt treasury.
Much criticism of the SPLC is not about its fund-raising or spending, but rather its effectiveness. As mentioned earlier, Dees directed the Center’s resources toward targeting the infrastructure of the white supremacist groups at the expense of supporting other poverty-relief programs. Such a strategy was easily publicized and looked good on paper to potential donors. SPLC cases became the subject of vast media attention which Dees was quick to capitalize on. In a series of fund-raising letters sent out after the Center’s legal victory over the United Klans of America, Dees boldly declared the UKA had been forced to pay $7 million to the family of a lynched man, forcing the organization to disband to settle the damages. What was not mentioned in the letters was that the UKA’s sole asset had been a single warehouse which was subsequently sold, netting the family only a total of $51,874.70 for their ‘landmark victory.’ The SPLC strategy was also widely criticized because it permitted the same white supremacists to simply reorganize under a new name.. While the infrastructure and resources of the SPLC may someday be put to more efficient use, the Center has thus far produced a history of mixed effectiveness combating racism and poverty.
Last edited:
This is true, but it's not comparable in relation to physically assaulting a gay man and physically assaulting a straight man. It's assault either way and offenders in both situations should be punished EQUALLY.
Well that certainly paints him as an opportunist! I noted he has been a pretty big political fund raiser for high ranking democrats. There does exist a school of thought that pursues the "bigger fish" theory as might be his motivations? i.e. put powerful people in place that can effect real change for minorities and the poor. Could this be his aim? Again, not that I support a manipulation of the system even if its motives may be high minded, but am just trying to be even handed.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Maybe that is what he's trying to do. I can't say otherwise with certainty, but I doubt it.
There are plenty of things to criticize him about. Almost every African American who has ever worked for him has called him a racist. The NAACP has called his strategies more useful for gaining headlines than addressing injustices. His tax-exempt charitable organization was given a grade of F by the AIP, and he draws an annual salary of $300k when his net worth it already in the millions. His fundraising tactics bother me too. He has promised on two or three different occasions to stop fundraising once he reached a certain amount endowments, but each time he renigs and pushes the bar up further. He is more interested, in my opinion, in garnering personal publicity and by leading the "nation's wealthiest civil rights organization" than in addressing civil rights issues.
There are plenty of things to criticize him about. Almost every African American who has ever worked for him has called him a racist. The NAACP has called his strategies more useful for gaining headlines than addressing injustices. His tax-exempt charitable organization was given a grade of F by the AIP, and he draws an annual salary of $300k when his net worth it already in the millions. His fundraising tactics bother me too. He has promised on two or three different occasions to stop fundraising once he reached a certain amount endowments, but each time he renigs and pushes the bar up further. He is more interested, in my opinion, in garnering personal publicity and by leading the "nation's wealthiest civil rights organization" than in addressing civil rights issues.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Where was the hate crime in getting robbed or mugged by blacks, it could have been anybody! You were more than likely a target of opportunity in the wrong place at the wrong time! If you live in a state with carry and conseal, I suggest you learn to shoot and purchase a weapon! These are hard times, we are living in!
Well his bio painted him as someone who experienced an epiphany of sorts as a young man and so perhaps he started out on the right track.
What is that saying about power and corruption?
signalmankenneth
Verified User
A picture is worth a thousand words is a saying/cliche that comes from an old Chinese proverb "A Picture's Meaning Can Express Ten Thousand Words".
It refers to the idea that complex stories can be described with just a single still image, or that an image may be more influential than a substantial amount of text. It also aptly characterizes the goals of visualization where large amounts of data must be absorbed quickly.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Wow. You're a complete cretin, aren't you?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Of course it is.
Except when there are aggravating factors, like the fact that the assault was done out of hate.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I stand corrected but my point remains. Isn't so called "Hate Crimes" punishing the thought and not the action and is that not unconstitutional?Actually, if you physically attack someone... that is BATTERY.
Assault is the FEAR of bodily harm.
BATTERY is the actual physical contact.
Here endeth the lesson.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Again, I stand corrected but again my point remains. First, do not laws all ready exist prohibiting violent acts against another person? Second, does not the so called "Hate Crimes" punish the thought and not the action and isn't that unconstitutional?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, it does. I did agree with what you stated other than on the portion that I was forced to correct.
The laws already exist... this 'hate' crime legislation simply takes the same crime 'battery' and gives a potentially harsher sentence based on the race/religion/sexual preference of the victim.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yeah... cause no guy wants to see a broken trojan
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
and the motive of the Perp.