I have ranted this rant before but I'm old so indulge me to make a couple of points:
1. The AMC is NOT one monolithic entity. There are numerous factions within it that offer climbing and they are mostly autonomous. So it would be more accurate to identify some behavior as "New York AMC" etc. Not that you couldn't find something to quibble about with just about all of them. The general public thinks that all climbers are dufusses while in reality we know its only the trad/sport/boulderer/ice/aid climber (take your pick) who is the dufus.
2. There is a lot of stereo-typing as a result of events that happened quite some time ago. the AMC has a lot of heavy baggage to deal with. These various internal components of the AMC are sometimes aware of this - sometimes not - some care to improve that image - some don't. But the point is that things do change.

I have been loosely associated with the Boston Chapter Mountaineering Committee and it's rock climbing instruction program (that Julie mentioned for a long time). It's been a mission of mine to "enlighten" some of the - shall we say "more set in their ways" (old farts - except few are as old as me) members for a long time. Ironically using ground anchors on the deck is one of the points I am battling (actually its more complicated - the real battle is instilling proper lead belay habits - and of course what constitutes "proper" leads to endless debate) and using a ground anchor is one issue. I think I am slowly making progress.

What fraction of accidents are attributable to poor belay technique, requiring this to be 'battled'? Not trying to be combative, just curious. We've all seen people do all sorts of dumb stuff and its usually fixed with a quiet word or two.

A person could DIE (of embarrasment) by being forced to anchor in on the flat ground, when belaying a person who weights no more than they do.

Imagine some poor n00b who was so excited after a day of gym climbing that they went online searching on how to get outdoors, only to find themselves hooked up(really - hooked up in a ground anchor).

Suppose this person actually gets bit by the climbing bug and away they go, happily leaving the protective tethered nest of their first day coach and learning the ropes as many do - through a series of climbing partners.

They excel, and are soon leading, and then leading harder routes. The girls, or boys, all clamber for their rope gunsmanship.

Then it all comes tumbling down when an image arises from the ashes of the internet... an image the person is unaware even exists. It is they - tied to a tree like a crag dog, belaying some person on Bunny.

Even the historical NY Appies were not as monolithic as the the conqueror's history would have it. Folks like Lester Germer went their own way while still being members of the club.

It seems to me that anyone trying nowadays to teach climbing is likely to end up promulgating hard and fast rules that shouldn't be hard and fast, partially because it is very difficult to teach the full range of responses that are appropriate for situations with a lot of variables.

I suspect that groups like the Appies provide a valuable service, and if some of their students find that they may have to unlearn a few things, they are still better off than those of us who learned by trial and error and had to unlearn not a few things but a whole host of things.

And, as Terrie illustrated, there is a self-selection process going on too, so no danger of those independent spirits somehow being squelched by Appie stodginess.