From: healthy123@aol.com (Healthy123)
Subject: Urvashi Vaid-Eating Our Own
Date: 28 Dec 1995 03:58:44 -0500

An Open Letter to Urvashi Vaid from Derek Charles Livingston, co-chair of
the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and
Liberation.

December 1995

Dear Urvashi:

I have been avoiding reading your new book, Virtual Equality because of my
ill feelings toward you based on your participation in Larry Kramer
speaking at the 1993 March on Washington.  I considered writing you a
private letter to learn first-hand your motivation ( since you and I had
spoken about it.)  Before I could write, a friend, reading your book,
telephoned to warn me about a section in which you criticize the gay and
lesbian community for not recognizing and honoring our leaders. You cite
as an example of disrespect the March on Washington organizers not
inviting Larry to speak at the afternoon rally.

I find it odd, even ironic, that you chose this example given Larry's
public, vitriolic, and at times cruel, "trashing" of our community's
leadership (including you.)  I also noted that you credit Larry's access
to a microphone that day to three other people; in Larry's accounts of
that day (which I've seen printed in two places) he ha listed you as being
on of the four co-conspirators.  Having yet to read a refutation of your
participation (and based on a telephone conversation you and I had
preceding the March), I've always believed, and continue to believe, that
you were just as involved as the others named.

Given your participation in ignoring and circumventing the decision of the
March's leaders, and the work of grassroots organizers across the country.
 I find it even more ironic that you accuse us of disrespecting
leadership.  Your actions would have served as a much more egregious
example.

I'll explain further.  But first allow me to provide you information on
the selection process and a series of decisions, as well as recount
conversations I had with Larry, then I'll remind you of a conversation you
and I had.  These calls occurred in the two weeks preceding the 1993 March
on Washington.

The Speaker's Selection Sub-Committee (which I chaired) put out a call
nationally for nominations for speakers for the rallies.  We received well
over a hundred suggestions.  Before considering any speaker, we made a
commitment to having a mix of national names, grassroots activists,
straight allies, women and men, people of all races, and individuals whose
work is/was in important areas including HIV, health care, disabilities,
family issues, the threat of the far right, the military ban, etc.  No one
nominated to be a speaker, or subsequently selected, as you write in
Virtual Equality, was asked her/his opinion on the March on Washington
platform.  At the end of this process, Larry and dozens of other leaders
were not on our final list of speakers.
I admit, embarrassingly now, that I had been a proponent of Larry's
speaking at some point during the process.  Mostly as a concession to my
advocacy of Larry's speaking, we offered him a position as Banner Carrier,
making him part of the contingent of people who would lead the March.  We
regarded it, and still do, as an honored position.  

When I called Larry to invite him to be a banner carrier, he asked me
about the opportunity to speak.  I told him that he was not on our list. 
When, at his request, I read him the list, he trashed most of the people
on it, including you Torie, Robin and Kate -- the very people whom he
would later credit with putting him on stage.

I shared that I had a lot of respect for his work, informing him that I
had selected "The Normal Heart" to direct as my senior show when
completing my Theatre Degree in college (this is how he "found out", as he
phrases it in his updated version of Reports form the Holocaust, that one
of the organizers had directed his play at Brown University.)  he informed
me of a reading of the play (with an introduction by Barbra Streisand) to
be held the Sunday before the March in New York and offered me tickets.  I
told him, despite the ticket offer and my own admiration of his work, I
supported the committee's decision.  A decision I supported then and still
support today.

He asked to be reconsidered as a speaker, I informed him that I would talk
to some of the other committee members.  he then chided me derisively, as
is Larry's style, about using my position as a march co-chair to spring
board to being part of the "gay establishment."  I laughed and said that I
would be returning to my anonymous life as an AIDS educator with plans to
apply to film school within the year.  Again, consistent with Larry's
style, he half-jokingly and half-seriously, accused me of being part of
the "AIDs industry".  I assured him that I did not make enough money to
part of any industry.  As well as this chiding, he stated that he had
helped someone get into NYU Film School and he would be glad to help me. 
I laughed at his offer and told him I would get back to him about
speaking.

I actually did talk to a few people about Larry's request (and joked about
my going to film school with Larry's help).  We still agreed that any
consideration of additional speakers at this point would violate the
process.  I called Larry to inform him that we were sticking to our
original line-up.  When he pressed for a reason for his "exclusion" (his
word), I told him about our process for selecting speakers, I also told
him that I was concerned about what he would say given his history  of
devaluing others' work.  He assured me that his speech would be one of
eloquence, "my 'I Have A Dream' speech" he said.  The answer remained no.

"I'm angry and disappointed," he told me.  "You've been angry at lots of
people, Larry," was my reply.  (To his credit, he reaffirmed his offer of
the theatre tickets.  I declined them).  He begrudgingly accepted the
Banner Carrier offer and hung up.

A few days after my last conversation with Larry, you called me, Urvashi. 
As I recall, our conversation's tone was cordial, polite and respectful. 
Larry, you said, had called you to ask you to advocate on his behalf.  I
told you the committees response, the reasons, and that we had already
reconsidered.  I also stated that I was concerned because he had proved
himself to be a loose cannon, had a history of making cruel, derogatory
remarks against other gays and lesbians, and had written that he believed
the time spent on diversifying our movement and our organizations is
wasteful and counter-productive.  You said that you recognized my issues,
but that "he's done a lot, and, let's face it, he's gonna die soon."  Yes,
you said that, I'll never forget it.  At the end of our conversation, you
remarked in a voice, that I would only later realize was mock-sincerity,
that you understood and that you were only delivering on a promise to
Larry.  Thus ended the last conversation we have had.

A few days later, Torie executed the plan the five of you devised: at the
end of her speech, she introduced Larry who was waiting in the wings.  He
had been aided onto the stage with the help of MC Kate Clinton and
afternoon rally co-producer, Robin Tyler.  Tyler not only failed to inform
her co-producer of the plot but also arranged to have volunteers
physically restrain anyone attempting to foil the plan.  In fact, our
stage manager was physically injured while being restrained.

When Larry spoke, did he was eloquent, as he swore he would?  No. Rather,
in tones venomous and strident, he called the President "a welsher" and
referred to Donna Shalala as a "damned lesbian" (perhaps it is Larry
Kramer whom Senator Jesse helms quoted later during the confirmation
hearings for Roberta Achtenberg).  Larry's juvenile name calling only
served to make him appear to be a madman.  Furthermore, Larry's use of
"lesbian" as a pejorative term and queer baiting Shalala only reflects how
asinine his rantings can be.  (Later when I ranted at Torie Osborn for her
participation she responded by saying "but that's not what he told me he
was going to say.")  Some of us however, knew better than to expect more
from Larry.

I agree that it was appropriate that you cite the March on Washington's
organizers in your section on leadership.  But leadership belongs to those
who do the work and represent our quest for true equality, and not virtual
equality (thank you for noting the difference), with diligence, respect,
and uncompromising integrity.  One does not have to have instant name
recognition to be a leader or to be respected for one's work.

When I think about leadership and the March on Washington, I count myself
luck, nay, privileged to have served as national co-chair of this event
with Billy Hileman, Nadine Smith and Scout.  Let me tell you about some of
the decisions we (and other Executive Committee members) made, and how we
made them because I think they demonstrate true leadership.

* When I began working on the March in 1991, there was less that $200 in
the bank.  The March finished in the black two years later after raising
$1.5 million.

*We co-chairs purposely took less public roles for ourselves, even when
our professional media advisors were pressing us to be in front more.  We
pushed the angle that the march was made of people from across the
country.

*We took less time collectively as speakers at the March than was given to
most individual speakers.  Again our media advisors urged us to be more
visible.  We argued that, when the March was over, people like Tim
McFeeley, Torie Osborn, Phil Wilson, and yes Urvashi Vaid, needed to have
been recognized for their words.

*Even though we carefully, and purposefully, did not position ourselves to
be in the media spotlight, we did not take the public responsibility of
our roles as co-chairs lightly.  In fact, the four of us sat down together
to honestly and critically assess each others strengths and weaknesses as
spokespeople, offering pointers for improvement.  We did this in the
interest of our community and in the interest of the March.

I could continue with many, many more examples.

When I think of Marla Stevens, Michelle Crone, Pat Hussain, Barbara
Dinnerstien, and Jaime Rodriguez (all Executive Committee members) leaving
their homes and their partners for months to live Washington, DC without
pay; or Billy Hileman taking a year leave of absence (without pay) from
his job to live in Washington; or Scout leaving her well-paying job and
new house in Chicago; or the odd jobs Nadine Smith worked so she could
concentrate on the march and still pay her mortgage, I am hurt.  Your
actions on April 25, 1993 and the words in your book denigrate their
sacrifices.

However, despite you Torie, Robin, Kate and Larry, I know that the March
had an impact.  For activist like  us, the 1993 March may not have been as
life altering as the 1987 March, but I know the sacrifices of my fellow
organizers did not go in vain.  I know this because in the last two years
I have heard what impact April 25 had o people:  countless individuals
have told me that they came out of the closet, others have said that they
got involved with their local organizations, I've had several people of
color thank me for making sure that we were represented on the march's
stage, and a former roommate decided to get sober.

In addition to these personal stories, I look at the explosion of activism
in our local communities and I know that my co-organizers' work had an
impact.  In the months after the March activists in Rhode island disrupted
the legislature for five hours.  The protest there began b y shouting
"Equal Rights" "Simple Justice" across the chamber; these rallying cries
were lifted directly form the March's title and slogan ("A Simple Matter
of Justice").  Currently, students at Duke University are protesting their
chapel's policy forbidding same gender commitment ceremonies.  They have
adopted "A Simple Matter of Justice" as their slogan; they credit the
March.  Some of these students were still in high school at the time of
the March.

Your actions and words cannot take any of that away.

Although my pride in working on the 1993 March remains strong because of
the impact it had on others, I cannot help but feel hurt by you.  I did
not know much about Torie before the March, I only knew Kate's work as a
comic, i  had learned to be suspicious of Robin, and, with the rest of the
community, I had watched Larry do anything for attention.  You, on the
other hand, were someone I admired.  In a few personal conversations with
you and through reading your work and learning of your leadership at the
Task Force, I had come to admire your gutsy and unapologetic leadership
style.  I was a student of your philosophy that we can have a movement
built on diversity and progressive principles without endangering our
achievements (indeed, I believe that this ideology pervaded the March on
Washington's organizing).  I had even developed a personal policy of not
publicly denouncing other gay and lesbian activist because of a wonderful
article you penned called "Eating Our Own."  While I remain committed to
these philosophies, sadly, I have lost a great deal of (but not all)
respect for my teacher.

My fellow co-chairs are still working hard within the movement.  Billy has
started a fine newspaper in Pittsburgh, Nadine heads the Human Rights Task
Force in Florida, and Scout is raising money for gay and lesbian
organizations in D.C. I headed a gay and lesbian P.A.C. in North Carolina
briefly, but have decided, for now, to leave gay, lesbian and bi
organizing for a world that is more nurturing and less cut-throat and
cannibalistic.  I am building a career in theatre and film.

Despite my course change, I will remain a proud gay man who will always be
supportive of our community and our leaders.  But I will also remember:
Urvashi, too eats.

Sincerely,

Derek Charles Livingston