[Vision2020] More on Dees/SPLC
amy smoucha
asmoucha@hotmail.com
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:29:01 -0600
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P>Tim, you wrote: </DIV>
<DIV></DIV><EM>"Revealing manipulative malfeasance by the powerful is called investigative journalism. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>In this case, the suggestions for improvement are self-evident: Stop using contributions for personal enrichment and start using a much higher percentage of these funds to actually for the work that the contributors intended. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>So, you question the motives of those who disagree with how the SPLC is run. . . ." </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>Will you please point out where, in either the Cockburn column or the Harper's article (or anywhere else) it is suggested that funds raised for the SPLC are used for anyone's personal enrichment? The Harper's article has the most info about Dees' wealth. It reports that he made lots of money and bought the estate, stables, etc in the 60s. The article goes on to report that Dees founded SPLC in 1971. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>My point is that it is more than investigative journalism when the facts asserted are mostly an ad hominum attack. Cockburn's article has very few details about what SPLC's is spent on, what were those 13 cases, etc. But it has irrelevant details about a case Morris Dees took in the 60s and his early aspirations to become wealthy. If Cockburn and others were offering the same criticisms and urging people to contact SPLC and demand change--sort of like take SPLC from Dees-- I wouldn't say a thing. Absent that productive bent, the criticism only erodes support for the law center, and I believe the law center and its work should continue and deserve our support.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>You also wrote: </P>
<DIV></DIV>"<EM>Do you believe that Cockburn is a racist? How about Ken Silverstein--an anti-semite? " </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Uh no, I haven't drawn any such conclusions, and I don't even see how that question relates to the discussion of Dees, Cockburn and SPLC. I am trying to discuss the complex topic of how to criticize a valuable community organization without irresponsibly destroying it. Let's stick to the topic and stay away from the frantic margins, ok?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>You continued: </P>
<DIV></DIV><EM>"Do you also question the motives of those who investigate organizations or individuals with which you disagree? How about the NY Timeses and Wash. Post reporters who are investigating Rumsfeld, leaking his memos, and suggesting that the Iraqi war is going very poorly? What would you say about their motives? Are they Al-Qaida linked? Or are they just doing what investigative journalists do. Looking for the truth about the powerful so that the general public is informed? " </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>Yep, I do sometimes question the motives of folks who discredit people or organizations with whom I disagree. In fact, I think that Cockburn and others should investigate and challenge what SPLC does, but as he's done so in what I think is an irresponsible way--threatening instead of challenging the SPLC--I am criticizing him. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>In your original post, you were questioning whether SPLC should be considered "an authority" on issues of race, hate, etc, and you further said you "don't think so," and posted "Cockburn's take on Dees' empire." to support your conclusion. I'm saying Cockburn's take does not discredit the SPLC, nor the work it has done, and the SPLC should continue and do more good work. The center is much more than a "sham vehicle for amassing wealth." Dees' salary (reported in the Harpers article) is below $300,000, which isn't unusual for a director of a large non-profit, especially a lawyer. Cockburn talks about Dees early life-- a penchant for making money and building tennis courts. No one has ever said that money raised by SPLC becomes Dees' personal wealth. Sure he and the SPLC board and officers control those assets, but he has not embezzled or misused those funds. As far as I can tell, the problem is that the organization is collecting, but not spending, the money. The c!
riticism of you, Cockburn and others is greatly distorted and misleading.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>Also from you: </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><EM>"As for Dees' criticism and suspicion about anti-globalization activists, the point is that he published these allegations without any evidence that they were true. And not only that he did so in order to raise even more money. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>. . . As I mentioned above, the SPLC suggested that racists were involved in infiltrating the anti-globalization movement, esp. in Seattle. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>If you question the criticism of Dees when ample figures and examples are given, don't you question the SPLC's motives since they have been unable to provide any proof?" </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I am not defending Dees, but I am defending the SPLC.</P>
<P>Please show me that you, or Cockburn, asked for proof about the anti-globalization movement? You are assuming the claim is untrue and unsubstantiated. In my second post, I showed you a sample of proof that I found on a large white supremicist website, and a corroborating report from the ADL. SPLC monitors those sites, people and activities. I think SPLC is an authority, and that the assertions are accurate. I agree with Cockburn's point that SPLC uses people's fears to raise money--and with his ethical concerns because the money isn't being spent in ways responsive to minority communities' issues. However, Cockburn certainly has neither demonstrated nor proved that the anti-globalization movement has not attracted and involved white supremicists, and I've seen lots of information that confirms the SPLC's account. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Amy Smoucha
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2755??PS=">Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.</a> </html>