Not Your Average Prom Queen: Are We Post-HRC?
Even if you don’t know the name behind the logo, you’ve probably seen it plastered in store windows and on car bumpers for years. The Human Rights Campaign, whose name seems innocuous enough to perhaps even secure the support of unwitting conservatives, is an organization dedicated to LGBT rights. It is also an organization, headquartered in Washington, that has been both appreciated and condemned by members of the gay community. It is also an organization that performs primarily via fundraising efforts that include badgering its members with nonstop phone calls asking for pledges. 
When I first moved to Washington in the fall of 2005, my roommate had been kind enough to mark the room that would be mine with an HRC sticker taped to the door. I was proud of that little sticker although aside from knowing that it was synonymous with gay, the little yellow equals sign on a dark blue background didn’t mean anything to me. It was within the first week of living in the District that I was intercepted by an HRC canvasser, probably right around my age, outside of my Metro station. I was excited enough about being out, political and involved that I slapped down my credit card right there on Connecticut Avenue and pledged $50 to become a member of the organization.
Later, I read more about HRC and how although the money I had pledged along side of the 750,000 other members was securing our equality as LGBTQ citizens, I also learned that HRC’s family was not unified.
In 2007 HRC had put its support behind an ENDA bill that excluded transgendered folks from the protections an Employment Non Discrimination Act is meant to provide. This already divisive issue among the LGBTQ community – how trans folks fit in with LGBQ people – was brought to a different test. Could or should HRC back down from its dedication to advancing the rights of all people under its rainbow umbrella? Could gay and lesbian members of HRC push their own interests at the cost of denying equal rights to people who identify as trans? As it turns out, a surprising 70 percent of LGBT folks SUPPORTED a non-inclusive ENDA bill, according to an Advocate Magazine poll in 2007.
I was not a member who could. HRC, the public face of our community, had embarrassed me with its blatant discrimination. I refused to renew my membership or wear my HRC shirt. I was angered by the HRC sticker on my girlfriend’s car. Since when did HRC become so exclusive? Who were they actually serving? Was a “political success” of passing a bill actually more important than the literal repercussions of passing a non-inclusive ENDA bill? As the responses to HRC’s support of this bill became louder and louder, the organization suddenly opened its ears to the din that was rising from the grassroots and withdrew its support for the bill in August 2009, stating that in the future they would only support an inclusive bill. You can read their full press release here.
Still feeling burned and a little unsure whether or not HRC had my best interests in mind, I hesitated to follow-up with my membership. They kept calling though, mostly from Texas, almost every night at some point. It was annoying. It may have been harassment. It turned me off. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a young HRC canvasser standing, clipboard in hand, near the Pot Belly Sandwich shop near my office in Evanston, IL. His semi-optimistic plead of “Do you have a minute to help support gay rights?” wasn’t really drawing a crowd and I wondered if maybe people are “post informational” about gay rights these days. If felt like the common internal response, from both sides, probably was, “I have quite enough information about gay rights, thank you.” Was that young man going to tell them anything they didn’t already know? Was anyone surprised to learn that there is discrimination of gay people going on in this country? Was that canvasser best using his time and abilities to advance gay rights by standing on a street corner for HRC?
That little logo with its promising yellow equality sign has become commonplace, but is that sticker enough to secure the rights of all LGBTQ people? Has the focus of HRC moved too far away from the day to day lives of LGBTQ Americans? Are we post HRC? Do we need a new symbol of equality? There’s no doubt that the money collected by HRC, and the professional public face of the organization had benefited LGBTQ people, but can any organization with three-fourths of a million members, headquartered in a sparkly building smackdab in the middle of our Nation’s Capitol, really be a voice for us all?
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
I disagree with the tenor of this article. We are clearly not post-HRC given the long list of rights we don’t have that are on our agenda. To my mind there is room for all the whole spectrum of influences on this process from the most radical to the most moderate. I see HRC’s role in this process as a moderate voice, willing to do the horse trading required to gain any traction in Washington politics. The radical groups cannot do this since they take stances that are unlikely to be adopted by most centrist folks in this country, much less conservatives. HRC takes a lot of heat for their willingness to bargain in order to gain incremental ground on our issues in ways other groups can’t. This is not to say the organization is without problems but I think it is important to recognize what they can do. It takes money to establish an institutional presence in Washington, which I think the HRC building located in a prominent position does. It sends the message that we are here to stay and that we must be dealt with. How is that not an important message to send?
My concern with groups like HRC, and most “equality-minded” groups is that they feel the need to play politics in order to gain that “incremental change.” Change is change, no doubt, and I didn’t live through the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, but my impression of that movement was that it was not won solely through lobbyist organizations.
There seems to be a stubborn belief that equality will only come to us if we elect equality-minded individuals. While I think this is somewhat important, my general feeling toward the HRC is that their objective is not changing hearts and minds so much as lining pockets for equality. They seem to be of the conservative (and now liberal) belief that money buys you equality. Naturally, this leaves out a majority of GLBT folks who cannot afford to donate to their organization. Therefore, issues like marriage equality are big money draws (and emphasis is placed on those campaigns) rather than the fucking right to not get fired from your job for being gay or trans.
The people who can worry about not getting married are not necessarily the people who worry about not getting a job.
The trans issue was what set me off, but I just grow increasingly frustrated with them playing politics with our lives and our dignity – even if that politicking is supposedly for our benefit. Perhaps this is just misplaced anger, but I see a business of winning equality, not a fight.
I agree with John. HRC certainly isn’t the answer to all of our problems. Which is why we also have GLAAD, Equality Illinois (California, New York, etc.), GMHC, Lambda Legal, Service Members Legal Defense Fund, etc., etc., (even the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud). HRC is the only lgbt-focused group right now that has the infrastructure and presence on capital hill to make legislation happen (ACLU as well) in a practical sense. They’re a very important organization simply because they’re the ones currently fighting that aspect of the fight. Once we get all the legislation that we’re working toward, then we’ll be post-HRC.
As to the non-inclusive ENDA. I feel the same way about ENDA as I do about marriage/civil unions. The non-inclusive ENDA (like civil unions) isn’t enough. We shouldn’t stop working until we have a fully-inclusive ENDA (or full federal marriage). But slow change is permanent change. Non-inclusive ENDA (or civil unions) right now makes it easier to obtain full rights as we continue to march.
I also agree with John, and frankly, I’m sick and tired of the divisive nature of a lot of articles from this website. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but must the vast majority of articles concerning HRC and other alphabet organizations be so negative? Its like the writers are just trying to be cool and anti-establishment. How very 11th grade.
The LGBTQetc rights movement is often compared to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and there are many parallels. That movement took many different organizations working toward the same end, but with different methods, to achieve their goal. Certainly the NAACP and the Black Panthers didn’t agree on one course of action. It does take a comprehensive movement, from all angles, to achieve goals, and HRC is very important because, much as people want to think that chaining themselves to the White House fence is the only way to get things done, you also need the folks in the background having substantive meetings with politicians.
That little logo with its promising yellow equality sign has become commonplace, but is that sticker enough to secure the rights of all LGBTQ people?
Of course it’s not, but neither is your little decision to keep your little $50 and not to wear your promising HRC t-shirt. Are you just discovering this?
I’m no fan of HRC, not by a long shot. But articles like this, which seemed so relevant in 2007, today seem petty at best and hipster/douchenozzle/”I’m-so-cool-look-how-anti-establishment-I-am” today. The movement already has more of that than it needs. Your energy is better spent chaining yourself to some piece of government property, if you want to be radical about it, or calling your members of Congress, if you don’t.
Does anyone remember that scene in the movie Milk where Harvey confronts the corporate power players of The Advocate who want to run a euphemistic, obscure campaign for “human” rights? That is literally the problem with the Human Rights Campaign. I agree that there are some problems with the tone of this article (no, I don’t think most people know gay people are discriminated against, nor do I feel we should make decisions of political/activist loyalty based on being “turned off” when asked for money), but I have to say I also lost faith in the HRC after its hand in bumbling the No on Prop 8 campaign here in California, where we were repeatedly told things like “don’t say gay, say same-sex” and didn’t run a single commercial with a gay or lesbian individual, and yes, after they threw transgendered and queer people under the bus in the name of progress. The fact of the mater is that the humans the HRC fights for are those who are as close to the current definition of human as possible: white, upper-class professional men in suits and women in dresses. I truly feel that their goals of achieving rights for this newly minted “homonormative” class of people are backwards and will only further ingrained norms, attitudes and hierarchies that are the foundation of our oppression. Rights for a few are never rights for some; separate is never equal.
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days