RSS
Home
Leading Skeptic Paul Kurtz 'not ousted' says Center for Inquiry CEO
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Skeptical thinkers know the name “Kurtz” like college football fans know the name “Heisman.” For decades, Dr. Paul Kurtz has championed an evidence-based approach to reasoning, founding the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and the Center for Inquiry. He has also been the editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry Magazine, a columnist and frequent contributor at Skeptical Inquirer” Magazine and the Chairman of the board of Prometheus Books, a leading publisher of skepticism-themed volumes.
Given these accomplishments, it was a surprise to many when the Center for Inquiry announced a “leadership change” on Tuesday, saying that Kurtz would become “chair emeritus” at the center and at the CSI, as well as at a sister organization, the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH).
This kind of announcement can raise more questions than it answers, and the kind of careful wording used in the news release often implies internal conflict. Curiosity only grew within the skeptical community after a high-ranking member of the organization blogged on the subject of Kurtz’s change in status. R. Joseph Hoffmann said in his blog that Kurtz “…was dismissed by his handpicked board of directors on June 2nd after a bitter battle for control of the organization he founded in the 1980’s.” Hoffmann is the Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and Educational Programs at the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, NY.
The blog entry, entitled “A Lion In Winter: the Exile of Paul Kurtz,” seemed to question the former chair’s character while challenging the importance of the organizations founded by him, including the Center for Inquiry.
Wednesday evening, the chief executive officer (CEO) and president of the organizations founded by Kurtz disagreed with Hoffmann’s characterizations. “I was at the meeting Monday; Joe was not,” said Dr. Ronald Lindsay.
“Paul certainly was not ousted,” he continued. “He remains a member of the board of directors of all three corporations, and he will have the same responsibilities and authority as every other board member.”
Lindsay said the organization had outgrown its original management structure, which gave operational responsibility and authority to the board chair. “Given that Paul had done this for a couple of decades, it was understandable that he thought that was the way to run things,” Lindsay said. The board, however, began to feel that a new structure was needed.
According to Lindsay, the board of directors had come to believe a CEO should run the day-to-day operations while the board guided policy. In June of 2008, the board formally created the CEO’s position and filled it with Lindsay, an established lawyer with a Ph.D. and recognized expertise in bioethics. Lindsay was no stranger to the organization, having known and respected Kurtz since 1984.
Kurtz, however, balked at the change. This week, the disagreement reached its apex, but Lindsay maintained Wednesday evening that there was no ‘dismissal.’ “There certainly was a frank and candid exchange of views,” said Lindsay. “Paul made clear that he did not think it was necessary to have a CEO. The board disagreed.” Lindsay said Kurtz felt he could no longer continue as chair under the new organizational structure.
Ironically, the board believed the change was made necessary by the success of the organization under Kurtz. When the groups were founded, there were only a handful of employees, but that has changed in the past decade. “The combined organization now represents the single largest humanist/skeptical research organization in terms of finances and number of employees,” said Lindsay.
The CEO said he would look forward to continuing work with Kurtz, and that he would regret it if Kurtz pulled away. “What it boils down to is a difference in approach to management…We’ve had disagreements about operational matters but not philosophy…I have always had a lot of respect for Paul.”
Lindsay emphasizes, however, that the work must go on, building on the foundations laid so successfully by Kurtz. “We live in a country where 40% of the population rejects evolution; where the use of alternative medicine is growing, and where science is under attack…I wish we lived in a culture where policy decisions were based on evidence and not ideology, but that is not the case.”
As for Hoffmann’s remarks about Kurtz’s character, Lindsay had no comment. “If Paul wants to comment on what Joe has said, I’ll leave that up to him. I don’t want to speak for Paul; he’s quite articulate and capable of speaking for himself.”
Related Articles:
Comments
