THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, August 16, 1994 TAG: 9408160001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Short : 48 lines
Ben Chavis set out to bring the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People out of its middle-class doldrums and into the consciousness of black youth. He ended up in controversies over Louis Farrakhan, gangsta rap and self-segregation. But those forces of the '90s, which the NAACP cannot ignore (but need not uncritically embrace, either), are not what will bring Chavis down next week if the NAACP decides to oust him as executive di-rec-tor.
And however much Chavis might wish to have shifted it last week, the blame for his predicament doesn't lie with ``forces outside the African-American community working in concert with a small number of forces inside the NAACP.''
The fault lies squarely with Ben Chavis for having tapped NAACP funds without board approval to stave off a lawsuit by a former employee who first accused him of discrimination and has since charged him with sexual har-ass-ment.
Chavis denies any wrongdoing. He charges that his accuser has a history of litigiousness. And given the allegations against Clarence Thomas and President Clinton, among others, charges of sexual harassment can be so devastating that an innocent public figure might be tempted to pay hush money.
But how does Chavis square the size of the settlement paid with what he says is the lack of credibility of the woman he paid it to? Not just the size - more than $130,000 in cash with the promise of either a job elsewhere paying at least $80,000 a year or an additional $250,000 lump-sum - but the speed and secrecy of the settlement have both raised the hackles of board members and refueled doubt as to Chavis' suitability for the post.
Not only did Chavis not clear the settlement with the NAACP board; he bypassed NAACP attorneys, instead hiring an outside firm to negotiate it. Critics on the inside, mindful of the NAACP's $3 million debt, have criticized Chavis before for lavish spending, lax fund-raising and a lack of full accountability to the full board.
The NAACP has always relied on its moral authority to influence public policy. If Chavis wants to keep his job, he'll have much to answer for this week. And if this venerable organization is to maintain its reputation, it can't skip the hard questions. by CNB