(Give instead to organizations that make a difference: Immigration Equality, for example. Disclosure: I was one of its founders.) Why is Human Rights Campaign not condemning Hillary Clinton's recent comment that the question of whether homosexuality is immoral is for "others to conclude"? Why did HRC allow Senator Clinton to skate by for six years without taking a position on the gay immigration bill offered in the Senate by her colleague, Patrick Leahy (D-VT)? I give you one guess. Critics of HRC are not bad for the movement, as Joe Solomnese, HRC's Emperor, has implied is often the case. HRC is bad for the movement, which it has (not alone, I concede) turned into a string of black-tie galas for millionaires.
And here's something I learned today: the Executive Director of HRC earns $250,000 a year, even though he has never led a gay rights organization before, or as far as I can see, ever worked at any level in any gay rights organization. What would they pay him if he had spent his whole life in the movement, say like Matt Foreman, the inspirational leader of the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force (former head of Empire State Pride Agenda and before that the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project). NGLTF doesn't have HRC's massive treasury so I doubt Foreman is paid $250K, but he deserves to be paid handsomely for his stewardship and sacrifice.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
HRC is very nearly the type of organization that would be founded by a group of people wanting to put a roadblock in the way of gay rights.
They have fought against gay marraige and either opposed or ignored every other issue regarding gay rights...oh excuse me, I forgot, they have supported ENDA, and just how has that worked out? Thats right, they haven't been able to get that passed after 10 years of trying. Wow, good thing we have them around to support us.
Immigration Equality is linked to from the HRC's website.
My 2-cents is that, if you want to make a case for "accountability", don't reference Sullivan or Crain - they are compromised.
And bone-up on other facts, too (including exec director pay at other LGBT organizations).
On ENDA, do you realize how much its very, very near passage put the fear into companies all around?
Sometimes you don't have to pass legislation to push along the behavior you want. Large Companies that might have been indifferent may well have taken notice and changed their policies ...
I became disgusted with HRC in the mid 90's when they were raising money holding "Dump Jessie" bowling tournaments around the country. The money raised was supposed to go to defeat Senator Jessie Helms of N.C. In the midst of it all, I found out that most of the money was going for other HRC things, and not to getting rid of Jessie Helms. I didn't consider this very honest behavior for our premier organization.
Thanks for the observation, Lavi.
When you live in a "red" state (as I do) you learn very quickly that even if you have total support from Democrats (which we certainly don't) you MUST make in-roads among Republicans.
For HRC, a little less time and money for questionable "friends" like Clinton and a little more time and funding for courageous officials out in the hinterlands who risk everything to stand on principle.
It is valuable, instructive and underwhelming that HRC links to Immigration Equality. I was at the podium when Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced the "Permanent Partners Immmigration Act" in February 2000 and HRC parachuted into the issue, or should I say, the press conference. I was glad they stood there, I just wish they had been with us from the beginning during our long 7 year effort that culminated on that day. Seven long years of such things as bake sale fundraisers to raise awareness of LGBT/HIV immigration issues. They joined reluctantly, and eventually got with the program. The sad part is that we needed their help because they have overwhelming fundraising power, competing for scarce donor dollars with less "sexy" small organization that can offer no access to celeb-politicians. HRC was right to link to Immigration Equality, and they were right to get on board behind this legislation, but I'd like to know why they have not used their considerable resources to pressure two supposedly liberal Democrat Senators from NY, Clinton and Schumer, to join 12 other Senators to endorse it.
Lavi, I'm intrigued enough to read through the proposed legislation when I have a chance. Outside of HIV issues, the key immigration injustice is part and parcel of not having federal marriage rights (or so it seems to someone like me not familiar with the ins and outs). I'm interested in how the legislation deals with that and what it says about detecting fraud in the process. I mention fraud, but I'm not sure what other criticisms typically come up from those opposed, apart from the standard bigotry.
Why was HRC slow, do you think, in your case? Was it just that they didn't see the merit in it at first? Was it political, in that they had the money and you had the credit, and it was hard to meet in the middle? Did NGLTF ever get involved? Other National Rights groups, including Log Cabins or Stonewall Democrats?
I have no axe to grind - I'm just an interloper on these issues.
Why is it that every comment on criticism of HRC has to include a pointed, nasty personal attack on the person making the criticism?
It wouldn't be because the criticism itself cannot be addressed because it's close to the truth, is it?
Attention HRC apologists: the individuals in question -- despite having disagreements with everyone in the past -- have had a much longer and deeper involvement in the gay community at large than any of the people attacking them (including Solomonese).
The points they make are multi-partisan. Some of them are Republicans, some are Greens, some are Libertarians, some are Democrats, and some are independents.
Your constant attacks on their personal character are just more evidence that their criticisms of what's wrong with HRC and its entire approach are completely, totally correct.
"Why is it that every comment or criticism of HRC has to include a pointed, nasty personal attack on the person making the criticism?"
======
To show that you are fairminded, can you also ask this:
Why does every criticism of the HRC have to start with a personal assualt on its Exec, the "type of people" working there, opinion masquerading as fact (see "roadblocks" above), and a pretense that they want a discussion about way-forward issues, instead of a soapbox, a venting, or a bashing - all of which often seem more common.
Post a Comment