More on CFI, with some actual information for a change
I’ve said more than once that I don’t have a firm opinion about who is more right (or wrong) in the dispute between the Center for Inquiry and its founder and former director Paul Kurtz. I still don’t, but one thing I do think is that when the dispute gets into a major media outlet, the reporting is incomplete.
I have an opportunity to rectify that a little, because I saw something Barry Karr said on Facebook this morning that clarified or expanded a couple of points. I got his permission to quote him, and asked two questions of my own. Karr is the Chief Financial Officer of CFI and Executive Director of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
Here is the Facebook comment:
PK can be in the building M-F 9-5 anytime he wants and for any events. He is quite aware of this. In fact he was in here Friday afternoon, in his office, talking on the phone, chatting with employees, etc. He was in here Wednesday and Thursday as well. And this was AFTER his allegedly being barred from the buidling. He wasn’t, not true, and he knows it. I find it amazing actually that you think he should have unfettered access during weekend and non business hours. Regardless of what you think of his new organization, he is actively contacting CFI donors asking these people to give to his new organization. And he should have free reign of the building? Huh? that would be irresponsible of us to say the very least.
And here are my questions and Barry’s replies:
OB: Is CFI worried that PK’s solicitation of funding could be in competition with CFI’s?
BK: I think there is some concern. On one hand, if you are doing your job well, you count on the donors to want to support your efforts and activities. We have a great many projects and programs originating with the Center and we believe we are offering our donors many good reasons to continue to support these efforts. We feel our donors are aware of the good things we do and will want to continue to support us. On the other hand, given these difficult economic times, and the constant pressures from multiple sides, there is the possibility of donor fatigue from requests from an increasing number of worthy groups and foundations.
OB: Do you think the Times did an adequate job of seeking out all the relevant facts and of presenting them?
BK: I was a bit disappointed. I think the reporter should have taken the opportunity to talk to Ron about Kurtz’s comments regarding the Center allegedly changing the direction of its mission. It hasn’t. It also strikes me as a bit odd that the reporter could travel up here to visit Paul at his home, but was unable to find the time to visit the Center itself.
———-
There. All fair points, I think, and points that the Times really should have been able to find for itself.
Update October 5: Ron Lindsay posted this comment at WEIT:
Let me comment briefly on the key issue. I must say I find it perplexing that some appear troubled that CFI management would not issue a key to Paul Kurtz after we decided to change the exterior locks. (The locks were not changed primarily because of Kurtz, but that’s another issue.)
Paul Kurtz resigned from all his positions with the Center for Inquiry and its affiliates in May, 2010. Since then he has launched a competing organization, solicited CFI donors, repeatedly sought access to confidential information by questioning our staff, and worked with others to denigrate CFI. Were I to allow unrestricted after-hours access to our facilities to such an individual, then the board of directors should terminate me for incompetence.
And it is worth emphasizing that unrestricted after-hours access is the only privilege that Kurtz does not now have. He can visit CFI’s facilities any time there is a staff person there with whom he wishes to talk. Not only that, CFI allows him to use his former office and his reserved parking spot—the only person to have such a parking spot.
Rather than wondering why CFI has not issued Kurtz a key, I think a more pertinent question is why Kurtz is so bothered that he can no longer be in the building when no staff member is present.
The New York Times could have done a better job of providing that view of the matter, I think.
Update 2: October 5: This is a comment on PK’s Facebook page, last Saturday, by Ed Beck.
Dr. Kurtz is allowed into the building during normal hours, just like anyone else. I, an intern there, let him in twice on Thursday, personally. If it’s what you’re referring to, he staged his photo-op during a return trip later in the day, before anyone knew he was at the door (he didn’t ring the buzzer that time). I opened it as soon as I saw him — although I quickly realized he was posing, not trying to enter.
The first comment on that thread (which is on the Times article, linked by Paul) is also quite…interesting.
Interesting and sad. Sounds like typical office politics.
I like the model offered by http://www.donorschoose.org/ Which lists a project and then you can donate to it. It even tells you how much money is required for each project. Now why not a similar model for various other causes? For example there is a threatened cut by the government for science projects that will amount to nearly a billion. Why can’t such a similar project be set up for science? Another project could deal with granting scholarships or provide special forms of education for the gifted but underprivileged. All these new media forms can help connect ordinary people into being actively involved in projects, rather than the older models where people take your money and then it gets lost in bureaucracy, legal fees, and lack of vision.
Barry Karr wrote:
It’s “free rein”, not “free reign”.
“Rein” is “one of a pair of long straps, usually connected together and made of leather, used to control a horse, running from the side of the bit or the headstall to the hand of the rider, driver, or trainer” (Collins English Dictionary). Hence, in this instance “free rein” is meant to indicate that the metaphorical restraints are removed or greatly loosened, and the metaphorical “horse” is left free to do as he pleases, without control from the metaphorical “rider”.
“Reign”, on the other hand, is “the period during which a monarch is the official ruler of a country” (Collins English Dictionary).
It’s clear to me that the meaning implied in the quoted text demands the use of “free rein”, not the nonsensical “free reign”. A commonly-encountered mistake these days, but nonetheless still a mistake.
Regards.
perhaps that is an accidental slip that tells more than intended
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: More on CFI, with some actual information for a change http://dlvr.it/6TRL9 […]
In post #3, Jay wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean, but more often than not this kind of terminological misuse happens because people don’t know the difference, and/or do not even care to make the distinction, or see it as relevant.
I find it particularly galling when such indifference is displayed by people who seem otherwise respectful of logic, clarity and precision.
Anyway, enough of this. I don’t wish to derail the discussion in this thread.
John Shook has written an apology on his blog at CFI.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/of_reputations_and_harsh_words/
I do think it’s a great human trait to acknowledge ones own mistakes. I’m not sure how much damage has been done, but I do support fellow atheists, even if they make mistakes. Let’s hope Professor Dawkins can help to mend some bridges, but ultimately I am proud of everyone who continue to speak out and condemn religion in the strongest terms, and aren’t afraid by criticism from their own fellow atheists.
Egbert,
John Shook’s “apology” is more of a denial and buck passing than an apology. He’s denying that he said what he clearly said, and blamed others for misinterpreting him, when they didn’t do that—they read him right.
See my comments on the post you linked to.
For John’s denials to make sense, he needs to name some “prominent” atheists he could possibly have been talking about who are not the famous New Atheists. There are none—nobody prominent that he plausibly could have been referring to, leading an entire proudly ignorant know-nothing wing of the New Atheist movement.
He needs to retract his statements and actually apologize, rather than denying that he meant what he clearly meant, but now regrets saying. (Alternatively, he could defend the claims he did make.)
(See also Russell Blackford’s three-parter about the Shook thing over at Metamagician and the Hellfire Club. Russell leans over backwards to be nice to Shook, but makes it clear he has a whole lot of explaining to do.)
Marco, I was being light-hearted suggesting that ‘reign’, incorrectly used, depicted some of PKs personal style
Marco, that was a Facebook comment – such things are generally done in haste. I assumed ‘reign’ was just a typo. I nearly corrected it, but then thought maybe some suggestion of kingship might be intentional (the NY Times invoked Lear), so I left it. It’s not really worth making a big fuss about here, I would think.
Hi Ophelia
Was Barry’s comments posted on Facebook – I can’t find them? I can’t find anything about this: “I saw something Barry Karr said on Facebook this morning [Oct. 4?] that clarified or expanded a couple of points.” Is your exchange from email or something?
Thanks.
@Luke,
Barry’s comments were made on page of Thomas Edward Donnelly (D.J. Grothe’s boyfriend). His expanded thoughts must have been given via e-mail or FB messaging because I see them nowhere else on FB (Ophelia, correct if wrong).
Thanks Michael.
I think I’d have to friend request Thomas to see the entire convo.
I had a curious thought today. I’m a regular reader of about half a dozen blogs and forums pertaining to skepticism/humanism/atheism (plus a reader of like journals) and this dust up with John Shook’s essay was about as much negative attention as I think I’ve ever seen thrown at CFI from those. Quite a few harsh comments targeted CFI with many saying they were pulling support. Couple that with support going to ISHV and suddenly I’m wondering if you guys at CFI are perhaps realizing it’s possible increased support may have to come from those that are now CFI’s harshest critics due to Shook’s essay? If that’s the case, are you guys considering this and are there any efforts planned to garner that support?
Am I alone in being puzzled about the ongoing relationship between CFI and Paul Kurtz? Barry Karr says that Kurtz has unfettered access to the building? Why, when he appears to be trying to undermine it?
In this interview , Kurtz says that CFI refused to publish his resignation letter. Why doesn’t he just release it? I guess there must be NDAs or something.
The article includes a rather sad picture of Kurtz trying his keys! But it confirms he does get in now, but via the bell.
Michael, yes that’s right – the quoted (indented) para is a Facebook comment and the rest is Barry to me.
Mark, no, you’re not alone in being puzzled. That’s one reason I posted this. I think the world at large is getting a distorted picture because Paul has better access to the media and because his version of things makes a good story (cf the Lear reference in the Times piece). I thought at the very least CFI’s side of things should get more of an airing, so I asked a couple of the questions the Times should have asked.
I have a whole slew of rather sad pictures of Paul trying his keys (in the rain, with the Fool tugging on his jacket – oh wait, no, that last bit is from a parallel but different story). Yet the side door was unlocked, I saw another CFI employee say somewhere (FB again, no doubt, but I don’t remember where); Paul could have simply walked in that way. The point, as Barry said, is that he can no longer get in when the building is empty: nights and weekends. Well, since he did after all leave the organization, is that so unreasonable?
Mark Jones,
I’m not to sure Barry is saying Paul has unfettered access to the building – “And he should have free reign of the building? Huh? that would be irresponsible of us to say the very least.” There seems some minor confusion from my reading as to what happened with locking the doors, how and when and for what purpose Paul was in CFI and what Paul had known about it, especially in light of how the NYT’s article phrased things – it almost appears Barry is blaming Paul for how it was written. I’m hoping my friends request with Thomas goes through so I can see all of what transpired.
I’m also curious about how I’m reading certain aspects pertaining to Paul and CFI on certain forums/blogs, some making out like it’s a one sided issue with Paul being to blame or taking advantage. Toni Van Pelt (the treasurer of ISHV and a regional director of NOW) just posted that CFI is sending out renewals identifying Paul as editor-in-chief – a curious thing this far into the game perhaps.
Luke
It’s not all that confusing.
Hi Ophelia,
Thanks for some clarification. I’m curious as to you saying: “Yet the side door was unlocked, I saw another CFI employee say somewhere (FB again, no doubt, but I don’t remember where); Paul could have simply walked in that way.” – would this have been a wise thing to do? The picture seems to be fairly clear that Paul is out, it’s not been pretty, locks are changed, Paul may have some access for purposes I don’t know of yet – for him to just find a way to stroll in doesn’t make to much sense at this point, no?
Thanks.
Ophelia,
“Paul Kurtz has free access to the building 9 to 5 Monday through Friday.” Lindsay said that?
Ok, thanks.
Luke: no, Barry said that. Re-read the post. Barry reports that Paul is still routinely spending time there.
Ophelia, sorry to pepper you with question.
But, what is Paul Kurtz’s affiliation with CFI presently according to Lindsay or anyone at CFI? Do you know? All I got is from what Paul has said and that quote from Lindsay, but now I’m hearing about the CFI mailings and what I read as to officers on the CFI site. I know this stuff takes time to pan out, but for most of us this is not new news in the least. He was resigned as as chairman emeritus and board member at CFI, but things seemed fairly amicable with Kurtz still involved in some cspacity.
Thanks.
Ophelia,
“Barry reports that Paul is still routinely spending time there.” Ok, gotcha. I thought you meant the 9-5 things as a general statement and I only wanted clarification of what Lindsay may know. So, does this all mean that Paul will be given a new key since Barry seems to be saying the lock change was just routine?
Well if it bores you, don’t read it (stop reading once you discover that it bores you). I didn’t say it was new news. But there was a new story in the Times, and I did think it was quite incomplete and one-sided, so I sought out some clarification from the less-represented side.
I don’t know what Lindsay may know, I talked to Barry Karr, not Ron Lindsay. No it doesn’t mean Paul will get a new key – read the post and you will see that. Don’t read it if it bores you, but do read it rather than asking me questions which are answered in the post.
Ophelia,
I’m sorry, not sure I understand. You quoted me about this not being new news, that’s true – it was in May that Paul resigned – I’m not in the least saying anything is boring me, not in the slightest! In fact, this is all fascinating and you seem to have some inside knowledge (at least to those of us without access to certain FB accounts) which appears valuable. I didn’t say you said it was new news, not do I think I implied that. My “new news” comment clearly follows what I was saying.
Thanks.
Funding issues will probably loom big.
I’ve only met PK a few times, though I’ve worked with organizations affiliated with CFI at various times. I do respect PK a lot, but there was a heavy emphasis on fundraising at every event he was at, and viewing other atheist/humanist organizations really as competitors. I remember years ago one event, with good speakers (as I remember we did pay to attend). After the speakers we all were coralled into the dining room for lunch and the sales pitch went on … not unlike the Pocono time share pitches.
So this could be messy fight.
[I’m not posting under my usual handle because some organizations I’m close to are still connected to PK/CFI and I don’t want guessing of my name to affect their situation.]
Ophelia,
Ok, this has gotten a it strange. Thank you for your insight. I didn’t say or imply I was bored – you are saying that for whatever reason and repeating it.
As to the key thing and Paul’s access to CFI through an open side door – well, you said “I saw another CFI employee say somewhere” (this isn’t in your post – it’s in a comment, right?). I’m curious about it, not in the least bored. Is it so far afield to try to figure out who you may have gotten that info from, is it reliable and does this mean Paul will get a new key, since he can just walk in?
Thanks for the extra info, Ophelia and Luke.
I’m used to commercial organisations who would frogmarch departing executives to the vestibule, just allowing them to pick up their briefcase and hand in their ID. I presume because of Kurtz’s history, and the type of organisation it is, he’s still allowed some rein during working hours.
Luke, okay, I thought you meant “this is old news yawn.”
My inside knowledge isn’t all that inside, it’s just that I was at CFI for a couple of weeks in 2007 (as a speaker) so I know some of the people a little.
Right, the bit about the side door is not in the post. But if it’s true it means that the picture-taking session with Paul in the rain was staged during business hours, when he knew perfectly well he could have just walked in via another door. He can just walk in during business hours. A key would enable him to walk in during non-business hours.
Ron Lindsay posted a comment at WEIT. I’m taking the liberty of reposting it here, verbatim and in its entirety.
[See update to post – OB]
I should be so persecuted by my former employers.
Thanks Paul. I’m going to move that to the post as an update, especially since the thread at WEIT is on the back page now; few people will see Ron’s comment there.
Thanks – I’ve posted some of this up at the ISHV’s FB page.
Why?
Myself I’m emailing the NYT reporter with a link to your excellent blog post. This is very good information that should be clarified in his article.
I’ve invited Ron Lindsay to comment here too. I don’t know if he will – he might be cross with me for saying harsh things about John Shook’s recent article and blog posts.
The thing is, I suspect Ron said a lot more to the Times than just “we have no connection with him [Kurtz]” yet he is being blamed for saying just that and nothing else. It’s most unfair. It’s typical journalism, alas, but it’s not fair – nor is it informative.
I have another snippet of information via Facebook; I’ll do a second update.
Ophelia – “why?”
Well, that appears to be the only open format I can find that is directly related to P. Kurtz to relate information concerning what has transpired. In fact, Toni Van Pelt has now (as of 10 mins ago) put up the mailing for Free Inquiry that shows Paul Kurtz as the Editor-In-Chief. It also includes a quote from the article.
I have linked to your blog, quoted from it and linked to Lindsay’s WEIT comment.
Thanks for the additional info re: Ed Beck. Also, can you post a link to PK’s personal page you are referring to? I can’t seem to locate it…
Simon, well I haven’t been including links because it’s Facebook, so links are kind of useless unless one is already friends with whatever person or group is being linked. But if you search his name at FB you’ll find him: it’s the one with a picture. An impostor turned up just a few days ago and signed up a lot of people before PK sent out a warning – so ignore the one without a picture.
Link here, for what it’s worth
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/paulwkurtz?ref=ts
Thanks Ophelia. Actually this is useful, because it appears I’ve been blocked. Keep us posted and thanks for following up. Here’s how the original NYT article was worded, and IMO it was quite deceptive:
Matters have not improved: on Wednesday, when Mr. Kurtz stopped by the center, where he still keeps an office, he found the locks had been changed.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/us/02beliefs.html
I hope others email Mr. Oppenheimer to clarify.
I’d like to address some of the comments, so permit me to amplify just a bit on the remarks from me that Ophelia has already posted.
First, yes, Paul Kurtz can enter the CFI building any time during normal business hours. All he has to do is ring a doorbell at the main entrance.
Second, Kurtz has no ongoing connection to CFI because he decided to sever all his ties when he voluntarily resigned from his various positions in May. He does nothing for CFI. To the contrary, he has formed another organization that purports to be engaging in some of the same work CFI does (studying human values from a naturalistic perspective). He is actively raising money for this organization, and he has retained a fundraiser who has contacted CFI donors.
Third, the significance of the key is that it allows Kurtz to access the building after-hours, when no one is there to let him in. As Kurtz does no work for us, there is no reason for him to be in the building alone.
Fourth, Kurtz has shown great interest in CFI’s financial information on several occasions post-resignation. He has pestered employees for this information, becoming quite angry and emotional when he is informed it will not be shared with him. (I witnessed one such incident myself; others were reported to me.)
For all the foregoing reasons, it would have been highly irregular and imprudent of me to issue Paul Kurtz a key for the new locks. Nor does the failure to give him a new key show any discourtesy as he is not impeded in any way from visiting staff (which he has maintained is his reason for coming to CFI’s building).
One comment stated somebody had received some communication from CFI listing Paul Kurtz as editor-in-chief. That should not have happened, but it’s probably the result of someone deciding to use old stationery or forms. As indicated, Dr. Kurtz has not held a position in the organization since mid-May.
In closing, let me note that the photos that have been circulating of Kurtz trying to enter the building last Thursday were staged. Kurtz already knew by this time his key would not work. The photos were taken by a photographer from Prometheus Books, the publisher controlled by the Kurtz family. That Kurtz would go to the trouble of staging this bit of theater forcefully illustrates his determination to damage CFI—and underscores the reasons why he is not entitled to a key that would give him unrestricted access to our facility.
BTW, I did explain to Mr. Oppenheimer (the NYT reporter) that Kurtz was able to enter the building any time a member of the staff was present and that the only significance of not having a key was that Kurtz could not enter the building when no one was around. But I do not have a real beef with the reporter for cutting short my explanation. I’m more disappointed with Kurtz for bringing up this wholly absurd grievance with the reporter in the first place.
Ronald,
Thanks for some clarification. As I’ve mentioned I’ve been putting some of this information up at the ISHV’s FB page.
Toni at the ISHV FB has just posted this: “Thanks Luke. We were also informed by a supporter to note as of today that the CFI listing under personnel Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair Emeritus for CFI, CSI, CSH tel: (716) 636 – 4869 ex. 200.”
I can understand the “old stationary or forms” in a way, but since you emphasize Paul’s departure in May: “As indicated, Dr. Kurtz has not held a position in the organization since mid-May.” What the heck is going on? I’ve also noticed Paul’s name around for some time and have been a bit confused. Charitably, I could consider this a rather long extension of getting the house in order so to speak – however, it has been over four months now and you are repeating Paul’s non-connection to CFI in no uncertain terms. Is it unreasonable to think at this time there is perhaps efforts to use Paul’s name to stay connected for solicitation purposes?
Has Paul mentioned any of this to you? I had waited sometime now for Paul and others to start up some kind of organization and the fact that he was getting financial information seems somewhat reasonable (no?) considering hasn’t he been the primary force for getting most of what’s been accomplished by being a big force in raising the funds for over two decades now? I recall the recent plea by CFI for funds with mention of Paul withholding donor information – are you arguing this is unreasonable since he resigned in what everyone seems to agree with was less than ideal circumstances and his likely moving on?
Luke – much of what you wrote in your last post just doesn’t make sense because the sentences are garbled. But if you meant to propose that it was reasonable for a former employee to ask staff for donor information in order to use it for a competing organization, that would be daft.
Josh: Are these Toni’s words or yours?
Er, sorry meant to say: “Luke: Are those Toni’s words or yours?”
Since I’ve been quoted, and to remove all question about the dishonest circumstances of Dr. Kurtz’s photos, I’ll elaborate on this minuscule aspect of the situation:
There are two entrances into CFI.
One is the main entrance into the atrium area, and during business hours it can be entered merely by pressing a button, upon which someone (usually myself in the afternoons) will remotely unlock it via similar button. This remote lock is kept activated during the day for reasons of security and courtesy, as there is no longer an employee stationed by that door to answer questions or guide visitors we might otherwise not know are there. This entrance is where the photos of Dr. Kurtz were taken, and this is where I had let him in earlier in the day — and mid photo shoot.
The second entrance, at the other end of the building, has an electronic lock — but is left deactivated during business hours, as that area is occupied by employees. I forgot to mention this unlocked entrance previously.
Were Dr. Kurtz to be honest about this situation, he would have avoided claiming that any permission whatsoever is required for him to enter the building during normal hours — or that he’s left exiled without a key — since he could have simply walked 30 yards and freely opened a door himself.
And he most certainly would have avoided staging those photos.
Ron, thanks very much; I think that clarifies a lot.
Ed Beck, thanks to you too. I hope you don’t mind my quoting you.
Those photographs…they do look very staged, and played for pathos; I’m afraid they get up my nose a bit. Especially now that I know they were taken during business hours when the door a few yards away was unlocked! I used that door a lot myself, because it’s the nearest to the guesthouse. It’s laughable to think of a “Help I’m locked out in the snow!” melodrama being staged at the other door.
Still sounds like office politics to me. Petty and self-destructive. Aren’t we above this?
Well I’m certainly not! I’m not above anything. (Okay maybe that’s a little too broad. I’m above…let’s see…celebrity dance shows.) I’ve always found office politics fascinating, partly because I’ve spent so little time in offices, but mostly because they are so petty yet so impassioned.
Anway…if by “aren’t we above this?” you mean “why are you talking about this?” – I think I’ve said why. It’s mostly because I think Paul Kurtz has been using the media to make his case and that the case for the other side has been scanted. It’s also because I’ve spent time at CFI, I think CFI matters, I know (slightly) some of the people involved. It was in the New York Times; now I’m talking about it. Some CFI people have had a chance to present their side. I don’t think that’s such a terrible waste of time or space that it needs further explanation or justification.
Thanks to Ron and Ed. Those photos are funny and sad at the same time.
But I still don’t know why PK’s allowed in the building at all, if he’s left the organisation (despite his illustrious history). Am I missing something obvious? Does PK own the freehold or something?
Ron is busy getting ready for the LA shindig so I don’t suppose anyone who knows will be answering, so I’ll offer my guess, which is that that’s the compromise that seemed most workable. PK said in the interview with Erich Vieth that CFI tried to take away his office but he made such a stink that they backed down.
He seems to be doing a Lear in ways that the Times reporter perhaps was not thinking of when he invoked the play. Lear abdicated but wanted to keep all his status and authority just the same, and was surprised and pissed off when that didn’t work.
Thanks Ophelia, the Lear comparison sounds plausible. More prosaically, my Mum and Dad (in their eighties) cannot be shifted from their routine, so maybe PK’s the same. I wouldn’t want to stay where I wasn’t wanted, but perhaps there comes a time when one doesn’t care about that.
Well if I didn’t stay where I wasn’t wanted, I’d have nowhere to go!
Hahahahahasnort.
Unfortunately, I have been in office environments, and particularly unpleasant ones. And the dynamics tend to be irrational and Machiavellian, psychopaths revel in such environments. This is probably because they’re hierarchies, male dominated pecking orders of sublime pettiness and power playing that distract from a common goal.
I assume academia is different? Since I don’t dwell in universities or professor offices, I assume there is a more friendly fellowship. If not, then we are in trouble.
@Simon,
The words that are Toni’s are what I quoted, I said: “Toni at the ISHV FB has just posted this”
@Josh,
Well, I was between appointments so I was trying to do it quick, be brief and hope one could understand the context.
Main points I guess for you Josh would include:
“Is it unreasonable to think at this time there is perhaps efforts to use Paul’s name to stay connected for solicitation purposes?”
I’m curious of this and it seems somewhat reasonable to assume. Not only because of the solicitation that has gone out that Toni post, but also of the listed affiliation of Paul at CFI, plus Paul’s name has been on other solicitations (for donations and subscriptions I mean when I say this) for CFI since June. It has been over four months now. I can understand to a degree that “old” stuff was used recently for solicitation, but when has anyone gotten the “new” stuff? I honestly don’t know. You see, part of the problem with emphasizing he’s been out but still using his name. I’m wondering now if there wasn’t a perhaps silent (maybe vocal) agreement of sorts on using Paul’s name and affiliation in agreement for Paul to maintain certain privileges. However, it seems long past time to rest this since Ronald has made clear Paul’s position – a few times now in no uncertain terms.
The other point Josh is about donors and getting financial information. It’s actually information I would like to get from someone. Clearly, Ronald would know the use of saying things such as: “He has pestered employees for this information, becoming quite angry and emotional when he is informed it will not be shared with him. (I witnessed one such incident myself; others were reported to me.)” I have no way to verify this or in what context it all comes down to. It seems Ronald is making the argument that because of Paul’s behavior over finances that this would partly explain why they wouldn’t want him there unattended after hours – does it not to you, Josh? I’m trying to connect the dots in a way here – if it was understood Paul’s name is used in solicitation, POST resignation, and understanding how much Paul has done in securing donors, why wasn’t information forthcoming to Paul? What information? It seems clear from what’s happened and from Ronald’s post that things started to take another nasty turn perhaps AFTER it was learned that not only was Paul withholding donor information but securing donors for a new organization. After all it’s been known for sometimes 1.) Paul resigned in May 2.) CFI did a special plea for funds with Ronald identifying Paul as withholding certain donor names (whom I’m guessing Paul did secure, no?) 3.) Locks and what times Paul could be in CFI changed after it became clear Paul was making the push for the new organization (do I actually believe the changed locks had nothing to do with Paul – NO. Lol – do you?)
Luke: Every fund-raising letter I’ve received from CFI since 2009 has been signed by Ron Lindsay. Can you post a pic to what you are referring to?
For the record, I cannot see this on facebook because it seems like both Toni and Ron have blocked me. Apologies for asking you to re-post from FB.
Argh: Correction again…”it seems like both Toni and *Paul* have blocked me”.
Simon
I’ve been quoting from the ISHV’s FB – which is open, not Toni’s or Paul’s FB. I’m not sure what you mean by “blocked” – I thought Toni’s was open, how are people blocked from her page? Why would you be “blocked”?
Here is the picture – again, it’s off the ISHV FB.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pid=5072823&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=126050007430813&aid=-1&id=607827411&oid=126050007430813&fbid=444705682411
Simon
Sorry, part of what I did say is actually found on the CFI web site. Click the latest issue of Free Inquiry (Oct./Nov. 2010) and it shows from top:
FI Editorial Staff
Editor in Chief: Paul Kurtz
The point again, to you or Josh, forget now, is that the emphasis on having no connection has been made abundantly clear by Ronald, so I won’t belabor the points.
Luke:
Are we talking about Free Inquiry here?
You know who else still lists Paul Kurtz as editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry?
Paul Kurtz.
If yo go to to paulkurtz.net, click on Biography, and search for “editor,” you find this:
I don’t think people should get all bent out of shape about this particular bit of out-of-date information, at least until Kurtz updates his own documents.
By the way, there’s a more interesting bit of out-of-date information on the ISHV web site. In the brief version of the Neo-Humanist statement of principles, it says they’re “opposed to theism.”
According to Erich Vieth, who says he got it from Kurtz himself on the phone, that’s supposed to be changed to “opposed to traditional theism,” as it is in the long statement with the big preamble and appendix.
Given that point #1 is about inclusiveness (including religious humanists) is sounds like Kurtz is positioning ISHV and Neo-Humanism to be very accommodationist, avoiding criticizing liberal religion but criticizing Gnu Atheism for doing so.
This seems odd to me, because if I recall correctly, Kurtz split with the American Humanist Association (decades ago) partly over their being too accommodationist and inclusive. Now he seems to be positioning ISHV to be the new AHA—but under his control. (I’m not an expert on this stuff, so if anybody who knows better, please do correct me.)
@Luke: A quick note: some areas of our websites are not updated as often as they should be. However, despite Kurtz’s claim that I am a Stalinist, I’m not going to terminate staff simply because they’re a bit behind in removing some names, especially when news of Kurtz’s resignation has been widely disseminated. The print issues of Free Inquiry do not list Kurtz. (The omission of Kurtz’s name from this magazine, BTW, led to yet another unpleasant scene at CFI’s offices not long ago.)
Communications to donors are signed by me, Tom Flynn, or Barry Karr. That said, reference may be made to Kurtz in some contexts. For example, he founded CSI, CFI and CSH and he accomplished much during the years he was in charge. Those facts could be mentioned in some of our literature. Why not? It’s a true statement. Neither I nor anyone associated with the management of CFI, CSI and CSH has ever failed to give Paul Kurtz credit where credit is due.
Paul Kurtz could still have a great legacy, although his actions of the last two years have had the effect of tarnishing that legacy. Whether his legacy will be further undermined is largely up to him to decide.
Luke,
Paul Kurtz resigned in a huff from CFI, and started a competing organization.
When somebody resigns in a huff from an organization, and starts a competing organization, you generally don’t let them keep the keys to the building and have full access to valuable financial information that they could abuse.
That would be stupid. Really, really stupid.
Maybe even illegal.
Officers of nonprofit corporations have a legal responsibility to protect those corporations and act in their interest, in ways consistent with the goals of the organization. Failure to do so can leave them open to being sued.
Paul Kurtz may have legitimate grievances with CFI, over the things that led to his resigning in a huff; I don’t know enough about that to comment.
I will say that if anything, CFI has been <i>too accommodating</i> of Paul Kurtz since he left. The guy obviously has an agenda that is not entirely aligned with CFI’s, and the officers of CFI have a legal responsibility to act accordingly.
It does not matter whether Paul Kurtz founded and built the organization, or whether he’s generally awesome, or whether the CFI officers are ungrateful bastards. Their legal obligation is not to Paul Kurtz, but to CFI.
They are legally obliged to use their own judgment as to what is in CFI’s best interest, and promotes CFI’s mission, and if that means treating Paul Kurtz like an obstructionist or an untrustworthy competitor—as recent events suggest they should—they are legally obliged to do so.
Stop making this about poor wonderful Paul Kurtz and how badly he’s being treated. That is unfortunate, but it’s just not what CFI’s decision-making can legally be about. It’s about some differences of opinion as to how best to pursue CFI’s mission, and who is in legally charge.
Kurtz resigned. He is not in charge. Get used to it.
And as Ron said – Kurtz has done a lot of great things over a long career. It would be nice if he could manage to stop tarnishing them now.
I really hadn’t heard of Paul Kurtz until recently, but I’m saddened to hear that he considers me a Stalinist. But considering his age, I’ll overlook the gibe, and let bygones be bygones. We actively encourage things like freedom of speech, so I welcome his right to misrepresent my position, that’s one of the great things about liberal societies. I certainly would not seek to censor what he has to say, or tell him to shut up and stop being so aggressive and ignorant, because that would be illiberal and irrational.
Paul Kurtz’ writtings got me involved in CFI; I respected him a great deal. At the recent Council for Secular Humanism Conference in L.A., I chatted with him somewhat privately. This was a truly saddening encounter for me. The petulance that I perceived in an aging man whom I had put on a pedestal reserved for geniuses is destructive of his earlier very extensive accomplishments.
Now I ask a purely rhetorical question of those who continue to spend so much time on this natural development: Are you helping the progress of CFI and the cause of rationalism as you spend so much time trying to respond to petulance. As we approach our mid-eighties, most of us can expect to lose a lot of objectivity; those of you who are younger (but mature) would, I think, have more productive matters to spend so much time on–once you have the basic facts. And, since the facts have been made very plain over and over, for me, “over and out!”
Stephen,
Well I’m not spending a huge amount of time on it; just a little. And as I said…I thought the other side’s version had been mostly left out of the Times article. Since I had access to some testimony, I thought I would make it available.
I too greatly respect Paul’s achievements, I too am saddened by this outcome. But I also think both sides should be heard.
[…] according to comments by CfI officers Ronald Lindsay and Barry Karr, Kurtz still has an office in the center which he's free to use during normal business hours – he […]