Thoughts on CfI and Paul Kurtz

The New York Times reported this month on a rift at the Center for Inquiry, whose founder Paul Kurtz claims he’s been unjustly expelled by the board of directors and the president, Ronald Lindsay. Kurtz was also interviewed by my friend Erich Vieth at Dangerous Intersection.

It’s very unfortunate the way this turned out. It clearly wasn’t handled well, and bad feelings and an embarrassing schism within the secular community were the result. It’s especially unfortunate that this involves Paul Kurtz, a lion of the humanist movement who deserves the credit for founding the Center for Inquiry, as well as its influential sister organizations, the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP). If he now feels aggrieved and considers himself to have been cast out by the groups he himself founded, that’s much to be regretted. Still, after reading these interviews, I’m not convinced that Kurtz has a strong case here.

The first of his two major complaints is that, since his departure, CfI has taken more of a confrontational stance than he’s comfortable with:

According to Mr. Kurtz, skeptics must do more than just deride religion…. he contrasted his affirmative vision with recent projects under Mr. Lindsay, like International Blasphemy Day. (The 2010 version, held Thursday, was renamed International Blasphemy Rights Day.) Mr. Kurtz was also a vocal critic of a contest for cartoons about religion that included some entries that could be considered deeply offensive.

This is ironic, considering that I and others have criticized CfI for being too conciliatory and disdainful of vocal atheism. But with all due respect to Paul Kurtz, the vocal, aggressive, confrontational New Atheist strategy is working. We’re winning converts, eroding the authority of religion, making our ideas ubiquitous and familiar in a way that would have been unimaginable even just a few years ago. Projects like Blasphemy Day are a part of that effort, a way to make an important point about free speech with humor while tweaking the noses of self-righteous fundamentalists. Unless Kurtz has concrete evidence that these are hurting the cause more than helping, he should cease from baseless objections.

But the question of strategy is beside the point: Kurtz’s criticism boils down to the fact that CfI isn’t being run exactly as he’d prefer. Well, yes – because he left. He can’t rightfully expect that the organization will continue to adhere to his every preference. Even if it’s true that CfI’s aims have changed, there’s nothing wrong with new directors taking the group in a somewhat different direction, so long as they continue to uphold the original mission.

This leads to Kurtz’s second major criticism, which is that he’s been unfairly shut out from CfI, especially in that they changed the locks to keep him out after he refused to give up his keys. But again, I don’t really see that he’s got much of a substantive complaint here. As Russell Blackford and others pointed out, if he resigned from the organization, he should have turned in his keys. Since he refused to do that, changing the locks was a perfectly legitimate response. And when he voices this complaint:

Barry Karr said that since I resigned, I have no right to be made aware of internal matters within the organization. I asked, “What about my moral authority?” I said, “This is similar to what happened to Galileo when placed under house arrest.”

But this is true! When he resigned, he gave up the right to be informed of day-to-day internal matters about the running of the organization, That’s what resigning means. His comparison of himself to Galileo being placed under house arrest is ludicrous and wildly inappropriate, and makes me less inclined to take his other concerns seriously.

Moreover, 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 even has his own parking spot – and the only thing he’s no longer able to do is enter the building on his own when no other staff members are present. If this is true, then Kurtz is being dishonest when he claims to have been denied free access. (In fact, according to a comment in this post, Kurtz staged a photo-op where he came to the building, tried to open the door without ringing the buzzer, and then fled when an employee saw him and came to let him in. If true, this is especially deceitful and reprehensible.)

Considering he has no more formal connection with the Center, I think it’s quite generous of them to allow him continued use of an office in their building during normal operating hours. They would have been perfectly within their rights to box up his possessions and leave them out on the curb, especially considering that he’s founded a new organization, the Institute for Science and Human Values, which is actively competing with CfI for donors.

The other thing I’d point out is that Kurtz seems to be alone in voicing these criticisms. He claims that CfI employees have been terminated for expressing dissenting views, even in private communication. But he doesn’t name these employees or say what views those were, which makes it impossible to judge the truth of his allegations. Nor have any of these people come forward on their own to corroborate this. Kurtz also complains that the Center has refused to publish his statement of resignation, but if he wants us to see it, why doesn’t he just release it himself? Again, if he won’t tell us what’s in it, we can’t judge whether CfI was right to reject it (for example, if it contains false or unfounded allegations against them, they’d be well within their rights to turn it down).

I’m sorry that Kurtz feels he’s been treated unjustly, and I wish that CfI had made more of an effort to prevent that, but my reading gives me the impression that he wanted to have it both ways. He can’t simultaneously resign and still expect to have access and control over the organization, especially not when he’s founded a competing group. Whatever important organizational work he’s done, he still has to step down and pass on the torch eventually; he has a responsibility to ensure an orderly transfer of power and responsibility so that the Center will continue functioning after him. It seems he was unwilling to do that, and I think that accounts for his embittered comments.

UPDATE (10/24): Dangerous Intersection has posted the response interview with Ron Lindsay of CFI.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • kennypo65

    I feel for Kurtz, my father went through the same thing when he retired. Feeling like there is nothing left for him to accomplish and missing being at work is probably Kurtz’s motivation here.

  • http://GodlessPoetry.blogspot.com Zietlos

    Kennypo, he leads another entire organization, the “Institute for Science and Human Values”. You would think he would have his work cut out for him working on that whole “starting a new company” business.

    Unless, of course, his new venture is doing badly, so he wishes to hedge his bets and regain the cushy and well-paid position he once had in his old organization that he left in order to try to be richer and more successful before realizing the market was saturated.

    Which basically means he is the scum of capitalism, which is a shame, but scum produce many useful things to the world, so we should not discount his organizations due to his own jerk-assery.

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    The first of his two major complaints is that, since his departure, CfI has taken more of a confrontational stance than he’s comfortable with

    Hiring Chris Mooney as one of the hosts of POI has been cited as evidence to the contrary.

    He can’t simultaneously resign and still expect to have access and control over the organization, especially not when he’s founded a competing group.

    Sadly, it seems Kurtz is another case of the person who just can’t let go and move on.

    I have run across increasing negative comments from people with respect to the COI in the blogosphere in recent months, from DJ Grothe leaving POI, to the CFI’s official response to the Park51 controversy, having Mooney (and Robert Price) as POI hosts, and so forth. It seems like an organization that is having trouble finding its footing.

    I have never personally been heavily involved with CFI, though I have gone to several meetings of the Long Island chapter and was pleased to have attended, along with our esteemed host, the CFI sponsored conference on the Secular Society and Its Enemies several years ago in downtown NYC.

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    Which basically means he is the scum of capitalism, which is a shame, but scum produce many useful things to the world, so we should not discount his organizations due to his own jerk-assery.

    Reminds of the scene in Spiderman where Norman Osborne is being told by the board of directors of Oscorp that he is being given the boot.

    “I started this company… DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I’VE SACRIFICED!”

  • Grimalkin

    This is so completely predictable. You have someone who has devoted his life to a particular project, founded it, nurtured it, cared for it, and now it’s all grown up and doing its own thing and he’s miserable. Every parent goes through this. It’s a natural part of aging.

    One might hope that someone devoted to reason and logic would be able to recognize this as a perfectly natural emotional response and deal with it quietly. What a shame that he is making himself so irrelevant by diving into hysterics.

  • http://dangerousintersection.org/ Erich Vieth

    About a month ago, I approached Mr. Kurtz with a request for an interview because I noticed that some some folks on the Internet were wondering why Kurtz left. I couldn’t find any specific information explaining his departure either.

    At the time I published the Kurtz interview, I invited CFI to respond in an interview to be published at DI. Ron Lindsay, CEO of CFI, recently agreed to provide a written interview responding to the Paul Kurtz interview. As soon as that interview is complete I’ll publish it at DI and link the two interviews to each other.

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    Darn, I forgot to blockquote some of the comments I was reacting to!

  • Mathew Wilder

    I haven’t read any of his writings, though I plan to: he has a PhD and has done tons for secularism and atheism in the public sphere. Given his eminently reasonable, academic-like past, one has to wonder, I think, due to his bizarre claims and seemingly erratic behavior, whether he might have some sort of psychiatric or neurological disorder! It’s almost reminiscent of Flew.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

    Unless, of course, his new venture is doing badly, so he wishes to hedge his bets and regain the cushy and well-paid position he once had in his old organization that he left in order to try to be richer and more successful before realizing the market was saturated.

    I think the causality is the other way around, Zietlos – after leaving CFI and belatedly realizing he could no longer control what they did, Kurtz founded this new group to advance his preferred model of activism. That makes it more serious, in a way, because it means plainly that this new group is a direct competitor with CFI in terms of volunteer effort and donor dollars. Frankly, if I were Ron Lindsay, I would bar Kurtz from CFI’s building for that.

    I have never personally been heavily involved with CFI, though I have gone to several meetings of the Long Island chapter and was pleased to have attended, along with our esteemed host, the CFI sponsored conference on the Secular Society and Its Enemies several years ago in downtown NYC.

    I remember that well, Tommykey. :) And I agree – that was an excellent conference. At the time, CFI was taking a relatively impartial stance on the question of how aggressive we atheists should be. Now it does seem that they’re struggling somewhat to define themselves. To an extent, that always happens after the departure of a founder. I think we’ll be in a better position to judge a year or two from now.

    At the time I published the Kurtz interview, I invited CFI to respond in an interview to be published at DI. Ron Lindsay, CEO of CFI, recently agreed to provide a written interview responding to the Paul Kurtz interview. As soon as that interview is complete I’ll publish it at DI and link the two interviews to each other.

    That’s great, Erich! Please let us know when it’s posted. It’ll definitely be worthwhile to see these two sides of the story compared to each other.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

    I’ve updated the post with a link to Erich’s interview with Ron Lindsay.