The SPLC's Fall From Benevolence

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Michael Gryboski

It is always heartbreaking when organizations that started out with benevolent intentions turn rotten. Equally troubling are the organizations that still perform a service to the community and, in essence, abuse their reputation for political agendas.

Enter the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization founded in 1971 as a civil rights firm. Their initial mission was benevolent, as their chief enemies were the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow-friendly politicians.

The SPLC’s endeavors in recent decades have reflected this war against racism, including the 1981 establishment of the Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups and extremist activity throughout the country. They have an exhaustively researched map on hate groups on their Web site, which is regularly updated and includes not only white supremacist organizations but also black nationalists and separatists. But for all their amiable qualities, the SPLC is not above politics and they use their image as a benevolent force to demonize various elements of American society that they disagree with.

Many of us were in high school while a controversy over the extent of religious expression on government property took place in the rotunda of an Alabama courthouse. Judge Roy Moore placed a hefty monument to the Ten Commandments, igniting a long battle with secularist organizations. The SPLC sided with the secularists and rejoiced when the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled against Moore and the monument was taken away. Yet the SPLC did more than celebrate, they actively took part in marginalizing those who supported Moore.

As acknowledged by the Pew Research Forum, 72 percent of the country agreed that Moore’s monument should have remained in the courthouse rotunda. This large number of people included Americans of many races, but that did not stop the SPLC from speaking only of white supremacists who sided with Moore.

As they reported, “Olaf Childress, a neo-Confederate activist from Mobile, handed out his tabloid, The First Freedom, which praises former Klan leader David Duke and decries the ‘Jew World Order.’ It did not matter that in a speech defending his actions, Moore had invoked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy several times and got ovations from the crowd each time, it did not matter that when surveyed firm majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor Ten Commandments displays on government property. The SPLC could only see racists and extremists.
Another case would be their position on those who are opposed to some, most or all of the ideology of the gay rights movement.

To their credit, the SPLC does acknowledge a difference between “mere disagreement with homosexuality” and homophobia, which they dub “campaigns of personal vilification.” However self-imposed principle and practice do differ.

Remember, 61 percent of California, a politically progressive state, voted in favor of a proposition that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Furthermore, blue state Maryland’s Supreme Court upheld it’s ban against gay marriage.

Nevertheless, the SPLC does not see opposition to gay marriage as a valid opinion, but rather “Fundamentalist leaders' attacks on gays” and saw the successes of marriage amendments being due to “Christian Right groups [spending] millions on ad campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts featuring anti-gay crusaders demonizing their opponents.”

After Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country, the Pew Research Center noted in 2005, “Opposition to gay marriage had climbed from 53 to 59 percent. A majority of Americans, 55 percent, characterize gay sex as a sin.”

What does this mean?

According to the SPLC, this is proof of the worst; “Thirty years of anti-gay crusades has begun to pay off.” There is something neurotic to the SPLC’s logic, claiming that mere objection to homosexuality is acceptable but all public examples of this expression are unacceptable. Only homophobes oppose gay marriage or think homosexuality is a sin, reasons the SPLC. With that, yet another group they disagree with is marginalized.

The Southern Poverty Law Center does much good for the American people, but these and other examples show they, too, have a political agenda and they are not above using their benevolent reputation to destroy the reputations of others. Granted, some nefarious people have sided with those who oppose gay marriage or support religious expression on government property, but where does one draw the line? There were slave-owners who fought for America’s independence; does that mean the United States is built on the axioms of hatred and racism? Every cause has its extremists. Should the presence of those extremist always disqualify the cause from legitimacy? Using the reasoning of the SPLC, the answer is yes. By deciding to generalize certain ideas on the basis of them having the occasional extremist supporter, the SPLC is using the message of tolerance to bash political opponents.