From: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 19:43:57 -0500 Subject: Credibility, Verification and Alleged KFC Discrimination I have made numerous attempts yet have been unable to find any confirmation with regards to the story which alleges that KFC practices discrimination against gay employees. I have asked the NGLTF on two occassion to respond with any confirmation that they may have and they have thus far failed to respond. This bothers me greatly for many reasons. The story of alleged discrimination doesn't seem to appear in any mainstream newspapers or gay periodicals such as The Advocate. How does such an occurence of supposedly blatant anti-gay discrimination avoid the attention of the news media? Tracing the story to it's source, it would seem that it first appeared recently in a UseNet group posted by a private party as being a story that he heard "from a friend". I don't feel that postings of that nature qualify as being particularly credible. I am severly bothered by certain suspicious factors surrounding the story as follows: 1) The alleged event is said to have happened over three years ago yet we are just know hearing of this story. That is quite a delay and makes one wonder why no one stepped forward publically or to the media prior to this time. 2) It is said that this incident is the root cause for a civil action that has been filed against KFC, however: a) Being more than three years since the incident, it would be past the statute of limitations for filing such an action. b) KFC seems to be unaware of any legal action with regards to this matter. c) KFC is answering all queries through their consumer relations department rather than their legal department contrary to standard corporate operating procedures in the event of litigation and lawsuits. 3) I have been informed that at the supposed time of the incident, KFC wasn't even owned and operated by the current management (Pepsico). 4) We have yet to hear any name or statement made by the alleged homosexual who was dismissed. 5) Pepsico has a published nationwide policy of disallowing discrimination based on sexual orientation and most large companies vigorously enforce matters of discrimination or the appearance thereof if for no other reason than the public relations nightmare that it causes and the high cost of legal litigation arising from such incidents. This story was provided with no credible verification of the alleged facts and even worse seems to have all the key elements found so commonly among "urban legends" of this nature. Anyone who can remember the VERY persisten rumours regarding Proctor & Gamble being founded by Satan worshippers or the famous "needle in the Coke/Pepsi can" incidents would be very wary of accepting this story as fact with no verification. If the NGLTF has verification of this incident, why don't they provide this information along with their alert for the sake of credibility? The lack of this information leads me to believe that they simply acted upon an unverifed rumour. This troubles me greatly. In the recent past, the NGLTF has acted upon rumours of anti-gay discrimination by Kraft Foods, Inc. only to discover AFTER releasing an "action alert" that the incident was a hoax and that Kraft Foods has an anti-discrimination policy and requires it's new employees to attend a workshop on diversity in the workplace. (This failure to verify the facts beforehand may have cost Kraft Foods thousands of dollars via the Public Relations necessary to refute the rumours.) NGLTF also jumped on the "boycott Florida orange juice" cause after it was reported that the anti-gay Rush Limbaugh was elected their national spokesperson. Those Rush's apointment was initially reported in Time Magazine, it was quickly pointed out by both Rush Limbaugh and the Florida Orange Juice Commission that they had not, in fact, hired Rush Limbaugh as their spokesperson. Issuing "action alerts" and calling for boycotts or letter writing/phone campaigns prior to verifying the facts can cause a significant loss of credibilty to our action groups. Who is going to place much weight in the claims of any group that persists in yelling wolf before checking to see if there is in reality a predator to defend against in the first place? I believe that issuing an alert prior to receiving verification is highly negligent and irresponsible for that reason. A prudent rule to follow in such matters would be rules number one, two, and three of journalism which are simply: Verify your facts and sources, re-verify your facts and sources, and upon finishing that check them again. Credibility can be a very valuable tool by groups such as the NGLTF but actions that damage one's credibility can be an equally powerful liability. I am not saying that the KFC did NOT, in fact, occurr as reported but I AM saying that verifying the claim should take precedence over any other actions (especially when the story is suspect from the start). I am hoping that NGLTF will use reasonable judgement in similiar situations in the future to guard their most precious instrument known as credibility. Based on the responses from KFC, it appears entirely possible that they are innocent of any wrong-doing. Further, they appear to have VOLUNTARILY placed sexual orientation as a protected status on the employment policies even though no gay activist groups prompted them to do so and the laws do not require it. They may very well be allies of the gay and lesbian community and it is hardly wise to risk turning on them without verifiable and just cause. Lastly, I would like to make it clear that I am not against the NGLTF and recognize that their efforts on behalf of the gay and lesbian community have resolved numerous injustices and have netted us many victories. Rather, it is because I support the NGLTF and value their potential that I would like to ensure that our resources regarding the NGLTF are used to our best advantage and that the NGLTF maintains a position as a credible and powerful tool in the overall struggle for equal rights to gays and lesbians in every facet of life. I appreciate your taking the time to consider my opinions and would eagerly await any response from the NGLTF with regards to verification of the incident in question and/or justification for the actions outlined in their "action alert". Sincerely, Bryan Foster P.S.: If we DO take action against KFC should we find valid justification, can we add a clause about bringing back their BBQ style chicken? I always thought it a real crime that they dropped that from their menus.