From: HRTF FL Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:28:40 EST Subject: Growing Criticism of proposed 2000 March Publications and lists have full permission to reprint and/or forward this article. (Billy Hileman is a Pittsburg based activist and was one of four national co- chair for the 1993 March on Washington) Barney Frank calls marches a `diversion' HRC's `Millennium March' Plans Move Forward in the Face of Growing Criticism by Billy Hileman Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has added his name to a growing list of gay and lesbian leaders who do not believe that the proposed `Millennium March' on Washington will do anything for the community politically. Frank told Planet Q in a phone interview on March 30th that `marches are a diversion' of community resources and `have no success politically.' Frank also said that if people in the community want change, they need to get back to basic political organizing such as doing voter registration. `We are ahead culturally compared to where we are politically,' explained Frank. He called marches `celebratory.' `The Promise Keepers held a big march and then laid off their staff. The Christian Coalition doesn't march, the NRA doesn't march' and they are very effective politically says Frank. The proposed `Millennium March' was first pitched by comedian Robin Tyler to the leadership of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) at the Creating Change Conference in San Diego last November. Tyler, who produces women's' music festivals was involved with producing the rally for the 1979 and 1987 Lesbian and Gay marches. She also was responsible for some of the rally production for the 1993 March on Washington (MOW). NGLTF rejected Tyler's proposal for an event in Washington for the spring of 2000 citing the need to focus on the already proposed 50 state marches. Tyler took her `Millennium March' scheme, to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), who are now the lead organizers for the event. Tyler's plan " which isn't really a march " is a large rally to be staged on the Washington Mall and produced by Robin Tyler, the Executive Director of the `Millennium March.' On February 3rd, HRC released a press statement that announced the `Millennium March' for the year 2000. But the news of a fourth national civil rights event for the queer community was not embraced as wholeheartedly as HRC's executive director Elizabeth Birch and UFMCC's moderator Troy Perry would have liked. Less than two weeks after the announcement, criticism of the proposal and the process had put the rally on hold. But several weeks later Birch and Perry announced that they were moving forward with the rally plans. Moving forward with the rally did not slow the growing call for grassroots input to the process of organizing a national civil rights event. In a letter signed by several organizers of the past three national marches, the lack of democracy and inclusion in the decision making process was sharply criticized. Signers of the letter included `79 and `87 MOW co-chair Steve Ault, `87 MOW co-chair Kay Ostberg, `87 and `93 MOW organizer Mandy Carter, `93 organizer Jason Hefner, and others. In the letter, the millennium rally organizers were criticized for ignoring the `the integrity of the process which was developed for the previous marches.' which mandated inclusion and representation from the many constituencies of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) communities. In a separate letter published in several gay newspapers across the country, the executive directors of 5 major lesbian and gay organizations (G&L Alliance Against Defamation, G&L Victory Fund, LA Gay and Lesbian Center, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership Forum) questioned the political strategy driving the millennium rally. The authors questioned the timing of the rally, suggesting an event might make more sense after the 2000 national elections. `In 2000, we have the opportunity to reshape the political face of America by electing both national and local candidates supportive of our civil rights. How are our financial resources best allocated? Perhaps our money needs to stay in the trenches where we can focus efforts on fighting local and state ballot initiatives and electing supportive candidates,' wrote the executive directors. Planet Q tried several times to reach HRC executive director Elizabeth Birch, but she did not return phone calls, even after her assistant said Planet Q was on her `call-back list.' In a March 20th Washington Blade article Birch is quoted as calling the 1993 MOW a `strategic political disaster.' She explained that the gay community's political leverage is greater before an election. Nadine Smith, co-chair of the 1993 MOW and current executive director of the Human Rights Task Force of Florida told Planet Q that idea didn't make any sense. `Candidates don't have political capital,' Smith said, `elected officials do.' And electing gay friendly officials is the meaningful work according to Barney Frank. Frank is now working on building and strengthening a national network of gay and lesbian Democratic Clubs. He says the real opportunity for the year 2000 is the election of a democratic president that has the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), domestic partnership benefits, and protection for lesbians and gays in the military as high priorities. `We need to focus on what we can lock in " a democratic president that will not only support ENDA, but will work for it.' Frank says that for the first time gays and lesbians have the opportunity to play the influential role in the Democratic party that other constituencies like African Americans and environmentalist have. `Marches were effective in the 50's and 60's when African Americans were physically not allowed to vote,' said Frank. He explained that it was the violent behavior of white racists that made marches effective. `People's blood mobilized the rest of the nation.' But, these are different times and the reasons to `march' have changed. With HRC's goal of 1 million members by the year 2000, Birch and Perry move forward, calling criticism of their rally a `mud fight.' But, whether they like it not, the national debate on a millennium event is likely to continue. ============================================================ From: HRTF FL Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:27:38 EST Subject: Stop the March Madness (Publications and lists have full permission to reprint and/or forward this article) Nadine Smith served as one of four national co-chairs for the 1993 March on Washington. She is currently Executive Director for the Human Rights Task Force of Florida and lobbys the state legislature on behalf of17 Florida-based L/G/B/T and allied organizations working to end discrimination. _____________________________________________________ Stop the March Madness An Open Letter to the Community by Nadine Smith I've spent a great deal of time pondering the recent turn of events that now has us grappling with what to do about the proposed Millennium March. Because I was as a national co-chair of the 1993 March, people have frequently asked for my opinion on this situation. I've taken time before responding publicly because I understand how casually critical some people can be and I have worked hard not to be one of those who would rather attack our own than focus on our enemies. But now I've come to realize that there is much more at stake here than hammering out the logistics of a march. In fact, what is at stake here is the very heart of our movement. Currently, a huge segment of grassroots community leaders and many national groups believes that this march is ill-timed, strategically weak and coordinated by people out of touch with the important work happening outside of Washington D.C. Even U.S. Rep Barney Frank, the most politically prominent openly gay elected official in the country called the proposed march "a diversion of resources" and "not a good idea." And yet, rather than set up a structure for meaningful dialogue to balance pros and cons and evaluate the strategy of such a march, edicts are delivered via press release. The Human Rights Campaign, the largest group involved in advocating for the march has publicly apologized for the ham-fisted manner in which it has approached the issue and that is good. However, it is not enough to say "sorry" and continue to move forward on the same misguided course. In the past, a critical mass of support has been established before committing the enormous resources that marches require. Now, it appears, instead of doing the work of building broad-based support for such an effort, the movement is being hijacked and strategy and coalition-building have been thrown out the window. We must decide whether this is a movement for social and political change that will continue to build and grow and grapple with the tough issues. Or will we be a product to be packaged and shaped according to the dictates of the latest focus group. We can't replace courage with marketing. There is without a doubt tremendous power in marching on Washington. My first March in 1987 was a significant turning point in my life. But this debate is not about the value of marches. It is about whether we best serve this movement by going to Washington in 2000, a major election year, and how we decide when and if the time is right. Three times in the past two decades we've come to Washington D.C. and the community was told go home and build. Well, we've built and built and built and back home is where it is all happening. For over a decade the idea of a march on the 50 state capitals has been gaining steam and for the first time there exist enough organizations to make this a powerful event. To truly have a strong national presence that isn't merely a paper tiger, building local and state networks that can gain ground at home and feed the national effort is vital. Talk to young people who are coming out. While they are thrilled to see Ellen and Martina and Greg and other celebrities, what they really want to see are people in their own communities who have lives similar to the ones they imagine for themselves. A gay janitor or principal. An openly gay business person or reporter in town. They especially want to see couples whose relationships are lasting and loving right in their own back yard so they know that is possible without being a rock star, television actor or moving to some gay mecca. People have called marches on D.C. glamourous and media sexy events. That is perhaps our biggest problem. Too many people are wondering how they can become the Martin Luther King, Jr. for our movement when we are in desperate need of a million Rosa Parks. We’re mistaking style for real substance. We used to be a movement willing to demand full equality but savvy enough to occasionally settle for half a loaf. Now half is all we ask for and we seem grateful enough that we were granted an audience. We've traded true activism for occasional access at the national level. I was part of the first gay delegation to meet in the Oval office with President Clinton. Sure, it was a historic moment but I still came home to a state where I can be fired, denied housing and barred from adopting because of my sexual orientation; where sodomy laws remain on the books and gay kids are still threatened, beat up and harassed in schools. At the brink of the next millennium, people aren't waiting to come to D.C. to come out. In fact, the people who are coming out in record numbers need local structures to provide real assistance not just symbolic gestures far away. If ENDA is to pass nationwide it will come because the constituents back home sway legislators. We must have strong local groups, that form strong statewide groups, that support a strong national effort. Now is a great time to establish that priority As I think back on the 1993 March, I am proud of the diversity displayed throughout the organizing and the March itself. But I agree with those who criticize the presence of Lea Delaria and a few other performers who lost sight of the March as a political act. It is however, astounding that having launched that criticism, HRC would then turn to the person responsible for putting that part of the March stage together to produce the next one. Criticisms of Robin Tyler as the producer of this proposed march cannot be dismissed as "dredging up old stuff". HRC and the other sponsors must address directly Tyler's reputation for racism, exclusion, and questionable business dealings. I have heard Tyler describe efforts at inclusion as the "tyranny of the grassroots". I’ve witnessed her sabotage group decisions that she disagrees with. While publicly purporting to be supportive of the transgender and bisexual communities, I've watched her work behind the scenes to try and ensure their exclusion. With her installed at the helm, promises of a broad-based, inclusive decision-making process ring hollow. Over the years, HRC has developed a reputation for pulling money out of local communities without giving back, for swooping into town, treating the local organizers like rubes and setting up parallel organizing structures without respect to the wishes, knowledge or insights of the people who must live with the fallout. Now HRC has an opportunity to demonstrate a new attitude that supports those who work outside the D.C. beltway. I state all of this as someone who has supported HRC since long before they dropped the "F" from their name. I have attended fund raisers and urged people to open their check books. I received the HRC's national award for activism and just recently traveled with a member of their field staff to help organize in South Florida. I will support every effort to empower and strengthen local and statewide organizations because I believe it is the recipe for national success. I believe that good people work at HRC who are passionate about achieving the same things I care so deeply about. And while the organization provides an important and powerful voice in the national media, I think too many of its leaders are woefully out of touch with the pulse of this movement and the shifting political ground. I fear we are headed for a massive, strategically foolish, financially draining march simply because a handful of people like the alliteration in the phrase "Millennium March" and their eyes flash dollar signs whenever they say it. I have yet to hear a cogent, persuasive argument for a national march in 2000. I'm open to it. If convinced no one would work harder to bring folks to it. But right now I believe our priority is back home. We need massive voter identification efforts so we can start winning elections for ourselves and our supporters. We need to lobby our elected officials in their home districts. We need to build our memberships and fundraise for the referendums we continue to face on the local and state level. Those of us who believe that our movement should not be strong-armed have a responsibility to speak up instead of accepting this as a "done deal". For HRC's own good, for our community’s benefit, we need to make clear that this march will not go on as it is now conceived. HRC is the wealthiest and largest gay organization in the country. I hope that it is big enough to admit its mistake and begin to heal this divide. This is not the way for us to greet the next millennium. Nadine Smith Human Rights Task Force of Florida ============================================================ From: HRTF FL Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:15:33 EST Subject: Millennium March " Who Decides? Publications and lists have full permission to reprint and/or forward this article. Millennium March " Who Decides? by Billy Hileman, (Billy Hileman is a Pittsburg based activist and was one of four national co- chair for the 1993 March on Washington) The current debate of a LGBT civil rights event in Washington, D.C. in 2000 may look like `political in-fighting' if one only takes a quick glance. But just below the surface is one of the most important community discussions to occur in decades. Our community is in the process of redefining the movement. If organizing for a national LGBT civil rights event in Washington proceeds on its current course, then progressive, grass-roots, democratic organizing in our community will suffer a serious injury. The tragedy of this situation is that the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) executive director Elizabeth Birch, comedian Robin Tyler, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches' Troy Perry are the willing architects of this attack on queer democracy. Right now, Perry, Birch, and Tyler are frantically lobbying the community to support an event they decided to produce. They are trying to prop up grass- roots support for an event only they had input on. Perry has just sent out a letter with `six very specific steps, very definite steps' ...to lobby congress? ...no, to lobby the president? ...no, to zap Jesse Helms? No. Troy Perry is asking you to lobby the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership Forum to support the Millennium March! What's wrong with that? In Troy Perry's plea for help, he says, `If you are a contributor, member or supporter of these organizations, be sure to mention that too.' That is sickening. The Millennium March is about money. It is not about whether 2000 is a good year to rally in Washington. It is not about ENDA, or domestic partnership, or about lesbians and gays in the military. Right now there is only one organization in our community with the resources to support a huge national action in Washington. And there is only one organization that has vowed to have 1 million members by the year 2000 " HRC. Never before has one of our organizations been in a position to unilaterally call for a March on Washington. The Millennium March is a test of HRC's new power. It is a test whether the community will allow HRC to circumvent the progressive, grassroots, democratic principles that were the basis of the three previous marches and the heart of our movement. At the end of Perry's letter, he writes, `History's greatest movements have been grassroots movements. And history's greatest leaders have been those who heeded the call of their grassroots members.' But, there has been no `call.' HRC and UFMCC didn't allow the forum for a `call.' And now that people are voicing their concern about the process, Birch, Tyler and Perry are putting a call out to the grass-roots instead of the other way around. In March of 1991 the executive directors of NGLTF and HRCF, Urvashi Vaid and Tim McFeeley hosted a meeting in Washington, D.C. for activists to discuss a third march on Washington. Minneapolis City Councilmember Brian Coyle had pushed the idea at the 1990 Creating Change Conference. During the March `91 meeting, and a second national meeting in May, dozens of proposals and concerns were discussed by hundreds of activists. Proposals for marches in 1992 and 1993 were discussed. Bi-annual MOWs with a permanent committee; 52 regional marches: states, DC and Puerto Rico; and a MOW before every presidential election were all proposed. Stonewall 25 organizers pleaded that no national action take place before 1994. A call for inclusion of youth in the organizing was made and a request to be aware of the dates of the many women's music festivals was voiced. Native American gays and lesbians explained that they could not participate in the fall of 1992 - the 500th anniversary of the survival of indigenous cultures. And that is a very small sample. In 1998, all that expression and creativity has been silenced in one meeting between Perry, Birch, and Tyler. They want to control the timing, message, and money associated with the Millennium March. They may achieve that. But in the process, they'll lose the movement. Arrogance is not the word. Only sheer contempt for democracy can describe their organizing style. Several national leaders authored letters distributed at the 1991 meetings explaining why a march before 1994 was misguided. Where are their voices now? Some of the very same people have privately expressed their concerns about the Millennium March, but won't do so publicly. Why? They're afraid that in the year 2000, they'll be on the outside looking in. There shouldn't be an outside. Organizing a national civil rights event without a grassroots `call' is exclusive no matter how much multicultural rhetoric they try to pour over it. But its worse than that. Birch is smart enough to know that Barney Frank is right when he says that big marches do nothing politically for the community. All that stuff about the political benefits of being in Washington before the election is a lie. Birch wants her Millennium March so she can get her 1,000,000 members and the associated loot. Grassroots democracy might produce 50 state marches. Big bummer for Birch. In a recent Out magazine article, Birch responds to her critics by saying, `Imagine what you would have done if three years ago you woke up and found that someone had handed you the movement, ... I'll bet that you would have made most of the decisions I made.' It's time to wake up again. It's not your movement. We can help.