Objective in name only

Kenny Bania, an annoying comedian on Seinfeld, had a great bit on Ovaltine: "Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round. The jar is round. They should call it Roundtine." I wonder if the American Civil Liberties Union is laughing.

Claiming to be a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU has enthusiastically defended the First Amendment rights of rallying Nazis in a town full of Holocaust survivors. It has opposed police searches of protesters, despite the threat of terrorism, during many high-profile New York events in its efforts to protect Fourth Amendment rights to the fullest.

Yet the ACLU is neutral with respect to protection of Second Amendment rights. Wait, neutral in protecting one of the fundamental rights of our Constitution?

Whether you agree with specific stances the ACLU has taken or not, it is still important to examine the organization's overarching agenda and how it compares to its stated values. The ACLU claims to impartially "conserve America's original civic values -- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" for every citizen. But the ACLU also neglects a fundamental constitutional right -- the Second Amendment -- for reasons unexplainable, given the organization's supposed objectives. While the ACLU is admirable in consistently defending certain ideals, in the end, its overall agenda is partisan and inconsistent.

The official explanation for the ACLU's weak stance on gun-ownership rights is that it interprets a right to reasonable regulation. However, where is this "reasonable regulation" argument when the ACLU is fighting against orderly supervision of protests in order to prevent chaos in cities? In most cases, the ACLU fervently defends the Bill of Rights to grant extreme individual rights.

While there is no doubt that the ACLU's values are inherently more progressive, I do applaud consistency within the issues it has decided to take on, even if they are controversial.

The problem may lie in the leaders of the organization itself, those who are the agenda setters. Take the Penn ACLU, for example. Of its officers who make public their political affiliations, two are libertarian and five liberal, and four classify themselves as very liberal. There are no conservatives. Not to be critical of the decision-making abilities of any specific ACLU member, but when an organization is made up mostly of one side of a broad spectrum, there will be a lack of representation and thus a partisan slant.

There is more to partisanship than simply taking a stance in an election or political event, an action in which the ACLU generally does not take part. But the ACLU did break this policy to help "bork" Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. When deciding how to prioritize issues, the ideologies of a group's leaders will inevitably prevail.

The Penn chapter's activities are more student-oriented; however, in an overwhelmingly partisan city, I have seen little evidence of the ACLU actively and passionately protecting political minorities, which would be a true test of its motivations. The Penn ACLU could be more active in campus issues where conservatives need help on issues like political indoctrination by professors, fighting corruption and voting injustices brought on by the Philadelphia Democratic machine and addressing the role political convictions play in the job process. I have been physically threatened at a Kerry rally solely because I was exercising my First Amendment rights. I have also complained to the ACLU about aggressive partisan tactics within polling stations. One poll worker last year was even visibly wearing an anti-Bush shirt. The ACLU showed little concern.

The act of an organization labeling itself "nonpartisan" needs to face more scrutiny. Only a few years ago, MoveOn.org proclaimed itself a "nonpartisan" organization. Its actions, both past and present, however, are pretty overtly partisan. Because of deceptive organizations like MoveOn.org and the ACLU using "nonpartisan" to gain credibility, the phrase has lost meaning.

Living with four liberals, ranging from the classic Upper West Side Democrat to the Greek socialist, is challenging for a conservative like me. However, we all are skeptical of the ACLU's "nonpartisan" self-labeling. This dubious attitude about the nature of the organization is not limited to my apartment.

If the ACLU were commonly perceived to be partisan, it would be viewed in a significantly different way. On a national level, it would have less credibility as an objective political group, and on Penn's campus, it would not be eligible for University funding, which it depends on for operations.

We cannot continue to allow organizations to abuse the "nonpartisan" title. While the ACLU may continue to call itself oval, it's becoming more obvious that it is round.

Mark Littmann is a senior, finance concentrator from New York. Case of the Mondays appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.