nce upon a time, there was an organization called the ACLU that was like an insatiable lion regarding the matter of free speech.  Nothing uttered was deemed too offense to warrant prohibiting (given the absence of an imminent threat).  That organization was relentless, or nearly so, in the protection of free speech.  But the old ACLU has become something new: the Monetarily Expedient ACLU.  Or for short: The ME-ACLU.

According to the old ACLU if a student wants to wear a t-shirt to school with the words “Fuck Me” written on it: the ACLU would be to the rescue.  Wearing that T-shirt, so the ACLU would claim, is protected by free speech.  True, it seems that whether the ACLU deems something a threat or not is anything but straightforward.  So wearing a t-shirt to school with the words “Jesus Loves You” on it might be deemed by the ACLU as a threat to gays or Muslims or whomever.  Or, at any rate, the ACLU could be slow to defend this sort of thing.  But as I find myself saying often on this blog site: we mustn’t be small-minded in our consistency.

At any rate, nothing could have prepared me for the story that was reported in the New York Times entitled “”ACLU May Block Criticism by Board” (24 May 2006).  Indeed, my initial thought was that the headlines have to be misleading; for surely the ACLU would never ever stifle free speech that amounts to more than criticism—certainly not for expediency’s sake alone.  Not the venerable champion of free speech ! ! !  But I could not have been more wrong.

The New York Times gives us the following quote from the ACLU:

Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of disagreement will affect that A. C. L.U. in terms of public support and fund-raising” 

In other words, freedom of speech is fine except when it interferes with the ACLU’s fund raising efforts.  I have never supposed that ruthless consistency is a virtue, precisely because life is too complicated for there not to be exceptions, however rare they might be.  Normally, though, the exception is tied to yet another fundamental principle.  And that is where the ACLU’s new stance against criticism by its positions by its own officers can only be regarded as utterly despicable.  For its restraint on freedom of speech comes, not from a fundamental moral principle, but from none other than the concern to enhance monetary support.  If this isn’t untenable expediency on the part of the ACLU, then I do not know what is.

        There is in the English language a word for this move on the part of the ACLU: hypocrisy. So we what have now is the Monetarily Expedient ACLU (the ME-ACLU)

Let me offer what is called in moral philosophy a meta-principle (that is a moral principle regarding moral principles):

Departure from a fundamental moral principle should never ever be driven primarily by self-interested concerns; and this should generally be manifestly so; hence, in departing from a fundamental moral principle, it should be evident to any objective observer that one’s primary motives were not self-interested. 

The foregoing meta-principle explains why infidelity is invariably inexcusable.  For in the typical case, the unfaithful person is motivated primarily by self-interested reasons.  By contrast, the classic example of lying to save a stranger’s from death at the hands of the Nazis is an act that garners our admiration precisely because the motivation here is clearly not self-interested. 

          Needless to say, the position of the Monetarily Expedient ACLU (or what I call the ME-ACLU) is an unequivocal violation of the meta-principle given in the preceding paragraph.  But it is actually even worse than that.

          Criticism from well-placed officials within the ACLU helps observers to reflect better upon the policies adopted by the ACLU; for the fact that a well-placed ACLU official takes exception to an ACLU policy or stands signals quite clearly that there are important questions about the policy that can be raised. 

Time was when it seemed that the ACLU sought to be a modern-day realization of Mill’s conception of free speech.  Thus, on this view, the old ACLU embraced criticism from within precisely because those on the inside were often, albeit not necessarily, in the position to offer the most salient criticism. 

I had my criticisms of the old ACLU.  But I did like its spirit.  The ACLU was a veritable battleship in the rough waters of democratic life.  It stood for something, and that something could not be ignored, even when one disagreed with the particular application of the ACLU’s view of things; for we can respect those with whom we disagree.  But that organization seems to have died.  The ME-ACLU (that is, the Monetarily Expedient ACLU) is but an imposter. 

Quite simply, it is not possible to silence criticism for the sake of enhancing one’s funds, and stand for anything of moral value.  That is rather like accepting money for sex all the while insisting that one is not a prostitute.  Not an option.

Monday’s blog entry touched upon the issue of the absence of foresight being an aspect of democracy.  The ACLU’s new position is an absence of foresight moment if ever there was one, as nothing could be more shortsighted than announcing publicly that one is sacrificing free speech for monetary gain. 

True, the organization gets some credit for going public with its new position.  But this ought to have been a moment of insight regarding the untenable character of the new position.  The virtue of self-examination lies not merely in our seeing what we need to change, but in our making (at least some of) the changes revealed to us by insight.  ACLU’s proposed policy is so inimical to the principles that were until now such a constitutive part of its identity that one has to wonder how it could embrace this new policy without experiencing some form of disintegration—nay, self-destruction—from within. 

We must remember, though, that Tocqueville held that shortsightedness was a national characteristic of the American democracy.  If this is right, then the ME-ACLU has very little to worry about.  For its own shortsightedness will be heartily met by the shortsightedness of the American people in general. 

The position of the ME-ACLU ought to occasion moral outrage.  Thus, I would that I were a member of the ACLU; for as an expression of my moral outrage, I would have terminated my membership with all due speed. 

Nothing more quickly turns morality into immorality than putting "me" first.  The new Me-ACLU (that is the Monetarily Exedient ACLU) will not be the exception to this truth.