Subject: Credibility, Verification and Alleged KFC Discrimination
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 19:43:57 -0500

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.