Condemning the obviously atrocious is a self-serving waste of time

Advocacy and religious groups have rushed to condemn Copenhagen, Charlie Hebdo and Chapel Hill using rehashed boilerplates of their mission statements. Absent new information or productive solutions, these generic missives amount to self-serving press releases unworthy of our time.

Condemned
Condemned

Condemned

“We condemn this attack.”

Weeeeak. Throw in some adjectives.  


“We strongly condemn this outrageous attack.”

Come onnnn. You can do better.

“We are shocked, appalled and disgusted by this brutal, cowardly and atrocious attack, which we unequivocally condemn, wholeheartedly and with every ounce of our being.”

Perfect. Now add a few lines from our mission statement, throw in some condolences, and send it off. We’ve gotta move on to that thing that happened somewhere in Africa.

I cynically imagine this conversation playing out at both advocacy groups and religious organizations, all competing to condemn the latest attack with the right balance of speed and verbosity.

Charlie Hebdo. Chapel Hill. Copenhagen. With each assault comes another repackaged statement, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Some groups, Muslim organizations in America among them, feel pressured to release generic statements condemning the latest attack lest their silence be interpreted as tacit approval. Fair enough.

But for others, issuing boilerplate condemnations whenever news breaks seems to have become a meaningless routine.

Perhaps it’s not totally meaningless. These statements can pad a slow publishing day and double as press releases for lazy journalists in need of a fast quote. Your organization gets cited in a big newspaper, a few more people know who you are, donations go up a tick, and you can carry on with more meaningful work. Got it.

But for the benefit of people who already know and respect what you do, please stop wasting our time.

If your mission statement makes clear that you support a particular right or that you lobby for the rights of a particular group, condoning or condemning something we already know you condone or condemn is of little use. Just send a quick tweet (maybe a picture of a red “CONDEMNED” stamp next to a relevant link — I’m only half kidding) and spend that time you usually waste at Thesaurus.com writing something worth reading.


Break that three-paragraph “condemn, mission statement, condole” formula and give us something substantial and insightful to consider. Don’t just go on record because you think it’s expected of you. Do so with purpose.

Not all condemnations are meaningless. Some groups release statements condemning practices that might otherwise go uncovered. These reports are crucial in flagging violations that too often slip under the radar.

But do you really think anyone reads your latest generic statement and says, “What a new and interesting perspective! This human rights group is against human rights violations?!”

Some things go without saying. Don’t waste your time and ours saying them if you’re not going to bring something new and productive to the conversation.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!