Crimson White

Brandon Wilson of the Southern Poverty Law Center visited the UA campus Jan. 13. During his visit, he gave a seminar on "10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus."

I missed the event, so I will not pretend to know what he said there. I have seen the information on the same topic that is posted on the SPLC's Web site. As far as I can tell, it is all good information and can be used effectively for its stated purpose of combating intolerance. That is not what troubles me about the visit of Mr. Wilson.

What troubles me deeply about the visit of an SPLC associate to our campus is the true character of the SPLC. The SPLC portrays itself as a crusader for civil rights and as the premier opponent of such hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan. In truth, the group seems primarily to be a front for making its directors - Morris Dees and others - lots of money and for promoting extreme left-wing views.

The Montgomery Advertiser did a series of investigative reports on the SPLC in 1994. The newspaper won a journalism award for what it uncovered. For instance, the SPLC has spent only $21 million of the $62 million in contributions it has received since Aug. 1, 1984. Where did the other $41 million go?

The SPLC is one of the richest nonprofit organizations in the country. But despite its immense wealth, the SPLC still milks its contributors for huge amounts of money each year. Because of that, some have compared the organization to the sleazy televangelists who swindle the sick and dying out of their money.

Furthermore, the SPLC fails to practice the very tolerance that it preaches. Consider some more facts discovered by the Montgomery Advertiser in 1994. In the whole history of the SPLC, the paper reported, the group had only hired two black staff attorneys. Both of those people left the SPLC very unhappy. The Advertiser interviewed 13 former black SPLC employees and found that 12 of them had experienced or observed racial problems. Some went so far as to call the SPLC "a plantation."

In 1994, The Birmingham News reported the findings of its own investigation of the SPLC. Let me quote what it printed Feb. 17, 1994:

Christine Lee, a Harvard Law School alumna who interned at the center in 1989, said, "I would definitely say that there was not a single black employee with whom I spoke who was happy to be working there. ... As I was told [at the SPLC,] they don't need black people telling them how to handle black issues."

Dees responded by saying, "We don't have black slots and white slots. Probably the most discriminated people in America today are white men when it comes to jobs because there are more of those who had more education opportunities and who the test scores show are scoring better and on paper look more qualified. That's why you have so many reverse discrimination cases around." [Birmingham News, Feb. 17, 1994]

While there is at least a half-truth in what Mr. Dees said, there is absolutely no excuse for how he treated Ms. Lee and others like her. Even this abysmal record on racial tolerance does not prevent Mr. Dees and the SPLC from labeling various conservative groups as "hate groups." The League of the South, a pro-Southern political organization, was smeared by the SPLC in just this way in 2000. VDARE.com, a Web site promoting immigration reform, was also the victim of SPLC smear tactics recently.

One and only one conclusion can be drawn: The SPLC is a fraud. The SPLC and all its associates should take their own course on tolerance. As for the rest of us, we should take a stand against organizations such as the SPLC who want to make a quick buck off racial problems instead of truly working to resolve them.

Richard Patrick Samples is a graduate student in the College of Engineering.

Article Tools