Comments on: President of NAACP Resigns

By: Lester Spence

Lester Spence — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:09:03 +0000

Where did you pull this quote from? While I do think this is a major debate theoretically, I don’t think it applies in the current American civil rights context. If the NAACP were to change their opinion on this issue overnight, we’d still have severe problems both in black communities, and in the naacp.

By: Temple3

Temple3 — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:34:47 +0000

“One major debate is whether destruction of property can be included within the realm of nonviolence. This debate can be illustrated by the response to groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which use property destruction and sabotage as direct action tactics. Although these types of actions are often viewed as a form of violence, and even terrorism, many supporters of these types of actions define violence only as harm directed towards living things, and not towards property. The NAACP believes that through non-violence we can move forward the civil rights agenda affectively.”

what do you make of that? sounds a bit like the ANC.

By: MIB

MIB — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:24:03 +0000

If affairs within the NAACP operate as you’ve described, Spence, then they’re guilty of micromanagement. Having worked for and/or consulted my share of NGOs, I can say the attitude is commonplace. Reducing the number of directors wouldn’t necessarily produce a change in behavior.

Besides, they should have rules in place where only a quorum is needed to decide issues. While I agree with everyone here autocratic leadership doesn’t lend itself to transparency and feedback, NGOs by nature are private trusts legally bound to the cause outlined in their charters.

I always thought the selection of a technocrat from corporate America was a strange one for the NAACP and time has proven me correct, unfortunately.
Presuming Gordon took the job with the idea he would re-purpose the organization, he clearly misunderstood his responsibilities as its chief executive. I’d say calling them essentially a personality cult before a national audience didn’t help matters.

IMO, the NAACP is poorly organized. I think its board understands the need for internal administrative reform but has yet to figure out the correct mix of skills their executive(s) should have.

By: temple3

temple3 — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:26:21 +0000

quickly, lks, I believe that a relevant national organization would like an entity organized around things people have demonstrated a willingness to build and pay for. from an economic standpoint, if membership rolls and dues were to drive the organization (rather than corporate “philanthropy”), the organization would be driven by the authentic wishes of its members – whatever those wishes are. the naacp has been a compromised organization for decades – and it’s dual peaks of influence were around the time of the founding and the time of the Brown case…in any event, the principle struggle of black folks was never about the issues raised by dubois in 1909 or the desegregation of public schools. there are collectives of black folk who understand this – and who might be willing to join and subsidize a nat’l org. – but it won’t be the naacp.

By: Lester Spence

Lester Spence — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:51:35 +0000

jimi…your question is the one for the day. i’ll try to put a post up that begins to deal with this.

By: tootsie

tootsie — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:11:28 +0000

Doc revisit Gordon statement about personalitys and legacy,at the Black forum(Tavis Smiley)

By: jimi

jimi — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:36:54 +0000

Yeah, the Upper Tenth model is broken. I don’t know how or if we fix the NAACP. What does a relevant NAACP look like?

By: Dumi

Dumi — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:53:59 +0000

Excellent observation. Do you think that Gordon’s business background lead to more conflicts than this public issue with the E board? I still have a feeling there was a misalignment in the NAACP org goals and Gordon’s experiences.