i am one of the people who makes these criticisms (4.00 / 4)

it gave me pause to read your post, because i realised how much of what I believed on the basis of gut instinct i was unable to verify with any concrete examples.

However, it doesn't take long to find concrete examples. the wikiepedia entry, which documents HRC support for a quid pro quo wiht the Bush Administration that would have allowed the privatisation of social security. the inordinate focus on gay-marriage at the expense of other agendas until at least 2004, the plaudits given to tobacco corporation which reinforce my belief that it is a basic fact that they are an enormous well funded organisation with no democratic accountability to any people (which ties into what people have called the 'non-profit industrial complex' (1).  

The point is not that HRC is socially and demographically not diverse or that it does not pay lip service to issues of race, gender, sex, etc. but that by being this and doing that, it helps to entrench a destructive system at the expense of many peopel who are disempowered, including the vast majority of LGBT people, rather than ameliorating it as much as it could let alone helping to redistribute power substantially within it.  They have existed for decades now and have not devoted the resources to movement building that they could have - which makes sense, given the structural aspects that we both agree on.

It is, in essence, like Obama and Hillary Clinton of the Wal-mart board- single issue but center-right, with no prospect for social democracy.  Technocratic multicturalism.  call it what you want.

Maybe you can make the argument that collectiverly these organisations that are enormous, well-funded, and narrow can now make a difference, but for the past several decades, they have misserved us (their nominal constituents) by emphasising political compromise over strategic movement building int he interests of a broad swathe of their nominal coalitions.

In essence, you are denying the role of economics, considerations of priorities, and the overall structure of the organisation and its broader ally base.  The same arguments could be mounted for the Log Cabin Republicans as you have mounted for HRC.  We would all like more diversity - but that's not enough - you have to actually try to get it, and in substantive, smart, strategic, and ethical ways.

And this doesn't even get fully into the debate within queer communities about whether their fundamental aim of promoting marriage equality was essentially reinforcing heteronormativity and thereby the discursive structures that hold down LGBT people for the last 15 years.  Perhaps a bit more rear guard or future oriented action woudl have been good - but it is exactly their social and organisational structure that prevented them from pursuing that.  It would have taken a visionary with dictatorial power to shift them from that path by intention rather than by slow painful change that the rest of us were forced to watch - which is why many lgbtqqtsti people reject the kind of politics and organisational form that HRC represents.

In these years, HRC will serve a useful function, because compromise has become a more useful tool because there is now someone to actually bargain with and a lot of people (including HRC) have made an impact on the ground in legitimising LGBT people as people.  And so it makes sense to reinvent them as benign because now they kind of serve a benign or at least non-counterproductive function.

And you are quite correct that the issues run far deeper than HRC to issues of too much openly tolerated racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, and other matters within the LGBT communtiy.

Who knows - it is quite possible I am wrong - but the answers are not as simple as those posed in the post, methinks.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 14:40:22 PM CDT

The all gay marriage, all the time thing, grated me too. (4.00 / 1)

Also, the hyperfocus on California, to the exclusion of Arizona and Florida last year, even while talking about gay marriage.  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 14:47:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yup (0.00 / 0)

and i think arkansas passed a ban on same-sex couples adopting.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 18:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A lot of this (4.00 / 1)

Is "in the past" criticisms, not present. I would consider race an element of disempowerment. HRC's staff and board is far more racially diverse than when it was founded, as well as more LB and T. Its programming is more racially diverse, like I mentioned in the example above. All of these are ways to empower disempowered elements of the community. I don't agree that HRC hasn't "actually tried" to become more diverse and reach out. To their credit.

Yet people will still go to the HRC dinner and complain that it's RWG, but of course be happy to take HRC's money for their favorite local non-profit or campaign. It will be like that for a long time, and what are they supposed to do about it? A zillion fundraisers a year are $250/plate, too.

I am with you on opening organizations up to accountability and input at a limited level, but I don't get why the same criticism isn't leveled at a zillion progressive organizations, from the environmental lobby to LGBT rights to health care. And the MoveOn model of deconstruction and democracy in action via membership control doesn't work for everyone, nor should it. I am okay with things like HRC following wishes of its members, and think there should be things like polling that MoveOn does, but do not think some ideas put forward like an election of an executive director is a waste of time and resources. Why I think that is a whole separate post, but just like the "HRC has failed at everything" issue, the same is true of lots of other groups, and there's nary the same criticism leveled against them.

On the lack of devoting resources to movement-building, I'm not sure what you mean. Is not doling out literally millions upon millions of dollars to support groups that combat homophobia in the black community, bullying in schools, etc. building infrastructure at the local level? What about HRC's cadre of field organizers who talk to undecided and anti-equality voters? I had one for a roommate who worked on the ground in Indiana and other tough states to build support on hate crimes, even when there was no bill. What about putting resources towards electing more openly gay members of Congress?

On the marriage issue, I'm with you re past support and on the importance of priorities, but I don't buy the whole reinforcing heteronormativity/marriage should NOT be pursued argument. Both from a personal standpoint, and from the standpoint that the percentage of the LGBT community that thinks this, unless you have surveys that show otherwise, is nowhere near a majority. I even have doubts it's significant. And there are also LGBT people who say winning marriage should have resources put towards it, but do not plan to have one- these people are lumped into the category of making heteronormativity arguments, when really they support marriage as a goal. And not every disagreement and debate means a goal shouldn't be worked towards. You can make an argument of priorities of ENDA versus marriage- and in my recollection, HRC post-2003 was not eager to come around on marriage, by the way- but in the present, HRC devotes resources to both marriage and other issues.

I am with you on the political compromise elements, generally.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:25:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Valid points, all (0.00 / 0)

my only rel quibble would be that this is a criticism that is often directed at the environmental movements.  I remember much unpleasntness rightly being directed at EDF and the Sierra Club during the drafting of Waxman-Merkely

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 16:10:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fair enough (4.00 / 1)

a lot of them are, as i mentioned, the past 15 years, and the landscape has changed, and I will take you on your word that HRC has changed to some extent as well.  

That aside, I think there are a few basic points on which HRC as a symbol tends to polarise and which are more important than the specifics of HRC in particular as a single organisation:

1) the model of top down, high fundraising, well funded organisations whose leadership and decisionmaking is remarkably homegeneous within the particular out-group, doling out money.  This is directly counter to a model I prefer in doing work, which is a membership driven model where money is reduced though not eliminated as a factor - e.g. a trade union.  This ties into questions about organisational ethos and what the purpose of these organisations is and how it ties into the question of what social justice organisations ought to do and why.  

Both models have problems and strengths and there are others and there are historical and cultural and structural realities which make wishing for one rather than another no more than wishful thinking.  In other words, there's a lot to the world that influenced the way that HRC developed aside from what people at HRC wanted or decided.  However, it is still, in my opinion, a valid criticism because they did have some agency and still do.  

The criticism is not solely directed at HRC, but in the environmental movement as pointed out above, in the immigration movement, in the women's rights movement, and nearly every other movement.  It is particularly relevant right now because we have a model in which leadership says it represents 'change' on particular identity grounds, but in political choices and underlying beliefs is stabilising or moderately progressive for select groups at best, and its concrete actions are enormously damaging to a lot of people (from HRC's support of the Bush privatisation of social security to Obama's war in Afghanistan (which presumably they also tacitly support)).

The social justice industry in the united states is an industry, and it is privatised.  Think about the implications of an organisation that has moderate politics (at best) concentrating enormous amounts of funding and minimal accountability measures in terms of tactics, strategies, aims, and demographics to which it's accountable.  That's the antithesis of democracy.  It is far too much about concentrations of power and money and far too little about inclusion and democratic voices.

2) The separation of LGBT rights from sexual liberation rights is damaging.  Perhaps it is inevitable, but there was a time when these two things were more strongly linked.  The vandalism that occurred was not, as you argued above, because of diversity in the demographic sense, but because the promotion of marriage is antithetical to the notions of sexuality that fall under queerness.  It is not problematic to not be queer and be LGBT - but when same-sex politics is reduced to the immigration equivalent of assimilation and that politics enjoys given enormous political and economic, you should expect backlash.  It is making people invisible who are or were within your community.  If many LGBT people today will sign up for same-sex marriage as THE fight, that may to some extent be the product of a self-fulfilling prophecy of this type of poltiics and organisation of power; even if it is not, questions remain as to its ethics and promoting the appreciation for individual difference (what should be the core of LGBT social justice work, imo).  

In contrast, for example, I have marched with LGBT protesters alongside sex workers under a banner of sexual minority rights in a different contexxt and in a different place.  can you imagine such a thing being spearheaded from HRC?  Why not?

3) In criticising criticisms of the (admittedly evolving) HRC model of work over time, you have to appreciate that it has had effects on people in practical terms as well as in the bad feelings it fostered and so simply telling people they're barking up the wrong tree is not enough - some of us want recognition that mistakes were made and more work remains to be done - otherwise their work (not your post) can't be taken in good faith.  

Further, if HRC is more diverse today than it has been in the past, that is to the credit of HRC, but I would argue it is substantively the product of the criticism that HRC and the LGBT communtiy as a whole has faced, which raises questions about how minimising the past or present harm of these criticisms would help in movement building or help HRC.  These criticisms could be appreciated, even when they're difficult to hear, with the proviso that everyone has a right to be treated like a human being, including RWGs.  But that's about how you speak to people and not resorting to bullying- not about relative levels of power and structural discrimination in many many fields against most LGBT people on non sexuality grounds.

4) Progress has been made?  Fair enough.  But in moving forward, what direction would you like to see HRC go in?  What direction would you like to see NOW go in?  EDF?  moderate democratic politicians?  How will they get there?

Even if they are LGBT friendly, I want them to pay attention more and more to race, class, gender, different inclinations of sexuality, and ideological diversity.  And where we differ, I believe, is in the idea that this can happen withotu substantive distribution of power and the incorporation of an ethos that is broader rather than narrower in terms of its conception of social justice.  Some of the grotesque stratgic choices that were made (fights for court-based marriage legalisation without sufficient broader cultural mobilisation and respect for diversity) are in my opinion a direct outgrowth of the flawed organising model that is in the past but has implications for the present.  as raised above, was ALL that money spent in California really worth it?  What if a small portion of it had been shunted to, say, solidarity efforts with LGBT groups in Arkansas, Nepal, and in other places.  What if more than a small portion of it had been.  What if poor LGBT people had an equal voice in the agenda of the LGBT movement as wealthy LGBT people.  What if people outsidet he United States had an equal voice as LGBT people in the United States?  You see examples of what can at best be described as failures - in very recent history - all over the place, from the grotesque (blackface) to the well intentioned but extraordinarily counterproductive ('solidarity' boycott with jamaican LGBT activists).

You are right that perhaps HRC has been singled out, but then, if an organisation claims to be THE representative of a movement, but doesn't give the people it claims to represent enouhg of a say, then what else are you going to get?  Is it really unfair, given how much power they have concentrated within the subspace of LGBT people, as you yourself describe?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 19:14:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HRC *doesn't* do anything (0.00 / 0)

The problem with your defense of HRC is that you accept the premise that what the gay rights movement needs is a DC lobbying operation, or rather, that that is all it needs.  For years, HRC has sucked money out of the gay community to build that beautiful building and fun its bloated DC staff. And in all the time they were doing this, what was happening in the country?  We were getting our asses kicked in the states in legislation, ballot measures, you name it.

No, I do not believe it is a zero-sum game.  Unfortunately, HRC does.  I'll never forget when Urvashi Vaid retired from the NGLTF and the Washington Blade ran a story that quoted the then head of the HRC as saying that Vaid was great and all but she was just wrong about saying that the fight for gay rights was happening in the states (I'm paraphrasing from memory, can't find the article online). And that's what they've done -- they've made it a zero sum game, drained all financial resources to that damned building, and we have little to show for it in return.  

So, when you look at everything that the LGBT community has lost in the years of HRC's existence, and look at where those losses have occurred (largely in the states), the fact that the organization has focused all of its attention on the Beltway cocktail party circuit and not on grassroots organizing -- then I think it is fair to say they haven't done anything.

Anyone who cricitizes them now for being more interested in being received in the corridors of power than in making concrete gains just hasn't been paying attention.  

---

by: ozium @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:02:01 PM CDT

Please (0.00 / 0)

Non-profits don't fund themselves. Particularly in this economy. Nor do political campaigns. HRC has dumped millions upon millions into groups that help gay youth who have been thrown out of their homes, groups that combat homophobia, combat bullying in schools, support HIV/AIDS support and research, and more. They also put money and field support into the 2005 Maine anti-discrimination initiative, which we won, and countless other initiatives at the state and local level. Their field director, Marty, worked on the ground in New Hampshire for marriage and lots of other states. They've done e-mail alerts asking people to call legislators on bills that have become law around the country. Obama is going to sign a federal inclusive hate crimes bill in the next week or two. But you, like too many people, see a lack of progress at the federal level, so complain about dinners and  buildings and scream that nothing has been accomplished. It's false.

And in terms of what we've lost, it's not like HRC is the only player on our battlefield. And it's not like they're solely responsible for an anti-LGBT Congress for years and the Reagan/Bush/Bush II years. We are all accountable. But time and time again, they are the only organization that people spew vitriol at like no other organization I've ever seen. If you want to make a specific argument where they pursued a wrong strategy, make one. Otherwise, stop pretending like they've  been handed hundreds of millions and a pro-LGBT Congress and President and managed to fumble the ball and drunkely spent all their money on a building. It's false.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:52:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

non-profits CAN fund themselves! (0.00 / 0)

that's what a membership based organisation is.

But you're missing this point - you propose it as a fact on the ground that HRC (by which we can take to mean HRC's donors and other funderS) has a lot of funding to give and there are a lot of NGOs and other efforts that need it.  This is a situation that evolved.  It is not solely HRC's doing, but they certainly had a role in it, no?  

And looking forward, what is their long game to redress this?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 19:24:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reality (0.00 / 0)

I think you're imagining a world far from where it will be. There isn't going to be a revolution anytime soon for non-big moneyed and all-democratic social justice organizations. Nor one to abolish marriage entirely as an institution in the valiant name of anti-heteronormativity. Nor one where tiny non-profits that help gay kids kicked out of their home are, um, membership-based. Show me the theory of change that gets us to all that, and I will take what you and janinsanfran say seriously.

Until then, HRC does dump millions of dollars, staff, and other support to non-profits, campaigns, movement-building, and other activities, and people make invalid race-based and class-based criticisms of them based on their demographic makeup. I think a number of your criticisms are valid to an extent, but your arguments are too meta-hope and not grounded in what will happen realistically, in my view.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 21:35:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

dude trade unions actually exist (0.00 / 0)

they take membership fees from people and pay for things.  And now own banks and enough stakes to actually use shareholder meetings to call corporations to account.  I work for one (not UNITE HERE and not in the US) on LGBT issues, among others - it's world's better than when I worked in NGOs in the United States in terms of access to funding, fairness in who gets funded for what.  It has its weaknesses too, but overall, it's a much better situation than what I dealt with working for small NGOs begging funders and foundations for money or holding corporate dinners and thereby diluting their own politics.

I would argue it's a better model than what HRC does because it forces a balancing of interests within the Union's politics rather than within the politics of an organisation chasing money.  In addition to labour unions, other membership based organisations exist as well, and not all of them are tiny (e.g. ACORN, which I also have my criticisms of totally unrelated to the controversies int he public).

That doesn't mean that low subscription fees are their only funding source, but it's A funding source which provides some measure of accountability.  For services, government funding is another option, and that is more likely, and the preferred solution of many.  This is particularly the case for social services which are fundamentally the responsibility of the government if it is worth a damn- we shouldn't need NGOs to take in kids kicked out of their home, this should be paid for by state, local, or national government - rather than paying for the expansion of jails.

so the first argument in any change theory is - don't dismiss the possibility of social change - just specify whether it's short term, medium term, or long term in assessing its likelihood (e.g. consider 'Black president' as an aim in 1860 or 'same sex marriage in Maine' as an aim in 1930).  Then understand that your actions on each of these time frames affect each other.  If you dismiss long term aims in the name of short term impossibility, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy and what it does is circumscribe the range of possibilities.  So you need to find a way to deal with the short term while not support to the best you can solutions in the medium term that still leave the space for the solutions int he long term you want (this is how i approach the robust public option question - it's not my preferredc solution on capitalist or democratic grounds, but it can expand and establish important changes politically socially and culturally in the medium term if done right and in the long run can evolve into something different (e.g. 30 years? maybe less)

I am still figuring all this out, but what I would say is that absent enough fo the kinds of institutions I am discussing above and the historical evidence of social movements in the United States (See Piven and Cloward or Lisa Duggan or others) and their relationship to organisations, what I have come to is this:

Large well funded organisations at the geogrpahic, economic, cultural, racial, gender, heteronormative or in other ways centers of power who are claiming to advocate for social justice need to be held to account and forced to the extent possible to promote projects that redistribute power and build power (not just provide services) on a local and middle level.  For example, a shifting away from a national marriage campaign through court battles towards state based democratic referenda is a positive step - kudos.  The more they focus on cultural change and social power building of individuals and small groups that can become large groups and promote an ethos of social justice rather than single issue organising, the more they will be contributing to a social justice movement.  

Secondly, they need to address these issues in house.  You've argued they have, but to what extent?  Is their auditing going on in terms of class, race, gender, sex etc. for events and on an ongoing basis?  what is the relationship in terms of power from the national level to the local and state and individual levels?  How are policies formed?  And when these audits are conducted, if they are conducted, how are the decisions taken (the action ones, not just the lip service ones) on how to implement them.  Are the strategic planning documents made transparent?  Are membership even allowed to see them?

This is why even as small a step as having an elected executive director may not be relevant or may - but on the surface, it shoulds like a small improvement.  These steps would help move the organisation in its being rather than in its statements and drips and drabs of funding towards increased funding.

On the question of heternormativity, I'll refer you to the No Outsiders project, which paired up highly abstract researchers with teachers in primary schools to teach children about different kinds of families, about how to think about gender, and in other ways - not as a form of indoctrination, but as a form of education.  And the children were the ones that surprised everyone, the teachers received an enormous benefit, and it showed how arguments that have elaborate or highly abstract critiques can be be utilised to develop effective solutions on the ground - that practical and radical are not mutually exclusive.  please note who the funders were ;)

This is not the only model to do it, but it's simply to state that it is possible - that it is not pie in the sky, and that it has ramifications FAR beyond same-sex issues (e.g. gender stereotyping and eventual profession, pay gaps between men and women, etc. appeal to libertarians and pulling them away from their literal constitutionalist reading of politics, recognising and providing support for people of all different family and other types of arrangements).  As opposed to enormous campaigns that don't focus on changing ordinary people's minds but changing the minds of the most powerful people so that they'll pass a particular piece of legislation that in some cases may have few additional economic benefits over decades with little results except negative ones (like helping Bush get reelected in a fairly close election in 2004).

Finally, I appreciate that you believe that many of my criticisms are valid.  How many others do who are allied with HRC?  What will they do?  In what ways will they advocate for these groups that are still largely excluded from power and voice within the LGBT movemt (again, the vast majority of LGBT people in the world)  in other words, what will be done, and what do you need those of us who are critics to do to make your jobs easier?

In solidarity,
Dr A

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 07:14:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The myths you debunk ... (4.00 / 2)

are stand-ins for the real objection: HRC works to enable gay people to be nice compliant non-transgressive normal Americans. Some of us (lots actually) want to change American normalcy -- not to mention the entire category of gender.

The progressive things any prosperous lobbying outfit does are the things without which it couldn't claim a constituency. The individuals involved are often perfectly nice people. But some of us want to change the world, not integrate with it as it is.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:23:35 PM CDT

If HRC does (0.00 / 0)

Then almost every LGBT organization under the sun does, too.

And this doesn't get at why it's ok to use a RWG argument to trash a organization that funds a lot of worthy causes with RWG money. For all the "change" and anti-heteronormativity and anti-normalcy you support, I assume you still support dollars going to combating homophobia in the black community, bullying in schools, discrimination in the workplace, etc. So what specifically would you like them and almost every other organization to stop doing? And what is your theory of change for getting there while everyone else in Gayopolis still lacks basic rights?

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:35:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep some of that money out of DC (4.00 / 1)

Learn to battle effectively where we're getting killed.  I had a glimpse of hope back in 06 when they brought on Marty Kaplan to run a national field program. I hoped it was the start of the organization investing in state infrastructure, but alas, they went right back to the lovely black-tie dinners with washed-up actors accepting "visibility" awards, fabulous silent auctions, etc.  They do put on a good party.  Too bad a party just isn't a movement.

---

by: ozium @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:40:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm a bit of an NGLTF partisan (4.00 / 1)

They run one hell of a shindig for activists (mostly on scholarship) at Creating Change annually -- outside DC. The stuff they push bubbles up. They aren't perfect, but it is a different and far more challenging model for activism. HRC is just a mimicry of every other lobbying outfit. They do some (even lots) of good stuff -- but without the outsiders banging away on them, they'd have quiet, comfortable sinecures. They have a trust problem.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 18:40:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again (0.00 / 0)

What specifically would you like HRC to stop doing, assuming you support their financial sponsorship of good causes and non-profits? And what is your theory of change for getting to this non-heteronormative world?

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:08:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no surpise to anyone here (0.00 / 0)

but no, the HRC doesn't satisfy me. joe just put his foot in his mouth again recently and had to issue a 'clarification' when the backlash got to be too embarrassing, reminding me why my money goes to Lambda Legal and not the HRC these days. i'm sorry, but for the money they have, i believe they could be getting a lot more done. seems to me what they're best at is hosting posh Village parties and promoting the people who work for them in the Beltway lobbying universe.

and to quibble: citing pam twice and one other blog isn't a good way to demonstrate the "many" in the LGBT community who think the HRC has diversity problems. i am one of those people, and if i haven't been blogging a lot lately and can't provide a recent example of when i've made this complaint, i'm pretty sure with some effort i could find plenty of others who have.  

---

by: chicago dyke @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 05:57:13 AM CDT