The Legal Aid Society Faces Funding Challenges Amid Union Resolution Debate
Twyla Carter, the CEO of the Legal Aid Society, expressed serious concerns during a staff call last week. She highlighted that the organization’s funding is at risk. This is due to the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys contemplating a pro-Palestinian resolution. The Legal Aid Society, a prominent legal aid service provider, relies heavily on donations from law firms. Now, four of these firms are reconsidering their financial commitments.
Impact of the Union Resolution on Funding
The resolution in question is before the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, a branch of the United Auto Workers Local 2325. This union represents a significant number of legal and social service workers in the New York City area. The resolution demands an immediate cease-fire in Israel and calls for an end to what it describes as Israeli apartheid. It also seeks the cessation of the occupation and blockade of Palestinian territories by Israeli military forces.
As the death toll in the Gaza Strip rises, the debate over this resolution reflects a larger issue. It’s about the tolerance for dissent against the Israeli government within the U.S. Moreover, it touches on the distinction between criticisms of Zionism and accusations of antisemitism.
Concerns Voiced by Twyla Carter
On the staff call, Carter shared her worries about the potential loss of funding. She also mentioned the threat of citywide budget cuts to nonprofits like the Legal Aid Society. “If we lose any funding, we’re going to have really hard conversations here in the future,” she stated.
Despite not pressuring union members on their votes, Carter defended the organization’s stance. The Legal Aid Society had released a statement criticizing the resolution for containing what they deemed as coded antisemitic language.
Legal Challenges and Union Member Reactions
The resolution has been labeled “one-sided” by Carter. Meanwhile, some union members from the Nassau County Legal Aid Society have filed a lawsuit. They argue that the resolution’s association with antisemitism could damage their ability to represent Jewish clients fairly.
However, within the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, there is frustration over the lawsuit. Some members see it as an attempt to suppress support for the resolution. They argue that the suit fails to differentiate between criticisms of Israel and Zionism and outright antisemitism.
Union Solidarity and the Struggle for Free Speech
Michael Letwin, a former president of the union and an anti-Zionist Jew, is part of a coalition supporting the resolution. He emphasizes the importance of not compromising on principles due to funding threats. “We will not be silent, and we will not be silenced,” he asserts.
Some union members believe that the executives’ focus on funding is a tactic to weaken support for the resolution. They argue that linking the resolution vote to funding and salaries is a form of intimidation.
Broader Implications and Community Responses
The controversy over the ALAA’s resolution mirrors a similar situation at Bronx Defenders. There, unionized attorneys released a pro-Palestinian statement despite management’s opposition. This led to a swift backlash, including a petition to defund the public defender group and criticism from prominent figures like Alan Dershowitz.
In response to the outcry, Bronx Defenders clarified that they did not approve the union’s statement. They condemned all forms of discrimination and bigotry.
The Ongoing Legal Battle and the Focus on Gaza
As the legal battle continues, the ALAA’s lawyers argue that suppressing the vote infringes on union members’ free speech rights. They maintain that the vote itself is an act of expression.
Despite the temporary restraining order on the vote, union attorneys remain focused on the situation in Gaza. They read their resolution aloud on the courthouse steps, emphasizing their commitment to free speech and solidarity with Palestine.
In conclusion, the Legal Aid Society and the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys find themselves at a crossroads. The resolution has sparked a heated debate that goes beyond the organization. It touches on broader issues of free speech, funding dependencies, and the complex politics of the Israel–Gaza conflict.
