Bonds. The bonds we forge with each other as Mensans, connecting with each other even as we disagree amicably or just share thoughts about the Society to which we all belong, are the strength of Mensa. Those connections are our anchor, our cohesiveness in an otherwise diverse group that celebrates its diversity. Letters to the editor are one means of connecting with each other. Going Forward invites your comments on any issue pertaining to Mensa, including topics that have not been addressed specifically in this newsletter.

Recently I met separately with two old friends, both Mensans for over three decades. Both have served as leaders of their local groups and on AMC for multiple terms. Both find Mensa a very important part of their lives, and are passionate about it. They disagree totally on the value, style and effectiveness of Mensa's National Office. Each presented cogent arguments to support a position.

As I mulled the two sides, I was reminded of the work Max Weber had done in the early 20^th century on the sociology of religion. Weber said (and I'm oversimplifying horribly) that religions were started by people he called "charismatics." (He popularized the Greek word "charisma.") The charismatics have a vision which inspires followers, who in turn support them. Eventually, the charismatic passes from the scene and the religion becomes "institutionalized." Administrators with little charismatic ability turn the religion into a standardized operation. Based on both the strength of the charismatic and the institutionalizers, the religion grows or does not.

I wonder if in some Weberian respects, Mensa is like a religion. Our charismatic leaders (Ware, Serebriakoff, Grosswirth and a few others) inspired followers to accept their concept of a high-I.Q. organization. Now they are gone and it is hard to think of the recent chairmen as charismatic leaders. They were — and are — administrators of greater or lesser abilities, but they are certainly not leaders who attract a large and devoted following. So we are in the "institutionalizing" phase of our history. We have turned the dream over to administrators of greater or lesser abilities, both elected and hired. The future of the organization rests on their heads.

So as one who joined in the 60s, I miss the charismatics who made Mensa so wonderful and so much fun. Now we have the elected and unelected administrators who may bring us to unforeseen heights — or the brink of disaster. There is the bright promise that some current or future administrator can bring our membership rolls to half a million. There is the dull threat that an administrator could ruin us. Each of my friends foresees a different vision of the future.

But I guess, for me, that we have to go with the administrators for the future of Mensa — there are no charismatics on the scene.

— Bennett Woll

My response to the cover article (Going Forward, May 2003) is that in Mensa, as elsewhere, I would avoid disagreeable altercations on emotional subjects. I love intellectual argument and I love the sharing of ideas, but that presupposes a forum and a set of rules, including basic courtesy and the laws of debate. I see no such provisions in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Bulletin, nor on most of the e-lists I belong to. Are ideas truly being solicited, or is someone just itching for a fight?

If a subject is susceptible to logic, I prefer to address it within a specialized arena: law, science, etc. I tire soon of debating with individuals who are ill informed on the details of a subject under consideration — the difference between filet mignon and ground chuck. I do not consider creation vs. evolution a debatable issue — it is a matter of logic, and the scientific community has made its conclusions until another day.

If it is not a matter of logic; e.g., when does Life begin, I don't want to be pushed to the wall by someone's beliefs. As for what someone else considers proper matter for popular film — it is a matter of taste. I may prefer an unheralded foreign film, and I may prefer a dish of Hunan Spicy Tofu on occasion. YMMV.

I would find a salon of ideas most appealing, but I am not drawn to the mosh pit. Offering an observation without also offering an attitude might even deliver a more persuasive message. I have had to learn that sometimes people cannot hear me because who I am is speaking louder than what I am saying. Aiming for civilized, objective calm might facilitate the flow of ideas, stimulate brainstorming. Now that would be sumptuous feast, not a food fight!

— Francesca Guido

Does anybody know why AMC has contracted to have a Risk Management Audit done on American Mensa? I wish I knew that it wasn't a covert attempt, as has been discussed for years, to get the SIGs under approval and control of AMC.

Does anyone know for a fact that the company chosen to do such an audit wasn't just a member of the good old association directors' outfit? If the firm chosen has a long and respected history, I'll be satisfied that this wasn't the case. And if they're open to members' concerns, I'll know they're not hired with any agenda in mind, hidden or just insufficiently publicized.

I wrote and asked Jean Becker (among others in my "direct chain of command" [pfaugh!]), but she didn't deem me worthy of a direct answer, I guess: She replied to all, but addressed my RVC (among other text) with, "Are you going to answer her on this?"

— Angie Richardson

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Going Forward will attempt to get information regarding the Risk Management Audit and publish it in the next regular issue of GF.]

Brian Bloch wrote many things about American Mensa's membership in the Service Clubs Leadership Conference (SCLC) in the May issue of Going Forward. The facts do not support him. In the following paragraphs, I will demonstrate this. As a preliminary to understanding, we need a word about the American Mensa Committee (AMC) meeting minutes, since they figure prominently in the evidence. The minutes comprise the only historical record of what went on at the AMC meetings in question. These minutes were declared to be accurate in each case by a unanimous vote of the AMC members present, including the Chairman, who does vote on that question.

Bloch claims that its 501(c)(4) tax status gives American Mensa, Ltd. (AML) a "common bond" with other SCLC members. That statement confuses a relationship to the tax collector with reality. Bloch also claims that this is merely a networking opportunity with groups that have similar needs. Service clubs are organized around a Cause: What the cause is varies by club, but the organizing impetus, the bond between members, the reason they join and remain, is service to others. Mensa is primarily a social club. Our bond is the ability to score well on tests of general intelligence. Old adages about herding cats and two members having three opinions on any given subject spring to mind. Yes, members of all the SCLC member clubs pay membership dues and the clubs each have office staff: That does not make a bond. The same can be said of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Right to Life Committee — and Mensa, properly, has no connection with either organization.

Bloch makes claims regarding topics at a recent SCLC conference. He claims that children's privacy issues were a topic that led to the AMC's making a change to the default information privacy answers on the Personal Data Questionnaire (PDQ). That change was made at the September 2002 AMC meeting, item 14 under "New Business" in the minutes. The discussion recorded in the minutes makes no mention of outside influence. There is no reason to lend credence to Bloch's claim.

According to Bloch, the SCLC allows four delegates from each member club to attend its annual conference and that this number is "exactly how many attend annually from Mensa and MERF combined." Let's look at the facts. In 2002 the three attendees were AMC Chairman Becker, Executive Director Donahoo and MERF President Timmers (AMC minutes, December 2002). In 2001 it was Becker, Donahoo, First Vice Chairman Bakke and Membership Director Faulkner (AMC minutes, December 2001). In 2000, three again: Donahoo, then-First Vice Chairman Becker and then-AMC Chairman Beatty — when he gained the dubious distinction of giving American Mensa its first political opinion (see AMC minutes, December 2000, and AML's "News Media" ).

I am quoted as giving a dollar figure in e-mail for SCLC participation. The figure is correct, but Bloch misrepresents the context and import of that figure. The $2,521 figure represents the budgeted amounts for travel ($1,760) and projected conference registration cost ($761). There is no breakout for wage expense of sending national office staff, so that figure is at the low end of true costs to the membership. It is also for only one year. Bloch goes on to assume that enough members will be retained to cover the cost. That is just silly.

Bloch claims that the AMC approved hosting the 2003 SCLC conference. Wrong. It was announced at the December AMC meeting by AMC Chairman Becker as part of her officer's report (AMC minutes, December 2002). Bloch says that registration will be the only cost: "the same as going to an RG." That analogy is way off base given the level of expense involved — several times that of an AG — just for registration. The stated figure ignores travel costs for any AMC members who attend. It ignores time spent by national office staffers who attend. It assumes that no staff time will be spent assisting the organization of this conference that "Mensa is hosting" (AMC minutes, December 2002).

Bloch characterizes then-AMC Chairman Beatty's signing the SCLC proclamation (Y's Men International — go to the end of the page) supporting the United Nations' International Year of the Volunteer as an apolitical act that does not involve Mensa's having an opinion. First, let us look at the proclamation, which states in part …"Whereas, these like-minded individuals uphold the same vision of peace and human service …" in reference to the SCLC members. Do we really? All of us having the same vision? I doubt it, and it is not suited to Mensa, which forbids stating any opinion as being that of Mensa (cf. The Constitution of Mensa).

The SCLC proclamation avows "commitment and support" for the UN "Year of the Volunteer 2001." UN resolution A/RES/55/57 as part of making that designation "Encourages Governments … to take all possible measures to promote volunteer action … ." Calling on governments to act in a certain manner is political. There is no other valid interpretation.

Bloch claims that I characterized only a later SCLC letter to President G.W. Bush as political. Readers of my original article (Going Forward, March 2003) will recognize this as false. Both actions were political, and I said so. Remember, the issue is not the positions or whether you agree with them. The issue is that Mensa is not supposed to be taking positions.

Bloch goes on to characterize Project Inkslinger as ideological. It didn't start that way — it began as an effort by one member, TJ Lundeen, to get other members to donate books to restock flood-ravaged Midwestern libraries. It was one person working with an extended circle — not an official service project.

Brian Bloch wrote many things to support his thesis that American Mensa membership in the Service Clubs Leadership Conference is not a problem but a benefit. His evidence is primarily composed of undocumented claims, misrepresentations, distortions and inaccurate statements. I find his position without merit.

The harm to Mensa is documented. The claims of benefit are not. The fact remains that American Mensa should not be a member of the Service Clubs Leadership Conference. That membership must be terminated without delay.

— Carl Howes

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The subject of Mensa's membership in the SCLC has been a topic in Going Forward for several issues. Unless there are new developments regarding this matter, Going Forward will end the topic with comments printed in the next regular issue.]

The following comments are adapted from an article in the International Journal in 1995.

The "real world" and the Mensa microcosm share the characteristic of lacking a "mission statement" or a coherent goal. This is not a weakness but an essential fact. Attempts to adopt a closed purpose have all too frequently led to totalitarian or oppressive regimes. It is the diversity of individual missions and goals that is the strength of any well-functioning society. To give substance to this statement, consider the variety of ultimate values that people hold:

• To live in harmony with nature;
• To understand the physical universe;
• To praise a supreme being;
• To dominate the physical or social environment;
• To project one's personality on the world;
• To be remembered;
• To achieve inner harmony;
• To do justice;
• To satisfy appetites;
• To impose order;
• To create or appreciate art of many kinds;
• …

We can add endlessly to this open-ended list, but the real problem is ordering or weighting the various values. Most individuals — who are not usually philosophers — do that internally without reflection, but a society must also do that in some collective fashion. The political process, for good or ill, is the way in which we resolve, as a society, the diverse individual goals. In a good society with good politics, the process is fair and encourages diverse contributions to the common welfare.

— Sander Rubin