Update on CFI
There’s been a lot of unhappy and unfortunate stuff going on at the Center for Inquiry lately. I’m not going to link to any sources because I haven’t been able to find any that seem at all impartial (and also because several of them are at Facebook rather than at more public sites). To summarize briefly – Paul Kurtz was ousted or removed or set aside (see? I can’t even find an impartial verb) as CEO, and Ron Lindsay took over that job. There were changes. There were funding cuts or re-allocations. (See? Depends what you call it.) Senior people left, for various reasons. (See?) Paul Kurtz resigned altogether, and published an open letter about his resignation and the changes at CFI. There were pointed editorials in Free Inquiry; there were pointed blog posts at the CFI blog and elsewhere, which generated long threads full of pointed comments from CFI staffers and former staffers and members.
Stuff. Lots and lots of stuff. Competing and conflicting accounts; resentments; bad blood; gossip; attempts to tamp down all these; repeat. Public linen-washing. Recrimination.
On June 1 CFI issued an urgent fundraising appeal. That’s an exception to the no links, because it’s a press release and it’s unambiguous. They need money. By all means donate to them if you’re so inclined.
They had a donor who had forked over 800 grand every year; the donor has stopped giving and has also not responded to communications from CFI.
CFI was forced to lay off some people. One of them was Norm Allen, who among other things ran the African Americans for Humanism program. He was also – this is my addition, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere – their liason with Leo Igwe. I don’t mean “Leo will be cut off from CFI now!” – I just mean that’s another valuable thing he was involved with, and one that I know a little about. Debbie Goddard is taking over much of Norm Allen’s work, and I’m confident that Leo will not be cut off from CFI – though I can’t say I’m confident that whatever money they were spending on their Nigerian branch is safe. I don’t know what their Nigerian branch involves – maybe it’s just a notional branch that really means some part-time volunteers, and maybe it will be no worse off than it was. I hope so.
At any rate, all this did not go smoothly. That’s not surprising. That’s you updated.
This is a pretty awful situation…I went and contributed some money to their current fundraising appeal, since I’m a member of the local CFI group (CFI-Southern Arizona — we need every bit of help for the cause of rationality and reason in this half-insane state, alas!).
Yes, it’s a mess all around.
There was some drama when I was there (Amherst) in 2007, but nothing like now. The drama doesn’t help the funding much, I imagine.
Arizona, eh. Arpaio for governor! (Joke. Sorry. Sick.)
I actually joined CFI not very long ago, thinking this was an organisation that deserved my membership – I’m usually not a joiner and of course there are so many organisations that want my membership dollar. Many of them are worthy, but I can’t join them all. But CFI seems to me to be important, and I suppose the other thing is that some time back they’d taken the trouble to approach me and ask if I’d like to be accredited as a speaker with them. You’ve gotta love an organisation that notices your existence. Anyway, I did join, and I gave ’em another US$50 the other day in response to their appeal, which is all I was prepared to set aside this week since, like most struggling freelancers, I actually make less money than I spend.
Things are certainly not perfect at CFI, though the only decision I totally don’t understand is the choice of Chris Mooney as one of the folks to take over from CJ Grothe. But even there, he’s not the only person in the new team. He’s one of three even if he’s going to be the most active of the three. Quite a lot of mixed stuff seems to be coming out of there, but I think that’s because it’s obvious that there are different views within CFI on a number of things and it’s going through a period of transition. I do relate to Ron Lindsay’s situation, having had similar experiences with organisations that are internally divided and require a lot of walking on eggshells. From here, he seems to be doing as good a job as anyone could in the current circumstances, so he has my support.
But different people can have different views of CFI. What really annoys and worries me is the amount of criticism it’s copping based on sheer ignorance. Some folks out there seem to have no idea about what is involved when an organisation suffers financial exigency and has to make painful choices about which perfectly good staff to let go. It may not be being handled in the very best way – that’s hard for a small organisation where everyone knows each other and everyone is emotionally invested – but I don’t see any evidence that it’s any worse than is almost inevitable. These are horrible situations for everybody.
But worse, I see folks who have just crazy ideas about CFI. Some are speculating that the major donor pulled out because CFI has become too accommodationist, when the opposite is likely to be true if this donor is a pal of Kurtz who objects to the new, less accommodationist regime. Some are saying they don’t support it because of Kurtz’s negative views of Blasphemy Day, when the new management’s positive view of Blasphemy Day is precisely one of the things that caused the bad blood between it and Kurtz.
And some people actually seem to object to CFI carrying out sceptical, intellectually sound investigations of paranormal and religious claims. I really don’t understand this. Perhaps the idea is that we intuitively know that religion and the paranormal are bullshit, and investigating them somehow just gives them credibility. But of course, most people don’t have any such intuition. Huge majorities in Western countries still believe in gods and/or in some kind of woo. I think it’s incredibly important to have well-financed, intellectually strong and credible, organisations looking at this stuff with a cold eye. Despite its current problems, CFI is doing a job that I think desperately needs doing. It will never have the huge dollars of the numerous religion-oriented foundations, but we need it to be as well-resourced as possible. The idea that its work is unimportant or pretentious or counterproductive, and it should just go to the wall, has really upset me this week. Some of what is being said is so ill-informed and anti-intellectual as to make we wonder what sort of people are being attracted to “our” side of the current debates. I really hope that these are just loud-mouthed outliers.
Anyway, Ophelia, thanks for the update. I hope that CFI can work through its problems soon. I’m afraid its chances are severely diminished unless there’s a good response to the current appeal.
Ugh, DJ Grothe.
Yikes, I haven’t seen the people who object to the investigations. How bizarre. What I’ve mostly been seeing is people having emotional meltdowns or displaying prurient curiosity and in both cases trying to stir up more emotion and more prurient curiosity – it’s all rather distasteful. I left a comment on an emotional thread by one Olga Bourlin at Facebook, saying it’s very sad about Norm and wishing Deb luck – and she left a very snotty reply wondering why so many people were saying “sad” and “good luck” because who is going to take responsibility and it’s a fucking travesty. Eh? I’m not going to take responsibility! I had nothing to do with it! And I like Deb, so I can wish her good luck if I want to. Sheesh.
But. It appears that Leo has quit CFI. That’s not good.
OB, have a look at the equivalent thread over at RD.net and see what you make of it. I haven’t looked there yet this morning – I dread to think what the latest is.
Ohh, I haven’t seen that, Russell. Right, I will.
They’re silly if they’re dissing CFI. Richard has been a stalwart there for years. I remember when he did a goodbye and thanks for all the fish for Carl Sagan after he died, in Free Inquiry.
Ah I see – it’s all Michael Kingsford Gray. Who among other things takes CFI to have exempted the Jesus Project, alone, from cuts, when in fact the Jesus Project has been suspended. But he’s proceeding with his usual modesty and caution nevertheless.
Rise above it, Russell!
But he’s actually getting support, or he was. It looks like it turned around a little bit overnight.
I didn’t realise this is the same guy who says some weird things over here. That makes sense. It also cheers me up that it’s someone we already know to be an outlier.
Things like this happen a lot in the world and community, but when you run an organizations that does run a confrontational approach it does not take too much in the way of rational thought to see things cumming unstuck.
If, in the process of creating bad blood with those you object to you forget to also create good blood within your own organization then it stands to reason bad blood with flow back. I suppose the organization really does need to consider it future goals at this time, and just how to create a sense of positivity within the group. I learned personally a long time ago, to think hatred, to act in hatred, will in the end bring you hatred.
Something came back to bite them, of that I think most can be sure of.
Thank-you for the run-down Ophelia, and thanks for adding your perspective Russell – I didn’t know the extent of this. I have duly donated and posted this on Facebook. CFI On Campus has been a very supportive and useful resource for the La Trobe University Secular Society, and I subscribe to Free Inquiry magazine, which I’ve gotten a lot out of. I hope they come through this, I really do.
Robert, your pontification is poorly judged.
Emily, they are now paying a price at the hands of one of their own… it is hoped in the future and with a new management style such things may be avoided.
Pontification if may be, but even basic psychology shows you really can’t create a positive by feeding a negative a negative.
Russell – yes, and he also said some truly ridiculous things about philosophy (you know, of the “it’s all wankery” variety) on Jerry Coyne’s post on Pessin on That Paradox. You can feel that much more cheerful!
Robert, it’s the Center for Inquiry, not the Center for Confrontation, nor the Center for Bad Blood, nor the Center for Hatred.
Your accusations are just silly, and in context rather spiteful. Other than that, good stuff. (Well, apart from all the typos.)
Sounds a bit like the ‘angels dancing on a pinhead’ disputes of previous eras.
This type of event, especially in an advocacy organization is not all that unusual. People fervently and legitimately have perspectives and even if they agree 98% with their co-travellers, that last 2% can be, at times, a deal breaker. It’s an almost natural by-product of people who really care about a position.
We sometimes here stories about couples becoming involved in furious domestic arguments over the election, my wife and I don’t because simply I don’t care who she votes for and she likewise (not that it would change the election anyhow).
I hope it will settle reasonably well. Paul is a good guy but quite the autocrat, and when the pot boils over, it takes a while for all the pressure to settle.
sorry Ophelia I an slightly dyslexic and sometimes I can screw the English language up like no other.
I could have been clearer in what I was saying or at least more insightful. The it is the centre of Inquiry it would have also been on a confrontation footing with other points of view, thus it would appear at time that argument was constant – regardless of correctness or accuracy of that point of view. This position does create or wear down people, and it looks like this has been some of the case.
It can appear they have been on a negative footing simply because they have also been in confrontation with competing positions. Again there is no right or wrong in this.
Eventually what happens is that both sides of discussion get so used to simply opposing each other that negativity is the normal rather than just the occasional glitch that happens with all inquiry.
The final breakdown is just negative headbutting within, which draws some of its own power from the defense it has had to keep when under attack for inquiry elsewhere. Somewhere along the line the positives need to be rediscovered and utilized, and perhaps the difficulties faced now will serve as 1) a timely reminder to keep changing and 2) a positive base from which to build a stronger organization.
When I say negative, this can cover a wide range of areas. If in Alabama and you said, ‘Jesus is just a myth thought up by goat herders’ this will be seen as a negative, not matter what research and discovery is involved. If you said the same thing in central India it might be seen as a positive simply because they are not Christians and don’t give a toss.
The confrontation simply comes for general points of contact between idea, inquiry and the release of those things. They are not deliberate acts, they are simply facts of life and I don’t think they can be avoided, no matter how many times you say things like “reasonable sense’ Logic step’ and ‘ Rational thought’
What a mess this appears to be. Of course disagreements can be a problem, as can funding, but there’s an unfortunate impression from Leo, Norm and Paul’s various comments that plenty of indecent treatment has accompanied what appear to be pragmatic decisions. And the episode leaves (perhaps) many of us in a bit of a dilemma – as much as I’ve supported CFI in the past (and benefited from their support, as one of the loosely affiliated African outposts), there are things about character and organizational political that I’m going to need clarity on before reaching any conclusions here in terms of who to affiliate (and not) with in the future. Good luck to all insiders involved – and of course to those who’ve been cast off/resigned.
Ugh. What a mess. I saw the stuff Russell mentions on the thread at RD.net. I found it so frustrating that I didn’t even bother commenting. It’s just kind of mind-blowing that anyone would think that the kinds of investigations carried out by CFI is the problem. It’s hard to get a handle on where someone making that argument is coming from as, in my mind, that works is so clearly crucial and necessary. It’s that much more disconcerting that it wasn’t just one guy. A lot of people were agreeing with him, and that made the situation all the more frustrating.
Anyway, I hope they get things worked out.
Robert,
That is still far from self-evident; as a matter of fact it looks to me like sheer nonsense. Are you saying that inquiry as such is “on a confrontation footing with other points of view”? And are you further saying that that is somehow morally wrong or dubious? Are you saying that inquiry as such is hostile and aggressive? If you are, what are you suggesting? That everyone should simply abandon all inquiry, and believe everything anyone says?
Yes, judging by the rest of your comment, I guess you are.
Well, sorry, that leaves us nothing to say to each other.
Ophelia, you do have a chip on your shoulder here, and I am not the one to knock it off, you seem to be happy with it, so keep it.
psychology suggests that eventually creating views that do by accident create co0nfrontation are quite normal. Now, the CFI, though inquiry do create a sort of confrontation within society, differing views and beliefs dictate this. Though for some reason you want to think I am talking about aggression, or hostility – your words, not mine and even on this issue you are the one showing such confrontation, not me. So, some of the case in point is proving itself in this thread.
But that is another issue entirely…
The role of the CFI, if it was based on what you say would probably have very few issues with others across many walks of life and belief. And there is nothing to suggest huge opposition to the organization – but, I am talking about the internal wear and tear on the organization based on its work.
The inquiry to them is positive, which isn’t a problem because it is a good position to be in. When confronted with alternative views the positive position then needs to be argued, which creates a general negative which gets tiresome after a time. The opposing elements create an alternative argument for them it is positive, then but again. This then sets up a rebuttal, resources squeezed from elsewhere to counter alternate position that are disagreeable.
Regardless of what the subject matter is, what the inquiry is, there is a mortality rate on staff and as seen thus far of the organization itself. Somewhere something went wrong and it might not have even been in the actual research, or even the delivery of findings, though everything does need to be examined in order to ensure the instability at present is avoided in the future.
All inquiry has an element of confrontation, the hostility and aggression only ever comes after the fact – the defense mechanism.
I never mentioned anything about morality, so I am unsure of what you are trying to suggest here. Is there a moral aspect to CFI’s research? I haven’t looked into it that far so I am not even going to suggest any standing on that point. Only, that I didn’t think inquiry was a moral issue —
As you seem to be openly aggressive here I can only assume you are transposing a pre-set position and standpoint. I see it a lot these days, it is an affectation often used by the media to garner support for sales. Nothing in what I have said shows any inkling of what you suggest, so the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place is only what you know or understand. Obviously that is up to you to deal with, not me.
Enjoy your anger, it has little to do with me, I assure you
quick note – the inquiry does not need to have opposition from a religious source; CFI does have to deal with government bodies, policy and law, all of which create their own unique tensions.
Robert – you started off with a rather unpleasant comment – then you added another, then another. If you think your comments express no hostility, I think you’re kidding yourself. They’re also, unfortunately, rather incoherent – I can’t figure out exactly what you’re trying to say. They’re also longish. The combination is somewhat irritating. That’s not a “chip” on my “shoulder” nor is it me enjoying my anger; it’s just mild irritation at lengthy hostile incoherence. You may have a point, but you haven’t made it.
the problem CFI is not a simple fix and I think you are reading far too much into what I have written on a personal level, but that is up to you and stating the obvious when it is already playing out as bad blood between parties isn’t unpleasant. This situation the CFI face is unpleasant, disruptive and dare I say, costly – Time, research, effort and of course money.
How you perceive me is up to you and it is not my role in life to constantly address such perceptions. What is happening with the organization is very unpleasant, not just for the organization but for all the people directly involved. I have simply put down one of the many reasons that could have brought on this terrible event. That and the loss of financial support, which will be hard to recover.
Ophelia, after a day working and thinking about what you have said, and of course reviewing my comments, it did bother me some how you managed to get hostility from me. That said I do take responsibility for what I write and comment on and I can see this has caused you to have an issue with me. So, I offer my apology for any concerns created by my posts; my missives were unintentional. Again, sorry for this miscommunication.
Robert, I don’t know what to tell you; you wrote a series of truculent comments, and I replied to them as such. If you can’t even see that they are truculent, then maybe you’re just not very skilled at writing. There’s nothing I can do about that.
P.S. That’s a rather ungracious way to reply to an apology, of course, but I don’t think yours is a real apology, I think it’s more truculence (and self-justification) disguised as an apology.
But not to worry. Let’s just draw a veil over the subject and move on.
It is wise to move on. I am not sure which saddened me more, the refusal to accept my honest apology or the fact I did expect your response. Both sadden by the way.
Robert…I accept your apology then. I’m also sorry you’re saddened. (I regret it. I’m not really apologizing for it, because I don’t think it’s my doing.)
I didn’t accept your apology before because ‘honest’ is what I didn’t (and still don’t) think it was. It starts with a rebuke – and that automatically makes it look like something other than an honest apology.
I still don’t know what to tell you. You started this conversation, and you started it in a chippy way. I don’t know what you expect.
And having expressed regret about the saddening, I will now spoil it by pointing out that you’re doing a lot of self-important moaning about a quite trivial disagreement that you yourself started. Again, I don’t know what to tell you.