I am actually privy to enough of what CFI’s board has deliberated over this for my statement to be a correct account of CFI’s decisions and public behavior (the absence of which is precisely one of the biggest problems they aren’t “listening” to). Yes, there have been board meetings and deliberations over this. Yes, what you’ve seen from CFI (aka nothing) is all they are going to do.

If CFI’s board of directors is going to destroy CFI over this, that is on them. We can lament what a sad waste of resources it was. But that would just become part of the cautionary tale they would then become.

We cannot endorse a system that protects harassers and drives out their victims. We cannot endorse a system that cannot coherently communicate with its constituents in any morally responsible way. We cannot endorse a system that repeatedly fails to understand women’s issues or show any substantive concern for actual women it is responsible for.

And that’s just the tip of what’s wrong here.

CFI is in a nose dive.

It may be easy to say that CFI must be replaced, but that’s a difficult thing to do. Their library, and their publications, personel etc. are not something that you wave a magic wand to make appear in a superior form. Paul Kurtz himself was unable to do so, before he died. There have been numerous fine secular and freethought institutions that have fallen by the wayside in the past. I certainly hope that you do more than just make a personal ultimatum via blog.

I’ve tried all I can to help them get out of this old-school, self-destructive pattern of bad leadership. They just aren’t listening. Their days are thus numbered with me. That’s sad. But we can’t allow this to continue. They need to change. Or be replaced with an organization that gets it.

I am concerned about the future of CFI. It has a long tradition that should be respected and protected and rebuilt. I cannot but assume that they know that they have a serious problem, but to throw constant criticism, including verbalizing the worst possible interpretations of their actions, or lack of communication, as something akin to evil is not productive, in my opinion(I usually refuse to use the word “evil”). They are not an “evil” organization. You may say that Ben Radford is an awful person, but let us just consider a specific range of his behavior as awful, and thus try to assess this in a reasonable and compassionate way. His problems may be due to some psychiatric difficulties, and if so we should consider some sympathy for him as well, and hope that he is getting help. We certainly can’t say that the behaviors in question are those of a person acting either in his best interest, or the best interests of CFI. If that is all so, then we should understand why they have to keep some information confidential. Whatever decisions they make they are certainly complicated by labor law and ethics, and perhaps some other practical considerations.

I’m not sure that if any of us were invited in to give them advice, that we would be able to lead them out of this difficult spot. I am sure, however, that I would be very troubled if they go down the tubes over this affair. I have looked to this organization for leadership and information and exemplary standards for 25 years now, and others have done so for longer than that. I too am disappointed, but I have great respect for the people that I know up there in Amherst. I don’t know as many of them as I used to, but I think it’s time to stand back and let them deliberate a little, and hope that the plan they come up with will insure that they survive as a vital resource for the skeptical and secular humanist community. We’ve squeezed them with terrific force, so let’s cut them just a little slack and see if they do the best things. It may take some time–not much time I hope–but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are no bloggers or Meetup groups or web page owners that can take the place of the Center for Inquiry. I hope they know what is at stake, and I think they do know what is at stake. It’s time for the extreme critics to realize what is at stake.

You feel legal considerations are petty and relatively minor?

When we’re talking about years of sexual harassment and why Ben Radford is still employed at CFI, yes.

Indeed, even with regard to “legal considerations” Lindsay’s three desired corrections are indeed minor. They have virtually no legal repercussions even for CFI, and are mere minor details of dates and subjective opinions regarding how bad past undisciplined harassment at CFI has been–which completely miss the point of why CFI is actually in hot water over this (and why people are actually pulling donations), and which don’t challenge a single significant element of Stollznow’s account…and every one of which can be attributed to not only an honest mistake on her part, but mistakes CFI is responsible for, because it failed to inform her of the correct facts (by keeping the final report and outcome of the case from her).

“Lindsay’s reasoning for it to be corrected is largely petty or relatively minor:”

You feel legal considerations are petty and relatively minor?

Clearly you know nothing about law.

Both accounts make clear that Radford was repeatedly asked to stop, and instead repeatedly continued, contacting her in unwanted (and professionally unnecessary) ways at least weekly.

Even just that behavior (even before we consider what the exact wording of the cards and emails and things he kept sending her) would be sufficient to terminate someone at almost any other business I’ve worked at.

Possibly the company policy is to only do that if he continues after being officially reprimanded, although in this case that would seem disingenuous considering they terminated an employee for one single incident in another case (and even boast of doing so: see comment here, referring to what Lindsay said here).

Also, in addition to my analysis of the new communication from Ron Lindsay (that last link), which you should read above (if you haven’t already), Stephanie Zvan does a detailed breakdown of the same letter, which is well worth a read: What Is Not in Dispute.

Jason Thibeault also now is maintaining a timeline of events (of both this case and the developing Shermer case): Sexual Harassment Accusations in the Skeptical and Secular Communities: A Timeline of Major Events.

See comments above (e.g. this).