6 ms·

You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online E

You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis."

Y_Y 5y ago
Don't forget Amnesty International.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Edit: placeholder (Decided it was unfair to throw a large org under the bus without being able spend a few hours to defend the claim.)
  - deadalus 5y ago
    Or Anti-Defamation League.
    - this2shallPass 5y ago
      Citation / explanation needed. ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that? "Of the 1,715 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 60.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias." https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims Anti-Jewish hate-crimes make up a majority of the anti-religious hate crimes in the US. (You could argue they should be classified as "Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias" but that's another discussion). The statistics aren't perfect - not every crime or possible crime is reported to law enforcement, and not every law enforcement agency in the US shares hate crime information with the federal government. A recent law changed that so it's required instead of optional, so likely more will be doing so in the future.
      - lliamander 5y ago
        ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment. Whatever their legitimate grievances, that's not an acceptable response.
        this2shallPass 5y ago
        I think you’re referring to BDS and anti-BDS laws. Is that right? Are you referring to something else in addition to those? Do anti-BDS laws mean the ADL has an identity crisis? Or they should be having one? They seem related to their mission. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not an expert in the first amendment, its case law, or anti-BDS laws. You might be right that some or all anti-BDS laws violate some first amendment right in some way. I don’t know which analogy is the right one to apply to anti-BDS laws, something different legal scholars and lawyers argue about. It seems like reasonable people can disagree about what is constitutional and what is not here. Maybe the supreme court will rule on it specifically, and even then it might still be the case that reasonable people can disagree.
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > Whatever their legitimate grievances, [conflict with the first ammendment]'s not an acceptable response. That's perfectly good reasoning, but: > ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment. as to your premises, again: > > Citation / explanation needed.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        The ADL has opposed the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. If you wouldn't take a Holocaust-denying organization seriously, you shouldn't take the ADL seriously.
        this2shallPass 5y ago
        It has, but it quite clearly recognizes it as genocide currently. "So, let me be crystal clear: the first genocide of the 20th century is no different. What happened in the Ottoman Empire to the Armenians beginning in 1915 was genocide. The genocide began with the ruling government arresting and executing several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, Armenian families were removed from their homes and sent on death marches. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation. What happened to the Armenian people was unequivocally genocide. We believe that remembering and educating about any genocide – Armenian, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, and others is a necessary tool to prevent future tragedies." https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide "In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian genocide. ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and an "atrocity", but not as a "genocide".[134] Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the US Government to recognise it as a "genocide".[135]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenian_genocide_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenia...
    - wearywanderer 5y ago
      The assertion that early 20th century Georgian (American South) police permitted a poor black man to get away with the rape and murder of a young white girl never really made much sense to me in the first place. The ADL seems dodgy from the start. I think the ADL has gotten away with framing Jim Conley.
CerealFounder 5y ago
I think theres probably an interesting full book here examining exactly how and why "cause based" orgs become all end up looking the same once they cross a certain threshold. Power, influence and money seem to be a magnet for more of itself, so it fundamentally shifts the guiding principal of each org as it grows bigger. Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses?
- baggy_trough 5y ago
  Non-profits and charities perform at the behest of the whims of a small number of rich donors instead of needing to get through the reality filter of making a profit in the broad consumer marketplace.
- philipkglass 5y ago
  Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses? It seems inherent to the different aims of charities and businesses. Nucor Corporation has a nominal lineage from "Nuclear Corporation of America Inc." incorporated in the 1950s. But its actual business has had nothing to do with nuclear technology in 50+ years; it found more success in the steel business. Shareholders aren't mad that the company isn't following its original nuclear technology mission since it found a better business. There's nothing to "corrupt" when a business goes after different markets. But some donors will be upset if a charity focused on one mission broadens or deviates from its original mission. Some people may also be happy with these sorts of change, of course, but mission changes tend to be more controversial with charities than with for-profit companies.
- michael1999 5y ago
  I’m not sure they do. Restaurant owners make bad choices, start skimping on food, etc. all the time. The difference is that the customers notice and the restaurants go out of business. But political organizations “produce” nebulous goods which are difficult to value or sometimes even understand. So corrupt civil organizations can continue much longer and a practical business.
  - 5y ago
dredmorbius 5y ago
Organisational drift isn't a new thing: In Sheldon Messinger’s analysis of an old-age pressure group formed in the 1930s, the Townsend organization, he shows how the organization managed to stay alive by transforming its political goal of increased support for the aged through a radical economic plan into social goals of fellowship and card playing and fiscal goals of selling vitamins and patent medicines to its members. The unanticipated consequence of fund-raising techniques based on selling items, rather than political programs, was to turn the organization into a social club. The changing social and political scene also, of course, produced a change in goals. In a somewhat similar vein, Joseph Gusfield shows how the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) had to abandon its attack on drinking per se after prohibition was repealed and change to an attack on middle-class mores and life-styles in general, in order to serve the needs of its members. Mayer Zald outlines how the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) changed from helping poor migrants from the farm or abroad, who found the city a fearsome experience, to providing recreation for middle-class suburban youths. The Christian ethics of the early period, designed to sustain the faith of helpless people, gave way to a bland ethic of the American way of life; the practical help and training changed from information and techniques for survival in the urban jungle to physical culture and recreation for youths and adults with leisure time on their hands. In both cases, the organization survived the environmental changes and found a new mission. -- Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations (1972, 1979, 1986) https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-critical-essay/oclc/979139067 https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-criti... The period described largely spans the first half of the 20th century.
AcerbicZero 5y ago
You could, but then you’d be missing the point, while also highlighting the root problem with organizational changes that directly impact the original stated goal(s).
smsm42 5y ago
This is because the people that drive those changes are leftists, and as I mentioned above, it is a general shift of the leftist ideology, from liberalism to wokeness. Liberalism requires limiting government intrusion in certain areas, while wokeness - as long as the government is woke - welcomes and requires it. Liberalism prescribes tolerance to diverse points of view, wokeness rejects it - anything that is not wokeness is deemed harmful and should be eradicated.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once overtaken by a clique of political activists using it as a the platform to further an agenda unrelated to the org mission's statement, organisation X faces an identity crisis" This is why tech businesses like Basecamp, Coinbase or Shopify are pushing back against partisanship and political activism in tech.

Y_Y 5y ago

Don't forget Amnesty International.

tpmx 5y ago
Edit: placeholder (Decided it was unfair to throw a large org under the bus without being able spend a few hours to defend the claim.)
- deadalus 5y ago
  Or Anti-Defamation League.
  - this2shallPass 5y ago
    Citation / explanation needed. ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that? "Of the 1,715 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 60.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias." https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims Anti-Jewish hate-crimes make up a majority of the anti-religious hate crimes in the US. (You could argue they should be classified as "Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias" but that's another discussion). The statistics aren't perfect - not every crime or possible crime is reported to law enforcement, and not every law enforcement agency in the US shares hate crime information with the federal government. A recent law changed that so it's required instead of optional, so likely more will be doing so in the future.
    - lliamander 5y ago
      ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment. Whatever their legitimate grievances, that's not an acceptable response.
      - this2shallPass 5y ago
        I think you’re referring to BDS and anti-BDS laws. Is that right? Are you referring to something else in addition to those? Do anti-BDS laws mean the ADL has an identity crisis? Or they should be having one? They seem related to their mission. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not an expert in the first amendment, its case law, or anti-BDS laws. You might be right that some or all anti-BDS laws violate some first amendment right in some way. I don’t know which analogy is the right one to apply to anti-BDS laws, something different legal scholars and lawyers argue about. It seems like reasonable people can disagree about what is constitutional and what is not here. Maybe the supreme court will rule on it specifically, and even then it might still be the case that reasonable people can disagree.
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        > Whatever their legitimate grievances, [conflict with the first ammendment]'s not an acceptable response. That's perfectly good reasoning, but: > ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment. as to your premises, again: > > Citation / explanation needed.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      The ADL has opposed the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. If you wouldn't take a Holocaust-denying organization seriously, you shouldn't take the ADL seriously.
      - this2shallPass 5y ago
        It has, but it quite clearly recognizes it as genocide currently. "So, let me be crystal clear: the first genocide of the 20th century is no different. What happened in the Ottoman Empire to the Armenians beginning in 1915 was genocide. The genocide began with the ruling government arresting and executing several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, Armenian families were removed from their homes and sent on death marches. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation. What happened to the Armenian people was unequivocally genocide. We believe that remembering and educating about any genocide – Armenian, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, and others is a necessary tool to prevent future tragedies." https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide "In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian genocide. ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and an "atrocity", but not as a "genocide".[134] Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the US Government to recognise it as a "genocide".[135]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenian_genocide_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenia...
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    The assertion that early 20th century Georgian (American South) police permitted a poor black man to get away with the rape and murder of a young white girl never really made much sense to me in the first place. The ADL seems dodgy from the start. I think the ADL has gotten away with framing Jim Conley.

CerealFounder 5y ago

I think theres probably an interesting full book here examining exactly how and why "cause based" orgs become all end up looking the same once they cross a certain threshold. Power, influence and money seem to be a magnet for more of itself, so it fundamentally shifts the guiding principal of each org as it grows bigger. Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses?

baggy_trough 5y ago
Non-profits and charities perform at the behest of the whims of a small number of rich donors instead of needing to get through the reality filter of making a profit in the broad consumer marketplace.
philipkglass 5y ago
Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses? It seems inherent to the different aims of charities and businesses. Nucor Corporation has a nominal lineage from "Nuclear Corporation of America Inc." incorporated in the 1950s. But its actual business has had nothing to do with nuclear technology in 50+ years; it found more success in the steel business. Shareholders aren't mad that the company isn't following its original nuclear technology mission since it found a better business. There's nothing to "corrupt" when a business goes after different markets. But some donors will be upset if a charity focused on one mission broadens or deviates from its original mission. Some people may also be happy with these sorts of change, of course, but mission changes tend to be more controversial with charities than with for-profit companies.
michael1999 5y ago
I’m not sure they do. Restaurant owners make bad choices, start skimping on food, etc. all the time. The difference is that the customers notice and the restaurants go out of business. But political organizations “produce” nebulous goods which are difficult to value or sometimes even understand. So corrupt civil organizations can continue much longer and a practical business.
- 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago

Organisational drift isn't a new thing: In Sheldon Messinger’s analysis of an old-age pressure group formed in the 1930s, the Townsend organization, he shows how the organization managed to stay alive by transforming its political goal of increased support for the aged through a radical economic plan into social goals of fellowship and card playing and fiscal goals of selling vitamins and patent medicines to its members. The unanticipated consequence of fund-raising techniques based on selling items, rather than political programs, was to turn the organization into a social club. The changing social and political scene also, of course, produced a change in goals. In a somewhat similar vein, Joseph Gusfield shows how the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) had to abandon its attack on drinking per se after prohibition was repealed and change to an attack on middle-class mores and life-styles in general, in order to serve the needs of its members. Mayer Zald outlines how the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) changed from helping poor migrants from the farm or abroad, who found the city a fearsome experience, to providing recreation for middle-class suburban youths. The Christian ethics of the early period, designed to sustain the faith of helpless people, gave way to a bland ethic of the American way of life; the practical help and training changed from information and techniques for survival in the urban jungle to physical culture and recreation for youths and adults with leisure time on their hands. In both cases, the organization survived the environmental changes and found a new mission. -- Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations (1972, 1979, 1986) https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-critical-essay/oclc/979139067 https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-criti... The period described largely spans the first half of the 20th century.

AcerbicZero 5y ago

You could, but then you’d be missing the point, while also highlighting the root problem with organizational changes that directly impact the original stated goal(s).

smsm42 5y ago

This is because the people that drive those changes are leftists, and as I mentioned above, it is a general shift of the leftist ideology, from liberalism to wokeness. Liberalism requires limiting government intrusion in certain areas, while wokeness - as long as the government is woke - welcomes and requires it. Liberalism prescribes tolerance to diverse points of view, wokeness rejects it - anything that is not wokeness is deemed harmful and should be eradicated.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once overtaken by a clique of political activists using it as a the platform to further an agenda unrelated to the org mission's statement, organisation X faces an identity crisis" This is why tech businesses like Basecamp, Coinbase or Shopify are pushing back against partisanship and political activism in tech.