28 November 2007

fallout from ENDA...

As a result of the exclusion of transgender from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), there has been a couple of major resignations over at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) from its pullout in the organization's previous support for an all-inclusive bill.

Donna Rose and Jamison Green have resigned as the only transgender members of the HRC Business Council. Donna had previously resigned from the HRC Board of Directors over its pullout. I believe this now severs all relationships between the organization and her.

Normally, I am not in favor of resignation as a form of protest. Divorcing oneself from a situation prevents working from the inside to make change happen. Also, there is always someone out there waiting to replace you, and usually supporting what management wants.

This time, I think their resignations are the best call for action. There are four sentences in their resignation letter that glare and shout at me:
On November 8, the day after the ENDA vote in the House of Representatives, we requested an opportunity to meet personally with HRC President Joe Solmonese to share our concerns and to discuss HRC's strategy for addressing recent legislative shortcomings before making a decision to stay or go. As the only transgender representatives on the Business Council our community expects us to have some influence, or at least to receive the courtesy of a consultation. Almost 3 weeks have passed since that request and we have heard nothing in response. This lack of response speaks volumes, so we feel compelled to take this stand today.

Speaks volumes is a bit of an understatement. When management has a bunker mentality, it is almost impossible to help change happen. Sometimes it takes a shock treatment or a complete lobotomy to try to force revision and rethinking of an organization's stance. Unfortunately, we take a calculated risk by taking actions like these. We can never be certain it will have an effect until much later.

In this case, I certainly hope it does. It's making a stir at Pam's House Blend and PageONeQ. Two sites that make a difference.

HRC has not been one of my favorite groups for a long time. Personally, I think that they focused too much on the divisive same-sex marriage issue at the expense of broader issues such as ENDA.

I understand that the marriage issue can be considered part of the broader sense of equality, but it has its own aura of emotionality for the wingnuts and others. ENDA is less so, if we are to believe the polls. People seem more willing to accept equality in job and living while not attacking their solemn, most sacred rite of marriage. [If you would like to know my personal view on the marriage issue, check out the NYT OpEd by Stephanie Coontz in this past Monday's issue. People should do whatever they like, and historically marriage in its present form is a fairly new conception.]

As far as meeting the needs of the far wider community, the marriage issue has been a distraction. Now we have further distraction with this latest move on ENDA.

I understand full well that passing a bill in any form was and should be a priority, but a loud and long commitment should have been made by HRC to take steps to make it totally inclusive - with not exceptions, even if it meant in the future.

Silence to the request by Donna and Jamison for a meeting doesn't send a supportive message. It speaks loud words of possible other issues and reflects the dissension that LGB's - at least as HRC - want to keep quiet from the population as a whole. The truth is much more powerful than any agenda.




as a sidebar - couldn't find anything about the resignations on the HRC website. I don't know if that means anything. It's just curious.

1 comment:

Brent said...

Thanks for the info, I always enjoy reading your entries. I too have had issues with the HRC for quite some time now. They need to be a bit more representative of GLTB's