Pharyngula

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Ad covers the page
Report this ad
Thanks for the feedback! Undo
What was wrong with this ad?
Thanks for the feedback! Back
We’ll review this ad to improve the experience in the future.
Thanks for the feedback! Undo
We’ll use your feedback to review ads on this site.
Closing ad: %1$d

I just can’t stop groaning


money
One of the nice things about being blacklisted by a large segment of the atheist community is that I don’t have to be shy about criticizing…oh, hey, wait a minute, I’ve always been a pain in the ass. OK, I can be even more obnoxious now.
The latest troubling event in the world of atheist leadership is that Edwina Rogers has amended her lawsuit against the Secular Coalition of America. She’s now suing Richard Dawkins directly.
Now I have no brief for Edwina Rogers at all — she was a terrible choice for the job in the first place, she had little awareness of secular issues at all, and I have no idea how she landed the position. Someone seemed to have been enamored of bringing in a Republican lobbyist, and in fact there are way too many atheists trying to reach out to people with a deep ideological contempt for us. So I think her dismissal was righteous, and hope that will emerge in the lawsuit.
Her latest addition, though, points out some dodgy stuff in the Richard Dawkins’ foundation’s charitable work. They collected donations through a branch called Non-Believers Giving Aid, which I thought was a great idea. Only, unfortunately, it turns out that all the money donated may not have gone to the intended destination. There was an initial transfer of a substantial sum to Doctors Without Borders, Rogers say, but after that, she claims additional donations were misappropriated and used for the RDF operating budget. It’s worrisome, because at worst it’s illegal, and at best, it’s terrible record keeping.
If true, this is a disaster. It’s reminding me of the Josh Timonen affair, in which Dawkins had to drop a suit in which he accused Timonen of embezzling.
The fact is that I like Dawkins personally; he’s a brilliant writer and a good scientist; but what he is not is a competent business manager. I don’t think he’s interested in the day-to-day operation of a foundation, and he doesn’t use good professional criteria in hiring his managers. And that leads to situations like this one — I don’t think he’s malicious at all, he’s just lacking in a whole suite of skills you need to manage a large organization.
What it means to me is that I’d never donate to the RDF. I also wouldn’t touch any organization that hires Edwina Rogers with a 100 meter pole. There are serious skills to managing a major organization, and Richard Dawkins lacks them…as do I, I would add. So please don’t ask me to invest or manage your $100,000 donation to Pharyngula. I’d just blow it all on killing all the ads network-wide.

Share this:

Related

Foolish Fulwiler fantasizes21 March 2012In "Atheism and Skepticism"
Who is going to be our spokesperson on Capitol Hill?3 May 2012In "Atheism and Skepticism"
What a mess6 June 2014With 50 comments
Sponsored From Around the Web
These content links are provided by Content.ad.Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the linksare displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of thecontent you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policyhere.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drivevisitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us atinfo@content.ad.

Comments

  1. Caine says
    PZ:
    They collected donations through a branch called Non-Believers Giving Aid, which I thought was a great idea. Only, unfortunately, it turns out that all the money donated may not have gone to the intended destination. There was an initial transfer of a substantial sum to Doctors Without Borders, Rogers say, but after that, she claims additional donations were misappropriated and used for the RDF operating budget. It’s worrisome, because at worst it’s illegal, and at best, it’s terrible record keeping.
    Aw, fuck. I thought that was a great idea too, bought the T-shirt (still have it and wear it). That was the extent of my giving through RDF though. I’ve long supported Médecins Sans Frontières directly, and will continue to do so. I am not looking forward to yet another Dawkins shitstorm on the net.
  2. moarscienceplz says
    I have always been a bit leery of ‘United Way’ type charities, where they supposedly vet the charities and then divvy up the donations. However, if RD or anyone else thinks an atheist United Way (or OxFam, which I think is the same kind of thing in the UK) is a good idea then they should hire managers away from United Way or OxFam. That sort of twice-removed charity giving is just too easy to mismanage, either with fraudulent intent or without.
  3. rorschach says
    Well, this is also interesting, isn’t it(from the link above):
    3) Specifically, Rogers says Dawkins “enlisted Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer to assist in retaliating against [her] by damaging her employment relationship with SPI.”
    Dawkins, Shermer, and Dennett communicated in person and by email with SPI donors and Fellows and urged them to resign from SPI unless Plaintiff dismissed this litigation. According to former SPI Fellow Michael Shermer, Dawkins “ordered” him to deliver the same message to other SPI Fellows. Upon information and belief, Dawkins, Shermer, and Dennett did not disclose their affiliation with SCA while conveying disapproval of Plaintiff and implying wrongdoing on Plaintiff’s part.
    Beginning on June 11, 2015 Plaintiff received emails from SPI Fellows and donors resigning or threatening to resign as a result of this litigation, including: Dawkins, Dennett, Shermer, Steven Pinker, James Thompson, Rebecca Goldstein, Lawrence Krauss, Carolyn Porco, Ron Lindsay, Stephen Law, Phil Zuckerman, Wendy Kaminer, and Peter Boghossian. Each and every resignation was caused by Dawkins and SCA in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing and refusing to dismiss this litigation.
    Shabby. To say the least.
  4. warney says
    Non-Believers Giving Aid was never a good idea and I said so at the time.
    It had all the appearance of using a natural tragedy to make a point about non-believers and their charitable nature. It looked like a cynical marketing exercise. “Hey, everybody, look how generous we are!”
    It also reduced the value of donations. Fonating to a third party involves extra money transfers, which slows down the delivery of aid and also erodes the donation through additional transaction fees.
    I’ve done work with them before, so I had no difficulty in chosing to donate directly to Médecins Sans Frontières and doing so quietly.
    Dawkins’ attempted a publicity stunt in order to try demonstrate something about non-believers. That was a shabby reaction to and exploitation of a disaster.
  5. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says
    So please don’t ask me to invest or manage your $100,000 donation to Pharyngula. I’d just blow it all on killing all the ads network-wide.
    If some rich Pharyngulite could invest this amount of money immediately, I’d be most grateful.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.
© 2014 - FreethoughtBlogs.com
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
X
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%