You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis."
In Sheldon Messinger’s analysis of an old-age pressure group formed in the 1930s, the Townsend organization, he shows how the organization managed to stay alive by transforming its political goal of increased support for the aged through a radical economic plan into social goals of fellowship and card playing and fiscal goals of selling vitamins and patent medicines to its members. The unanticipated consequence of fund-raising techniques based on selling items, rather than political programs, was to turn the organization into a social club. The changing social and political scene also, of course, produced a change in goals. In a somewhat similar vein, Joseph Gusfield shows how the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) had to abandon its attack on drinking per se after prohibition was repealed and change to an attack on middle-class mores and life-styles in general, in order to serve the needs of its members. Mayer Zald outlines how the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) changed from helping poor migrants from the farm or abroad, who found the city a fearsome experience, to providing recreation for middle-class suburban youths. The Christian ethics of the early period, designed to sustain the faith of helpless people, gave way to a bland ethic of the American way of life; the practical help and training changed from information and techniques for survival in the urban jungle to physical culture and recreation for youths and adults with leisure time on their hands. In both cases, the organization survived the environmental changes and found a new mission.
-- Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations (1972, 1979, 1986)
https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-criti...
The period described largely spans the first half of the 20th century.
"Once overtaken by a clique of political activists using it as a the platform to further an agenda unrelated to the org mission's statement, organisation X faces an identity crisis"
This is why tech businesses like Basecamp, Coinbase or Shopify are pushing back against partisanship and political activism in tech.
(Decided it was unfair to throw a large org under the bus without being able spend a few hours to defend the claim.)
ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that?
"Of the 1,715 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:
60.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias."
Anti-Jewish hate-crimes make up a majority of the anti-religious hate crimes in the US. (You could argue they should be classified as "Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias" but that's another discussion).
The statistics aren't perfect - not every crime or possible crime is reported to law enforcement, and not every law enforcement agency in the US shares hate crime information with the federal government. A recent law changed that so it's required instead of optional, so likely more will be doing so in the future.
Whatever their legitimate grievances, that's not an acceptable response.
Do anti-BDS laws mean the ADL has an identity crisis? Or they should be having one? They seem related to their mission.
I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not an expert in the first amendment, its case law, or anti-BDS laws. You might be right that some or all anti-BDS laws violate some first amendment right in some way. I don’t know which analogy is the right one to apply to anti-BDS laws, something different legal scholars and lawyers argue about. It seems like reasonable people can disagree about what is constitutional and what is not here. Maybe the supreme court will rule on it specifically, and even then it might still be the case that reasonable people can disagree.
That's perfectly good reasoning, but:
> ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment.
as to your premises, again:
> > Citation / explanation needed.
"So, let me be crystal clear: the first genocide of the 20th century is no different. What happened in the Ottoman Empire to the Armenians beginning in 1915 was genocide. The genocide began with the ruling government arresting and executing several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, Armenian families were removed from their homes and sent on death marches. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation.
What happened to the Armenian people was unequivocally genocide.
We believe that remembering and educating about any genocide – Armenian, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, and others is a necessary tool to prevent future tragedies."
https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide
"In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian genocide. ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and an "atrocity", but not as a "genocide".[134] Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the US Government to recognise it as a "genocide".[135]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenia...
Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses?
It seems inherent to the different aims of charities and businesses. Nucor Corporation has a nominal lineage from "Nuclear Corporation of America Inc." incorporated in the 1950s. But its actual business has had nothing to do with nuclear technology in 50+ years; it found more success in the steel business. Shareholders aren't mad that the company isn't following its original nuclear technology mission since it found a better business. There's nothing to "corrupt" when a business goes after different markets.
But some donors will be upset if a charity focused on one mission broadens or deviates from its original mission. Some people may also be happy with these sorts of change, of course, but mission changes tend to be more controversial with charities than with for-profit companies.