James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2017 Assessing the reliability and accuracy of advocacy group data in hate group research Mark S. Purington James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the Social Influence and Political Communication Commons Recommended Citation Purington, Mark S., "Assessing the reliability and accuracy of advocacy group data in hate group research" (2017). Masters Theses. 521. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/521 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Assessing the Reliability and Accuracy of Advocacy Group Data in Hate Group Research Mark S. Purington A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communication May 2017 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Traci Zimmerman, PhD Committee Members/ Readers: Sarah O’Connor S. Scott Lunsford, PhD Acknowledgments I have had the unique opportunity of pursuing both an undergraduate and graduate degree at James Madison University while employed in that institution’s Carrier Library. This paper marks the culmination of fifteen years of study, overall, and needless to say, I’ve had a lot of help along the way. I would like to thank my family, and my wife Sandra in particular, for their encouragement and patience during this fascinating adventure. Being a student, even part-time, consumes a lot of one’s free time, but my family has been extremely supportive from the very start. I would also like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Scott Lunsford, Ms. Sarah O’Connor, and Committee Chair Dr. Traci Zimmerman for agreeing to oversee this final project. Hate group research does not always lend itself to short, simple explanations and so I appreciate their willingness to review my scholarship and share their insights and advice on my work. Special thanks go to Ms. Cindy Allen for agreeing to be my much-needed editor, once again. I greatly appreciate her ability to bring order to the chaos of my written notes. None of this would have been possible if not for the administration of the Carrier Library, especially my managers, past and present, Daille Pettit, Judy Anderson, Cheri Duncan, Laura Drake Davis, and Grace Barth, for encouraging my studies, year after year. In particular, I wish to thank my very first manager at the library, Sharon Gasser, who first convinced a very skeptical 40-year-old that going back to college after a twenty-year hiatus was not only possible but entirely logical, all those years ago. ii Preface If the adage that “college teaches you how to think, not what to think” holds true, one would be hard-pressed to find a better test of this principle than the study of anti-racist advocacy groups. So much about the discussion of these advocacy groups and the alleged “hate groups” they purport to fight is heavily emotion- and value-laden, even within academia, where dispassionate objectivity in research is supposed to reign supreme. The result is that much of the data produced by these advocacy groups may lead the reader to predetermined conclusions, usually based on primal emotional reactions, which is also the primary mechanism behind classic propaganda. Higher education requires us utilize the intellectual methods which we have learned to examine evidence critically so that we may come to reasoned conclusions based on the facts over personal bias. My intent here is not to defend the words and actions of alleged “hate groups,” or at least not the content of such expression. My goal is to move beyond the emotional reflexivity that underlies much “hate group” research and to examine the fundamental structures behind it. What exactly is a “hate group”? Who are the “experts”? How accurate and reliable are the data produced by private advocacy groups, and how does the quality of those claims affect the academic research built around them? Because so much advocacy group data does find its way into our civic discourse, our academic research, and ultimately into our political debates, I feel that it is imperative to take a “trust, but verify” approach when examining all such claims. There are too many important civil rights issues at stake to simply accept the information without proper vetting and review. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... ii Preface................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii Assessing Advocacy Group Data in Hate Group Research ................................................ 1 On Propaganda .................................................................................................................... 3 Institute for Propaganda Analysis ....................................................................................... 5 The Seven Devices .............................................................................................................. 7 Getting Down to Basics: The Hate Group .......................................................................... 8 Morris Dees Before the Founding of the Southern Poverty Law Center .......................... 14 Founding the SPLC ........................................................................................................... 22 “Fighting Hate” ................................................................................................................. 27 Framing the Donald Case .................................................................................................. 30 “Bringing the Klan to its Knees” ...................................................................................... 32 Klan Trials as Fundraising Events .................................................................................... 37 First Amendment Issues .................................................................................................... 40 SPLC as Unbiased “Watchdog”........................................................................................ 44 The Montgomery Advertiser Series .................................................................................. 45 “No Blacks in Center’s Leadership” ................................................................................. 50 “Friendly Board” ............................................................................................................... 52 “A Very Rough Measure” ................................................................................................. 54 Laird Wilcox and the SPLC .............................................................................................. 58 “A Black Man in the White House” ................................................................................. 75 Recent Resurgence ............................................................................................................ 79 Hate Group Counts and the Media.................................................................................... 83 Hate Group Counts and Academic Researchers ............................................................... 92 Hate Group Counts and Law Enforcement ....................................................................... 97 The Threat to Civil Liberties........................................................................................... 102 The “Trump Effect” and the 2016 Presidential Election ................................................ 108 Ethical Issues .................................................................................................................. 119 Questionable Fundraising Practices ................................................................................ 121 iv Jacques Ellul on the Efficacy of Propaganda .................................................................. 128 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 132 List of References ........................................................................................................... 138 v List of Tables Table 1. SPLC Financial Information ………………………………………………...…48 Table 2. New Jersey Hate Group Count, 2015-2016…………………………………….65 Table 3. Free America Rally and White Boy Society Counts, 2015-2016.……………...66 Table 4. Aryan Terror Brigade Count, 2015-2016…………………………………...….67 Table 5. Georgia Militia Count, 2011……………………………………………………68 Table 6. Georgia Militia Count, 2012……………………………………………………69 vi List of Figures Figure 1. SPLC Hate Map ………………………………………………..……………..56 Figure 2. SPLC Hate Map for Virginia ……………………..…………………………..57 Figure 3. Wilcox Guides to the American