According to the New York Times, the ACLU is experiencing turmoil. Its executive director (Anthony D. Romero) is allegedly too concerned with fundraising and not concerned enough with ideology. I don't have an opinion (although the idea of an ACLU director being inadequately concerned with ideology kinda strikes me as a NRA member being inadquately concerned with guns), but I found this entertaining:
Citing a need for efficiency, the organization now often insists that board members who want to question Mr. Romero or other senior staff members first get approval from the executive committee.
The restriction is similar to one the A.C.L.U.'s Michigan affiliate is challenging on behalf of a board member at a small university.
Several staff members are complaining about a new requirement that they sign an agreement by Jan. 6 never to disclose information broadly defined by the group as confidential. They contrast it with the A.C.L.U.'s record of defending whistle-blowers, most recently an F.B.I. analyst who complained about faulty translations.
Now, there's a big difference between a private organization restricting speech and the government doing so, but it seems to me that the ACLU hasn't always limited its pushy ways to the governmental sphere, hence this might be a tad hypocritical.
