The AC(No Evil)LU Gets Itself In A Pickle

Although the ACLU objects (on principle, of course) to “no fly” lists of people barred from flying, or subject to heightened scrutiny, and filed suit to bar their use, it has promised the government

not to employ people it knew to be on similar terrorism lists so that it could continue participating in a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions.

….

“We oppose ‘no fly’ lists,” said Michael Meyers, a member of the group’s executive committee. “Now we have a ‘no hire’ list that we’ve signed onto. We’re in the midst of an organizational cultural crisis of enormous size.”

Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, denies that his organization has compromised its principles and claims “that the promise had not affected any employment decision by the group….”

How, you may ask, is that possible? Easy: Romero never looked at the lists. “I’ve printed them out,” he said, but “I’ve never consulted them.”

Mr. Romero defended his decision to sign the certification but said he was seeking clarification from the government about the obligations it entails. He said that the language of the certification required knowingly employing someone named on the lists, and that he had taken care not to know the listed names….

“On advice of counsel,” he said, “we think our interpretation could be reasonable.”

Could be?

Nadine Stroesen, the ACLU’s president, asks what I suppose is a rhetorical question:

“Do we do more harm than good by spurning money by certifying something that is plausible but not the only plausible interpretation?” she asked. “It’s completely a debate about strategy, not principle.”

The ACLU doesn’t seem to do as well when it strays too far from principle.

Mara Patermaster, director of the government’s charity program, for some reason took a dim view of this ruse.

“We expect that the charities will take affirmative action to make sure they are not supporting terrorist activities,” she said. “That would specifically include inspecting the lists. To just sign a certification without corroboration would be a false certification.”

Ms. Patermaster’s expectation of affirmative action to ensure that terrorism is not supported calls to mind the two presidential Executive Orders (10925, by President Kennedy, and 11246, by President Johnson) that first required affirmative action. Both of the executive orders required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

If this new application of affirmative action follows the same developmental trajectory as its predecessor, pretty soon employers will be extending preferences to applicants whose names appear on terrorist watch lists in order to make sure that a critical mass of them are hired.

UPDATE [31 July 10:45PM]

The ACLU has just withdrawn from the charities program and says it will sue the government.

Romero withdrew the ACLU from the program and said the organization plans to sue the government over the policy. The group says the watch list is filled with errors that people listed on them have no way of correcting.

….

The ACLU did not think the policy’s language required it to check employees’ names against the watch lists, [ACLU spokeswoman Emily] Whitfield said.

The organization withdrew from the program after reading Patermaster’s comments in the Times, Romero said. He added that the ACLU would not have participated in the program if it had known about the requirement.

The part of this explanation that seems plausible is the statement that “[t]he ACLU did not think….”