Has the ACLU actually lost it's way?
May 11, 2022 3:46 PM Subscribe
Long-time ACLU donator, concenred about a report I read, which suggests the ACLU solicited a donation from a celebrity and then ghostwrote an op-ed. The report makes everyone involved look bad, and makes me wonder if my money is better directed elsewhere?
The money quote from The Atlantic
The heart of Depp’s claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse”—a thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadn’t pitched the idea to the Post—the ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an “ambassador on women’s rights with a focus on gender-based violence.” The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heard’s ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)
Note: let's not litigate the Heard v. Depp thing here. I'm more concerned if my donations to ACLU are going to good causes or not. If not, is there a more effective group to which to donate?
The money quote from The Atlantic
The heart of Depp’s claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse”—a thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadn’t pitched the idea to the Post—the ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an “ambassador on women’s rights with a focus on gender-based violence.” The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heard’s ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)
Note: let's not litigate the Heard v. Depp thing here. I'm more concerned if my donations to ACLU are going to good causes or not. If not, is there a more effective group to which to donate?
This is pretty subjective. In my opinion the ACLU does quite a bit of good work, especially lately on the trans rights fight (which has substantial implications for all of us even if we feel we aren't impacted by anti-trans laws). It's worth noting that local branches of the ACLU have some independence from the national organization. You could consider moving your donation to a particular branch of the ACLU if national level fundraising shenanigans have you down.
If you want something more grassrootsy, consider the National Lawyers Guild (which also has independent chapters of varying quality).
posted by latkes at 3:55 PM on May 11, 2022 [8 favorites]
If you want something more grassrootsy, consider the National Lawyers Guild (which also has independent chapters of varying quality).
posted by latkes at 3:55 PM on May 11, 2022 [8 favorites]
I mean this is an incredibly hot button issue on which sincere people can reasonably disagree, and I have no interest in debating this or derailing the thread, but purely as an example, the ACLU sued the City of Charlottesville to allow the 2017 Unite the Right march to go ahead as planned by its (racist, fascist) organizers. To me that's evidence of an organization that is both over-resourced in donations and free speech absolutist to a fault. That's the kind of place I would draw the line rather than what seems like the usual kind of gross back-scratching stuff that I'm sure happens when large donations are at stake at big non-profits.
Regardless of what you think of the ACLU's goals, strategy and tactics, I think you could make the case that they are relatively well funded, and there are smaller organizations for whom e.g. $100 would go a lot further.
As for where you should send your money instead, the ACLU has an incredibly broad charter (arguably too broad), so it entirely depends on which bit of that charter you want to support, or if there's a particular context in which you think their goals are most important (e.g. free speech, journalism, immigration, voting rights, privacy, reproductive freedom, trans rights, etc.)
posted by caek at 4:04 PM on May 11, 2022 [14 favorites]
Regardless of what you think of the ACLU's goals, strategy and tactics, I think you could make the case that they are relatively well funded, and there are smaller organizations for whom e.g. $100 would go a lot further.
As for where you should send your money instead, the ACLU has an incredibly broad charter (arguably too broad), so it entirely depends on which bit of that charter you want to support, or if there's a particular context in which you think their goals are most important (e.g. free speech, journalism, immigration, voting rights, privacy, reproductive freedom, trans rights, etc.)
posted by caek at 4:04 PM on May 11, 2022 [14 favorites]
I quit donating to the ACLU several years ago due to other reasons that are also mentioned in this article. For me, support of the ACLU was about people's right to speech, even speech that I found repugnant. I was really disturbed when it started to seem that even the ACLU doesn't support free speech anymore.
If I want to throw money at progressive causes, I will do so directly. There's no need in that case to go through the ACLU. I don't know who really champions free speech these days. I don't think the ACLU does.
posted by FencingGal at 4:09 PM on May 11, 2022 [11 favorites]
If I want to throw money at progressive causes, I will do so directly. There's no need in that case to go through the ACLU. I don't know who really champions free speech these days. I don't think the ACLU does.
posted by FencingGal at 4:09 PM on May 11, 2022 [11 favorites]
My impression is that the (national) ACLU are victims of their own fundraising success. In theory a nonprofit is fully controlled by its board of directors, but in practice, it's very difficult to turn down money, and in particular it's very difficult to adjust to a reduced flow of funds, and the ACLU had a vastly increased flow of funds after 2016. The ACLU used the new money they made after Trump was elected to hire and grow the organization, which is after all what their donors wanted, but now all those people are on payroll and the ACLU doesn't want to lay them off, which means that it has to go where the money is. Certainly they believe that there's more money in a broader, more partisan role than they had previously, and I wouldn't want to second-guess them.
I have no idea whether the staff of the ACLU are any better or worse at their jobs now than they were ten years ago. But it's a different staff, and they have different jobs.
posted by goingonit at 4:11 PM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
I have no idea whether the staff of the ACLU are any better or worse at their jobs now than they were ten years ago. But it's a different staff, and they have different jobs.
posted by goingonit at 4:11 PM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
To me that's evidence of an organization that is both over-resourced in donations and free speech absolutist to a fault.
I must point out that this was not a sudden change in the ACLU's position, even though many people apparently had no idea National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie ever happened.
posted by hoyland at 4:21 PM on May 11, 2022 [33 favorites]
I must point out that this was not a sudden change in the ACLU's position, even though many people apparently had no idea National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie ever happened.
posted by hoyland at 4:21 PM on May 11, 2022 [33 favorites]
The ACLU has always been a tricky organization, as others have pointed out. It is constantly trying to thread a needle of being an organization that fights for free speech, among other liberties, in a country where free speech is often used to promote hate. It's also an absolute behemoth and grew a lot during the Trump years.
Whether or not it has lost its way is up for you to decide - it's not something that can be objectively measured. I am personally very, very grateful that it exists because of the way it has been taking the lead in fighting in the courts for trans rights, as mentioned above.
As someone who has spent my whole career in the nonprofit sector and worked for several organizations that are very similar to ACLU (but not the ACLU itself), I always tell people to look at the impact an organization has on the world and the issues you care about. If you feel they are doing good on that front, give to them. As for moral questions, again, that's something you have to decide for yourself. But no non-profit is going to act perfectly all the time. I have my own moral lines I won't cross - I won't give to orgs that engage in union-busting, or do colonialist-type harm to the communities they are supposed to help, for instance. Something like the instance you mention would probably not be a bright line for me, but it might be for you and that's your right.
posted by lunasol at 4:56 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
Whether or not it has lost its way is up for you to decide - it's not something that can be objectively measured. I am personally very, very grateful that it exists because of the way it has been taking the lead in fighting in the courts for trans rights, as mentioned above.
As someone who has spent my whole career in the nonprofit sector and worked for several organizations that are very similar to ACLU (but not the ACLU itself), I always tell people to look at the impact an organization has on the world and the issues you care about. If you feel they are doing good on that front, give to them. As for moral questions, again, that's something you have to decide for yourself. But no non-profit is going to act perfectly all the time. I have my own moral lines I won't cross - I won't give to orgs that engage in union-busting, or do colonialist-type harm to the communities they are supposed to help, for instance. Something like the instance you mention would probably not be a bright line for me, but it might be for you and that's your right.
posted by lunasol at 4:56 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
(Oh also, if you would like to donate to a different organization working on trans rights in the courts, LAMBDA Legal is great and has partnered with ACLU on several recent cases)
posted by lunasol at 4:58 PM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by lunasol at 4:58 PM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
I think giant national organizations are always going to have a little bit of this problem. I've donated in the past to my state's ACLU which, even though they indirectly support the national organization, also do things directly about one of Vermont's shameful issues which is the disproportionate numbers of Black Vermonters in prison. There are other groups who also work on this, I decided I wanted to give money to one with a solid comms infrastructure and who knew the people in the legislature already. The ACLU has always had a bit of a problem and been "mostly good" on many topics. Outside of direct action or mutual aid organizations, it's tough to find groups that don't have trouble. A few other groups that do things along some of these lines
- EFF for cyberrights/privacy kinds of things
- Trevor Project for suicide prevention for GLBTQ young people
- RAICES for legal assistance for refugees and immigrants
- Prison Legal News
- Southern Poverty Law Center (also not unproblematic)
Or just donate to your local food bank and help feed people in your community.
posted by jessamyn at 4:59 PM on May 11, 2022 [5 favorites]
- EFF for cyberrights/privacy kinds of things
- Trevor Project for suicide prevention for GLBTQ young people
- RAICES for legal assistance for refugees and immigrants
- Prison Legal News
- Southern Poverty Law Center (also not unproblematic)
Or just donate to your local food bank and help feed people in your community.
posted by jessamyn at 4:59 PM on May 11, 2022 [5 favorites]
That article is not very good. It conflates ACLU's alleged intervention in the Depp/Heard case with some broad ideological and political shift at ACLU in general.
First, the Depp/Heard part of the article. Yes, the facts recited in the article sound disappointing. Maybe the ACLU screwed up here? I don't know. It's a stupid tabloid case of no meaningful impact other than the lives of those involved in the case. It's hardly indication of a major change in the organization and its mission.
From there the author moves on to grind axes about protecting Nazis. If you agree with the author the murderous Charlottesville march was a good thing then, yes, you might now be disappointed that the ACLU won't be doing that anymore. Fair enough. Me I appreciate the evolution in the organization's thinking, that protecting murderous fascists is perhaps more of a threat to free speech than helping them spread their ideology. If you want to know more about the ACLU's own thinking about this issue, see here.
Finally the article goes on to complain about the ACLU taking partisan political stances. Like their support of Stacey Abrams. Yes, a directly political involvement, but Abrams has done more to advance voting rights than any politician in decades. Supporting her career makes perfect sense for ACLU's long standing mission. The article is also mad about the ACLU taking a stance against Kavanaugh. They explained their reasons for that in a way that sure makes sense to me. If you care about women's rights then it seems important to think twice before putting a man credibly accused of sexual assault on the Court.
The ACLU is still doing the same civil liberties work it has always done. They've shifted some of their focus and methods, sure. If you don't like those OK. But this isn't some radical deterioration of the organization.
(Bonus round: it's not mentioned in the article but the ACLU has done tremendous work helping reunite families that were torn apart at the border by Trump and his monstrous immigration policies. I don't have one good link for further reading but this should be considered too. There are other organizations that also worked on this in their ways! But the ACLU has been very effective.)
posted by Nelson at 5:05 PM on May 11, 2022 [21 favorites]
First, the Depp/Heard part of the article. Yes, the facts recited in the article sound disappointing. Maybe the ACLU screwed up here? I don't know. It's a stupid tabloid case of no meaningful impact other than the lives of those involved in the case. It's hardly indication of a major change in the organization and its mission.
From there the author moves on to grind axes about protecting Nazis. If you agree with the author the murderous Charlottesville march was a good thing then, yes, you might now be disappointed that the ACLU won't be doing that anymore. Fair enough. Me I appreciate the evolution in the organization's thinking, that protecting murderous fascists is perhaps more of a threat to free speech than helping them spread their ideology. If you want to know more about the ACLU's own thinking about this issue, see here.
Finally the article goes on to complain about the ACLU taking partisan political stances. Like their support of Stacey Abrams. Yes, a directly political involvement, but Abrams has done more to advance voting rights than any politician in decades. Supporting her career makes perfect sense for ACLU's long standing mission. The article is also mad about the ACLU taking a stance against Kavanaugh. They explained their reasons for that in a way that sure makes sense to me. If you care about women's rights then it seems important to think twice before putting a man credibly accused of sexual assault on the Court.
The ACLU is still doing the same civil liberties work it has always done. They've shifted some of their focus and methods, sure. If you don't like those OK. But this isn't some radical deterioration of the organization.
(Bonus round: it's not mentioned in the article but the ACLU has done tremendous work helping reunite families that were torn apart at the border by Trump and his monstrous immigration policies. I don't have one good link for further reading but this should be considered too. There are other organizations that also worked on this in their ways! But the ACLU has been very effective.)
posted by Nelson at 5:05 PM on May 11, 2022 [21 favorites]
I must point out that this was not a sudden change in the ACLU's position, even though many people apparently had no idea National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie ever happened.I'm aware and I assume the OP is too. My point, which was perhaps not obvious, was not that the ACLU's free speech absolutism changed in 2017, but rather they became an organization essentially unconstrained by financial resources when Trump was elected, and thus no longer needed to prioritize things in service of the broad political tendencies of their progressive donors.
This is relevant to the OP's question because, regardless of how absolutist you are about free speech, your money is of relatively little marginal value to an organization that has a lot of money.
posted by caek at 5:14 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
Is your objection that you don't want the ACLU working on gender violence/domestic abuse? If so, yes, they're doing something you don't want them to do and you should evaluate whether you should cease donations.
For the rest, I really can't say that I find it shocking that a (nonpolitician) celebrity's editorial on a political topic was partially or fully ghostwritten by an advocacy group that works on that topic. If I had to guess, I'd say it's less common for that not to happen. Does anyone really think Heard paid $3.5 million to the ACLU to secure discreet ghostwriting services?
But if you want to look elsewhere, it would probably be easier to advise you if you identified the specific issues that you are concerned with. I'm sure there are good alternatives on almost all of them.
they became an organization essentially unconstrained by financial resources when Trump was elected
Compared to the resources commanded by people on the other side of the issue, this is just...not accurate. And a nonprofit can't act like the feast will go on forever: I know someone who had her paid ACLU internship canceled only a little over a decade ago due to funding collapse.
posted by praemunire at 6:14 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
For the rest, I really can't say that I find it shocking that a (nonpolitician) celebrity's editorial on a political topic was partially or fully ghostwritten by an advocacy group that works on that topic. If I had to guess, I'd say it's less common for that not to happen. Does anyone really think Heard paid $3.5 million to the ACLU to secure discreet ghostwriting services?
But if you want to look elsewhere, it would probably be easier to advise you if you identified the specific issues that you are concerned with. I'm sure there are good alternatives on almost all of them.
they became an organization essentially unconstrained by financial resources when Trump was elected
Compared to the resources commanded by people on the other side of the issue, this is just...not accurate. And a nonprofit can't act like the feast will go on forever: I know someone who had her paid ACLU internship canceled only a little over a decade ago due to funding collapse.
posted by praemunire at 6:14 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
ACLU solicited a donation from a celebrity and then ghostwrote an op-ed.
Count me among those who finds this unsurprising for a large national organization, or even a large regional org - hell, I just did a fundraising event for our local food bank where Amazon and Popeye's Fried Chicken were major donors. Charitable orgs that exist under late-stage capitalism have to in many ways make the same deals with the devils that we all do as individuals - no-one's hands are truly clean. Whether you think this outweighs the good they do and is a deal-breaker is pretty much a personal choice.
Nthing that if you want to consider an alternative, there's your local branch of the ACLU, or your local food bank, or your local abortion fund.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:37 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
Count me among those who finds this unsurprising for a large national organization, or even a large regional org - hell, I just did a fundraising event for our local food bank where Amazon and Popeye's Fried Chicken were major donors. Charitable orgs that exist under late-stage capitalism have to in many ways make the same deals with the devils that we all do as individuals - no-one's hands are truly clean. Whether you think this outweighs the good they do and is a deal-breaker is pretty much a personal choice.
Nthing that if you want to consider an alternative, there's your local branch of the ACLU, or your local food bank, or your local abortion fund.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:37 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
Compared to the resources commanded by people on the other side of the issue, this is just...not accurate.I mean... sure? But a comparison to "the other side" is not relevant here, because the OP is not considering donating to the other side, or stopping donating altogether (and nor am I suggesting that). They're considering donating to other progressive organizations, all of which have much, much less money that the ACLU.
posted by caek at 6:58 PM on May 11, 2022
There's nothing wrong with providing a ghostwriter for someone like Amber Heard. How many glamorous actresses are willing to become the face of domestic abuse? If she was, and they helped amplify her voice by writing an article for her, with her consent, all they are doing is making it easier for her to communicate that domestic violence can happen to anyone, even to young beautiful Hollywood actresses, which ideally starts conversations. The only problem here is the biggest conversation the article seemed to have sparked started with Johnny Depp, and then it became a whole different story. That's unfortunate for the greater cause of domestic abuse, but I still don't think it reflects badly on either the ACLU or Heard.
As for the rest of the ACLU's mission, it is has historically been to advocate for free speech for everyone across the spectrum, including America's greatest villains. The idea behind this is similar to the idea behind providing representation for killers, death row inmates, rapists and others often considered unsavory. The notion is that justice involves allowing everyone a voice, rather than "canceling" and "condemning" them without allowing them to have their say — or their day in court. After all, there but for the grace of God go all of us.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:59 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
As for the rest of the ACLU's mission, it is has historically been to advocate for free speech for everyone across the spectrum, including America's greatest villains. The idea behind this is similar to the idea behind providing representation for killers, death row inmates, rapists and others often considered unsavory. The notion is that justice involves allowing everyone a voice, rather than "canceling" and "condemning" them without allowing them to have their say — or their day in court. After all, there but for the grace of God go all of us.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:59 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
I mean, as someone who has done some ghost writing, you aren’t talking a lot of money here. This is like several plates at an expensive fundraising dinner level of outlay. I think the article obfuscates this point by immediately going into the donations they received in the six figures. If this is a money stewardship question, I can assure you that this does not represent even a noticeable sliver a precent of their budget. If you feel like the ghost writing is a problem all on its own, that’s something you kinda have to decide on your own. But advocacy work relies on PR and need PR and that often involves quite a bit of ghost writing. This may just be a fact of how change works that you are only now becoming aware of. I can understand how that would be uncomfortable.
The question I would be asking myself is: Who benefits if I stop donating to the ACLU? Who is benefiting from the framing in this article? If this had been framed differently, how else could it be read?
Critical media analysis applies to outlets like The Atlantic, too. This article has an agenda, because all writing has an agenda. You have to choose what facts to include or not include. You have to decide the tone in which those facts are presented. You have to decide whether something is newsworthy in the first place. I don’t think you can disentangle this from the tabloid scandal of it all, no matter how much you want to. The ACLU is getting smeared because this is a smear piece on Heard and the angle is through this messiness. My critical read of this is that it’s very much like the many articles about Planned Parenthood that are designed to elicit a scandalous feeling and mistrust of their mission. But there’s no moral purity a for individuals or organizations. So, who is at least trying and trying effectively? That’s about all you can ask before you have an existential crisis and end up turning into a hermit that doesn’t interact with society.
posted by Bottlecap at 11:07 PM on May 11, 2022 [6 favorites]
The question I would be asking myself is: Who benefits if I stop donating to the ACLU? Who is benefiting from the framing in this article? If this had been framed differently, how else could it be read?
Critical media analysis applies to outlets like The Atlantic, too. This article has an agenda, because all writing has an agenda. You have to choose what facts to include or not include. You have to decide the tone in which those facts are presented. You have to decide whether something is newsworthy in the first place. I don’t think you can disentangle this from the tabloid scandal of it all, no matter how much you want to. The ACLU is getting smeared because this is a smear piece on Heard and the angle is through this messiness. My critical read of this is that it’s very much like the many articles about Planned Parenthood that are designed to elicit a scandalous feeling and mistrust of their mission. But there’s no moral purity a for individuals or organizations. So, who is at least trying and trying effectively? That’s about all you can ask before you have an existential crisis and end up turning into a hermit that doesn’t interact with society.
posted by Bottlecap at 11:07 PM on May 11, 2022 [6 favorites]
Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an “ambassador on women’s rights with a focus on gender-based violence.” The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heard’s ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)
I have worked at several "nationals" (nonprofits that are nationally / federally focused) and this claim is immediately fishy. The GC of ACLU would not normally be looped into the comms shop to know what they did or did not do for writing and placing an op-ed. Simply put — it's not a legal issue, it's not something that would rise to the GC's scope of work, and the GC ought to be constantly busy because ACLU does impact litigation and takes other positions that put them at risk *all the time*. This strikes me as rumor mill stuff, even with a large (potential) donation. I will also note that ACLU-national is reputed to be a huuugggee mess right now, although I personally know people who work there and do incredible work.
I think giant national organizations are always going to have a little bit of this problem. I've donated in the past to my state's ACLU which, even though they indirectly support the national organization, also do things directly about one of Vermont's shameful issues which is the disproportionate numbers of Black Vermonters in prison.
I believe the ACLU is fully devolved and the state orgs are autonomous and with separate leadership (similar to the national Oxfam offices, which are in an international "confederation" but fully separate entities). I have liked my contacts at ACLU-Texas and ACLU-Florida and the orgs seem much better run, from what I can gather.
posted by migrantology at 3:59 AM on May 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
I have worked at several "nationals" (nonprofits that are nationally / federally focused) and this claim is immediately fishy. The GC of ACLU would not normally be looped into the comms shop to know what they did or did not do for writing and placing an op-ed. Simply put — it's not a legal issue, it's not something that would rise to the GC's scope of work, and the GC ought to be constantly busy because ACLU does impact litigation and takes other positions that put them at risk *all the time*. This strikes me as rumor mill stuff, even with a large (potential) donation. I will also note that ACLU-national is reputed to be a huuugggee mess right now, although I personally know people who work there and do incredible work.
I think giant national organizations are always going to have a little bit of this problem. I've donated in the past to my state's ACLU which, even though they indirectly support the national organization, also do things directly about one of Vermont's shameful issues which is the disproportionate numbers of Black Vermonters in prison.
I believe the ACLU is fully devolved and the state orgs are autonomous and with separate leadership (similar to the national Oxfam offices, which are in an international "confederation" but fully separate entities). I have liked my contacts at ACLU-Texas and ACLU-Florida and the orgs seem much better run, from what I can gather.
posted by migrantology at 3:59 AM on May 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sorry, one more that I missed.
A few other groups that do things along some of these lines
- EFF for cyberrights/privacy kinds of things
- Trevor Project for suicide prevention for GLBTQ young people
- RAICES for legal assistance for refugees and immigrants
- Prison Legal News
- Southern Poverty Law Center (also not unproblematic)
So RAICES...yeah. Their staff is amazing, but they are also overfunded right now, *and* the Board pushed out the old CEO Jonathan Ryan with no warning, then installed a Board member without domain expertise as the new CEO. The staff continues to be up in arms afaik. Rumor mill on this one is that RAICES's Board was unhappy with Ryan because he was immediately outspoken in public against Texas's SB8 abortion ban and the Board decided that was out of RAICES's wheelhouse.
If you want impact litigation on immigration stuff ... honestly ACLU national (Lee Gelernt and team) is incredible, including on a bunch of family separation stuff. You can also look at Innovation Law Lab, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (who got gender recognized under the asylum statutes), Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, or (if you are religious) CLINIC.
The reputable direct-service work for immigrants is going to be state-by-state. You could do worse that starting with the Office of Refugee Resettlement's list of "Resources and Contacts in Your State" — which are the local agencies doing refugee resettlement work, and most do other immigration work as well.
posted by migrantology at 4:11 AM on May 12, 2022 [4 favorites]
A few other groups that do things along some of these lines
- EFF for cyberrights/privacy kinds of things
- Trevor Project for suicide prevention for GLBTQ young people
- RAICES for legal assistance for refugees and immigrants
- Prison Legal News
- Southern Poverty Law Center (also not unproblematic)
So RAICES...yeah. Their staff is amazing, but they are also overfunded right now, *and* the Board pushed out the old CEO Jonathan Ryan with no warning, then installed a Board member without domain expertise as the new CEO. The staff continues to be up in arms afaik. Rumor mill on this one is that RAICES's Board was unhappy with Ryan because he was immediately outspoken in public against Texas's SB8 abortion ban and the Board decided that was out of RAICES's wheelhouse.
If you want impact litigation on immigration stuff ... honestly ACLU national (Lee Gelernt and team) is incredible, including on a bunch of family separation stuff. You can also look at Innovation Law Lab, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (who got gender recognized under the asylum statutes), Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, or (if you are religious) CLINIC.
The reputable direct-service work for immigrants is going to be state-by-state. You could do worse that starting with the Office of Refugee Resettlement's list of "Resources and Contacts in Your State" — which are the local agencies doing refugee resettlement work, and most do other immigration work as well.
posted by migrantology at 4:11 AM on May 12, 2022 [4 favorites]
I said my piece about how the ACLU is still fine but since everyone's posting alternatives, let me also add The Brennan Center for Justice if you're interested in voting rights and mitigating mass incarceration.
posted by Nelson at 6:33 AM on May 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Nelson at 6:33 AM on May 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
The GC of ACLU would not normally be looped into the comms shop to know what they did or did not do for writing and placing an op-ed.
I didn't want to get too into the weeds but it would certainly be possible for a skilled deposer to get a witness to agree that X happened after Y, as in time, if that were literally true. This would be clear from the transcript and in actual litigation wouldn't get you very far, but it's something a bad-faith critic could seize on as proving causation. When I read of this, that seemed to me to be the most likely explanation because, as you say, it's unlikely the GC would have personal knowledge of this kind of thing (and they sure wouldn't put him up for whatever the 30(b)(6) equivalent is).
posted by praemunire at 6:55 AM on May 12, 2022
I didn't want to get too into the weeds but it would certainly be possible for a skilled deposer to get a witness to agree that X happened after Y, as in time, if that were literally true. This would be clear from the transcript and in actual litigation wouldn't get you very far, but it's something a bad-faith critic could seize on as proving causation. When I read of this, that seemed to me to be the most likely explanation because, as you say, it's unlikely the GC would have personal knowledge of this kind of thing (and they sure wouldn't put him up for whatever the 30(b)(6) equivalent is).
posted by praemunire at 6:55 AM on May 12, 2022
Best answer: The Oregon ACLU fought for my non-binary child to not get thrown out of college for an offhand remark about TERFy remarks by the professsor, which was overheard by someone who didn't like my child. He reported it as a "violent threat", and my child was immediately forced to vacate the dorm.
And they helped, and my child won and got to go back to school.
So, despite many misgivings I have about the ACLU, they are still getting some of our money.
And, they have always been pretty straightforward in what their tenets are. Even if that means they are sometimes defending bad people, because those bad people have a right to speech. The ACLU is a conundrum to be sure, but they do seem to have staked out what they believe, and stick to that, for better or for worse
posted by Windopaene at 11:26 AM on May 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
And they helped, and my child won and got to go back to school.
So, despite many misgivings I have about the ACLU, they are still getting some of our money.
And, they have always been pretty straightforward in what their tenets are. Even if that means they are sometimes defending bad people, because those bad people have a right to speech. The ACLU is a conundrum to be sure, but they do seem to have staked out what they believe, and stick to that, for better or for worse
posted by Windopaene at 11:26 AM on May 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
« Older Good Robert's Rules Training for Admin Assistants? | Classroom Reading Tracking/Book Sharing Software Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by haptic_avenger at 3:54 PM on May 11, 2022 [8 favorites]