Surf over to read Adam Bink's "The Scary Rich White Gays," an interesting, if off-the-mark response to my post, "HRC's Solmonese: dinner attendees 'more politically aware', have 'better sense of what's at stake," and Autumn's "We Get The LGBT Diversity Of Media Contact Lists."
As I said earlier the primary problem with the assessment of my post is that it alludes to statements or beliefs that are simply not in my post, but do occur in the comments. I don't have a lot of those kinds of conversations where a reader conflates my views with that of those in the comments as much these days as I did a couple of years ago; it seems to happen more when the subject matter is controversial and people get riled up. Anyway, I thought I'd take a stab at clarifying the situation, since Adam's post doesn't make any distinction between the author and commenters. Before we begin, you'll see references to Rich White Gays (RWG) as an acronym used by Adam. I'll use it for simplicity's sake.
You see, many in the LGBT community (examples here, here and here) have criticized HRC as a group made up entirely of RWGs, and that we should dislike HRC, their money, and their support because of the RWGs. In fact, the HRC headquarters was actually vandalized yesterday for the same reason.Nowhere in my pon my post do I say all the HRC leadership, membership, or attendees of the annual dinner are all RWGs. However, that it is a factual statement the largest demographic that populated the dinner was RWGs. Offense seems to be taken for even making the observation, nor is the post specifically about condemning RWGs, it's about broadening attendance to be more inclusive in the wake of Joe Solmonese's statement to CNN's Don Lemon.
[W]e're the largest LBGT organization in the country with nearly a million members. Most of them are small donors and supporters all over the country. And so, I think we absolutely represent the LBGT community.He opened the door to class and diversity in that statement that he surely didn't, if he had been more judicious and not so hell-bent to denigrate the influence or political savvy of the attendees of the NEM he may have chosen to defend the dinner and the organization in a different way. But he didn't.But I think that -- as Hilary mentioned last night on the show -- perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done. Because at the end of the day, what all these fights come down to -- and this is where we are in this movement...
What's curious about some of the angry responses to my post, including Adam's is that It's not a zero-sum game if you add diversity; no one loses access or influence it just increases reach. And as far as trying to link any statements in the post cited (or any prior posts of mine) to violence is a particularly nasty charge to levy on me, since I have time and again stated that I detest moves like that. And I specifically called out the vandalism on HRC's building when it occurred, before it was confirmed that it was perpetrated by a gay group. Do some of my readers/commenters feel differently -- yes, some do, but that's their opinion.
More below the fold.
Adam breaks his analysis down into sections.
1. Corruption. In any discussion of financial support leading to certain policies, there should be an A->B argument, such as Max Baucus takes millions from insurance companies->his doing their bidding in Congress. Is this the case with the RWGs and HRC? Has HRC been particularly dismissive of poor LGBTers, or people of color, or lesbians/bisexuals/transgender individuals? It doesn't seem that way. Here in DC alone, I regularly see HRC's support everywhere in the community for non-RWGs, financially sponsoring everything from Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League brunches to the Mautner Project, an organization focusing on lesbian health. They also were the only LGBT organization to purchase sponsorship at Netroots Nation last year. These are all organizations whose constituencies are predominantly some or all of the characteristics of non-rich, non-white, non-gay male.Where in my post do I say HRC has been dismissive of poor LGBTs? Nowhere. Where do I see in my post where I say HRC has done nothing for low-wealth communities of color. Nowhere. In fact in my update in response to the, um, vigorous comment thread, I specifically say:Legislatively, last time I checked (aside from the T issue in ENDA, which I and many others supported as a strategic measure), HRC hasn't been pushing legislation that only benefits, rich white gay men.
HRC funds many programs that do outreach in the broader, more diverse community with those donations; so complaints that it all goes to administrative overhead and salaries, while it may fe may feel good to rip, doesn't exactly paint an accurate picture of the impressive work HRC is and is capable of doing.And the last sentence in that quote that I pulled I hope was meant to be sarcastic, because all pro-LGBT legislation supported by HRC does benefit everyone, not just RWGs. Where is that assertion in my post? Oops, not there. [We could have a long talk about the ENDA debacle and how that backstabbing, has left some slow-to-heal wounds in the trans community, as Adam noted.]
2. Financial support. Like with its support of SMYAL and the Mautner Project, lots and lots of organizations rely on HRC for financial support. HRC also puts tens of thousands into political support- in direct contributions, sending staff, and other ways- into political campaigns, like the 2005 Maine non-discrimination ballot initiative, this year's Maine marriage campaign, Referendum 71 in Washington, Prop 8, electing LGBT members of Congress, and more. Yet I know many people who cheer HRC's contributions to non-profits and political campaigns turn around and make the RWG argument.Who said to turn down the financial support of RWGs? Not me, and not in that post. We obviously cannot change the distribution of wealth in this country, nor did I call for that. What I called for was some creative thinking about how to make events and boards more diverse. That doesn't always equal money. This limited ability to think outside the box reminds me of a schoolmate of mine who has well-to-do parents. Because her parents have a difficult time with emotional support and speaking frankly about their relationships to their children, they find it a lot easier to simply write them checks, sending them as occasional gifts in the mail for "the vet bill" or some such. They are just a bit crippled and clueless how to handle affection or emotional connection.But is this different than anywhere else? Many foundation boards are entirely rich and white. Many individual donors who give money in LGBT politics are rich, white and gay. Should the money be rejected because of the race and class from which it comes?
I also view HRC as a kind of aggregator for donors. Is it better there be no HRC Dinner at all, where non-profit executive directors go principally to get access to the RWGs to get additional direct financial support? Is it better for a non-profit like SMYAL to not get any money from HRC, and for its tiny staff to spend even more time and resources on development work, rather than helping underprivileged youth of color?
Maybe this is about a lack of ability to think outside the box. That is certainly what I would rather believe than HRC, or any organization based on equality, would rather have its management and board look less like the community it serves out of discomfort with an alternative model.
3. Hypocrisy. At the same time folks trash HRC's RWG demographic, they celebrate RWGs. Bruce Bastian is a classic example. Bruce, a Utah native and former Mormon missionary, co-founded WordPerfect and is on Fortune 500's list of richest people in the country. He is widely respected as one of the most inspiring and generous donors in the LGBT movement. I see praise heaped upon him in many quarters, as I should.Hmm. That's interesting. Adam spent this entire section talking about Bruce Bastian; he's mentioned nowhere in my post. Don't know him, have never quoter quoted him. So there's nothing to analyze there. Perhaps Adam can attribute the commentary to someone who discussed him so the hypocrisy charge addressed appropriately. I'll just move along to...Bruce has also given millions to HRC. He is on the HRC Board of Directors. I went to the HRC Dinner last year, where he was the guest of honor, feted and given an award.
If anything, Bruce is the Rich White Gay incarnate, but he is praised, while the organization doling out his money to causes we all hold dear is demonized as "you're rich, white and gay, so you suck!!". Huh?
Lots of meat here. You know, you don't need a perfect world to achieve more diversity in leadership, you simply need people committed to achieving it. It's that simple. What it does require is thinking of addressing it in non-traditional ways, something that clearly hasn't entered the minds (for whatever reason, I won't speculate) at HRC.4. Diversity.In a perfect world, every foundation and political action group and non-profit would be a mix of races, classes, and colors. I would hope that HRC and lots of other groups are more diverse- economically, racially, and in terms of sexual orientation. That's not the case, and I don't think that will ever be. So why are we making race-based and class-based attacks on organizations that support the rest of the community? It's not like HRC is the only one. I live in DC, one of the gayest cities in the country, with a majority-black population. Yet I go to events all the time- benefit galas, LGBT performing arts, sporting events, political group meetings, bars, you name it- that are almost entirely middle-to-upper-class, white and gay. I have friends who tell me the same in other cities. Yet I don't hear the kind of vitriol thrown at the sponsoring institutions like I do HRC.I don't pretend to be an expert on the financial makeup of the LGBT community, but I don't think the class, economic, and sexual orientation structure of HRC- or the other events I mentioned- is because they're some kind of racist, classist, LBT-hating group. I think it's because there aren't exactly tons and tons of rich LBTs or people of color, particularly POCs who are "out". Is this HRC's fault?
Before this "politically unaware" "fringe left Internet blogger" offers a couple of unsolicited suggestions, I would like to address the "why pick on HRC" issue, when one could charge other orgs with similar diversity problems. It's pretty simple -- HRC is the largest LGBT organization, and its primary function is to lobby Congress on our behalf. End of story. That role, along with the contacts and media relationships, makes it the go-to LGBT org if a politician or reporter wants to know the pulse of the community regarding politics. It's the truth. To have such a disconnect that HRC's head is drawing specious distinctions about whom is qualified to be on the inside that dinner based on the premise that money=political savvy is problematic on its face. How does the organization address the political savvy of an activist out there in a Red state that lobbies their legislature to effect change and who keeps up to date with what machinations are going on in Congress? Are they of less value to the HRC because they are poor as a church mouse? Less worthy than someone who is of great wealth who simply writes a check and shows up to big galas to see the celebrities and meet old friends on the high-end party circuit? That's what Joe said -- this is ludicrous on its face. And that's just taking a broad stroke. In the real world there are a wide range of economic circumstances and levels of political awareness in any population or group. So where is the cutoff for legitimacy in Joe's World? That's what my post is about, not condemning RWGs. Surely when he goes on Mike's show he's going to have to explain what he was trying to achieve in that interview with Don Lemon, because at face value, he's done more to damage the rep of his organization in the last week than any commenters or diarists on a blog could. It's been an embarrassing week between this interview and the mind-boggling 2017 e-blast.
Anyway, as I was reading the reactions and comments about Joe Solmonese's statement, I ent, I took a few minutes to think about ways to address the diversity problem, since I think we can all agree that leadership that is more like the LGBT population at large is a healthier organization than one that is largely homogenous -- or at least one would hope that would be desired in 2009. A couple of ideas to ponder...
1. How about saving a couple of seats on the board as elective posts? Right now, you have to have $$$ to get into the game and on a board. These positions could be selected by membership in a vote, perhaps regionally, to identify activists with promise in terms of leadership. This does two things -- identifies talent and grooms them at a very high level in our movement. Surely any organization would benefit from this more grassroots approach to representation. A presence and a voice from another socioeconomic perspective can save an organization from committing grievous, PR mistakes because of the blind spots that are common in groups that are too homogeneous. It's almost never out of malice, the errors in judgment are because of being in a bubble of ignorance or insensitivity that can easily be corrected by simply engaging on a peer-level with someone who is not like you, as opposed to relating to someone you are in a paternalistic role with.Anyway, that's my two cents. But I thank Adam for raising the issues he has, for expressing the frustration of some of the RWGs who saw only negativity rather than my call for opening constructive dialogue because of the noise filter, and Joe Solmonese's very poor, very public approach to handling the stress points in our community in his role President of the Human Rights Campaign.2. How about making space at the (dinner) table? Surely some mondo goodwill and PR could be gained if some of those "captains" who buy a whole table at a gala could participate in a matching donation to buy four $250 seats for activists of note around the country who cannot afford the ticket but who are just as politically savvy and successful as the rest of the people in the room. They could be selected by the board (or an HRC committee) that would bring the work they do that doesn't get the recognition it deserves in a forum that has such a high profile. This could motivate so many people out there to get active.
3. Have a table captain host one activist that they sponsor? This would earn HRC tons of good publicity and goodwill as well, and encourage those with means to get to know and learn about an activist in the field effecting change. HRC could provide a list of activists that these donors could connect with, and everyone benefits -- particularly those with wealth who want to do more than just write a check, but not necessarily do canvassing or the field work and then find there's not much between that appeals to them. Building person-to-person relationships on that level toward a common goal certainly builds more bridges to understanding.
***
NOTE: I haven't read this post yet since it just went up, but I'll point you to HRC Back Story, where Joe Solmonese says "The Last Thing We Should Do is Wait." Come back and comment.
After the latest- and imo BEST- No On 1 ad "Mom" has now thoroughly saturated the Maine airwaves and televisions, there is news of another supportive mom of a gay son.
And like Yolande Dumont, she wants to publicly let the world know that she supports marriage equality and urge Mainers to vote 'No On 1'.
You might have heard of her: her name is Belinda Carlisle.
Check out this video endorsement:
Belinda Carlisle is a Grammy Award-nominated American singer. Carlisle is the lead vocalist and a founding member of the groundbreaking all-female new wave band, The Go-Go's, and also a successful solo artist. During her career, Carlisle has released four studio albums (and eleven singles) with the Go-Go's and seven studio albums (and thirty-one singles) as a solo artist.On October 11, 2009, Ms. Carlisle announced her strong support for marriage equality by appearing in a video urging supporters to donate to the No on 1 campaign in Maine. In the video, Carlisle stated that she recorded the PSA not as a musician and public figure, but as a mom. "My son, James, is gay, and I want him and every other gay person out there to have the same opportunities and rights that I've had in life."
Thank you, Belinda! From one mom to another, THIS made me get weak...
LET'S ALL GIVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN NOW...
Referendum 71 is the Washington state ballot measure asking voters to approve or reject the domestic partnership law passed by a wide margin by the Washington Legislature in May and signed by Gov. Gregoire. The law makes domestic partnerships parallel to civil marriage at the state level, providing vital rights to straight senior and same-sex domestic partners that married people have like pension inheritance and the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner.
First glances indicate that the Approve Referendum 71 campaign has greatly out-fundraised the opposition, and sure enough the David and Goliath comparisons are already being made by Larry Stickney. But don't get too comfortable just yet. Campaigns have 5 days to deposit donation checks, so we won't know until perhaps Tuesday, October 20th just how much the opposition really raked in right before the large donor ban took effect on October 12th. The large donor ban means that the most money any individual can donate after Oct. 12th is $5,000 (regardless of how much they donated before Oct. 12). There is also the distinct possibility that an out-of-state enterprise like National Organization for Marriage will swoop in an provide tv time and ads for the opposition "unasked". You know I've been right about these things before. The Approve 71 campaign still needs your support.
Half of Reject's $200,000 has already been spent on radio ad time. Seven local stations have accepted money to run these anti-child, anti-family radio ads.
Meanwhile, true to form, a substantial proportion of expenditures made by Larry Stickney's Protect Marriage Washington and Gary Randall's Faith & Freedom PAC have gone to salary for Stickney, attorney's fees and maintenance of Randall's redundant website. However, Stickney has spent about $10,000 on yard signs, and Randall about $500 on postage. It isn't entirely clear who paid for Protect Marriage Washington's lurid fliers or theocratic tv ads (here and here).
On the Approve Referendum 71 side, Washington Families Standing Together has received just over one million dollars in cash contributions to date. WAFST has invested about $400,00 of this into tv ad time and smaller but substantial amounts into mailings and phone banking costs.
I've posted a few of the radio and tv ads from both sides below the fold. As you listen and watch, notice how the Approve 71 campaign found real Washingtonians to speak for the domestic partnership law. The opposition had to hire actors.
Here's the link to the opposition's radio ad, and here is the transcript. The ad was paid for by FPIW's new PAC. I think of this as the "Apples and Oranges" ad because the domestic partnership law has no relationship to the mortgage crisis beyond domestic partners being equally hurt by the economic downturn.
Woman 1: You know something? Our elected representatives don't get it.Have either of those women even set foot in Yakima or Pullman? Doubt it. Even if they had, dollars to donuts they had to be paid to pronounce those non sequiturs. You can listen to voice-over actors in Protect Marriage Washington's theocratic tv ads here and here.Woman 2: What are you talking about?
W1: About the folks in Olympia being out of touch with the real world
W2: So what's new?
W1: Thousands of people are out of work, others are losing their homes, schools are not properly funded, yet legislators spend time passing a so-called everything but marriage bill.
W2: That's the one to add more rights to the state's domestic partnership law?
W1: That's the one. It should be rejected.
W2: Ok, you want state legislators to solve the real problems that affect our state, not pass bills that change the definition of marriage?
W1: Exactly. The bill they passed expands the rights of same-sex partners to be equal to those of married couples. How does that help people who are losing their home?
W2: What ca we do?
W1: Fortunately Referendum 71 lets us have a voice.
W2: So you want to send a message to the legislature?
W1: Yes! Vote reject on R-71 when you mail in your ballot.
W2: Paid for by Vote Reject on R-71
All of the radio and tv ads released so far by Washington Families Standing Together are posted here. Every one of them features real Washingtonians talking about their real families. Here is my favorite so far, which is now being broadcast on tv. You can help keep this wonderful ad on the air by donating. Ad time gets more expensive the closer we get to election day.
Cross-posted at Washblog.Jane: Pete-e and I have been together for 32 years. We were both in nursing, and Pete-e served in the Korean War.
We raised a daughter together, and she and her husband have given us two beautiful grandchildren.
Now that we are getting older, we need to be able to take care of each other, especially if one of us is ill.
Voiceover: Don't take away protections for committed couples like family medical leave or extending health insurance coverage to a partner. Vote to approve Referendum 71.
Jane: For all Washington families.
Voiceover: Paid for by Washington Families Standing Together.
COMMUNITY VIGIL FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
VIGILIA COMUNITARIA PARA UNA REFORMA COMPRESIVA DE LAS LEYES DE INMIGRACIÃ"N RACIÃ"N
Friday, October 23, 2009
viernes 23 octubre de 2009
7:30 to 8:30 pm. St. Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church
1704 NE 43rd Ave., Portland
This bilingual community service will include songs, prayers, stories, and Scripture reflections, followed by a candlelight procession to the Hollywood MAX station. Este servicio comunitario bilingüe incluirá cantos, oraciones, comentarios y reflexiones BÃblicas. Después iremos en procesion para la Estación de MAX para una vigilia con velas. For more information please contact:Deacon Marla McGarry-Lawrence
St. Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church
1704 NE 43rd Ave.
Portland, OR 97213-1402
503-284-7141 ext. 314 CAUSA (Oregon's Immigrant Rights Coalition), the largest Latin@ civil and human rights and advocacy organization in the Pacific Northwest
No comments:
Post a Comment