A recent letter to the editor caught my attention—not because of its argument, but because of its source. The writer confidently cited the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as an unimpeachable authority on what constitutes hate and extremism in America. Their position was straightforward: if the SPLC denounces a group or belief system, then the rest of us need not think further.
This view is not uncommon. For many Americans, especially those who remember the civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s, the SPLC still conjures images of noble attorneys standing against the Ku Klux Klan or defending the rights of vulnerable minorities. But that perception is increasingly out of step with reality. In truth, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become something quite different: a well-funded, ideologically driven activist organization that routinely smears Christians, conservatives, and patriots as dangerous extremists—often with grave consequences.
In this essay, I will trace the SPLC’s journey from respected civil rights litigators to agents of Cultural Marxism, and show how their current priorities betray their original mission. I will examine their funding, their lawsuits, their internal scandals, and their ideological trajectory. The conclusion will be clear: while the SPLC once defended the oppressed, it now enforces an activist orthodoxy that is hostile to truth, freedom, and faith.
A Noble Beginning
The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 in Montgomery, Alabama, by attorneys Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr., along with civil rights leader Julian Bond, who served as its first president. Its original purpose was to use legal action to dismantle systems of racial oppression in the American South, particularly targeting organized hate groups. And by most accounts, it began nobly.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the SPLC gained national fame for bankrupting the United Klans of America through civil lawsuits, including a $7 million judgment on behalf of Michael Donald, a Black teenager lynched in 1981. These early cases made headlines and helped dismantle several white supremacist groups, earning the SPLC glowing praise from across the political spectrum.
They also developed educational initiatives, including the widely used “Teaching Tolerance” program (now called Learning for Justice), aimed at promoting civil rights awareness in schools. By the early 2000s, the SPLC had cemented its status as a moral authority in American life.
But beneath that moral high ground, changes were underway—subtle at first, then unmistakable.
The Expansion of “Hate”
Over time, the SPLC shifted its focus. No longer content to litigate against violent racists, it began expanding its definition of “hate” to include any group or individual that diverged from the progressive consensus on social issues.
This shift became especially visible in the development of their “Hate Map,” a now-infamous list of organizations the SPLC deems dangerous. What began as a tool to track Klan groups and neo-Nazis soon became a political weapon wielded against pro-family organizations, traditionalist Christian ministries, and even immigration policy think tanks.
The Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Immigration Studies, and the American College of Pediatricians—all peaceful, law-abiding, and widely respected—found themselves branded as hate groups simply for holding biblical convictions about marriage, gender, or the rule of law. This conflation of orthodox belief with violent ideology is not only dishonest—it is dangerous.
In 2012, the SPLC’s “hate map” inspired a would-be mass murderer. Floyd Lee Corkins II, armed with a handgun and a bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches (a mocking gesture tied to the group’s pro-family stance), entered the headquarters of the Family Research Council intending to kill as many people as possible. He later told the FBI he chose his target because the SPLC listed it as a hate group. By the grace of God and the bravery of a security guard, the plan failed. But the message was clear: the SPLC’s labels have real-world consequences.
Behind the Curtain: Corruption and Hypocrisy
Public trust in the SPLC began to erode more rapidly in 2019 when co-founder Morris Dees was fired amid allegations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and a toxic workplace culture. Former employees described the SPLC as a place rife with internal hypocrisy—a mostly white-led organization leveraging the language of anti-racism while marginalizing its own minority staff.
A blistering report in the New Yorker echoed these claims, exposing how the SPLC had become less about fighting injustice and more about raising money off fear. According to employees, the organization’s leadership fixated on maintaining high donation levels by constantly expanding the definition of hate and exaggerating threats. This fundraising strategy created a perverse incentive: the more hate they could find—or invent—the more money would pour in.
And pour in it did. The SPLC currently sits on a war chest exceeding $730 million, some of it hidden in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. It is, by any standard, one of the richest nonprofits in the United States. Yet it still fundraises as if it were under siege, asking for emergency donations to fight a supposedly rising tide of hate—much of which it defines itself.
Even more troubling are the legal losses the SPLC has suffered due to its defamatory tactics. In 2018, the organization had to pay $3.4 million to Maajid Nawaz, a British Muslim reformer, after falsely labeling him as an anti-Muslim extremist. Nawaz supports secular democracy and opposes Islamist extremism—hardly a “hater” by any reasonable standard. The SPLC’s willingness to destroy reputations to serve its ideological agenda was fully exposed.
Who Funds the SPLC—and Why?
The SPLC’s transformation into a woke political machine has been fueled in large part by progressive mega-donors and corporations.
Among the most notable contributors:
- George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which has provided substantial financial support to SPLC initiatives related to immigration, policing, and racial “equity.”
- The Ford Foundation, long known for funding left-leaning causes, has given multi-year grants for “criminal justice reform” and race-based litigation.
- The Arcus Foundation, a major LGBTQ+ advocacy group, has given over $500,000 to support gender ideology litigation.
- Apple Inc., under CEO Tim Cook, donated $1 million to the SPLC in 2017 following the Charlottesville riots.
- Tides Foundation, a pass-through for anonymous progressive donors, has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the SPLC over the last decade.
In the tech world, SPLC has maintained cozy relationships with Facebook (now Meta) and Amazon. For years, it was listed as an eligible charity under AmazonSmile, and its research influenced Facebook’s content moderation and “extremism” detection policies. After public backlash, Amazon eventually removed SPLC from its platform, but the damage was already done.
These donors are not neutral actors. They fund the SPLC precisely because it advances a woke, globalist, anti-traditionalist worldview. Their dollars are not spent to protect civil rights—but to redefine them.
Litigating the Woke Agenda
The SPLC today is not primarily concerned with classical civil rights. It is now an engine for radical legal transformation, and its lawsuits reflect that mission.
In Florida, the SPLC has filed multiple lawsuits against the state under Governor Ron DeSantis, challenging laws designed to protect parental rights and ban radical gender theory in schools. They have labeled the “Stop WOKE Act,” which bans racially divisive curricula in public education, as an attack on civil liberties.
They also opposed the Parental Rights in Education Act—derided by the Left as the “Don’t Say Gay” law—claiming it harms LGBTQ+ youth. In truth, the law simply requires age-appropriate instruction and affirms parental authority in sensitive matters.
In Georgia, the SPLC’s radical alignment became even more visible in 2023 when one of its attorneys, Thomas Webb Jurgens, was arrested during a violent Antifa-led riot targeting the Atlanta Police Training Facility, known as “Cop City.” The mob hurled Molotov cocktails, fireworks, and rocks at officers. Though Jurgens was released, his arrest revealed what critics had long suspected: the SPLC does not just defend woke causes—it inhabits their most radical fringes.
What Kind of People Work There?
The SPLC’s hiring patterns reveal much about its identity. Today, its staff consists largely of activist lawyers, leftist ideologues, and social justice operatives trained in the doctrines of intersectionality, queer theory, and critical race theory.
Many staffers have backgrounds in groups like the Democratic Socialists of America, Black Lives Matter, or radical LGBTQ+ collectives. Some have been accused of sympathizing with, or outright participating in, Antifa activities. Their legal focus includes:
- Lawsuits to mandate gender transition procedures in prisons.
- Efforts to block deportation of illegal immigrants, even in criminal cases.
- Legal action to secure puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors.
- Litigation opposing Christian adoption agencies or faith-based colleges defending biblical moral codes.
Noticeably absent are any efforts to protect persecuted Christians overseas, rural white farmers in South Africa, or conservative students harassed on college campuses. Their clients are carefully chosen to reinforce a leftist, intersectional hierarchy—not to reflect a genuine commitment to human dignity.
Is the SPLC Woke? The Evidence Is Overwhelming
The term “woke” has become politicized, but it accurately describes an ideology centered on:
- Radical racial politics that divide people into oppressor and oppressed.
- Gender fluidity and identity theory that detaches human identity from biological reality.
- Moral relativism that undermines biblical truth and tradition.
- Equity over equality, focusing on outcomes rather than opportunity.
- Activist governance that substitutes group grievance for personal responsibility.
By this standard, the SPLC is not merely influenced by wokeness—it is one of its most powerful legal enforcers. It seeks not just to protect civil rights, but to reshape society into a secular, post-Christian mold where the traditional family is oppressive, religious liberty is suspect, and dissent is redefined as hate.
Conclusion: A Tarnished Legacy
The Southern Poverty Law Center began with noble intentions. It fought real evil. It defended real victims. But today, it has become a parody of its former self—a bloated, corrupt, ideologically driven machine fueled by elite donors and hostile to the very values that once defined the American experiment.
It uses the language of justice to promote injustice against those who hold to biblical morality. It invokes the memory of the civil rights movement to discredit dissent. And it claims moral neutrality while enforcing radical political orthodoxy.
This blog post, like all others on this platform, reflects my considered opinion—formed through careful research, ideological analysis, and an understanding of truth grounded in Scripture and natural law. It is ultimately up to you, the reader, to evaluate whether this organization still deserves your trust. As for me, I do not believe the Southern Poverty Law Center is a trustworthy or impartial institution.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
Some sources of information may reflect a libertarian and/or atheistic perspective. I may not agree with all of their opinions, but they offer some worthwhile comments on the topic under discussion.
Additionally, language used in the videos may be coarse. Coarse language does not reflect my personal standards.
Finally, those on the left often criticize my sources of information, which are primarily conservative and/or Christian. Truth is truth, regardless of how we feel about it. Leftists are largely led by their emotion rather than facts. It is no small wonder that they would criticize the sources that I provide. And, ultimately, my wordview is governed by Scripture. Many of my critics are not biblical Christians.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something, though.
I will continue to add items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.