Alienated from HRC
Jason Kuznicki on Feb 23rd 2007
Some time ago I posted about how the Human Rights Campaign alienates its friends. It seems the revolt is in full swing now. Via Andrew Sullivan, Michael Petrelis writes,
The problem, as I see it, is that HRC and Solmonese believe they are above reproach and any criticism leveled against them is tantamount to betrayal, which is simply not the case.
Here are few recommendations for Solmonese and HRC: Start dealing honestly with the mounting valid complaints against your operations, develop a thicker skin and stop equating HRC as the entire movement.
What I’d like to see — and I think this would make a huge difference at all levels of the organization — is an awareness of gay families and a membership communications approach that doesn’t cater to the closeted first, while leaving the rest of us behind.
In February of last year, back when we still bothered to remain on their phone list, I wrote,
[W]henever HRC calls us asking for money, signatures, volunteer effort, or what-have-you, they refuse to identify themselves by name. Not only do they avoid saying that they are a gay rights organization, they don’t even call themselves “The Human Rights Campaign” — a bland enough label if ever there was one. No, on the phone they are merely “a nonprofit organization.” That’s it. And, with one stunningly inept gesture, we’re back to the love that dare not speak its name.
Never mind that Scott and I are pretty much the only ones who ever answer our phone. Never mind that anyone else who might just happen to answer our phone is unlikely to have a heart attack on learning that it’s the Human Rights Campaign. Never mind that a telephone call from a certain… nonprofit organization has never been known to turn anyone gay. And never mind that they sometimes call straight people, too.
And then there’s the little matter of our “family” membership. Although HRC may be the nation’s largest gay and lesbian… nonprofit organization, they have never once contacted my husband and I as a family, using both of our names, as we have repeatedly asked them to do. It’s always one or the other, but never both — as though I were too squeamish to accept my own husband’s gayness.
It started several years ago, when Scott and I began giving to them through the Combined Federal Campaign. We asked for a family membership for the two of us, and they answered that this would be easy to do. We gave them both of our names and waited for the membership packet to arrive.
When it did, Scott’s name was the only one to appear. We called to complain, and they assured us that it would be corrected — which it never was. Repeated phone calls from both of us failed to resolve the problem.
When they phoned, they would always ask for Scott, never for me. Always, they would say that they were “a nonprofit organization” — but never disclose who they were. Because HRC is the only group who ever does this, I’d always know it was them. “I’m his partner,” I would answer, “and my name is on the membership, too. Could you speak to me instead?”
“No, we are calling for Scott Starin.”
So we terminated our so-called family membership….
The bottom line here is simple, though: HRC needs to change with the times. Their solicitation scripts sound like they were written in the awkward 1980s, and, if our experience is at all representative, their treatment of gay families dates from the same era. When it comes to politics, I’ll take what I can get, warts and all. But this stuff? I’d expect better from the Sears catalog.
And indeed, most for-profit businesses get our names right on the very first try. If they don’t, a simple phone call is all it takes to get mail that’s properly addressed, to both of us. Not so with HRC — and this, to me, is symbolic of a much, much larger problem: Until HRC itself gives up on the secrecy and the shame, why should anyone else have any reason to listen to them?
Meanwhile, “conservative” corporate America just keeps on getting things right, both in their sales pitches to us and in the way that the big corporations are all rushing to offer equal treatment to gays and lesbians. Do you want an example of capitalists working to help minorities, while the government and the nonprofit sector both lag behind? Look no further. (Hosted, ironically enough, by the same HRC that doesn’t manage nearly so well with its own gays and lesbians…) If current trends continue, gays and lesbians may well be the test case that proves that employment nondiscrimination laws aren’t really necessary at all — take any sufficiently developed capitalist economy, free it from public or private coercion, and the profit motive may just be enough to end discrimination all by itself.
Filed in The Boardroom, The Boudoir
Actually, I understand the refusal to give the name of the group on the first call. My wife and I are on their call list, but my wife is the main person. It is conceivable, though not in fact true, that my wife could be gay, or a supporter of gay rights, but that I — a male answering the phone — would not know of it, whether I’m her husband, her father, or some friend “Hey, Jim, get the phone for me, my hands are full.” Therefore, it is reasonable for them to ‘err on the side of caution’ rather thank risk an involuntary outing.
As for the problem with your family membership, it might not be that THEY are behind the times, but that their computer program is, and they haven’t wanted to spend money upgrading it. (These calls are probably coming from a phone bank in Kansas or wherever, and the callers just get a list of names and numbers.)
So you MAY be right in inferring their attitude from these calls, but it seems equally likely that it is, at worse, managerial incompetence.
Dear Michael ~
I, along with many other Transgender activists, & advocates, throughout this Country, are consistently striving, for the honest recognition of “Equality,” from the Human Rights Campaign.
I can only equate their “movement,” to one that has been consistently constipated!
The HRC, has long been in the forefront of GLB(t) Equality, but anyone who believes that they are “champions” of the Transgender Community, must remove those Rose Colored Glasses, Immediately!
There are many Transgender Organizations, including my own, the S. U. R. E. Foundation, who have called the HRC’s hand, asking for written confirmation, that they stand 100% for Trans Equality.
To this day, I, nor have any other Transgender Organization, have ever received anything in writing, confirming HRC’s concrete commitment to TG Equality!
Joe Solmonese, is just another “lackey” for the establishment, not willing to “pry loose ” the Gay & Lesbian death grip, that this organization was founded on.
Until someone, gets the “Balls” to challenge the hierarchy of the HRC, and make them accountable for their empty stance on “Equality,” in addition to what portion of their “Donations” go towards the Transgender Community, then supporting them for anything, is not in the cards!
Love, Peace, Equality, & Solidarity ~
~Mekah Gordon, Ph.D., L. E.~
Advocate/Activist - Consummate Optimist & Visionary - Educator/Consultant - Freelance Writer-TG Issues - Regional Editor of Santa Fe/For The Normal Heart Newspaper - Pioneering, Frontier Renaissance Woman
Founder/Director ~
S. U. R. E. Foundation®
22 Juego Rd.
Santa Fe, NM 87508-4298
505-466-4277
SUREducation@aol.com
*The word, “Tolerance,” no matter how you bend it, twist it, or turn it inside out,”Reeks” of Discrimination.
“RESPECT,” however, eradicates implicitness for bigotry, hate, prejudice, and judgment.
~Mekah Gordon
*No One on this planet, should ever have, or be granted the power, right, nor stand in judgment, of anyone’s Basic Human Civil Rights, by enforcing through Constitutional Decree, or otherwise, whom one should love, and marry, NO ONE!
~Mekah Gordon
*It’s the Tenacity, Persistence, Fortitude, & Faith, that’s perennial, in those of us, who refuse to give up, in our pursuit for Equality, & Basic Human Civil Rights.
~Mekah Gordon
*Transitionally Speaking: Quotes, From a Pioneering, Frontier Renaissance Woman
© 2007 Mekah Gordon, All Rights Reserved
I’d just like to build on what Mekah wrote above: If there is anyone in the country that should have employment nondiscrimination laws protecting them, it is the gender-nonconformist. I’m less and less convinced of the need for such laws for gender-abiding gays and lesbians, that is, those of us who easily pass for one gender or the other. But the stigma against transgendered people is vastly stronger, so much so that at times nearly the entire institutional weight of society is against them. When this happens, the case for government intervention is far more powerful.
I know that this is a minority position, and an eccentric one, so I’m not going to fault HRC for not adopting it. But I do think that trans equality is essential in these laws — at the very least.
[...] The Gay Rights Vote Via the Daily Dish: it appears as if the gay rights vote is no longer in the Democrats’ pockets. Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty has a long post about the rank failure of the Human Rights Campaign to do anything effective, which has gotten to the point that it doesn’t even identify itself when it calls supporters asking for donations. In contrast, he says, the free market has been tremendously successful. “Conservative” corporate America just keeps on getting things right, both in their sales pitches to us and in the way that the big corporations are all rushing to offer equal treatment to gays and lesbians. Do you want an example of capitalists working to help minorities, while the government and the nonprofit sector both lag behind? Look no further. (Hosted, ironically enough, by the same HRC that doesn’t manage nearly so well with its own gays and lesbians…) If current trends continue, gays and lesbians may well be the test case that proves that employment nondiscrimination laws aren’t really necessary at all — take any sufficiently developed capitalist economy, free it from public or private coercion, and the profit motive may just be enough to end discrimination all by itself. [...]
[...] Via the Daily Dish: it appears as if the gay rights vote is no longer in the Democrats’ pockets. Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty has a long post about the rank failure of the Human Rights Campaign to do anything effective, which has gotten to the point that it doesn’t even identify itself when it calls supporters asking for donations. In contrast, he says, the free market has been tremendously successful. “Conservative” corporate America just keeps on getting things right, both in their sales pitches to us and in the way that the big corporations are all rushing to offer equal treatment to gays and lesbians. Do you want an example of capitalists working to help minorities, while the government and the nonprofit sector both lag behind? Look no further. (Hosted, ironically enough, by the same HRC that doesn’t manage nearly so well with its own gays and lesbians…) If current trends continue, gays and lesbians may well be the test case that proves that employment nondiscrimination laws aren’t really necessary at all — take any sufficiently developed capitalist economy, free it from public or private coercion, and the profit motive may just be enough to end discrimination all by itself. [...]
[...] I imagine he thinks I will say no to one or more of these questions. Actually, I’d say yes to all of them, and I’d agree to the deal offered in the last sentence. I oppose hate crimes laws, and I think that antidiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians are a mistake. We can prevent discrimination simply by convincing people that it is irrational and that it’s a bad economic decision. As recent events have demonstrated, this argument is winning out in corporate America. It’s winning because it makes good economic sense not to discriminate, a fact I have noted in the past. I think, then, that in a free country, my ideas would win out against Mr. Craig’s, and that if faced with the question in a free market, most people will decide that it does not pay to hate homosexuals. Hating homosexuals, by the way, is just what Kevin Craig thinks that we all should do. [...]
well, seems they have outdone themselves on this one! I say lets call a vote and make them take the (t) off their mission statement, as they have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they are not behind the trans community! After vowing in 04 to ditch ENDA without t protection, this latest rewrite of ENDA says it all