Connect with us

Opinions

Creating Change protests not anti-Semitic

Allegation stifles debate, gives cover to Israel

Published

on

Creating Change, gay news, Washington Blade
Creating Change, gay news, Washington Blade

Protesters on Jan. 23, 2016, gather outside reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s annual Creating Change Conference in Chicago that was to have featured two LGBT rights advocates from Israel. (Photo courtesy of Andy Thayer/Gay Liberation Network)

Last week, the National LGBTQ Task Force held its annual Creating Change conference in Chicago. The Task Force, established in 1973, set out to build a future where everyone is free to be themselves in every aspect of their lives,” across a variety of issues including employment, healthcare, and basic human rights.

According to the conference program, Rea Carey, executive director of the Task Force, welcomed participants with these words: “That’s why we are here this week: to tear down ALL the barriers we face between us and true liberation — and to support and lift-up one another in spirit, camaraderie and love.” (Emphasis their own).

However, one particular event on Jan. 22 put these noble words to the test. A session with A Wider Bridge, a pro-Israeli LGBT organization, was challenged by protesters and cancelled over the organization’s cooperation with the Israeli government whose policies violate the human rights of Palestinians living under occupation. The cancellation of the event raised eyebrows, prompting a barrage of angry reactions and accusations of anti-Semitism against the protesters and conference organizers. For instance, Slate Magazine’s LGBTQ blogger ran the headline “The LGBTQ Left Has an Anti-Semitism Problem,” an OUT magazine headline notes that the protests were “pure anti-Semitism,” and 90 LGBTQ activists signed a statement to Carey describing the protests as “anti-Semitic” and “dangerous,” posing the following question: “where do we as a progressive social movement go from here?” A cursory search of news surrounding the event brings up 80+ articles of similar views. For her part, Carey released a “crystal clear” statement: “the National LGBTQ Task Force wholeheartedly condemns anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic statements made at any Task Force event including our Creating Change Conference,” promising a review of the event and improvements to cope with “the challenges of a growing attendance.”

The Blade’s own Mr. Kevin Naff shared his opinion in an account of his own experience with A Wider Bridge, Israel, and Palestine. Yet, despite his coolheaded appeal to ensure that all voices should be heard, including critical ones, Mr. Naff reaches a similar conclusion: the protests were offensive and anti-Semitic.

Were they?

I do not believe so. Instead, I believe the repeated deployment of anti-Semitism against those who criticize Israel and the wide arm of organizations it works with is both unsophisticated and demeaning. In fact, the charge of anti-Semitism is merely an iteration of a larger force that has dominated the Israeli-Palestinian conversation in the U.S. It’s the kind of force that unleashes itself almost by default at any hint of strongly grounded criticism of Israel. It’s called civility. As Steven Salaita puts it in his work, Uncivil Rites, civility is a regime that always has difficulty accommodating systematic critiques, let alone expression of those critiques in unfashionable manners. Of course, the protestors were disruptive, uncomfortable perhaps, and so is every bit of the goals the Task Force seeks to accomplish, or any “progressive” civil rights movement for that matter. Change, at least the effective kind, does not come with comfort. If that were case, then the history we know about many civil rights movements in this country and around the world would be a lie.

Perhaps one particular chant at the protests drove such strong disapproval, to the tune of challenging a deeply rooted and accomplished organization: “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.” A superficial reading would invariably cause anyone who hears it to believe it means the destruction of Israel. Yet, most of the reactions fail to understand that the chant is equally applicable to an increasingly embraced idea: the one State solution, where freedom should indeed reign from the river to the see. Alternatively, as U.S. Ambassador to Israel put it, we are left with a single state with two standards of adherence to the rule of law, one favorable to Israelis and one unfavorable to Palestinians.

Not only is the charge of anti-Semitism unsophisticated and incapable of grappling with the realities of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, it also does far greater harm than good. Nearly all the opinions assumed their views with the understanding that the session with A Wider Bridge should have been permitted to take place. I do too. But, unlike those opinions, mine is a view that does not find it necessary or appropriate to say that silencing the session is anti-Semitic. Rather, permitting it to take place would only be a commitment to the principles and ideals of the Task Force and Creating Change – something that is neither Semitic nor anti-Semitic.

The irony is that opinions rallying around anti-Semitism practically commit the same mistake: silencing and discrediting the protestors. In doing so, the harm is twofold. The other side is almost instantly excluded from the conversation, marked as undesirable or uninvited, and therefore it also stifles the conversation. For instance, in an exchange on Facebook, one friend commented on Mr. Naff’s opinion, “I stopped [reading] at the description of the protest as anti-Semitic and of “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” as a “genocidal chant [that] is an overt call for the destruction of Israel.”

Finally, one illegal Israeli settler recently shared his thoughts on the matter, “there’s still anti-Semitism in America,” speaking about country clubs and neighborhoods in Chicago that exclude Jews. Yet, one rarely hears about this sort of anti-Semitism. It seems as though nowadays anti-Semitism only dominates the headlines in the Israeli-Palestinian context, especially when Israeli policies are criticized.

As the progressive movement works to recover from this episode, it would be wise to understand that scapegoating a tremendously painful past, one where anti-Semitism wreaked havoc and unspeakable horrors, would only reinforce the idea that all voices should be heard as long as they conform to the rules of civility. The issue is not about the Task Force’s ability to handle growing attendance; rather it’s about what it, and the progressive movement at large, will do when challenged by an increasingly knowledgeable audience about Israel’s human rights violations. After all, nearly a quarter-century of peace negotiations grounded in civility has nothing to show but stagnation or regressive change at best, surely not a change genuinely committed to the human rights of all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. scottrose

    January 30, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    What a load of garbage from Dorgham Abusalim.

    Jewish attendees at the antisemitic riot were shoved, kicked, hit, threatened, intimidated in hopes that they would stop filming the riot, called anti-semitic pejoratives, smothered with the Palestinian flag and finally, not allowed to finish their presentation.

    If similar assaults, anti-gay pejoratives, threats and incivility had been launched against LGBTers at the conference by anti-gay rioters, nobody would be alleging that the riot was not anti-gay — save perhaps for the anti-gay rioters, BIGOTS who think they are as correct to be anti-gay as the antisemitic Chicago rioters — also BIGOTS — think they are to be antisemitic and anti-Israel.

    Abusalim also is guilty of promoting garbage propaganda (lies) where he alleges that antisemitism in America refers only to anti-Israel venom — such as his — whereas in fact, the conspiracy theory that Israelis carried out the 9/11 attacks is widespread among antisemities — including Muslim Jew haters — in the United States and elsewhere, there was a shooting attack against a Jewish Community Center in Kansas — and the attacker said he intended to kill Jews — David Duke is widely reviled for being a Jew hater — a school 90 miles north of NYC experienced heavy antisemitic bullying of students and wound up having to pay an astronomical settlement fee and on and on and on.

    In late November, a man arrived at West Side Judaica — a Jewish book store in New York City, said “I am a Muslim, F you Jews, I’m going to kill you all” and then attacked the Jewish book store manager.

    Nobody with any knowledge of the topic of antisemitism in the United States believes — as this utter jerk Abusalim asserts — that only those who demonize, lie about, attempt to delegitamize Israel and riot against Israelis in the United States get called Jew haters or antisemites. Only a jerk would make such a obnoxiously false, propagandistic, anti-Israeli assertion.

    For that alone, Mr. Abusalim owes the Jewish community and its allies in the United States an apology.

    Forget your “one state” baloney; Jews ever since the founding of Islam, when Mohammed slaughtered the Jews of Medina, have had a rocky relationship with Muslims — as has France, for that matter — and nobody should expect them to give up their self-defense and self-determination.

    Additionally, the notion that the Gazans and the Muslims in the P.A.-controlled West Bank could possibly in any foreseeable future be subsumed into a single state together with Israelis, and the result would be a country that respected gay rights, should earn Mr. Abusalim a clown horn honked in his Israel-hating face.

    Meanwhile, the people of A Wider Bridge in Jerusalem work to help LGBTers in their city irrespective of the gay person’s religion.

    This is a good time to remind people that the two-state plan on offer from the U.N. in 1947 foresaw a Jewish state, an Arab state, and Jerusalem as an international protectorate with no one religion dominating another. Middle Eastern Jews accepted that proposal — and they and their allies were prepared peacefully to implement it — but Arabs overwhelmingly rejected it.

    Don’t forget that when Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, the jihadists acted like ISIS, murdering as many Jews as they could find in the city, chasing the rest out while confiscating their assets, never to return them, and then systematically destroying as much evidence of a historic Jewish presence in the city as they could, including irreplaceable buildings and artifacts from antiquity.

    The antisemitic rioters in Chicago don’t know the meaning of the word “civility.” Mr. Abusalim has been given the courtesy of presenting his views here but wants to strip gay rights advocates in Jerusalem of their right to speak in the United States only because they are Israeli Jews. That is the very definition of an antisemitic (Jew hating) attitude.

    • scottrose

      January 30, 2016 at 12:59 pm

      P.S. — Mr. Abusalim holds up Steven Salaita as a model of “civility,” yet Salaita has tweeted that since 1948, Zionism has made antisemitism “honorable.”

      In whose mind does that remark constitute “civility”?

      It is a clear endorsement of antisemitism.

      Mr. Abusalim is holding up Mr. Salaita — who says that antisemitism is “honorable” — as his model of civility. In an op-ed falsely claiming that an antisemitic riot in Chicago was not antisemitic.

      • scottrose

        January 30, 2016 at 1:15 pm

        P.P.S — Within the past few months, there have been three attacks against Jews in Marseille, France carried out by French Muslim ISIS supporters.

        Two times, the attackers used knives — as is happening in the Arab pogrom against Israeli Jews right now. For the third attack, the French Muslim ISIS supporter used a machete against the Jewish victim.

        Meanwhile, when ISIS members carried out the Paris massacres, they told some of their innocent victims, before murdering them, that they were getting revenge for French military actions against ISIS in Syria.

        Yet, the Swedish foreign minister publicly stated that the Paris jihadists were angry at Israel and that is why they carried out their attacks. That lie from the Swedish foreign minister was antisemitic, as it labeled Israel as the cause of a jihadist attack that in fact was carried out for another reason.

        It further is urgently important to understand that the Egyptian government is engaged in fighting against Gazan, Hamas and Islamic jihad supporters of ISIS in Sinai. Those would be the same Gazan/Hamas ISIS supporters whom Mr. Abusalim laughably alleges could successfully be incorporated into a single state, eliminating Israel, and that would give rights to LGBTers.

        • scottrose

          January 30, 2016 at 1:24 pm

          P.P.P.S. — Mr Abusalim’s use of the word “scapegoating” is not correct.

          And, Abbas can be seen in recent Arabic videos praising the jihadists who are stabbing Jews in Israel. Abbas says that the jihadists are “spilling pure blood for Jerusalem” and that they will be rewarded in heaven by Allah as martyrs. Abbas further says that the “filthy feet” of Jews will not go near their mosque.

          Sounds like antisemitism (hatred of Jews) to me.

          Mr Abusalim has been part of The General Delegation of Palestine to the U.S. His own leader Abbas says that Muslims who stab Jews are martyrs who will be rewarded by Allah in Heaven. And, his own leader says that Jews “filthy feet” will never go near their mosque.

          How is all of that not antisemitism? (Hatred of Jews).

  2. Will Kohler

    January 30, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    In full disclosure Dorgham Abusalim should have pre-faced his Op-Ed with the fact that he is with the Palestinian Delegation to the US.

    But lets talk about that. The whole point of the “protest” was to shut A Wider Bridge down. You need to look at Webster’s Mr. Abusalim

    ter·ror·ism
    terəˌrizəm

    The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
    noun: terrorismnoun/ˈterəˌrizəm/ter·ror·ism

    Enough said.

  3. Alan Tony Amberg

    January 30, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    I was there in the middle of it. When everyone, regardless of their views is a Zionist racist Motherf****er it makes it clear that to have ANY affiliation with an LGBT speaker is not allowed. Also the organization presenting has worked tirelessly for over two decades to promote Palestinian and Israeli safe space and rights. They helped to found the first LGBT Palestinian group. It is preposterous to say that protesting them made any sense at all. It is curious that only an Israeli group was targeted.

    By the way, where were the protests against Lebanon? UNRWA reports about a half million Palestinians have been trapped there in twelve crowded horrible refugee camps. They are not considered citizens of any state after decades so they are not allowed to claim what is available to other foreign nationals living in the country. They are barred from 20 professions. They constitute 10% of the population of Lebanon and have no rights. Also of the five UNRWA Palestinian refugee efforts, there are more Palestinians in “abject” poverty than elsewhere.

    Jews have had the experience of countries being closed to them. In the time of the Holocaust, the US and Britain slammed their doors. Many of the people who are Israeli fled persecution in their home countries. They live surrounded by enemies in a country with 2% of the US population in a space that is 0.2% of the size of the US.

    So when you say “It’s not anti-semitic”, I say look at the surrounding countries and tell me why LGBT Muslims were not similarly attacked and demonized with verbal violence and assaultive crowds. Don’t they represent their repressive autocratic regimes?

    People were screaming at us: “Black lives matter…” Of course they do! Many of us had pedigrees in work for people of color. Why us? Why were they screaming at us? Don’t black LGBT lives matter in Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc? Why were they screaming at us?

    Because we are Jews, pure and simple. This was not a Zionist event. It was showcasing the work of LGBT activists who had made real change in a very difficult and complicated part of the world. However at the Creating Change conference my Jewish friends sat through endless discussions of safe space and non-violent language. Yet somehow, they tell me that anti-Zionist statement constantly came up — and no comparable comments about the Saudis or the Russians. My friends felt unsafe and unwelcome.

    Alan Amberg
    Chicago, IL

    • scottrose

      February 1, 2016 at 8:06 am

      The writer of the above op-ed, Dorgham Abusalim, wrote an article on Mondoweiss that appears to justify jihadists stabbing Jews in Israel.

      A Wall Street Journal writer said this:

      “Today in Israel, Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil,”

      but then Dorgham Abusalim wrote an entire column for the anti-Israel Mondoweiss blog disagreeing with THAT.

  4. userbuser

    February 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Creating Change has always been a place of protest. Almost every year, protesters take over the main stage. This year alone, protesters interrupted the Black Institute and the Latino Institute. Yet there has been no national outcry over these protesters – only over the ones focused on A Wider Bridge’s event. These are also communities that face intimidation and violence daily, yet no one has attempted to shame those protesters. The reasons for this are simple, if not simply stated: When protests occur within communities of color, they are viewed within our community as reasonable critiques of beliefs or tactics. But when people of color protest against a largely white community, they are viewed as “intimidating,” and cause such fear as to “bring us back to the Holocaust.”

    • scottrose

      February 1, 2016 at 3:28 pm

      Your comment is a copy-and-paste job — shame on you.

      I Googled the phrase “bring us back to the Holocaust” and the only place I find it online is where the same letter you copied-and-pasted from has been posted in various places.

      The year that Jesse Owens won a gold medal at the Berlin Olympics overseen by Hitler, two Jewish Americans on the U.S. track team — Sam Stoller and Marty Glickman — were excluded because U.S. Olympic Committee chairman Avery Brundage wanted to avoid embarrassing Adolf Hitler by having two Jewish athletes win gold medals.

      So, if “people of color” today are antisemites and riot against Jews they don’t get a pass.

      The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a person of color who had a face-to-face meeting with Hitler during which they agreed in principle to spreading the “Final Solution” from Morocco over to Iraq.”

      The only reason it didn’t happen was that the Allies won WWII.

      • userbuser

        February 1, 2016 at 6:24 pm

        You failed to address any of my points—shame on you.

        People of color are not “antisemites”, or any racialized slander for criticizing a country with poor human rights abuses. A country run by Jewish people isn’t above criticism, despite their belief in being “god’s chosen people.”

        • scottrose

          February 2, 2016 at 9:54 am

          You were antisemitic in your comment right there.

          You don’t even understand the meaning of the phrase “the chosen people.”

          I am atheist, as happens, so I view ancient religions as mythological systems rather than as a matter of “faith.” However that may be, in ancient Jewish lore, when Moses went to the top of Mt. Sinai and the Jewish God gave him the Ten Commandments, God at that point “chose” the ancient Hebrews to HAVE to follow the Ten Commandments, or else.

          The lore does NOT say, as you as antisemitic filth have implied, that God singled Jews out for automatic preferential treatment over others.

          If you are unhappy about other disruptions at the Creating Change conference, then you should take that up with other people who are unhappy about that too and with the conference organizers.

          Jewish people at the event were kicked, hit, shoved, threatened and called anti-Jewish pejoratives, so you in your arrogance have no standing to come along and falsely allege that the antisemitic riot was not an antisemitic riot.

          What the letter you copied-and-pasted from attempts to do, is to excuse an antisemitic riot by attacking its victims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Blogging my first overseas vacation since COVID

Chronicling life aboard Celebrity APEX

Published

on

I will be blogging a number of times during my two-week transatlantic cruise and sharing my thoughts and experiences. 

The first thing I found is boarding during a pandemic is a little different. People were given specific boarding times yet most arrived at the port when it was convenient for them as many had early check-out times from their hotel or Airbnb in Barcelona. Celebrity didn’t turn anyone away. There was no Wi-fi at the entrance to the terminal so things got a little complicated as many had the information needed on their iPhone Celebrity app. It worked out and when you got inside to the counter they shared a Wi-fi connection. 

I knew in advance from a Facebook connection, some childhood friends whom I hadn’t seen in 21 years were going to be onboard. We ended up arriving at the terminal at the same time and caught up for the next hour and a half as we progressed through the boarding process. We all had to take a Covid test and only those with negative results could board. Of the approximately 1,300 people boarding, less than half the possible number for a full ship, I didn’t hear of anyone getting a positive result. 

When my negative result came back I was allowed to board and went to find my stateroom on deck 11. The key was at the door with all my information on it. Celebrity was doing everything to limit crew-to-passenger contact. We were asked to keep masks on in all indoor spaces except when eating or drinking, which on a cruise is often, and the crew are all wearing masks. Luggage was delivered to the door. 

Shortly after entering my beautiful stateroom there was a knock at the door and my stateroom attendant, Lenie, had come to introduce herself. She didn’t come in but explained how I could reach her anytime and for safety she would only come into the room when I was out. We chatted for a few minutes and I found out she was from the Philippines, had three children, and had worked for Celebrity for 20 years. She was both charming and efficient. 

I then took a walk around the ship and was duly impressed. It is beautiful. I walked through the huge buffet where people were happily eating lunch and saw instead of serving yourself there were servers behind each station filling people’s plates. All passengers had on their masks when getting food, as did the crew serving them. It made for a very safe feeling. 

Instead of a group muster each passenger was asked to go to their assigned muster station where you were met by staff who explained emergency procedures. You also had to look at a video on the Celebrity app and were then logged in and confirmed you had done so. All efficiently and safely done. 

Then I headed to the sail-away party my travel agent, and friends, Scott Moster and his husband Dustin, were hosting in the Iconic suite. The suite has everything from a peloton cycle to a hot tub for eight. It is incredible. I had the chance to catch up with old friends I had sailed with before the pandemic. Then it was a quick tour of the spa and gym open twenty-four hours a day. A way to assuage guilt over all the food and drink. Then back to the stateroom to finish unpacking and change for dinner with good friends in one of the specialty restaurants, EDEN. That meant long pants and a shirt with a collar. That’s as formal as required on this cruise. 

The food was superb and we got to meet the chef, Nicholas. An interesting guy who I will interview during the cruise. The menu was a combination of fresh fish, lobster, to filet mignon, all interestingly prepared. 

After dinner it was a stop at the Martini bar where a large group of LGBTQ friends had gathered along with some who would become friends. I was surprised when a guy came over and gave me a hug. I didn’t recognize him with his mask on but turned out he was another friend from my past I hadn’t seen in years. It is clearly a small world and the gay world seems even smaller. 

Finally headed to my stateroom around midnight, where turndown service had been done, to get some sleep and prepare for day two, and our first stop, Alicante.  

Day two and three on the Celebrity APEX

Time flies when on a cruise; maybe it’s the endless food and drink. All passengers received a letter in their room telling us we would need to report for a Covid test on day 5 the first at-sea day before we get to the Canary Islands. I pre-scheduled mine just before what I planned as my first hour at the gym. I expect to go to the gym on all sea days and there will be eight of those.

Each morning I have had coffee, a bagel and orange juice delivered to the stateroom.  I always miss that knock on the door each morning when I am home but then I would miss my daily coffee at Java House so I guess it’s OK. 

On day two we stopped at our first port, Alicante, on Spain’s Costa Blanca. I was truly surprised at how beautiful the city is. I joined friends for what turned out to be a three and a half hour walk as we were allowed off the ship on our own without booking a tour. We visited churches and the main market in town. We strolled along the beach and the harbor with great walking and bicycle paths. Alicante is a wonderful mix of old-world charm and modern amenities. One friend ventured up to the castle, Castillo de Santa Barbara, but since the elevator (the easy way up) wasn’t working and it’s a very long, steep climb up the mountain I passed. We arrived back at the ship around 1 p.m. and headed to the Mast bar on deck 14 for burgers and fries. Then some time back in the stateroom before heading to the martini bar for a drink and then to the beautiful APEX theater to see the Shamrock Tenors, four Irish performers who are not only talented but cute to boot. 

We decided to try one of the regular restaurants, those not needing reservations and chose Normandy. The food was good and I had shrimp cocktail, rigatoni, and cherries jubilee for dessert. 

After dinner it was up to the Rooftop Garden for ‘Silent Disco’. That is where you get a set of headphones with a few channels of disco music, and you dance to the music only you can hear. It’s really fun but by 11:30 my knees gave out and it was off to bed. 

Day three dawned nice and sunny and we were docked in Cartagena, located in the autonomous of the region of Murcia. I had an 8:45 excursion and again had breakfast delivered to the room. We were instructed to head to the theater to meet the tour group and sign in for our ‘Journey to Murcia’. Murcia is a city in south-eastern Spain, the capital and most populous city of the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia, and the seventh largest city in the country, with a population of 447,182. It is about a forty-minute drive from the port. It is a fascinating city with an incredible history from the Romans to and Moorish influence. There is a beautiful cathedral, isn’t there one in every Spanish city? This being a national holiday in Spain most of the shops were closed saving some on the tour a lot of money. We strolled around the city with our guide giving us a running commentary on its history for about an hour and a half. She was a little hard to understand because not only did she have a heavy accent but she spoke really fast. But it was still fun and we did learn a lot. We made a second stop outside the city at another church where a wedding was being officiated. The bride was beautiful. Then we headed back to the ship for an early departure. Our tour was the last onboard and we sailed not more than thirty minutes after we got there. 

Then it was off to the captain’s reception. I had the chance to chat a few moments with the Captain Panagiotis Skylogiannis, who is as charming as are most Greek men. We also met the rest of the senior crew who run the ship. Many said they would be more than happy to sit and get a cup of coffee with me during our at-sea days so I can interview and write about them.

Then it was back to my stateroom again to prepare for another tough night of food and drinking. We went to see Andrew Derbyshire in the theater for the 7:30 show and then to dinner at Cyprus.   After dinner Celebrity hosted the first LGBTQ+ event of the cruise at the EDEN bar. A large crowd showed up, not all gay but they all knew where the fun people would be. The entertainers all showed up there as including the Shamrock Tenors, four talented Irish guys and Andrew Derbyshire, a British actor and singer. We chatted and I will meet him for coffee to do a column on him. 

Then about midnight it was back to the stateroom for what some of my friends on board called an early night. Morning would have us docking in Cadiz and we had a private tour planned for over 20 of the people who had booked the trip with Scott Moster, travel agent extraordinaire, taking us to the city of Seville.  

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ clouds Powell’s legacy

A final act of redemption

Published

on

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (Photo by Susan Montgomery via Bigstock)

The legacy of General Colin Powell is complicated for those in the LGBTQ community. On the one hand, we celebrate that Powell was the first African-American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State. On the other, he is also the person who disobeyed the strategic choice of his Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton, on gays in the military. 

Powell stood on the steps of the Pentagon reporting how many calls had been received opposing lifting the ban. He testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service of openly gay troops would harm unit cohesion. He argued that race was a “benign characteristic” and being gay was not. Congress codified into statute what had been a regulatory ban on gays in the military, making the law that much harder to change. Almost 14,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual service members were dismissed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a rate of two-four service members every day. Some were subjects of witch hunts. Others faced criminal charges. Many endured harassment, assault and threats. Private First Class Barry Winchell was murdered.

Michelle Benecke and I knew when we founded Servicemembers Legal Defense Network that for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be repealed, we would have to either win the support or neutralize the opposition of Powell, one of the previously undisclosed strategies described in my new book, “Mission Possible.” Michelle and I first met him at the Arlington, Va., headquarters of America’s Promise. We offered to brief him on the ban’s implementation as he was being asked on the Sunday shows about the law’s efficacy. He agreed to see us.

The question was whether we could find common ground on which to build a new consensus. My theory was that Powell genuinely believed that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a better policy than the one before it. After all, he had testified before the Senate, “We will not ask, we will not witch-hunt, we will not seek to learn orientation.” 

“General Powell,” I said, “we have received nearly a thousand calls from service members who have been impacted by ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We have documented that most are being asked point blank about their sexual orientation in contravention of ‘Don’t Ask.’” 

“That’s not supposed to happen,” he said.

That was our first conversation. We might have been able to better enforce some of the meager gains under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if we had been able to prevail upon Powell to help us, but he wasn’t ready. 

In 2003, he told Teen Ink magazine that while discrimination is wrong, “I think it’s a different matter with respect to the military, because you’re essentially told who you’re going to live with, who you’re going to sleep next to.”

Four years later, he called me, prompted by an opinion essay in The New York Times that I had sent him. “Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military”—written by retired Army General John Shalikashvili, Powell’s successor as chairman of the Joint Chiefs—called for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Powell and I spoke for 45 minutes. “I agree with General Shalikashvili that America has changed and is ready for gays to serve openly,” he said. My heart leapt. “I am not convinced, however, that military commanders are ready for that change.” My heart sunk.

It was clear to me, though, that he was moving in the right direction.  I put it on the line. “Sir, you will be a critical voice on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ when it comes up for debate again. I need you to support repeal if we are going to win. Do you know that?”

“Yes,” he said.

Finally, on Feb. 5, 2010, 10 months before final repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and days after Admiral Mike Mullen had testified before the Senate that he supported repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Powell released a statement. “If the chiefs and commanders are comfortable with moving to change the policy, then I support it. Attitudes and circumstances have changed. Society is reflected in the military. It’s where we get our soldiers from.” The stage was set for final repeal.

We too often look for heroes and villains when the record can be complicated. Powell deserves opprobrium for defying Clinton, rallying opposition, and allowing 60,000 troops under his command to suffer the indignity of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He deserves credit, though, for changing his mind. I admired his willingness to speak with me over nearly two decades. I find that the best leaders engage in a lifelong process of learning and challenging assumptions. Powell will receive deserved accolades for his service to our nation, but for us, his legacy includes a profound betrayal with a final act of redemption.

C. Dixon Osburn is author of ‘Mission Possible: The Story of Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’

Continue Reading

Opinions

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal serves as a guide for enacting equality legislation

Equality Act supporters should take cues from Senate moderates

Published

on

Equality legislation is close to passing in Congress, but close isn’t good enough. “Close” won’t change anything for the LGBTQ Americans who face discrimination every day. Senate Democrats and Republicans must make a push to negotiate. With a reach on both sides to find common ground, we can move equality legislation from “close” to “done deal.”

Some Democrats are waiting for the filibuster to end—despite clear evidence that they lack the votes to end it. Some Republicans are practicing a tried-and-true brand of obstructionism. To break this deadlock, we should look to the successful, bipartisan repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) as a guide.

The DADT repeal is the single reference point for LGBTQ advocates for overcoming the Senate filibuster. Other victories have been in the courts; notably, the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision that made gay marriage legal nationwide.

Before Obergefell, advocates had success in the state legislatures. I worked on campaigns for the freedom to marry in Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and elsewhere, finding common ground between Democrats and Republicans who thought it was impossible to negotiate on marriage. Eventually, enough people from both parties came together to pass marriage laws in a majority of states.

Working together at the state level is one thing. Congress is another.

Despite Democrats’ control of the White House, Senate and House, negotiations are failing at the federal level. So, we lets look to ancient history—the 2010 repeal of DADT—for guidance on reaching 60 votes in the Senate.

The most important lesson from the DADT repeal is that Senate moderates must champion the cause and lead negotiations. The more partisan figures on both sides need to step back. Overcoming the filibuster is a job for moderates, not ideologues.

As it happens, the hero of the DADT repeal is still a senator and can help. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine led the negotiations on DADT repeal.

Senator Collins supports the Equality Act in principle and even sponsored a version of the bill in past. However, the current version is too extreme for Sen. Collins, as a result, she has withdrawn as a co-sponsor. The current bill has also foundered with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another important figure in the repeal of DADT.

The fact that moderate, pro-LGBTQ senators are unable to back the current version of the Equality Act should send a clear message to Democrats that we need to make reasonable changes to the bill. So far, the message is being ignored.

On the Democratic side, independent Sen. Joe Lieberman was essential to the repeal of DADT. There certainly were passionate, liberal Democrats who could have asserted themselves during the debate. But then, the bill would have taken longer to pass, or even might have failed.

The lesson is clear. Listen to the moderates. Let them lead this charge.

Another important lesson from the repeal of DADT is to be flexible in the legislative strategy. DADT repeal was originally an amendment to a large defense authorization bill. Rather than give up, Collins and Lieberman fought and saved DADT repeal from defeat by pulling out key provisions they knew could pass on their own and making them a standalone measure. Repeal passed with bipartisan support.

The current version of the Equality Act tries to do too much. That’s why it can’t win support from moderate Republicans who have legitimate concerns the bill might suppress free speech or shut down religious charities.  

Over 60 senators can agree on the basic premise of the Equality Act. They would gladly vote to prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ Americans in employment, housing, and public accommodations, so long as the law didn’t intrude on the First Amendment.

If the far left believes that our country has too much religious liberty, they can deal with that in future legislation. But so long as we have a filibuster—and, there’s no indication it will end any time soon—the Equality Act needs to reflect our society’s current views on religious liberty.  

The DADT repeal passed with 65 votes in the Senate, overcoming the filibuster. Let’s replicate that victory by using the same playbook. Moderates: Take the lead.

Tyler Deaton is the senior advisor to the American Unity Fund, a conservative nonprofit organization working to advance LGBTQ freedom and religious freedom

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular