On the identical day George Floyd was murdered by a police officer on a Minneapolis avenue — Memorial Day, 2020 — Christian Cooper was searching for songbirds in Central Park. Mr. Cooper, who’s Black, can be vaulted to fame after a run-in with a white lady who known as the police and falsely claimed he was threatening her when he requested her to leash her canine.

To David Yarnold, the chief government of the National Audubon Society on the time, each occasions demanded a response. The highly effective conservation group and pre-eminent chicken lovers’ group wanted to weigh in, and even look at itself.

“Black lives matter,” Mr. Yarnold, who’s white, wrote in a letter to the society’s employees after the primary weekend of the George Floyd protests. “Our nation is in turmoil because our governments, our institutions (including Audubon), and private individuals haven’t done nearly enough to act on that fundamental truth.”

Mr. Yarnold promised to start out a “long conversation” about how the Audubon Society may “become antiracist in everything we do.”

Three years later, that lengthy dialog has led the society into an all-out feud over its personal dealing with of race inside the group. Complaints about office situations and the therapy of minority staff and hobbyists are sure up within the query of whether or not the conservation group ought to drop its namesake, John James Audubon, who owned slaves.

Mr. Yarnold has left, and several other board members have give up. Local chapters of the nationwide group have distanced themselves, staff are in an uproar, donors are skittish and members — the lifeblood of the group — are questioning what has occurred to an insular neighborhood of nature lovers who had been extra accustomed to debating birding etiquette than to grappling with deeply entrenched racism.

What is occurring contained in the Audubon Society is a microcosm of the debates which have roiled organizations throughout the nation since 2020. Companies, governments and campuses, pushed by the energy of groups like Black Lives Matter, dedicated themselves to bold plans to alter policing and company tradition. Many discovered themselves caught between a want to enchantment to a youthful, extra various era and the objections of others who stated the modifications they had been contemplating went too far.

Audubon’s case is an instance of the problems that may come up in a post-2020 world when a company tries, or fails, to satisfy these expectations, particularly when the expectations fall outdoors the group’s conventional mission: What does chicken conservation should do with social justice?

For some folks, the title John James Audubon means birding the way in which the title Edison means electrical gentle. By cataloging and portray tons of of species within the early 1800s for his seminal four-volume work, “The Birds of America,” Audubon arguably contributed extra to ornithological examine than another particular person in United States historical past. But he was additionally an outspoken anti-abolitionist slave proprietor who held repellent beliefs about African Americans. He enslaved 9 folks to work in his Kentucky residence, purchased and offered a number of folks, and argued in opposition to emancipation, according to a biographer, Gregory Nobles.

In the aftermath of Mr. Floyd’s homicide, distinguished members of the birding neighborhood urged the National Audubon Society’s board of administrators to contemplate a reputation change.

Those in favor argued {that a} title change wouldn’t solely break the hyperlink to a shameful historical past, but additionally assist create a extra welcoming environment for members and staff. That, in flip, would assist the group thrive.

“Why would you not take the step of being brave and moving forward?” stated Jason Hall, a 40-year-old Black man who based the In Color Birding Clubas a option to “open birding and access to outdoors to people of color.”

Mr. Hall stated the Audubon Society’s place ought to be: “We need to consider this name change because it gives us an opportunity to reconcile the history of this person, but also keep our core mission of bringing birds to people. And by doing that we can bring more birds to more people, more, different kinds of people.”

Mr. Yarnold, the society’s former head, described the summer season of 2020 as a “pressure cooker at Audubon,” introduced on by isolation from the Covid pandemic and the harm and anger over Mr. Floyd’s homicide.

“It was monumentally hard to comprehend the zeitgeist in the moment,” Mr. Yarnold stated. “You can’t run a complex, nuanced, nonpartisan 50-state operation over Zoom.”

At the tip of 2020, Politico reported on complaints from employees that the Audubon Society was a dysfunctional and hostile workplace for racial minorities and ladies.

An audit commissioned by the Audubon board and performed by an out of doors legislation agency substantiated a number of the complaints. The report discovered that “managers at all levels — including women — perpetuate an environment that diminishes the contributions of women and people of color.” In 2021, the board promised to make changes.

For Mr. Yarnold, who had employed the group’s first vice chairman of fairness, range and inclusion, the report stung. Just earlier than the report was launched, he stated he would step down.

“I was not asked to leave,” Mr. Yarnold stated, including that he determined to “accelerate the transition” that was already deliberate.

His departure didn’t quell staff, who fashioned a union in September 2021, often known as the “Bird Union” to distance itself from the Audubon title.

Some staffers stated it was an uphill battle making an attempt to alter a company that they stated was simply as interested by conserving its established order because it was conserving wildlife.

“At some point, that mission needs to evolve,” stated Andres Villalon, who identifies as non-binary and was Audubon’s senior director of fairness, range, inclusion and belonging earlier than resigning final December, annoyed, they stated, that the group was falling wanting its values.

Mx. Villalon stated there was a pervasive angle among the many board that social justice was a distraction from defending birds.

Birding has a repute as a passion for prosperous white individuals who aren’t all the time welcoming to Black folks, in line with Mr. Hall, who based the In Color Birding Club.

When Sam DeJarnett, 33, first started working at Portland Audubon, she was into wildlife conservation however didn’t know what birding was. She went on some official Audubon birding outings, “but it was all old white folks,” she stated. “And I was really made to feel like an outsider, both as a woman of color — a Black woman — and as a new birder.”

In 2022, 81 p.c of the society’s senior leaders and 77 p.c of its full-time staff recognized as white, in line with an Audubon survey.

The board employed Elizabeth Gray to interchange Mr. Yarnold. In an interview Ms. Gray, the primary lady to move the society, stated its dedication to range and fairness was “mission critical work.”

“When we do what’s right for birds, we do what’s right for people,” she stated.

While the nationwide group debated, the Seattle chapter introduced it will drop the Audubon title, later altering it to “Birds Connect Seattle.” Several different native chapters — together with these in New York City and Chicago — dropped the Audubon moniker.

“Knowing what we now know, and hearing from community members how the Audubon name is harmful to our cause, there is no other choice but to change,” the top of the Seattle group wrote final 12 months.

An inner survey of staff, members, donors and volunteers within the fall of 2022 revealed a company deeply divided over a elementary query of id.

Around 43 p.c of respondents stated altering the title would have a unfavourable impression on folks’s capacity “to feel they are a part of the organization,” whereas 35 p.c stated it will have a constructive impression.

The inner report, obtained by The New York Times, stated the society confronted intense stress to not alienate “older, conservative individuals” who present the group with “generous funding, time and support” by means of dues and donations.

One donor, who was not named, was quoted within the report as saying: “If there was even the remotest thought of changing the name of National Audubon because John James Audubon, in a different time, in a different world and a different century owned, whatever it was, six slaves, I would resign from the Audubon. There’d be no further gifts from me for the Audubon.”

One scholar interviewed within the report as a part of a spotlight group stated, “I hate their current name and would not join” Audubon “if it keeps its current name.”

Audubon redacted names from the document to protect respondents’ privacy, and recently released the full report to employees after questions from The New York Times.

The 32-member board voted in opposition to making a change, and on March 15, the National Audubon Society announced that it was keeping its name. The group’s leaders noticed the choice as a press release of neutrality, these concerned within the discussions stated, and as a option to keep away from taking sides within the tradition wars.

Later that day, when the leaders convened a virtual all-hands meeting to inform the society’s staff of the decision, comments began unfurling in the chat, as angry employees peppered them with questions. Did they understand the impact that the decision would have on morale? On reaching communities of color?

“‘It’s one thing for Audubon to be named after a slaveholder, but what we’re saying today is that we’re doubling down on it,’” said a moderator who was reading staff questions aloud, according to an audio recording obtained by The New York Times. “‘It doesn’t feel like I’m valued or welcomed here, as I used to be.’”

Ms. Gray wrote an open letter to members concerning the determination. “Dear Flock,” it began, “Regardless of the name we use, this organization must and will address the inequalities and injustices that have historically existed within the conservation movement,” the letter said in part.

Ms. Gray acknowledged that the organization has some work to do in reaching communities of color.

Maxine Griffin Somerville, the organization’s chief people and culture officer, said the society was committed to having “an average of at least two people from underrepresented groups in our final candidate pool for at least 80 percent of our permanent and seasonal roles.”

Three board members resigned after the vote. The organization postponed its annual fund-raising gala after the Bird Union, with about 250 members, planned a protest outside the venue. The 2019 gala at the Plaza Hotel brought in $2.5 million.

Fieldstone Publishing, the maker of Audubon’s ubiquitous field guides, swiftly condemned the board’s decision, calling on its publishing partners to remove the Audubon name from the guides. Knopf said it would remove the Audubon name and logo from future guides and reprints. Fieldstone said it would donate sales proceeds from two recently published guides to the National African American Reparation Commission.

The union said retaining the name of an “enslaver” and “white supremacist” showed that Ms. Gray and the board “have no interest in following through on their commitments to cultivate a fair and equitable workplace.” The two sides have yet to agree on a labor contract.

Christian Cooper, a member of New York City chapter’s board, was among those condemning the decision. “If we fail to engage new audiences with the natural world — if concern for the welfare of our wild birds is perceived as something for ‘Whites only’ — then only a dwindling group of Americans will fight for the birds,” Mr. Cooper wrote in The Washington Post.

National Audubon Society leaders pledged to raise $25 million to support “marginalized communities,” and said there had been little change in the organization’s fundraising capabilities.

“The vast number of donors and staff continue to stay with us,” Ms. Gray said. “Our name is just part of our identity.”