Taking Mensa to the
Streets

The controversy over how Mensa acquires and disburses its funds is a divisive issue that goes to the core of the organization's philosophy and reason for existence. In our many forums, we hear deep differences of opinion over the uses of our resources and what we might do to increase them.

As local-group editors cry for adequate funding to support their very most important contribution to the organization, our elected and appointed national officers shake their heads and talk about programs. In the next breath, the subject turns to "nondues revenue," with the threat of a dues increase always looming in the background. Nondues revenue can be seen as a solution to the problem only if the problem is defined in terms of insufficient revenues. If the problem is defined in terms of inappropriate uses of available funds, we see another solution altogether. It is essential to consider carefully what problem it is that we intend to solve before we open our arms to the proffered solutions. In Mensa as in business, I frequently see handed-down decisions that reduce to this: "Here is the solution we have adopted. Try to have the problem that fits it."

On the Mensa editors' list a little while back, a writer cited "a good example of promoting the cachet of Mensa for commercial purposes," and I responded thus:

There should not be any promoting the cachet of Mensa for commercial purposes.

The following reply from AMC Communications Officer Tyger Gilbert, reprinted here in full and with his express permission, sums up the currently prevailing view:

Why? Do you think that Mensa shouldn't present a good image to the rest of the world, or that it is wrong for us to make a little money off of the folks who would like to "be seen with us" in public?

If we carefully choose who associates with us, the revenue we get will help prevent our needing to raise dues anytime soon, and could ultimately result in more funding for local groups, which everyone wants.

When there are companies who want to market their products and services to us and are willing to pay us for the privilege, we aren't as smart as we think we are if we don't take advantage of the opportunities. That's the way the world works. Why bury our heads in the sand and think the parts left sticking out are prettier because of it?

Sorry to disagree with you on this, Meredy.

Tyger

Tyger (et al.), I will be happy to explain why I feel as I do.

What we must recognize is that our decisions not only proceed from our self-definition but function to further define us. I object to promoting the cachet of Mensa for commercial purposes because it compromises our collective integrity. We sacrifice our dignity and self-respect when we undertake to supply an intellectual escort service. If we as an entity are to have any companions at all—and at one time I believe we all clearly understood that we should not—it is most unbecoming for us to select them on the basis of their ability to pay.

One would have thought that the Mensa Constitution's prohibition of any ideological, philosophical, political, or religious affiliation clearly expressed the intent that Mensa should remain unaffiliated; as the Constitution states, "Mensa as an organization shall not express an opinion as being that of Mensa." To join forces with another concern or entity of any kind and for any reason could certainly be construed as expressing an opinion on the merits of furthering its interests. To do so for profit cheapens our character and prostitutes our pride in a vulgar bargain that benefits the special interests for which large expenditures are budgeted. What opinion does Mensa express of its name and reputation and indeed of its own members when it looks upon them as an inventory of saleable goods?

That the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit commercial affiliations seems to me to reflect on the honorable character of the drafters of the Constitution, who apparently did not even envision such a possibility, rather than to constitute any intended license. I believe that viewing this omission as a loophole and proceeding to market the privilege of linking arms with us in public is antithetical to the intentions of the founders and former leaders of our society and that it is also an act of bad faith with a membership that is made complicit in the packaging of themselves as a commodity for someone else's material gain.

What's more, when it is known that we sell our favors, their value declines.

It is a specious argument to say that more funds are needed in order to support the local groups. There is plenty of money to support the local groups at better than subsistence level. If they are subsidized below their level of need, never mind their level of comfort, that is a clear statement of what is more important and what is less important in the minds of the present decision-makers. This is not to say that there are no other legitimate uses of funds; of course there are. It is only to say that when we read the budget as a statement in dollars of the organization's priorities, we see that the organization as currently embodied in its decision-makers is willing to let the local groups accost strangers on the street for quarters while it postures as a service organization doling out grants to the community.

I am in favor of Mensa's looking good. I always have been, and over a period of thirty years I have contributed considerable efforts of my own toward that end. But I believe that what it takes to make Mensa look good is for it to be good, and that right now what that means is not rouge and henna but good old soap and water.

—Meredy Amyx
    meredy@amyx.org