Coffee Hour

Chalicechick says:

((Is a UU racist if they don't support affirmative action? Is a UU racist if they abandon public schools and choose to home-school or privately educate their children? Is opposition to reparations to descendants of slaves a racist stance? Is a UU racist if they support mandatory drug sentencing?))

And on a more fundamental level:

Can we really tell if a person is racist by thier political stances? (After all, 3 out of 4 of those were political quesstions.)

Jeff Wilson says:

As long as we're asking questions, howabout:

Is the way in which anti-racism is done in UU circles itself racist?

Leo Nagorski says:

Does anyone know exactly what happened at Ft. Worth ? I read the article in the UU World but it really didn't give any specifics. I'm sure I'm not the only UU who was confused by this. Also, the excerpt from our Chicago church doesn't seem to explain, either. I will read the full letter. But, is First Unitarian Chicago stating that UUs were involved in racist behavior or that no one at GA addressed the issue ?

Carrie Stewart says:

I must correct some misinformation in this entry. The woman usher who wrote the letter to Paul Rickter is not African American. I fowarded her the letter, because she contacted me about the incident, knowing I was a Youth Identity Caucus Advisor at GA. She is a member of my congregation and a Latina.

I beleive an assumption about her heritage was made when she referred to herself as a person of color. This is a good lesson in making judgments based on assumptions. It is a good lesson about first seeking to understand before being understood.

chutney says:

Jeff asks: "Is the way in which anti-racism is done in UU circles itself racist?"

UUs do anti-racism in the whitiest whitey white way imaginable. And on top of that, it's upper middle class (or, as my grandpa would say, "college boy"). And self-righteous, to boot.

How often have asked, "Why aren't more persons of color UUs?" One, because we are so, so white (and think we're not). Two, because we---a tiny and white denomination---make foolish pronouncements about about "eradicating racism in all its forms."

I dare my fellow UUs to go buy a copy of How to Rent a Negro by Damali Ayo. You can order a copy at her website, rent-a-negro.com.

I submit that UUism "rents" anti-racism. Whether intended or not, the effect of this rental is to blind us to our own racism and turn us all into tokens.

Clyde Grubbs says:

The UUA board and administration responded properly to the incidents that UU youth of color experienced at GA 2005. They have not speculated about motives, made charges about "racists" but they have made it clear that they would work to prevent such incidents in the future.

And that is what we can ask of institutions, that they learn from problems and work to overcome problems. What can institutions do?

My short list. Plan arrangements so that situations will be less likely to happen. (UU youth were housed in different hotels all over a city that had an curfew that was earlier than GA events getting out for the evening. )

What else can we do? Educate. Create codes of conduct. Make sure that UU staff and ministers are trained to respond pastorally, and prevent conflicts from escalating.

Does any one know the specifics? The UUA is preparing a careful case study, the purpose will be healing. To give out information so that internet chatters can argue about it will hurt people - people who are committed to our faith and movement and should be treated with inherent worth and dignity and not blaming.

I grew up in UU in a bi racial home and have worked with UUs of color for forty five years, Chutney is entitled to his opinion, but he speaks for himself. People of Color have other opinions on the potential of the UUA and will speak for themselves. To say that we are "a white denomination" I experience as exclusionary.

Lioness says:

Judging from Ms. Ford's letter, it sounds like the prejudice *in that instance* came from the aggresive visiters, not the ushers. When people behave in such a manner, they should be escorted out.

Let's think outside the box for a minute about the general issue. From where I sit in Mississippi, racism usually crops up as an excuse for bad behavior towards others. We've worked with half that equation. We've put a lot of effort into eradicating racism as a excuse and that work had done an lot of good. I would in no way put down those who have done such work in the past or discourage that work from being done in the future. But I think its time and past time we start working on the other half of the equation. Instead of devoting even more effort to eradicating racism, why not devote a little effort into identifying appropriate and inappropriate behavior towards others, and promoting what is appropriate behavior?

After all, there's a world full of excuses: racism, agism, sexism and so on. But it usually manifests as a fairly small set of rude behaviors. Wouldn't if be more efficient to devote some time to eradicating rudeness instead of tackling all those "isms"?

I realize this will strike many as being too simplistic an answer, but every once in a while the simple answer works.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Lioness,

While I do not disagree with your point, you are speculating on the basis of partial information.

Ms. Ford saw what she saw. But that what she does not report is what created the problem. Making a judgment on the basis of one document and not the total context leads to specualation and to blaming the youth for being rude. (As problematic as blaming a unnamed minister, or ushers, or general unnamed UUs) That is exactly the kind of blaming activity that we need to avoid as we analyze the situation, and move to solutions. This is why the UU administration is not giving out information about what happened. A panel is investigating what happened with an aim of healing.

Leo Nagorski says:

I just visited the FUUSE website. For all our claims to be a denomination that is "different", we seem very similar to every other human being on the planet. When we deal with a situation with limited information, especially one which "pushes our buttons", we tend to generate more heat than light. I am truly saddened by how quickly the sides seemed to have formed. One side seems to have automatically assumed that the other side is full of a bunch of racists. The other side seems to assume that their counterparts are doing nothing but making excuses for ill-behaved youth. How can we possibly address issues of racism and cross-cultural misunderstandings if we can't even see our way clear to give our fellow UUs the benefit of the doubt ?

Lioness says:

I stand corrected Clyde. Now, would you care to comment on the rest of my post?

chutney says:

Clyde,

My saying we're a "white denomination" was descriptive, not prescriptive. We are predominantly white, and (though I can't seem to google up any stats right now) significantly whiter than the general population. And our roots in Boston Brahminism make us whiter still. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Are we growing more diverse year by year? Yes, thankfully. At my own congregation, I can see that the younger crowd is more diverse still, giving me hope for the future.

Yes, Clyde, we have great potential. But that doesn't mean we're suddenly not a white church anymore, or that we haven't been for decades and decades. Or that we don't go about things "whitely." If my saying as much is "experienced as exclusionary," that's because our being a white denomination is exclusionary. Which was my point in the first place.

Reinhard says:

I'm an old fart. During the Civil Rights Movement I've rocks and bottles thrown at me, shot at, and frequently was in a life threating situation. This black kid and I were working together on some project when he turned to me and said, "When the war comes we will be on opposite sides." I said, "I know." and we keep on working together. I'll always be a racist. It's just that I, to paraphrase Captain Kirk, choose not to act as one today.

Now he and I were not at all different, except for one thing. I had the power to escape, he didn't.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Lioness,

I understand racism to be foundational to this nation. This nation began by genocide, conquest, slavery and pretending to itself that it was really about freedom and Christianity. One of the major causes of the American revolution is that the British didn't want to exterminate all the Indians, and the "rebels" did. Washington sent his best soldiers to burn Native villages while he ran from the British armies. Racism wasn't then, and now its all gotten better. The whole system of elites and corporate power depends on keeping white people stupid, one keeps them stupid by making them think they are better than the designated savage. One keeps their elite stupid by distracting them with fads and diversions.

So no, I don't think racism is an just an excuse. But I agree with you that most of the interpersonal difficulties we experience are better handled by designating appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Bringing the whole oppressive system into a simple human encounter seems like over kill.

Jeff Wilson says:

Offblog, Clyde politely suggested that my question tarred some good and important efforts with too large a brush. I don't want to do so, so let me unpack my question a little.

First, it is a question, not a rhetorical jab. My experience with UU AR/AO work may not be the same as everyone else's and I'm interested in more input to help me wrestle with my question.

Second, what experience I do have may not be more widely representative. I'm a young adult and it is in the young adult UU community that most of my interaction with AR/AO promoters has taken place. My observation has been of deeply entrenched and totalistic ideological positions that invariably lead to conflict, rarely to anything I perceive as progress or healing. Even though some people I really like and admire are involved in it, I see young adult UU AR/AO as dysfunctional. Clyde suggested that young adult AR/AO work may not be the best yardstick to measure denominational efforts by and I'm willing to concede the point.

chutney says:

Jeff, et al,

You wrote: "...my question tarred some good and important efforts with too large a brush."

First, is it not apropos to talk about the state of race (and AR/AO work) generally in UUism? Is it bad of me to call us out for our usually unacknolwedge and uncritical "whiteness," especially when that whiteness unintentionally informs AR/AO work?

Second, what's wrong with rhetorical jabs? I took your statement to be both that and an honest question. (A happy coincidence, in my book.)

Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley says:

There is not enough time in my life to keep up with UU blogs, so I will restrict my commentary.

Chutney: I find your understanding a bit simplistic, if not 'cutsey' in relation to my reality. I don't know anything about the book you mention (How to Rent a Negro by Damali Ayo), but as a person of color, I am not for rent and am insulted by your suggestion that UUism "rents" anti-racism. I chose UUism for theological reasons, not for cultural reasons. Indeed, too often, I find racial and cultural insensitivity within the movement. And so, as a way of putting my theology into practice, I have chosen to actively work against racism and cultural insensitivity within UUism so that all of us--those who were born into or intentionally chose Unitarian Universalism--can be more whole.

Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley

[Duplicates of this comment deleted by Administrator.]

chutney says:

I don't know anything about the book you mention (How to Rent a Negro by Damali Ayo)

It is quite illuminating and only $10. I highly recommend it. If you can't find a copy, the website I mentioned provides a good summary.

but as a person of color, I am not for rent and am insulted by your suggestion that UUism "rents" anti-racism.

As Ayo relates in multiple stories of herself and other persons of color being rented, choosing to be "for rent" is not the question at hand. She points out, painfully, how well meaning liberal white folk unintentionally, and repeatedly, "rent" persons of color for their own edification. As you can imagine, Ayo finds this incredibly insulting. Which leads to my original point: what I have seen of our AR/AO work, however well meant it was, ends up making tokens of us all, a first step toward being put out for rent.

I chose UUism for theological reasons, not for cultural reasons.

As did I. Believe me!

Indeed, too often, I find racial and cultural insensitivity within the movement.

As do I, which is what occasioned my comment here.

And so, as a way of putting my theology into practice, I have chosen to actively work against racism and cultural insensitivity within UUism so that all of us--those who were born into or intentionally chose Unitarian Universalism--can be more whole.

My own work will (hopefully, and soon) involve similar efforts around disability.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Chutney,

Discussion is good, especially discussion that treats UUs as serious people, doesn't dismiss the work that helped make your congregation more "diverse," the work that created the conditions under which Jeff grew up anti racist as a UU.

I have seen tremendous progress in terms of being more welcoming to people who are not Boston Brahmins since I was a child in this movement, but it all came from conscious work - if we had left it to spontaneity, UUs would be as openly racist as they were when I was a child watching how they treated my father.

There is a difference between making belittling generalities about anti racism, and concrete discussions aimed at strengthening that work. It is not "bad of you" to note that we are predominately white, but the "rent a negro" and "rent antiracism" stuff was experienced by this UU as over the top.

Jeff Wilson says:

It's amazing how rancorous the discussions of anti-racism become and how swiftly they devolve. This thread hasn't hit anything near the level of outright human meanness I've seen elsewhere. Sometimes it seems like we can't even talk to each other at all, that when I say "anti-racism" it isn't the same anti-racism which Clyde or Chutney or CC or whomever is thinking of--that we'll are thinking of different things at the same time.

I've seen anti-racism done in ways that seemed overtly, hurtfully racist to me (I've also seen anti-sexism and anti-heterosexism done this way too, in the same circles). But that isn't the anti-racism Clyde and Marjorie are talking about: I and they are thinking of completely separate situations taking place in very different environments. It seems so similiar to the freakout that occurs over Christianity. For some Christianity means evil, hateful things done in the name of God and love, unholy things they know of from firsthand experience. But for others Christianity means real love and compassion, strength and justice that are solid and profound. And then there's the wrangling over Neo-Paganism, which for some implies willful ignorance and foolishness on a dangerous scale. Yet for others it is a well of meaning, deeply caring of the earth and us all and full of conviction to heal wounded selves, communities, and ecosystems.

I'm guilty of jumping to conclusions in assuming I know what others are talking about, even when I ought to know better because I've been burned before. I hope this is a behavior that changes with age.

All of that said, I'm still trying to figure out if we UUs do anti-racism in racist ways. From the discussion here and offblog, I'm ready to provisionally say "yes and no"--there are folks who are doing it in a mature and urgently needed way, and some for whom anti-racism has become a sledgehammer where a scalpel was needed. Hearing more about other people's experiences helps me understand better where things are going wrong and where they are going right.

Clyde, I don't want to put you on the spot, but you brought up negative experiences your father experienced and which you have firsthand observation of. Would you be willing to share some of that with us? Actual real world situations might help us find a grounding for a shared conversation that grows into something helpful. I'm very sorry to hear that your father wasn't treated right in UU circles.

Matthew's opening post actually talked directly about just these sorts of pitfalls that always arise in discussions of these matters. Can we try to work together without getting immediately defensive? I'll do my best.

Doug Muder says:

Jeff Wilson says this about UU young adult anti-racism: "My observation has been of deeply entrenched and totalistic ideological positions that invariably lead to conflict, rarely to anything I perceive as progress or healing."

I think this is part of a more general problem in UUism. We tolerate -- and even at times encourage -- a high degree of self-righteousness. It can show up on almost any side of almost any issue. It is too easy for the "rightness" of a cause to become a license for rudeness, cruelty, and viciousness.

Here's my wish for our movement: That we develop and strengthen a tradition of compassionate action. By that I mean an ability to act in the world while remaining compassionate towards those people who oppose us. Compassion need not paralyze us, and action need not make us cruel.

Clyde Grubbs says:

How was my father treated? That would be a longer piece than "post a comment" allows. Maybe I'll blog on it sometime. Suffice it to say the most blatant disrespect consisted of mocking of Native mannerisms, and unchosen nic names like chief which apparently was thought to be a compliment. Once (at least in my presence) my very Irish and devoted Unitarian mother was refered to as Tex's squaw. Mostly it was exclusion and the perpetual assignment to the building committee.

One of the difficulties with antiracism in our movement that Jeff has experienced arises from youth vanguardism. I am told that some young anti racists believe their generation can eradicate racism by being militant. Purify UUs and then the world! They think they have nothing to learn from older UUs who have been doing this work (without success in their view) for decades and therefore they need no analysis except moralism. An analysis of what racism is indicates it is deep in the national structure and not likely to be eradicated by a series of "trainings," we can only become conscious of it and learn to live with that awareness in a positive and inclusive way. Cultural competency would help as we try to be inclusive. Meanwhile we address the national institutions by concrete work to overcome poverty, discrimination, affirmative action, and empower oppressed communities to develop their own cultures and leaderships. We also address national consciousness with affirmative action, insisting on reparations, reminding white folks about that little matter of genocide at every opportunity. Slow work, but redemptive.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Thanks for the fact-checking, Carrie! I aim to get the story straight, but sometimes fall short of the mark. My mental Central Casting has a strong preference for irony and would probably preferred the usher to be an African American woman for the sake of dramatic unity. It is good to hear from someone with the facts.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Jeff writes: "This thread hasn't hit anything near the level of outright human meanness I've seen elsewhere."

And I say: Thank goodness! Frankly, I've been impressed by both the candor and willingness to try and understand each other by participants in this conversation so far. Obviously, it isn't an easy thing to talk about, but I'm pretty sure we all agree it is worth talking about.

I'm still curious to know what people think about the letter from the trustees of First Unitarian in Chicago. Do you think it will help address the problem? Would you have written the letter differently? Has your own congregation written a similar letter?

Steve Caldwell says:

Some of the concerns surrounding anti-racism is the emotional "hot button" surrounding the word "racism."

If we look at racism and anti-racism as personal, individual issues, many of us who are white may wonder why this is a big concern?

One may comment that he or she doesn't practice racial discrimination in daily life, tell racist jokes, etc.

However ... if we move from racism and anti-racism as personal and individual concerns and think about them as competing ideologies, this conversation may move to a different place (hopefully a productive place).

The Wikipedia has a useful definition of ideology that I'll copy here:

"An ideology is a collection of ideas" ... Every society has an ideology that forms the basis of the "public opinion" or common sense, a basis that usually remains invisible to most people within the society. This dominant ideology appears as "neutral", while all others that differ from the norm are often seen as radical, no matter what the actual vision may be."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

If racism and anti-racism are competing ideologies, which one is part of the dominant or "default" ideology in our society?

If a society's dominant ideology is often invisible to most people living in a culture, how do we cultivate the ability to see it, describe it, and criticize it?

The difficulty here is we can all be decent human beings and good Unitarian Universalists ... but we may not even be aware of the effects of racism on us if racism is a part of our society's dominant ideology.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Steve makes an excellent point, racism is the dominant ideology, and unchallenged it would have continued to be dominant within our movement as well. Martin hopes that "[r]ather than attempting to create an ideologically pure community by rooting out racism (and presumably racists), I hope that the congregations of the UUA will opt for education and transformation."

Education and transfomation is what UU antiracism work has been doing for years, and I know of no case of a "racist" being uprooted. The metaphor "uproot" as commonly used among liberals refers to going to the roots of a problem and doing transfomation, thus is it a way of talking about systemic change of a institutional culture.

I am surprised that Martin thinks his congregation is preparing for a purge, perhaps he should have a conversation with the ministers and the board. No? Martin actually thinks that the letter contains aggressive rhetoric inappropriate to the situation and his talk about purges is his own rhetorical exageration. Well, if one thinks this inappropriate given the congregational culture, take it up with the board.

I read it as a concerned group of UUs making a commitment to diligence in their own congregation, pledging that they will not cover up, they will be open about the process, they will confront any one who violates right relationship. That is a responsible board!

I don't know the congregational culture at Chicago First, presumably the lay leadership knows their people. In most of the congregations that I have served the rhetorical style would need to be toned down. Back in the day, in my home congregation (Arlington Street Church Boston) it would have been a righteous statement, and people would be making amendments to strengthen it. We did good work, and we did become more "diverse."

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Clyde, Nice to hear from you! I notice that here and on your blog you sometimes refer to me as "Martin" and I thought I'd point out that my name is actually Matthew. In truth, I like the name Martin much better than Matthew, but Matthew is what I have to work with and since we're bound to run across each other online or off I want you to recognize me when I introduce myself as Matthew.

One other clarification: First Unitarian is not my home congregation and I don't have a stake in their trustee's letter one way or the other. I read the letter in their newsletter, saw that their newsletter was online for anyone to read, and figured it was fair game for conversation. It seemed an unusual and interesting response to the allegations of racism at GA and I knew the charges were of interest to many UUs with a variety of positions on this controversial issue.

I fear you may be reading too much into my conversation-starter: I wouldn't object to the letter if it did represent my congregation, although it may be a little previous, considering the limited information available pending the UUA investigation, and it isn't clear to me how the letter will actually help. (I have a hard time imagining there is anyone to whom the letter has been sent that doesn't generally agree with its content.) Furthermore, I never suggested that the letter signifies a "purge" at First Unitarian and I wouldn't like to leave that impression with you or anyone else, especially the nice folks at First U, which I do visit from time to time. (Have you ever been there? It is a beautiful building!)

On the other hand, there are people with more experience and insight than me who are concerned about the ways in which anti-racism work is carried out in our community, like David Bumbaugh and Thandeka, both of whom have offered constructive criticism of the Journey Toward Wholeness program. (Did you read Bumbaugh's article about anti-racism work taking on a "party-line" aspect? There is also a follow-up by Sean Dennison on the Step-By-Step blog, with a contrasting point of view.) I have witnessed first-hand required anti-racism workshops in my seminary education that I can only describe as ideological bullying with a strong resemblance to the reality-distorting emotionalism of a Pentecostal revival: weeping, people hugging themselves while rocking back and forth, folks dramatically running out of the room in tears, ritualized confession of racial guilt, unsupported accusations of racists "sins" committed by institutions or individuals, and the feel-good finale when everyone is supposed to talk about how good they feel now that they have admitted their own racism. (The good feelings did not seem to last much longer than the workshop. When the bad feelings of pain, guilt, frustration, confusion, disillusionment, and anger began to surface in the community, the workshop leaders were long gone, which seemed particularly irresponsible to me.) I have also seen people whose careers were on the line over charges of racism which, when examined, were found to be unsubstantiated. My own view is that racism is a real problem too often manifested in our own community, however, there are also aspects of our anti-racism culture that seem to me fundamentally unsound and unhealthy. There are also some righteous but ineffective acts of anti-racism which may do little more than make ourselves feel better. To me, it is worth thinking critically about these issues as I determine where best to lend my support to the ideal of racial equality.

Do you know, I think we may have a friend in common? Recent Meadville grad Heather Janules is formerly of the Arlington Street Church. She has been a good friend to me, and perhaps to you, too. She is now settled into her first professional ministry.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Matthew, you are kind. Why my fingers write Martin I don't know, I thought I corrected the one or two on the blog, but perhaps you read them before I caught it.

As I indicated in my previous comment, I am not sure the First U letter was intended to help the UUA in its investigation, it seems a statement intended for internal purposes. All those promises about what they will do wouldn't be helpful to investigation. And I was pointing out your references to uprooting UUs seemed rhetorical.

Why institutions tolerate trainers that use bullying methods is beyond me. The UUMA has done a bunch of trainings and I think the colleagues would throw the trainers out of the room if they bullied. Of course, deep and honest conversation would be valuable.

I am curious, where are charges "of racism" made? The UUMA has definate guidelines which make acting against racism a professional responsibility, and the UUMA committee for anti racism, anti oppression, and multi culturalism investigates and has pastoral conversations on a case by case basis concerning breakdowns of right relations.

The UUA MFC could consider a case of "conduct unbecoming."

Does your school have guidelines, and a due process approach to bringing concerns, making charges, hearing charges, seeking reconciliation or severing the relationship. In other words. Who is making charges, according to what process, and to whom? How are the charges dealt with? Wild charges are unprofessional.

I did read your report on D, Bumbaugh's party line thing on Step by Step and commented there, but I realize that I didn't understand one part of his argument. I do now. Why don't we have a similar anti capitalism expectation of ministers? why don't we have peace expectation? why don't we have a green expectation? He concludes, anti racism is a party line. That is weak.

The answer Matthew is in the By-laws. The GA voted to become an anti racist anti oppressive, and multi cultural UUA, we have not voted to be anit capitalist, we have not voted to anti war, we have not voted to green. The MFC reflects the democratic decisions of the Association, and can't make requirements up. Most MFC members I have spoken to agree they don't require one analysis or another, what is important is that one have an analysis.

Leo Nagorski says:

It seems to me that where the terms "racist" and "racism" are used, it is almost impossible for people NOT to take it personally. The various entries I've read on different websites since the GA incidents seem to bear this out as well. While it may be useful in defusing emotions to talk of ideologies or to distinguish between "institutional" and "personal" racism, very often it seems when we all get down to the "nitty-gritty" of trying to address issues, it does become personal (either as critique delivered or as critique received) and we seem to far too easily throw our first UU principle out the window. In a sense, this may be inevitable. Imagine working for an institution that someone labels "racist". Whether or not the critique is accurate regarding either the institution as a whole or the individuals who work there, I can't imagine anyone working there who wouldn't take it "personally". I have no real wisdom here. I think we are all just working on these issues through trial and error and I do think a lot of us are sincerely trying in a spirit of goodwill, even though sometimes our attempts may seem (and possibly are) ham-handed, slow, even ineffective to others.

Joel Monka says:

Of COURSE the charge of racism is taken personally- it is not possible to take it in any other way, because only individual persons can be racist! There is no such thing as "institutional" racism; racism is a human emotion or belief system- an institution exists only as documents, ink on paper. For example, when someone says that the Republican party is racist (something I hear often enough to call it the 8th PP), they ARE calling me a racist- although some soften it by saying I'm not really a racist; I'm just too stupid to realize what I'm saying. Funny how it is not possible to discus the Middle East without seeing the boilerplate disclaimer "Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-terrorists-are-not-true-Muslims", but not once in any UU forum, blog or sermon have I ever seen the words "The Republican party is a party of high ideals and intentions; a racist cannot be a true Republican".

The result of defining political positions as "racist" is that it denies the possibility of any further discussion, because what you have really said is "The factual and moral truth of my position is undeniable; the only reason you oppose it is irrational hatred." And that is in fact the intent of the person crying "racist"- to shut you up, to stop the debate. Why would anyone be surprised at someone taking such an attack personally?

Joel Monka

Jeff Wilson says:

Much of the UU AR/AO work is performed in explicit relationship to an American society perceived as deeply racist (I'll leave aside Joel's post which would seem to suggest that America can't be racist, only Americans). As Clyde has pointed out to me, the UU subculture has changed over the past couple of generations, such that my UU upbringing afforded me the opportunity to grow up in an American subculture that actively inculcated anti-racist values and consistently attempted to point out and short circuit racist ideas/images conveyed by society at large. This is not the same as saying that racism does not persist in some UU sectors, only that it wasn't an identifiable part of my particular upbringing, particularly not in the overt and deplorable ways that Clyde describes in relation to his own family.

Because UU AR/AO takes the relationship with the wider culture as its launcing point (at least, the AR/AO which I have observed, almost entirely within UU youth and young adult circles), it's worth considering whether American society has also changed over the past couple of generations. I don't feel I'm old enough to have sufficient memory of earlier decades to make such a determination. So, let me ask it here: has American society become more or less racist? Or, if you prefer, how has racism in America changed? Is America more anti-racist than it used to be? How do UU AR/AO efforts evolve to take into account the changing of American society, assuming they do so?

Clyde Grubbs says:

Jeff a book could be written on this question!

I comment on just part of Jeff's question at http://justworld.typepad.com/perspectives/2005/09/we_sang_we_shal.html

fausto says:

Jeff asks in an earlier post:

Is the way in which anti-racism is done in UU circles itself racist?

In a word, yes.

Racism is prejudging people on the basis of skin color. It's not only prejudging "people of color" negatively; it's also prejudging them positively, or prejudging whites negatively. True anti-racism is judging all people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", as MLK Jr so eloquently put it; and our 19th century Unitarian forbears who vigorously preached a Gospel of "salvation by character" would wholeheartedly agree.

The ostensible "anti-racism" position that is promoted so vigorously in parts of the UUA is in fact a particularly insidious form of racism. It is not much different from classic Jim Crow racism, with the same mob psychology overtones, but instead of being maintained by violence it is gussied up in a sheen of priggish self-righteousness. As the antebellum Virginia Congressman John Randolph once said of Henry Clay, it has the the aspect of a rotten mackerel by moonlight; it shines and it stinks.

The GA incident and the knee-jerk response that followed from pre-offended blowhards who weren't even there was a prime example. The blowhards had no time to collect the facts and determine the reality of the situation; they merely heard a rumor that tickled their prejudices and were off to the races (no pun intended). The reasoned refutation of racism accusations (excluding, perhaps, the possible racism of the young provocateurs themselves) by an African-American UU usher, who was an eyewitness in the thick of the fray and knows real racism when she sees it, should have been the final word.

That it was not and that this debate is continuing is testimony to the reality of racism within the UUA -- but, ironically, it is testimony to the racist predispositions of the accusers, not the accused.

fausto says:

I'm re-reading the whole thread more carefully, and I am corrected by Carrie Stewart's post. I had read somewhere else that the usher was African American, and repeated that in my own post above, but Carrie (who knows her) states that she is Latina, not African American. Nevertheless, my general point -- that as a member of a group that is often on the receiving end of derogatory prejudice, she is likely to be able to recognize genuine racism when she sees it, and here eyewitness deserves a great deal of weight -- remains.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Again the usher saw what she saw, but she did not see what happened to the these UU youth before the moment that she wrote about. She witnessed that they were upset, but she didn't know why. The youth are known as people by many of us for years. Is it possible, Fausto, that calling them "young provocatuers" with no knowledge of them as persons, mirrors the behavior of the "blowhards" that you object to?

There were plenty of people who know real racism when they see it on the spot. People who have actually worked against racism, and done so effectively — and those people are not speculating or laying blame or making instant anaysis. Why? Out of respect for "content of character" of people who were caught in breakdown of right relations.

fausto says:

I don't think it's inappropriate, on the basis of the usher's account, to refer to them as "provocateurs", Clyde. They went looking for a confrontation, and found one.

As for what may or may not have happened to them previously, any real or perceived racism directed toward them previously did not justify their disruptive behavior in the closing service. If there were a valid grievance to express, that was not the appropriate time or place or manner for expressing it. Have we abandoned the basic moral principle that "two wrongs don't make a right"? If we have, God help us.

Racism is, of course, evil. I oppose it. But contrary to what Steve argues above, I don't believe "anti-racism" is a legitimate ideology in and of itself. Valid, complete ideologies are affirmative, not negative. They stand on their own and not merely in opposition to, and dependent upon, a contrasting premise. We resist evil because we believe in good, not because we believe in contrariness. We oppose racism not because we seek righteous retribution for a victimized class or ethnic group, but because of our foundational affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of every individual human being -- an affirmation which racism undermines. When anti-racism is treated as an ideology of its own, and is articulated in terms of groups rather than individuals, it invites a "righteous-us-vs.-wrongful-them" view of the world that only perpetuates, rather than cures, prejudice and xenophobia. It becomes tainted with the same corruption that it purports to remedy. If every individual possesses inherent worth, then there can be no them vs. us. Them is us, and their imperfections are ours as well, and when we stand at the barricades at Selma and stare at the people on the other side, we remember that in some way we are also staring at a mirror.

I think too much of UU youth ministry is so focused on teaching anti-racism as an ideology that it crowds out opportunities for more substantive and spiritual faith formation, and in consequence it leaves our kids feeling as smug and condemnatory as the right-wing fundamentalists whom some of us love to mock, while also leaving them spiritually less grounded. At its best, opposition to racism is the contextual application of a deeper and more universal morality, not a foundational premise in its own right. Rather than teaching it that way, we would be better off teaching our kids to always remember to remove first the planks from their own eyes so that they can then see more clearly to help remove the specks from their neighbors'. If we did, genuine (rather than self-congratulating and sanctimonious) opposition to racism would follow naturally.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Clyde: If the letter from First Unitarian was intended for internal purposes, I doubt it would have been sent to the UUA board, Bill Sinkford, UU World, and the Central Midwest district. Reading First Unitarian's newsletter article about the letter, it becomes clear that the letter is in direct response to the allegations of racism at GA 2005 and that the letter is intended to send a message to the UUA leadership. I agree, however, that the letter will not be useful in the actual work of the investigation--which is one of the things that puzzled me about it. Basically, it seems to be saying that this is an issue so important to the congregation that they are willing to reconsider their relationship with the UUA through a right-relationship process.

I believe my school has, in fact, recently adopted some policies about anti-racism, but I'm not sure what they are or if they would protect anyone from irresponsible charges. I'll see what I can find out… In any case, the MFC guidelines wouldn't be enforceable in the situation I'm describing.

Although I respect and admire David Bumbaugh, I have not yet been persuaded to his political perspective or convinced, as he is, of the urgency of political expression from the pulpit. I would be very much alarmed if potential UU ministers were required to make statements to the MFC about their support for Marxism, Deep Ecology, and pacifism. (I don't believe Bumbaugh is seriously suggesting this be the case, either.) If Steve is right, however, in calling anti-racism an ideology, Bumbaugh's article makes me question why, when ministerial students aren't even asked to prepare a theological position for the MFC, they are required to prepare a statement in support of a particular ideology, however worthwhile? Why have theological freedom if we then impose ideological conformity? Further, Bumbaugh cautions students that this is not an open question in which any thoughtful answer is acceptable. The wrong answer could seriously affect their ability to enter ministry. *This* is what constitutes a party line, Clyde (at least, so I believe), rather than the "Why aren't we anti-capitalists, too?" argument that you have picked up on.

I find your view (The MFC doesn't require a particular analysis.), along with Sean's similar comment, to be reassuring, although Bumbaugh is also someone who is certainly in a position to know what he is talking about. I guess that I will just have to see for myself when I meet with the MFC!

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this issue. It is interesting to talk with you and also interesting to read the conversation as it develops.

Clyde Grubbs says:

I think the occassion for the letter was what they had heard about GA, and since they had no concrete facts and no patience with the deliberative process promised by the UUA board, they made a statement. Don't just sit there, make a statement (full of rhetoric to make it clear how commited they were.) But in the process, they seem they made a commitment to be a deligent board relative to their own situation in Chicago. Nothing they promise to do is relevant to the facts of what happened in Fort Worth.

As a member of the UUMA exec I would be glad to ask the MFC what they mean, and what they intend by the essay and the questioning during the interview. I'll write some kind report to candidates with their response. If you or any one you know has any specific questions let me know, my email is on the UUMA web site.

Up to this point, I have been asking that the RSCC's do some kind of probing around how each precandiate works against oppression. I think it unfair to give candidacy status to some well intentioned UU who is clueless that they will later be held accountable for articulating a coherent, pertitant anti racist, anti oppressive analysis and praxis.

I understand that they do ask about theology, as the other members of the mock interview committee indicated. All the feedback I get they do. The essay that I worked on for the MFC back in my day was my call theology. I see such an essay is still required. They don't just take any theology, they ask probing questions to see if that theology is grounded, and the candidate sees its implication in the practice of ministry. I understand that this how they probe anti oppression as well.

I guess I am convinced that discerning a minister is determing whether the candidate has a calling that comes both from inner depth and a response to the worlds brokenness. For me, overcoming oppression is soul work, a spiritual and religious practice that contributes toward the healing the world's brokenness.

Leo Nagorski says:

I think we seem to have a more basic problem here than just a disagreement over "ideologies" or "tactics". There seems to be a general lack of charity in the discussions I've read regarding the Ga incident (perhaps, even my labeling it here as "uncharitable" is itself uncharitable). Many of us on these sites admit we don't have the facts, or at least not all of them. Yet, that hasn't stopped many of us from "happily" signing on to one side or the other. Please don't think I'm judging anyone else and leaving myself exempt. I find I am just as tempted to read things into the scraps of fact I have, too. I don't like it when I see myself doing either.

Oversoul says:

“a racist cannot be a true Republican”

Oh come Joel-most Republicans can’t be true Republicans ;)-

“True anti-racism is judging all people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", as MLK Jr so eloquently put it; and our 19th century Unitarian forbears who vigorously preached a Gospel of "salvation by character" would wholeheartedly agree.”

Yes!!!

I am consistently amazed at how Americans fail to grasp this fundamental fact: racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. are all attacks against the dignity of the human individual. It’s not just an American problem; you’d be hard pressed to find a culture on this planet that does not find some way to divide itself into “us” and “them.” For example, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India all have indigenous populations which were displaced by other peoples, much as the Europeans did in the Western Hemisphere. And yet we tend to think this is something that only happens between whites and others. It’s a dark part of all humanity, and until we learn to judge others by the content of their character, it will persist in a million forms.

Oversoul says:

“a racist cannot be a true Republican”

Oh come Joel-most Republicans can’t be true Republicans ;)-

“True anti-racism is judging all people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", as MLK Jr so eloquently put it; and our 19th century Unitarian forbears who vigorously preached a Gospel of "salvation by character" would wholeheartedly agree.”

Yes!!!

I am consistently amazed at how Americans fail to grasp this fundamental fact: racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. are all attacks against the dignity of the human individual. It’s not just an American problem; you’d be hard pressed to find a culture on this planet that does not find some way to divide itself into “us” and “them.” For example, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India all have indigenous populations which were displaced by other peoples, much as the Europeans did in the Western Hemisphere. And yet we tend to think this is something that only happens between whites and others. It’s a dark part of all humanity, and until we learn to judge others by the content of their character, it will persist in a million forms.

James Glines says:

Brand New to UU. In my fellowship when asked what ethnicity or backgrounds our members and guests were, many said Irish, Italian, Native American, French, British Isles, German, with a small percentage claiming hispanic or african decent. It's not about any particular ethnicity, but if you looked around, for whatever reason, many members were lighter skinned, many were elder, many were retired, many were doctors or professors, and there was an equal amount of gen. X people with similar aged kids of 6 years or younger.

There was a recent discussion in our RE class about immigration, and of course we left with more questions than answers. If we wish to get at the bottom or racism, prejudice, discrimination in all forms, inequality, sexism, etc, we must discuss where this prevailing attitude or viewpoint is presented or taught. It seemed that on the basis of income alone, there was some sort of affirmative action happening that benefited people of European decent. One must realize that education played a major role in thier jobs, and the pay that went with that. I have seen in India the education is state funded, and they have produced many educated citizens who are now taking over high paying jobs, and they are much more qualified, but will work for much less. This is a sore spot for many current citizens and residents of the US, seeing our jobs leaving or watching our long time employees get replaced with new foreign workers who soon get naturalized and become permanent residents/citizens. The loyalty to the 20 year employee and the welfare of the family that will be affected by being replaced is not considered as it was in the past. It seems greed and profit is the underlying moneymaker that is crippling our country, beneficial many times to the families abroad, where the money goes, not in America, and to companies who have become Global who do not care if America crumbles. To me, this is a matter of national security, as our own residents education continues to fall, and we see other nation's pupils and kids education rise exponentially.

Who get an education in the US and who doesn't may be legal, but it is a way to discriminate against ethnicities who statistically fail to 'make the grade' or acceptance into college. With more and more jobs leaving, and the residents staying, the level of education of the unemployed is rising, meaning less experienced youth/adults will not be able to compete to get a job or vocation to be competitive in today's world/market. What we see is more and more goverment subsidy and dependance of the resident upon government programs that are designed to keep them in that position, not to get off of assistance. There have been recent changes to cut the support of those on assistence, with no alternative or place to go. The unemployment numbers only show who applied and are accepted, but not who gets dropped from the roles, giving a deceiving statistic and misleading feeling of security for our nation.

A 3 book study by Thomas Sowell about Race, Migration, and Conquest and Culture is an excellent composition and in depth review of what has happened in history, and what we can expect to see in the future. This book has already been proven to be correct since the final book release 6 years ago. We are seeing the next migration of the displaced Citizens of LA, MS, AL and FL, how they will affect the communities with the skills they bring, or the problems they bring, the market and employment/unemployment that will be affected, and the impact or burden on the community.

This comment was about racism or discrimination, and it is a deep subject, that pervades our society no matter how well you white wash it or legislate it, it just doesn't seem to go away. When you study history, you see that cheap labor is considered a necessary evil that is not to be done by the 'priviledged', but should be and often is railroaded to the 'less fortunate' who also tend to be in a minority race.

It is a good question then, is it just location, or coincidence that our fellowship lacks proportionate members of minorities? Does it have anything to do with the fact Bell County of Texas is the "whitest" in Texas? Is that a factor when people choose to live "in a decent neighborhood"? How is it that minorities tend to be pushed together and not integrated within our communities? Is it by income alone? Are local laws being created that shape this developement? Is it possible there are calculated and strategic positioning in city council or at major business job human resource manager positions that rule or decide LEGALLY who gets hired/fired or is represented? Does religion have ANY role in the decisions of these people? Is it a coincidence many are 'Christian'? Does the Bible have any references to prejudice, preference, teaching or philosophy that would influence their decision that may result in discrimination or racism? :-) The answer may be in the question, or in asking the question.

I recently went to LA to a shelter in Covington, and deliverd supplies to what was mostly the minorities, but definitely the 'less affluent' of the community. I witnessed the community of Covington not helping these people like Good Samaritans, but they rallied to save a town to the East called Slidel, a comunity of 82% white people, and Covington was 76% white. I am going to lead a discussion soon at my fellowship about my observations there, and what we can do about it. I did observe in myself that I too did not help my own community much before this. I do donate regularly to the Salvation Army, and one time a person was looking for a bed, and I was bringing a bed there, so I gave them a ride back, and delivered the bed right to the family who needed it. If there is such thing as Providence, that was a classic example that gets you thinking "what are the odds?".

How CAN we root out discrimination/racism/preferential treatment? Is it really being taught to our kids in Sunday School, or public and private schools? Don't deny the truth if you uncover it, and it looks back at you with beady little eyes. Call it for what it is! If you really find what was happening in the US before, during and now post-Katrina, than we must address this issue NOW

Peace and Blessing to All
~James james.glines@gmail.com

James Glines says:

Brand New to UU. In my fellowship when asked what ethnicity or backgrounds our members and guests were, many said Irish, Italian, Native American, French, British Isles, German, with a small percentage claiming Hispanic or African decent. It's not about any particular ethnicity, but if you looked around, for whatever reason, many members were lighter skinned, many were elder, many were retired, many were doctors or professors, and there was an equal amount of gen. X people with similar aged kids of 6 years or younger.

There was a recent discussion in our RE class about immigration, and of course we left with more questions than answers. If we wish to get at the bottom or racism, prejudice, discrimination in all forms, inequality, sexism, etc, we must discuss where this prevailing attitude or viewpoint is presented or taught. It seemed that on the basis of income alone, there was some sort of affirmative action happening that benefited people of European decent. One must realize that education played a major role in thier jobs, and the pay that went with that. I have seen in India the education is state funded, and they have produced many educated citizens who are now taking over high paying jobs, and they are much more qualified, but will work for much less. This is a sore spot for many current citizens and residents of the US, seeing our jobs leaving or watching our long time employees get replaced with new foreign workers who soon get naturalized and become permanent residents/citizens. The loyalty to the 20 year employee and the welfare of the family that will be affected by being replaced is not considered as it was in the past. It seems greed and profit is the underlying moneymaker that is crippling our country, beneficial many times to the families abroad, where the money goes, not in America, and to companies who have become Global who do not care if America crumbles. To me, this is a matter of national security, as our own residents education continues to fall, and we see other nation's pupils and kids education rise exponentially.

Who get an education in the US and who doesn't may be legal, but it is a way to discriminate against ethnicities who statistically fail to 'make the grade' or acceptance into college. With more and more jobs leaving, and the residents staying, the level of education of the unemployed is rising, meaning less experienced youth/adults will not be able to compete to get a job or vocation to be competitive in today's world/market. What we see is more and more goverment subsidy and dependance of the resident upon government programs that are designed to keep them in that position, not to get off of assistance. There have been recent changes to cut the support of those on assistence, with no alternative or place to go. The unemployment numbers only show who applied and are accepted, but not who gets dropped from the roles, giving a deceiving statistic and misleading feeling of security for our nation.

A 3 book study by Thomas Sowell about Race, Migration, and Conquest and Culture is an excellent composition and in depth review of what has happened in history, and what we can expect to see in the future. This book has already been proven to be correct since the final book release 6 years ago. We are seeing the next migration of the displaced Citizens of LA, MS, AL and FL, how they will affect the communities with the skills they bring, or the problems they bring, the market and employment/unemployment that will be affected, and the impact or burden on the community.

This comment was about racism or discrimination, and it is a deep subject, that pervades our society no matter how well you white wash it or legislate it, it just doesn't seem to go away. When you study history, you see that cheap labor is considered a necessary evil that is not to be done by the 'priviledged', but should be and often is railroaded to the 'less fortunate' who also tend to be in a minority race.

It is a good question then, is it just location, or coincidence that our fellowship lacks proportionate members of minorities? Does it have anything to do with the fact Bell County of Texas is the "whitest" in Texas? Is that a factor when people choose to live "in a decent neighborhood"? How is it that minorities tend to be pushed together and not integrated within our communities? Is it by income alone? Are local laws being created that shape this developement? Is it possible there are calculated and strategic positioning in city council or at major business job human resource manager positions that rule or decide LEGALLY who gets hired/fired or is represented? Does religion have ANY role in the decisions of these people? Is it a coincidence many are 'Christian'? Does the Bible have any references to prejudice, preference, teaching or philosophy that would influence their decision that may result in discrimination or racism? :-) The answer may be in the question, or in asking the question.

I recently went to LA to a shelter in Covington, and deliverd supplies to what was mostly the minorities, but definitely the 'less affluent' of the community. I witnessed the community of Covington not helping these people like Good Samaritans, but they rallied to save a town to the East called Slidel, a comunity of 82% white people, and Covington was 76% white. I am going to lead a discussion soon at my fellowship about my observations there, and what we can do about it. I did observe in myself that I too did not help my own community much before this. I do donate regularly to the Salvation Army, and one time a person was looking for a bed, and I was bringing a bed there, so I gave them a ride back, and delivered the bed right to the family who needed it. If there is such thing as Providence, that was a classic example that gets you thinking "what are the odds?".

How CAN we root out discrimination/racism/preferential treatment? Is it really being taught to our kids in Sunday School, or public and private schools? Don't deny the truth if you uncover it, and it looks back at you with beady little eyes. Call it for what it is! If you really find what was happening in the US before, during and now post-Katrina, than we must address this issue NOW

Peace and Blessing to All
~James james.glines@gmail.com

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Welcome to Coffee Hour and the Unitarian Universalist community, James. I appreciate the time it must have taken to write your thoughtful post.

I don't know why we are getting double posts, but I'll see if anything can be done about it...

RIeux says:

I don't think this significantly changes any of the issues brought up by the original post or comments, but I thought readers might find it interesting that the congregation of the First Unitarian Church of Chicago (which I attended when I lived in the Windy City for a few years) is heavily ethnically mixed by UU standards. ...Though that, admittedly, isn't saying a whole lot.

Notably, the number of African-Americans within both the Church's congregation and its leadership is much larger than in any other UU congregation I have visited. For whatever it's worth, I'm sure the letter Matthew quoted was read and discussed (probably both before and after publication) by many First Unitarian UUs of color. I sort of wish I hadn't moved away, so that I could have witnessed those discussions....

Joel Monka says:

I think a great deal of the careful attention paid to racism, and most especially the kind of programs Matthew Gatheringwater described, have become counterproductive today, creating far more tension between the races than they are relieving. To make white racism the presumptive until proven innocent cause for every effect in the African American community has gone beyond stifling discussion into the realm of stifling analytical thought itself.

Let me use an ongoing case here in Indiana as an example. The Governors here (both parties) have been handing out Bureau of Motor Vehicle license branches as political favors for 50 years; as a result, Indiana has more License branches than any state save for California and Texas. The current head of BMV is trying to close and consolidate redundant branches, and there is a big controversy over the closing of the branch in Gary, IN. The head of the BMV responded to the complaints that Gary would not have its own BMV by saying, “You’re thinking city; your county will still have four BMVs- no one will be more than five miles from a license branch.” What more need be said? They had their smoking gun, he had admitted with his words that this was a racist plot to suppress the Black vote, to disenfranchise African Americans. After all, he had said “Thinking city”, which is code language for “urban”, which is code language for “black”. Case proved, protests organized.

I was taught in school that patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel; I have come to believe that racism is the first response of a demagogue. Yes, there is real racism in America. I believe racism is a human instinct, like the fear of falling, that every person must recognize and overcome... but I also believe that racism is big business, that a lot of people are making a very comfortable living finding it everywhere, like the witch smellers of old. I believe that these modern day witch smellers have so indoctrinated modern sensibilities that a teenager could act like a punk, and when called on it, actually believe that he’s being singled out for the color of his skin- even if he would have been ashamed of himself had it been his mother reprimanding him instead. Was that the case at the GA? I don’t know. Is it easier to believe than that a bunch of Ku Klux Klanners became Unitarians, convinced their congregations to send them as representatives to GA, and then showed their true colors? For me, yes, unless someone has a better smoking gun than I’ve seen thus far.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Rieux wrote: "...the congregation of the First Unitarian Church of Chicago (which I attended when I lived in the Windy City for a few years) is heavily ethnically mixed by UU standards..."

This is true, and it gave me pause. In general, when a lot of black folks disagree with me, I tend to double-check my social location. Am I "not getting it" because I am not affected by what black folks are concerned about? In this case, I don't know how many of the folks on the committee that wrote the letter are African American, but the fact that First Unitarian is unusally diverse made me wonder if their letter was worth paying extra attention.

That being said, I'm not sure First Unitarian is entirely responsible for its own diversity, insofar as it is a result of special programming, or anti-racism training, or theology. Hyde Park is an unusual neighborhood and one of the ways it is distinctive is its racial and ethnic diversity. This diversity does not extend very far into the realms of class, income, and education, however. In fact, the joke about Hyde Park I heard again and again when I first came here was, "Hyde Park: Where Black and White work together to Keep Poor People Out!" Most of the churches I've attended in Hyde Park are also racially mixed, while just a few blocks out of the neighborhood there are churches serving poor African American folks exclusively. This both fascinates and frustrates me, because sometimes it seems like no matter how hard we work to become a multi-cultural and anti-racist religious community, there remain strong social factors that help keep Sundays the most segregated day in America. Case in point: I have a friend who is theologically unitarian but goes to a church with trinitarian theology. When I asked why, she explained that she just felt more comfortable in a "black church." I went further, and asked if she felt more comfortable in a black church *because she was made to feel uncomfortable in a UU congregation* but that wasn't the issue. I had a hard time figuring out why this bothered me. In the end, I decided my friend had better things to do on Sunday than to show up at a UU church and help me not feel like a racist. She laughed and agreed. Which makes me wonder: When we talk about the UUA becoming an anti-racist and multi-cultural institution, are we really talking about changing our attitudes or changing our demographics?

Leo Nagorski says:

Having never lived in Indiana, I can't speak to the specifics of what Joel alludes to regarding the Gary, Ind. BMV. However, having lived in Pennsylvania (and the US), I think I do have a feel for how politics often works in America. How were the BMVs chosen to be closed ? Very often, money talks. The BMVs that were spared the ax, were they in well-to-do, lily-white suburbs ? Granted, this does not prove any deliberate racist intent, but it may suggest that the bureaucrats in charge of closing "superfluous" sites may not be all that innocent, either. In America, the poor and minorities are often seen as the most "expendable". For example, before Katrina, Congress' most urgent business in this current session was to be a vote on eliminating the Estate Tax, which helps the upper 1% of Americans almost exclusively. Meanwhile, the current administration is unceremoniously cutting back on social services to the poor and the working class. As many people of color are on the lower end of the economic demographic, they may assume (not unreasonably) that these kinds of actions have a racist aspect to them. Though it may just be politicians' toadying to the well off, I don't think one can easily separate race and class issues in America today.

Joel Monka says:

The sites were chosen by amount of business done per year and population density, with the numbers openly published. Local black Muslim talkshow host Adbul Hakim Shabazz says Gary's claims are ridiculous. But that's not the point- staking their claim on two layers of "code language" is absurd on its face. But, of course, no one in officialdom dare say so. And the fact that enough people believed it to stage a protest is further proof of the corrosive effect of obsessing on race and presuming guilt. It's like the claim that the trouble in New Orleans was the result of Bush not caring about blacks- to make that case, one would have to presume that the people in the other 90,000 square miles of disaster area who had few complaints received preferential treatment because they were lilly white... which is not the impression I got when driving through Mississippi and Alabama last year. But logic and proof are meaningless- the charge of racism IS the proof of racism, for those who make a living off it.

Leo Nagorski says:

I'm uncomfortable dismissing out of hand someone else's perception of injustice. I also think that African-American distrust of Bush and the Republican party did not spring fully-grown overnight like Athena from Zeus. I think the perception of the Bush Administration in Katrina is but the latest in a long thread of events. One can disagree with the perception, but if one feels harmed by someone over the long haul of previous events, it may just be common sense to be suspicious of the latest debacle.

Rieux says:

Matthew wrote:
This is true, and it gave me pause. In general, when a lot of black folks disagree with me, I tend to double-check my social location.

Oh, who knows; I have no idea (and most likely no one else here does, either) how the internal First Unitarian Church of Chicago discussion regarding this letter went.

That being said, I'm not sure First Unitarian is entirely responsible for its own diversity, insofar as it is a result of special programming, or anti-racism training, or theology. Hyde Park is an unusual neighborhood and one of the ways it is distinctive is its racial and ethnic diversity.

Totally agreed. I haven't noticed any significant difference in theological orientation (or training, special programming, etc.) between First Unitarian - Chicago and any other UU congregation I've seen. There are noteworthy differences, but they seem to me to be primarily effects of the ethnic makeup rather than causes of same. As a prime example: at my current UU church, I don't hear nearly as much expression of the experience of being Black in the U.S. as I did in Hyde Park, chiefly because almost no one at my current church is Black. I miss that particular kind of diversity of experience--though of course my church (and presumably most or all UU churches) can boast of other diversities.

I certainly don't see the point of changing the theological orientation of a congregation (or a broader UU organization?...) in the hopes of attracting more ethnic minorities. I heavily doubt it would work, and I don't understand how such a move could be made without real disrespect of the current congregation's identity/ies. (Not to mention disrespect of the religious diversity of any given ethnic group.)

Matthew's comments brought up, for me, a UU World article ( http://tinyurl.com/aqt89 ) by Rosemary Bray McNatt from a few years ago that seems to me to blame the fact that Martin Luther King wasn't a UU on us stupid benighted atheists. The import is that we nonbelievers and our "wounds" (how lovely it is to have one's beliefs chalked up to "wounds"...) are the only things standing between UUism and a massive influx of African-American converts.

Responding to McNatt in the Letters column two issues later was our own Leo Nagorski ( http://tinyurl.com/bwqnm ), who I think put things nicely.

James Glines says:

I have spent the last 8 days investigating what I can, checking with other people, checking out the web, listening to the news, and trying to get to the culprit that sets the environment and tone for a culture where an idealogy exists...pick an ism.

I have seen an assumption, including from my own post to say it's more exclusive about our appearance than it is about nationality. What I mean is we are all ethnic, and maybe at one time there was the idea that your 'race' was pure as far as bloodlines or matrilieal ancestry. What hasn't been addressed is the culture that is equally attacked and discriminated against, or what the actions of a ethnicity or resident of a country tends to do, or believe, or live.

For those who do not know, there is not just one culture of a Native American, from North to South America or any aboriginal in the world. Just as there are various tribes in Africa, there are various sects with their own dialect, who represent a unique way of life, but we see that all are 'American' or 'African', etc. When you go to the WallBuilders site ( http://www.wallbuilders.com/aboutus/index.htm ) you read at the bottom "...Their testimonials offer positive proof of a renewed vision and of a rededication to be good stewards of this country that God has so graciously placed in our hands. This civic stewardship is crucial both for our generation as well as future ones. WallBuilders embraces completely the timeless charge delivered in 1803 by the Reverend Matthias Burnet, who warned, “Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.”..."

For those who do not know about the Wappinger tribe of Natives of America http://www.dickshovel.com/wap.html some terrible things happened to them, as well as other tribes in the world, often times from 'civilized' people who claimed the Natives were 'savages' and then we see the Dutch Christians acting VERY savage to them and committing sanctioned genocide.

You may ask why this is, and I feel it wasn't exclusively because they had real estate, but it was because many Natives' CULTURE felt that property did not exist, and thier views sharply contrasted the Christian conquerers to the point thier very existence and way of life itself posed as a threat to the Dutch intentions, and were not ever going to sell something that they felt was not thier to give, or the Dutch to take or 'own'.

Check out the Wanapum Natives from Eastern Washington http://www.columbiana.org/WebPageGraphics/reviewsg.htm
they and other tribes were peaceful, and the very culture brought by the Europeans clashed, and many were completely wiped out. The Wanapum tribe never agreed to any land deal, and they just continued to live until the 1960's quietly and as they had for thousands of years until they abandoned their ways or just died out. I found a simple plaque along the Columbia river to honor them, with typical graphitti saying "Good!" gouged all over it to say they were glad a People had perished.

Why would a predominantly Christian expedition of pioneers resort to violently overthrowing those that did not agree with them, as in the case of the Wappingers of New York? Was it really about race? Was it really about land? Was it really about income or profit? What was it? What justification do we find time and again in the journals of the explorers such as Christopher Columbus or the Pilgrims, or the French, or the Britts who worked with them, then fought against them around the same time as our Revolution? Howard Zinn addresses this in a book found on the front page of this site, Voices of a People's History http://howardzinn.org/default/ You can 'amazon' it and read some of it too.

I found a couple of great articles, one from Bill Moyers, and another by One People's Project database http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091105X.shtml
http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=29

I found a similar claim like the current WallBuilders by Jerry Falwell: "Moral Majority wants to bring the nation back to the moral principles and traditional values on which this nation was founded," he said. "It is my conviction that this is a nation under God. Our President (Reagan) said that in his inaugural address...The Supreme Court has so ruled that way. The Congress added two words, "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's this is a nation under God - our founding fathers believed that - and it is predicated on the Judeo-Christian ethic, that is the principles of the Old Testament and the New Testament."
If you ever get the chance, check out Moral Majority's 4 platforms at their main page.

May I point out for the US to exist "handed over by God's grace", the removal of the aboriginals or Natives must be removed or dealt with, and we see in many cases genocide, and horrific treatment that mirrors Katrina episodes against the citizens of the US in Gulf States. We also see history repeating itself in a battle of the Middle East for what was TransJordan and Palestine, backed by the US to remove the inhabitants in a long standing civil war. We see the treatment of Natives by our gov't to be one of the most deplorable examples, which was actually copied by Nazi Germany and Aparteid Africa. See what Russel Means and Ward Churchill have to say about that, and so much more that is very applicable to today and this subject! http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1071

How does ethics play out vs morals as touted by the 'moral majority' standpoint to 'unbelievers'? What are the fruits of these organizations towards minorities (or what formerly were) or people who do not share the 'American' culture? Why was help with held from NOLA and other Gulf States as if they were being embargo'd or sanctioned by the UN? Sounds terrible, but our gov't officially refused and outright turned away food, water, assistance from internal and external sources, treating certain parishes or communities as if they were terrorists or escaped convicts, but under what authority? I find that this may be where I may find the answer to my question, on how a neighbor or a state/fed official or even a relief worker could outright refuse to help thier fellow man, either officially or by their own choice, and allow extreme negligence to be witnessed for the world to see.

Steve Caldwell says:

There's a very interesting resource on Joseph Santos-Lyons' blog site related to this topic:

How does racism manifest itself at A UU Congregation?
http://radicalhapa.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/how_does_racism.html

Leo Nagorski says:

I checked out the website Steve Caldwell mentions. Maybe I'm missing something but it seemed to me to be a mixed bag of a list. There were some items I could clearly relate to racism, such as whites refusing to acknowledge racism and ignorance of UU participation in slavery and/or racism, etc. Some statements seemed to have a tenuous connection to racism; "Whites who dislike movement or shouting in worship services." Must we all embrace the same worship styles whether it fits who we are or not ? I have relatives and friends who are white and Pentecostal. I'm not thrilled when they shout, either. That's not me. I've also met African-Americans who liked our service precisely because we didn't do what they grew up experiencing in their "birth church". There were also statements that I couldn't see had any connection to racism, per se, at all; "Committee chairs who abuse their power." I would think that we should all be concerned with that. I would think that no one, regardless of ethnicity, would think abusive leaders a good thing. There were even statements critical of other people of color. I wonder if, by constructing a veritable laundry list of things that one doesn't like about one's church (or denomination) and placing it under the rubric of "racism" won't just serve to trivialize many of the good points on the list. Just a thought.

h sofia says:

One thing I noted is that the list on Joseph's site is one person's opinion. So far as I know it is not an "official list." I did not perceive some of the items on the list as being race-related, but unless or until I am being asked to problem-solve, taking note of how we are feeling, as members of a congregation is rather crucial (for me).

Clyde Grubbs says:

Just for the sake of communication let us concede that racism is at the same time, an big picture institutional and social reality and collection of individual personal experiences of oppression.

Racism is experienced by particular people of color in ways as ways the dominant culture of white identified people do things that I experience as oppressive. Being outside of the experience we might see it as one more breakdown of right relationships.

Once, not so long ago, I dealt with a case of a white man of authority shouting at a African American student. The student had done something embarrasing to his supervisor. Shamed the white man shouted and belittled the Black young man. Objectively, this replicated the slavemaster/slave relationship. The student saw it as racism, the White man told about his civil rights record.

Does it make any difference if the white man lost his temper? or if he also yells at white subordinates? or if he was ashamed of his conduct after he cooled down?

Abuse of authority is an not a good thing, but was this racism? I think the dynamic involved White power, and therefore I counseled that whatever the intentions, racism was experienced by the student.

Given the relationship that White folks and People of Color play out in this country, we find that People of Color experience racism in this replicating of patterns, roles and abusive behaviors. White folks often see don't see these patterns, roles and behaviors as problems of racism, but rather problems of this individual white person (having a bad hair day so to speak.)

White folks meanwhile look at the individual motive, maybe the chair of the committee is abusive to everyone, and thus this isn't racist, its just abuse. And we get the argument that GW Bush neglects all poor people, therefore he isn't racist because he neglects his responsibilities toward poor People of Color.

Racism is seldom pure and simple, it is mixed up with elitism, classism, sexism, domination, violence, jealousy and abusive relalations. So some folks say "racism" and other folks say "not nice" and they see the same thing.

Women also experience patriarchy as personal, and at the same time percieve a pattern, a system, a set of relationships. Men often respond defensively and deny that there is a pattern - the women are just being subjective!

If we get beyond being personally defensive, and see that our whole national culture is involved and we are players in much bigger drama, but we together we can change the outcome of the drama,

then we can look at lists like Radical Hapa published as helpful hints about how one person sees racism being made manifest.

Liz Schwartz says:

I really like some of the items of Joseph's list. I found number 28 to especially strike a nerve with me:

People of color assumed to be interested in racism

This is one that I definitly struggle with as a white person. I have definitly in the past gone up to a person of color who i didn't know and, trying to be friendly, decided that there was definitly one topic that i knew they'd be interested in. *smacks forehead*

yeah, so basically that and any other sort of tokenization is really tricky to try and avoid when in UU setting since for me that most often means whites will be in the majority. but i'll be workin on it!

Jeff Wilson says:

I wrote a reply to the list at Joey's site, but decided not to post it because I think many people involved in UU anti-racism are unable to hear criticisms of their work. Suffice it to say that I think there's a lot of totalitarian ideology involved in the sort of thinking that produced that list, and that I think much of UU anti-racism is not only broken but actively poisonous. Obviously, this statement does not apply to all UU anti-racists or UU anti-racist actions/groups.

Clyde Grubbs says:

UU lay person of color makes a list giving an impressions of how racism was experienced in congregation, list was offered as a learning tool. Jeff says some of the items are totalitarian. What does this word mean?

to·tal·i·tar·i·an P Pronunciation Key (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

n.
A practitioner or supporter of such a government.

The UU movement has committed itself to use persuasion to convince people that we have internalized some of the oppressive habits general to our culture, and that we can and should overcome those habits.

The democratic process was used to arrive at that commitment. I work with congregations and ministers, and I am convinced that if we were to vote again on that commitment tommorrow we would reaffirm our association to working to be anti racist, anti oppressive and multiculture. We have differences on how to get there, but the overall process is democratic, educational, and persuasive. Our association does not use totalitarian methods.

If some untrained and unsupervised youth or young adults abuse the process or use psychological coercive methods, or if some one experiences catharsis in an anti racist training, or some group does guilt tripping, that is counter productive, and should be corrected. It is also not anti racist work. If it is ineffective and manipulative, it is not anti oppressive, and therefore can not be given the name anti racism.

Jeff Wilson says:

Clyde, by your definition virtually no anti-racist work takes place in young adult circles. Furthermore, as you've defined it, most young UU anti-racism is in fact counterproductive. I guess that's close to what I've been saying, though I didn't think to put it in those words. Unfortunately, such abuse is hardly limited to the untrained or the unsupervised, which readily gives the impression that anti-racism itself is a self-referencial system of signs and ideology. I'm glad to know that some folks can think outside the totalizing bubble of "anti-racism" created in young adult/youth culture. I strongly support efforts that really are non-racistly anti-racist, non-oppressively anti-oppression, and pluralistically multicultural.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Racism is an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology. Ideology is a set of ideas by which people percieve the world. To say that anti racism is " is a self-referencial system of signs and ideology" is interesting, but then isn't anti-anti-racism, whose adherents seem to have some common understandings, but fail to give a clear critique of what being objected to.

It was your perception that this list on Radical Hapa— which reflects the experience of an adult person of color was somehow "totalitarian" which needs to some further explantation. What do find totalitarian? (Recall the definition of that word.)

Your perception that some of your anti racism trainings have been coercive, or manipulative needs to be brought to responsible people and if substantiated those trainers need to be asked to cease and desist. I would be glad to help you with that,

but it is not helpful to make blanket charges of 'totalitarian" when the definition of that word could not possibility be applied to this persons very personal list. (The person has no ability to use state power.) That lay person is not a youth or young adult, and has real life experience living in racist America.

Jeff Wilson says:

Thank you for the offer of help, Clyde, that's thoughtful of you. I know you want what's best. But there's no use to trying to change the problems endemic is so much UU anti-racism, heck, in anti-racism generally. When you're told to your face enough times over enough years that white people's opinions don't count, eventually even the stubborn will begin to get the message. I'm not confident that I, a young lay person, can really talk about this issue to you, an older minister, because of the deep gulf in social position I perceive between us. I have no hope that things can change and therefore will endeavor to remain quiet. I am sorry that I bothered you in the first place.

hafidha sofia says:

Your perception that some of your anti racism trainings have been coercive, or manipulative needs to be brought to responsible people and if substantiated those trainers need to be asked to cease and desist. I would be glad to help you with that,

Jeff, I want to very much hold up this particular section of Clyde's post. I believe it's important.

In the meantime, I am writing an essay on my forming philosophy of anti-racism and other anti-oppression "work," but it's very much in the same vein as what Clyde just talked about. I will post it online sometime soon, I guess.

Leo Nagorski says:

One thing's for sure. Considering how quickly any and all discussions of this topic seem to escalate to the point where different posters seem to be very quick to use strong terminology and others of us equally quick to perceive bad faith on the part of some posters; we've got real problems.
If my comments about the list in question initiated this latest round of bickering, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention. Having said that, and being a UU and therefore, not knowing any better, I will add comments which may get me skewered (who knows, perhaps, rightly).
I do not know exactly what Jeff meant by his use of the word "totalitarian", perhaps there is a more accurate word. Though I may have a sense of what he is getting at. I have a friend who, in referring to certain people's approach to things, uses the phrase,"His/her view is,'Agree with me or be wrong !' I get this perception from many in the Religious Right. They have the truth and if you're just too stupid, stubborn, or blind to see it, well, more's the worse for you. Perhaps, this perception is what Jeff is talking about. People can have a "totalitarian" mindset without having governmental power just as people can try to censor others without having governmental power. I am not saying that either the author of the list in question or anyone else has these mindsets. But, as some pointed out in the "religious language" discussion on this very website, people don't have to take everything literally and people can speak using metaphors and allegories.

fausto says:

Clyde says: "Racism is an ideology. ... Ideology is a set of ideas by which people percieve the world."

Well, okay, if you want to define the term that way.

But I think when most people hear the word "ideology", they understand it to have a normative connotation. In other words, an empirical description of someone's unconscious and perhaps unintentional attitudes and perceptions is not enough to constitute an ideology in the commonly understood sense. Rather, most people understand an ideology as a conscious affirmation of a set of prescriptive principles. Racism may indeed be an "ideology" to the Nazis, the KKK and the Christian Identity movement, but it is probably not an "ideology" to most people who harbor unexamined attitudes that might be described as racist.

Why does this matter? Because if you accuse the great majority of white people of subscribing to a racist ideology, you will put them on the defensive, you will be dismissed as an offensive, irrelevant crackpot; but if you ask them instead only to search their consciences for unintended prejudice, you can begin to break down the walls that divide people. One of the problems with the way the UUA does its anti-racism is that it too often seems to encourage a self-righteous and condemnatory posture, rather than a compassionate one. To be blunt, our anti-racism work can seem righteous to ourselves but Pharisaical to others. To speak of racism as an "ideology" plays right into that unflattering, and ultimately ineffective, paradigm.

hafidha sofia says:

While I understand what you are saying, Leo, there is something in it that I find very troublesome. It is the notion that a white person will reject anti-racism or a person working against racism simply because they dislike someone’s approach to it.

Is that all it takes to be put off from justice-seeking?

Also, we might do well to consider how the historical demands of (mostly white) people to anti-racism activists to tone down or alter their delivery in some way or another so as not to offend their own sensibilities may have something to do with why some anti-racism advocates today have come to the mistrustful conclusion that, in general, the complaints of white people are inevitable attempts to “stall” the process of change, and can only be ignored.

It is my view that both “sides” (activists and the people they hope to draw to their cause) need to take more responsibility in coming to the center of things. At the same time, I am uncertain of those who say they would be committed to social justice, if only it were sold to them differently.

hafidha sofia says:

Apologies, my last comment should have been addressed to Fausto, not Leo.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Leo,

I would not characterize the conversation as bickering. Some differences are purely intellectual, some are clashes of deeply held convictions. But "staying at the table" is a spiritual discipline, if we seek authentic community we must seek to understand each other.

Fausto,

I am always interested in kindler and gentler ways to discuss hard truths, but we shouldn't lose sight of those hard truths in our search for more invitational modes of discourse.

People have ideologies, world views. The unexamined world view is just as life shaping as the conscious and articulated one.
But with the unexamined world view (idea system), one has less freedom to engage in self criticism, if one doesn't examine the ideas that shape one's view of the world.

While some might prefer to use the word ideology only as a perjorative, I prefer James Luther Adams example, examine all ideas that impact liberalism, while embracing religious liberalism. The committed self critic. (or the examined faith...)

For most "white" identified Americans, racism functions as a sin of ommission. For the KKK and Nazis it functions as sin of commission. As a sin of ommission, many "white" people aren't aware of their relation with People of Color. Benign neglect, out of sight, out of mind. Are there ideas associated with this "sin" of ommission? I would suggest privatism, individualism, cultural narcissism, embrace of the status quo, American exceptionalism...mix that up with law and order, and suburban flight and we have violation of the covenant. The theological promise we embrace in the civil religion of America has been turned into a hedonistic romp through a shopping mall, and America ends up being two nations - one of priviledge and one forgotten about in disease infested reservations, inner city communities, and farmworker encampments.

How does this effect Unitarian Universalism? We have a vision of our world and our community of faith that calls us to confront the structures of evil with prophetic witness, that seeks a relation of justice and equality.

Some years ago, (1985) the commission on Appraisal indicated that blocking our ability to become the religion that we seek to be was a lack of awareness of "internal racism."

We are a religion that works by process. We began to take steps back in the late 80s, and finally in '96 committed ourselves to becoming a different kind of Association.

We have actually made a lot of progress since then, so while we many have problems and made many mistakes in the "journey to becoming whole", I am still at the table.

Leo Nagorski says:

I never suggested "leaving the table", Clyde. But, I continue to be dismayed at the "lack of slack" we seem willing to extend in some of our discussions. It is good to be passionate about one's convictions. But, one of our alleged convictions is affirming the worth and dignity of others. I'm not sure that when we seem to read the worst in other's motivations or thought processes (usually without a lot of evidence), we're doing that.

fausto says:

Clyde, my point remains that you are free to define your terms in any manner you wish, but if you want to persuade others, it makes sense to give your terms the same meaning that others already understand. Racism as an unconscious world view may be an "ideology" as you define that word, but yours is not the commonly understood definition. The common understanding of "ideology" is not an unexamined word view, but a consciously chosen and forthrightly affirmed code of normative ideals. In the common understanding, Nazism is an ideology. Apartheid is an ideology. However, unconsciously assuming that black babies are likely to grow up to be criminals as Bill Bennett did recently is not an ideology, even though it does reflect a racist perspective. Better words for what you are talking about, ones that might provoke more careful attention and soul-searching among those whom we hope will hear us, would be "attitude" or "prejudice".

Hafidha, I'm not suggesting "that a white person will reject anti-racism or a person working against racism simply because they dislike someone’s approach to it", as you put it. What I'm suggesting is that you won't make yourself understood if you speak in a way that is likely to be misunderstood.

I'm also saying that, even when understood correctly, much of our UU anti-racism work comes off as too self-righteous and judgmental to be an effective agent for change. It almost seems that in some corners of the UU universe racism has taken on the same antithetical role that Satan serves for conventional Christians, and we speak against it in the same tones of moral certitude. But if racism is our Satan, we can take a lesson from those Chrstians who know that you can lead more sinners to repentance with compassion and forgiveness than you can with rebuke and condemnation. Do we UUs have enough room in our hearts to be able to muster compassion and forgiveness even for racists? Do we have enough patience to be able to lead them to repentance?

Clyde Grubbs says:

With all due respect, Fausto, you seem to imply that I am making up my definition. I am not using the word 'ideology' in a unique way. I have worked in both the academy and in the social justice movements. I have worked for racial justice in the UUA for since I was in high school in the 1950s. While there are a variety of understandings among activists and scholars of ideas, few would argue that your definition is prefered, and mine is unique. If you have never encountered my definition of ideology, perhaps your academic training was in a field very different from mine.

I found this in Wikepedia for the structure of ideologies - "ideology is a system of ideas and thoughts bound by an internal logic and a few basic assumptions about reality..."

and on racism as ideology.- a nexus of racist beliefs, whether explicit, tacit or unconscious; practices; organizations and institutions that combine to discriminate against and societally marginalize a class of people who share a common racial designation, based on that designation.

I can cite many other serious scholars in the field as well. This is not the forum for a scholarly disputation, but if the "commonly used" definition of religion were imposed on theologians, we would be at a loss for talk about anything but simplistic pieties.

Let us recall that it was Jeff Wilson who introduced the word ideology into this discussion. He opined "that anti-racism itself is a self-referencial system of signs and ideology." My response was that liberalism and racism are ideologies. I read Jeff's point that some activists seem to have some unexamined ideas that guide their work, but I would argue that on the contrary "anti racism" done well helps make our guiding ideas explicit. Someone who is aware of racism in society in general, becomes aware of racist ideas and behavior that are too often implicit and habitual in common discourse and experience.

Those who engage in transformation are in the best position to judge the effectiveness of UUA work to overcome racism. I am sure those who sit on the sidelines have opinions, but like all disengaged observers they do not have the benefit of practice. I am sure there are examples of "self righteousness" among those who labor in the vineyards, but most UUs who work for justice are sincere and self critical. I and others who seen progress, so I measure effectiveness by results.

Jeff Wilson says:

Since the topic has shifted slightly and is now about definitions, and specifically about words I wrote, I thought I owed it to my discussion partners, especially Clyde, to clarify.

When I made a statement about "totalitarian ideology" in reference to a body of thought which manifestly has no direct connection to the state, I thought it would therefore naturally be understood that I was not making political references. I was speaking of the way in which I perceive certain bodies of thought as mirroring in meaningful ways the bounded, all-encompassing aspects of explicitly fascist thinking. To be clear here, I was drawing parallels to certain aspects, and do not believe anti-racism to be in fact fascist, nor that it is as evil or destructive as fascism, nor that it is bereft of good people or positive results.

Since dictionary definitions have already been introduced, let me try to use them in a clarifying way. According to the OED (my standard reference tool) totalitarian can mean "Of or pertaining to a system of government which tolerates only one political party, to which all other institutions are subordinated, and which usually demands the complete subservience of the individual to the State." (italics are mine) This is what I was thinking of when I wrote my comment. What I meant was to allege that anti-racism operates in a similar (not identical) way such that it tolerates only a single point of view (the ideology of anti-racism), to which all other forms of thought and behavior (as well as explanatory models for the interactions of human beings and the development of conflicts, such as the GA incident) are potentially or de facto subordinated, in effect demanding suppression of the individual's conscience to the prescribed bounds of the ideology.

When I used totalitarian as a qualifier for ideology, here is the close OED definition of what I meant by ideology: "A systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics or society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as justifying actions, especially one that is held implicitly or adopted as a whole and maintained regardless of the course of events." Thus I meant to allege that anti-racism is not simply a loose bunch of ideas or tendencies (as unexamined racism often is), but is a fully functioning system of ideas which has behavioral consequences and which is resistent to any input which suggests that it fails to fully and exclusively describe the operation of human interactions. A further mark of a full ideology is, as I aluded to, a system of signs that are theoretically and emotionally charged, having quasi-religious significance and acting as motivators and guideposts for members of the in-group. In anti-racism, some examples of this are "privilege," "the work," "oppression," and "Color."

Precisely because it is usually incoherent and unsystematic (and thus not a full ideology as I meant to use the term), racism is vulnerable to being disproven by the bare fact that people of various races cannot be accurately differentiated in terms of intelligence, creativity, virtue, or any other particular aptitude or quality. Anti-racism, on the other hand, is systematically ideological to the point that conflicting evidence or allegations of its weaknesses (of theory or of practice) can be successfully suppressed or re-defined to eliminate any possibility of threat, without, however, dealing with the actual implications that something about anti-racism as a body of thought may be fundamentally broken.

That's what I meant. I may be right or wrong, and you may agree or disagree, but I thought I should clarify my use of terms. I thought my meaning would be conveyed the first time, but in some cases I was clearly wrong. I'm sorry.

This wasn't the first time in this very thread that I used such words, which is part of why I didn't expect them to be received so mistakenly. For instance, earlier I said "My observation has been of deeply entrenched and totalistic ideological positions that invariably lead to conflict, rarely to anything I perceive as progress or healing." This comment did not send people running for their dictionaries; I'm not sure why my more recent one did, but I hope the confusion has now been dealt with.

As my own quote just offered shows, in my opinion, these online conversations are bascially incapable of dealing with such fraught issues. I should have taken my own hint and never opened my mouth again. I regret stirring the pot, earlier and now further. It is inevitable that people will take these words as a personal attack or at least as offensive remarks directed at something they cherish. I really, really regret that fact. Please don't take it personally if I fail to reply to further comments or to defend myself or my words, I'm really unsure of the wisdom of posting even this comment and thus keeping the wheel rolling. I apologize for any anger or hurt caused by my words. Peace be with you all.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Jeff

Thanks for the clarification of your usage. I still don't think totalitarian fits the list that was published by Radical Hapa. That was the context in which you used the term.

I am not sure who you perceive to be angry, but I don't experience that emotion in myself. I think there is some misunderstandings, and they are expressed in formula statements about "UU anti racists" and overgeneralized motives and intentions are projected on these unnamed victims.

Since I was a critic of the training model utilized by the UUA for six years, I learned to argue for the goal and critique the methods used by my Association to accomplish the goal. As did my spouse and partner. We organized to change the training program. Since the training program has changed and I find the change good, I am distressed if there are victims of the old training methods still fighting yesterdays battles.

(And, I am not sure the Young Adults have changed their methods. So I grant that you might still experience an activist who working with a semi aware "system of ideas.")

The anaytic concept known as "Privilege" by the way is not an invention of "anti racists" - it is generally used sociological term with recognized usage. We could have a conversation quite aside from any mention of the power of "whites" in this nation, we could talk about lay and ordained, educated and not, grew up UU and new UU, for example.

The term "work" is a gift of our religious tradition. Ease drop on the clergy and one will hear of "the work" referred to in a knowing way. I doubt one can claim that our clergy have a coherent ideology.

I return to my assertion above that conscious commitment to overcoming racism actually makes one aware of ideological assumptions, and "anti racism" to the degree it becomes ideology will less effective in overcoming racism. Not because of its apparent system, but because it will mask assumptions.

We can see this operating in some of our practice today. For example, "accountability." This originally meant that if one was doing work say in the interests of Native Americans, that one should check in with some recognized Native Community. Good idea I think. But I have heard this idea corrupted so that any Person of Color in a room will become a designated authority and whites are expected to hold themselves accountable to that person. Unquestioned ideological assumption? Yes! It has become an Idea that has lost its moorings!

But accountability properly understood and applied remains an ethical standard, and I would argue a non-ideological one if the practioner remains aware of its purpose.

I am not willing to throw out good ideas, because they have been misused. If I did I would have abandoned freedom and democracy some time ago.

hafidha sofia says:

Piping up for a moment over here! For the record, I am not angry or hurt by anything anyone's said here. The whole discussion's been very interesting, and I am learning much.

ma salaama!

fausto says:

Maybe you're using the term "ideology" to describe racism correctly in an academic sociological sense, Clyde, but again, I still say that your sense of the word is not how it's widely understood in common public discourse. If you were to go on, say, the Larry King show with Bill Bennett, and accuse him of promoting a racist ideology, he'd probably deny your accusation and laugh you off the show -- and appropriately so, because in fact that's not what he's doing, according to the common understanding of what an "ideology" is. In fact, what he did was precisely the opposite -- he invoked the prospect of aborting black babies in order to oppose it. An ideological (in the common public meaning) racist would not only have suggested but also advocated the policy.

In that imaginary scenario, your credibility would be damaged, but Bennett's very real prejudices would remain effectively unchallenged. Instead, if you had accused him of harboring an unconscious prejudice, the reality of which was inadvertently confirmed by his words, you would leave him without an easy semantic defense.

Now, this is only an imaginary scenario, but I think it does point to a weakness, or at least a risk, in the way UUism as an institution goes about opposing racism. We can communicate most effectively when we use the language of those whom we would like to reach, not when we ask them to accept our own arcane semantics. Perhaps one flaw in UU anti-racism efforts is that they have become so enmeshed in their own "world view" and their own way of speaking that their ability to reach a wider audience suffers. We can bcome so wrapped up in an internal vocabulary of "UU-speak" or "anti-racism-speak" that to anyone outside, we don't make much practical sense. We end up literally preaching only to the choir. I wonder whether this problem may be what Jeff has in mind when he speaks of UU anti-racism as comprising its own distinct "ideology".

A closely related problem is that opposition to racism is, or at least ought to be, a specific application of broader moral principles. It should not stand on its own as a complete, self-sufficient religion or ideology in its own right. When it is treated as if it does, within our congregations it risks competing with and crowding out rather than reinforcing all the other moral and spiritual principles we also uphold. Beyond our own congregations, we forfeit at least some of the opportunity to appeal to a shared moral perspective.

Steve Caldwell says:

A useful resource for exploring the concepts of "worldview" and "ideology" is the keynote address for the UUMA/LREDA Pre-GA Professional Days workshops at last summer's GA:

"America as 'Dry Drunk:' from Domestic Abuse to Global Bully" by Dr. Loring Abeyta and Rev. Dr. Tink Tinker
http://www.uua.org/ga/ga05/0001.html

Here's a brief excerpt on the topics of worldview and ideology from this workshop (as copied from the 2005 GA web site):

"Abeyta presented a way to look at the worldview and ideology that dominates any culture. A worldview includes assumptions about the order of nature, about the place of humanity within that order (do humans have dominion, for instance?), how this order relates to and is affected by time – and how virtue and deviance are thus defined. An ideology, she said, is like the road map to how to respond given a worldview. An ideology includes how human interactions are to be mediated by institutions -it describes a social existence, provides a critique of that existence, and then prescribes how the political system should be organized. Capitalism, communism, and liberalism are three different ideologies that arise out of the same world view - and each, in its own way, normalizes that world view or justifies that world view."

For those who have had ineffective experiences with anti-racism and other types of anti-oppression work in the past, you may want to ask some questions.

What would an effective anti-racist and anti-oppression program look like for you?

What do you think would be an effective program in your congregation or other UU community (e.g. campus group, district youth programming, etc)?

Our association's ministers and religious educators thought it was important to dedicate a whole morning's keynote address to the topics of worldview, ideology, oppression and anti-oppression, etc. Why do our religious professionals think this topic is important for our congregations and our religious movement as a whole?

I've experienced effective and ineffective anti-racist events. I've also experienced effective and ineffective worship events. An ineffective anti-racist event is no more an indictment of anti-racism as a concept any more than an ineffective worship is an indictment of worship as a concept.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Steve again makes an excellent point.

Prayer can be and has been abused. It can also heal. Buddhism can be and has been abused. It can also provide a practice that leads to awakening. Anti racism can and has been abused, but it is also practice that can lead to transformation.

My spouse and partner coedited Soul Work, which presents anti racism as a spiritual practice. I agree with Marjorie. I practice prayer, forgiveness, story telling, and being aware of oppressive systems in my sphere of influence, and working to overcome those systems.

BTW, if I go on Larry King live, I will speak to my audience. I don't use academic discourse when I prepare a sermon. I use stories. I construct parables. This is not a talk show, it is a discussion.

The struggle for racial justice in society at large is an application of social ethics. When we use the word anti racism, we are talking about the process of becoming aware of racism in our personal practice and institutional life. We once called it overcoming racism internal to the UU movement. I don't know why we changed the terminology, I think using "anti racism" without explaining what we mean (institutional change so that we can be more welcoming to multi culturalism) has been a source of some of the problems that we have encounted.

fausto says:

Steve again makes an excellent point.

And you make an excellent point, too, Clyde, when you ask why the terminology changed, which in turn suggests a possible answer to one of Steve's very appropriate questions.

Most people realize racism is bad, but what do they hear coming out of the UU anti-racism effort that amounts to a constructive response? One thing that probably limits the effectiveness of UU anti-racism initiatives is that, to those outside the inner circle who are trying to listen in, it's not clear what the objectives are or why it's worth getting involved. Sometimes it's not even clear what's being discussed.

One thing that would make such efforts more effective would be to communicate the goals and concerns more clearly, including for example by calling the whole effort "Confronting Our Own Racism First" or something similar.

BTW, if I go on Larry King live, I will speak to my audience. I don't use academic discourse when I prepare a sermon. I use stories. I construct parables. This is not a talk show, it is a discussion.

Yes, but this points the way to another possible answer for Steve's questions. If you're speaking to your audience, who is the audience of the anti-racism discussion? Is it a relatively narrow circle of a self-appointed UU anti-racism priesthood, or is it the entire UU community, or does it even extend beyond our own community? Academic language is boring and irrelevant to those who don't enjoy speaking it, which is nearly everyone who is not an academic. To expand the appeal of the discussion beyond the small and exclusive priesthood, and make it more widely relevant in the overall community, the discussion needs to be held in a different idiom. Racism is ultimately a moral and religious challenge that needs to be addressed in moral and religious language, not a curious sociological phenomenon that can be fruitfully scrutinized using the language of social science.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Academic language is boring to those who don't use it.

Even poets have a technical language when they are talking about poetry with other poets. When they are doing poetry the technique is transparent and the reader hears the poem with nary a thought of meters and measures. Cornel West (just one example) can use moral and religious language with broad audiences, and yet earn his paycheck as a academic philosopher dong analysis with the due respect to other thinkers. I don't think this thread is a mass audience, nor is this a seminar. This is a discussion where the word ideology was introduced by Jeff and discussed by Clyde, Fausto, Steve, Jeff, and Hafidha Iand leaagues of lurkers.) Unitarian Universalism is not poorer for our efforts, and there will be other occassions when more popular forms of discourse will be called for, and I am sure we will respond.

Hopefully

Jeff Wilson says:

Howdy y'all. Clyde, with your reply to me I feel like we're on the same page--it was clear and I could definitely relate. Thanks for posting that.

I'm falling behind on my schoolwork in a bad way. So I think I really will have to drop out of the conversation, for outside reasons.

Ray Ocasio says:

Hello to the group--new poster--here are some views that I have formed over my 67 years of living. The platforms at UUA of Anti-Racism and elimination of homophobia will be well meaning but frustrating over the long haul. Instead of breaking down various forms of discrimination, form one platform response to ALL discrimination. That is, stop looking at blacks, hispanics, gays and lesbians as victims. We are all victims of a legacy that is worldwide, not just available in this country. If UUA is in to thinking outside the box, then Boston must realize that ALL discrimination must be fought against locally, nationally and internationally. Each UU congregation must fight discrimination as a whole instead of splitting up discrimination into Anti-Racism and Welcoming Congregations. We must be vocally welcoming to all ethnic groups, racial groups and sexually oriented groups. We must make it clear at the local level that paved roads in poorer neighborhoods is a civil right as well as in the more well to do areas of a city. We
UU's must fight for a living wage to be paid to unskilled workers rather than food stamps. By not fighting for a living wage, we stereotype blacks and hispanics as victims. UU's must fight city hall to proclaim that discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace will not be tolerated and when contracts come up for bid, a company should be asked to declare that a living wage is paid and no discrimination against races and sexual orientation is a company policy. Failure to fight meaningfully against discrimination will result in programs to fight racism and homophobia fift years from now with NO APPRECIABLE ADVANCE. What say you all?
Ray Ocasio

Ray Ocasio says:

Hello to the group--new poster--here are some views that I have formed over my 67 years of living. The platforms at UUA of Anti-Racism and elimination of homophobia will be well meaning but frustrating over the long haul. Instead of breaking down various forms of discrimination, form one platform response to ALL discrimination. That is, stop looking at blacks, hispanics, gays and lesbians as victims. We are all victims of a legacy that is worldwide, not just available in this country. If UUA is in to thinking outside the box, then Boston must realize that ALL discrimination must be fought against locally, nationally and internationally. Each UU congregation must fight discrimination as a whole instead of splitting up discrimination into Anti-Racism and Welcoming Congregations. We must be vocally welcoming to all ethnic groups, racial groups and sexually oriented groups. We must make it clear at the local level that paved roads in poorer neighborhoods is a civil right as well as in the more well to do areas of a city. We
UU's must fight for a living wage to be paid to unskilled workers rather than food stamps. By not fighting for a living wage, we stereotype blacks and hispanics as victims. UU's must fight city hall to proclaim that discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace will not be tolerated and when contracts come up for bid, a company should be asked to declare that a living wage is paid and no discrimination against races and sexual orientation is a company policy. Failure to fight meaningfully against discrimination will result in programs to fight racism and homophobia fift years from now with NO APPRECIABLE ADVANCE. What say you all?
Ray Ocasio

Steve Caldwell says:

On 9 October 2005, Ray Ocasio wrote:
-snip-
"The platforms at UUA of Anti-Racism and elimination of homophobia will be well meaning but frustrating over the long haul. Instead of breaking down various forms of discrimination, form one platform response to ALL discrimination."

Ray,

There may be advantages to looking in-depth at one area of oppression at a time rather than trying to examine them all in-depth at the same time. One may metaphorically bite off more that one can chew if one doesn't focus on one area at a time.

Here's a recent post from the "WC-D" discussion list for Welcoming Congregation issues in UU congregations that addresses the "Welcoming to All" concern that often comes up with the Welcoming Congregation program:

"This is a pretty common concern/issue with the WC process. Sometimes it helps to go through the "Weaving the Fabric of Diversity" curriculum first, so that people have a more rounded idea of the issues involved. One thing to point out is that there are BGLTQ people who are people of color, have disabilities, are from all classes, etc. The issues have a great deal of overlap.

The issues are also all very complex. You simply cannot effectively address all of the "isms" at once. You have to start somewhere, and it does seem that UUs in general are better prepared to approach the issues presented in WC than they are to truly approach issues of, say, racism. For congregations seriously considering becoming anti-racist, there are resources available from the UUA office for Identity-Based Ministry, such as the Journey Toward Wholeness and Jubilee workshops and other, more in-depth, Anti-Racism trainings.

Ultimately, each congregation/fellowship must decide for themselves which issue to tackle first. In my experience, it is easier to tackle BGLTQ issues first. Dismantling oppresison of any type cannot be accomplished overnight, and trying to tackle all the forms of oppression at once results in superficial and short-term change that cannot be sustained. It takes time to change the culture of a group."

Ray ... keep in mind that the folks in our shared congregation who loudly complained that the "Welcoming Congregation" program being too focused on BGLT issues also weren't interested in attending the more-general UU curriculum "Weaving the Fabric of Diversity" which looks at the linkages and similarities between race, age, physical ability, class, and sexual orientation. They also weren't interested in attending low-key movie nights dedicated to exploring issues such as racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc either.

The non-interest in looking at other types of oppression suggests to me that the complaints about the "focused" nature of the Welcoming Congregation program or the Journey Towards Wholeness program may have been "red herrings" for some of our members.

Also, we need to keep in mind that there are many commonalities between different types of oppression.

For example, many of the same congregational skills developed in the Welcoming Congregation program also serve a congregation who is serious about addressing racism and classism as well.

Leo Nagorski says:

Don't want to sound "nitpicky" here, but I hope none of us are judging people's support or opposition to a particular activity based upon whether or not they participate in a "retreat", adult r.e. course, movie night, whatever. There may be countless reasons why someone isn't present at those things (or even in church Sunday morning) which have nothing to do with the person's feelings and commitment. I know I had a lot more time to do a lot more things before I became a parent. Others have crazy work schedules, personal problems, even commitments to other social action groups, etc.

Steve Caldwell says:

Leo Nagorski wrote:
-snip-
"Don't want to sound 'nitpicky' here, but I hope none of us are judging people's support or opposition to a particular activity based upon whether or not they participate in a "retreat", adult r.e. course, movie night, whatever. There may be countless reasons why someone isn't present at those things (or even in church Sunday morning) which have nothing to do with the person's feelings and commitment."

Leo,

I understand this concern. I certainly understand that situations arise where individuals might not be participating. My comments were directed towards institutional committment. Institutionally, it's not that obvious if our congregation is committed to this sort of work.

My comment was an observation about the congregation as a whole and the elected board leadership as a whole and not an observation of individual behavior.

What statement does it make when virtually none of the congregation's board leadership is at the Welcoming Congregation workshops (one board officer did attend one session out of the half dozen we completed before the WC process derailed)? The board had directed the start of the WC process but didn't see the need to participate in it or support the volunteers doing this work by showing up and participating in at least some of the sessions.

What statement does it make when zero out of 125 members show up for the "Weaving the Fabric of Diversity" program (the facilitators and the DRE did show up but no one else did)?

Is this a symptom of apathy, complacency, conflicting congregational priorities, or something else going on here?

All I know is that many folks in my congregation were afraid that the Welcoming Congregation process would hurt the congregation in terms of growth. At least that was the stated concern voiced by those who were against WC.

The Welcoming Congregation experience provided by the next closest UU congregation (Longview UU Fellowship) was so much growth that they had to get a bigger building (15% growth annually). Our experience in keeping Welcoming Congregation at arms-length and eventually rejecting the Welcoming Congregation efforts has been stagnant to negative growth. I don't how much of this is "cause and effect," but the contrast is striking.

Personally, I would rather have Longview's "problem" of growth than the problems we've been experiencing with no growth to negative growth.

Robin Edgar says:

Looks to me like I should really get in touch with the First Unitarian Church of Chicago.

Let's replace the word "racism" with "religious intolerance" or "bigotry" or add "or other forms of oppresion" to "racism" and see how it reads. . .

First we state, simply and strongly, that we will never tolerate racism, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE OR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION within our denomination and we urge the Unitarian Universalist Association to make anti-racism, ANTI-OPPRESSION, and multicultural unity a firm pillar of our faith. Further, we commit to diligently identify and aggressively root out racism, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE OR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION wherever THEY might emerge. . . If racist behavior, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE OR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION occur within our church or in other UU settings we will publicize them, express our outrage, communicate our distress to those responsible, and remind them that such behavior is unacceptable and we must resist. If the behavior continues we will seek a review through existing congregational or denominational 'right relationship' processes. In short, we believe that the UUA and its member congregations must recognize racism, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE OR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION and constantly address THEM, and strive to eradicate THEM in all forms, both personal and institutional.

Now read this and weep. . .

The following links go to publicly available news reports about a Canadian Unitarian church and it's intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist "humanist" minister. This now retired/resigned UU minister was not guilty of sexual misconduct however he committed other psychologically and emotionally abusive clergy misconduct which represented a flagrant breach of the UUMA Code of Professional Practices and made a complete mockery of most UU principles. His anti-religious intolerance and related abusive clergy misconduct was, and still is, tacitly condoned and even effectively endorsed by the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the UUA under Presidents John Buehrens and Bill Sinkford and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee under director Rev. Diane Miller and others. The Unitarian Church of Montreal is still paying the price for its negligent and effectively complicit non-response to my legitimate grievances.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/060498/news5.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/061898/letters.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1999/011499/letters.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1999/122399/letters.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2000/120700/news5.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2000/121400/letters.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/121103/front.html

Just run a Google search on the Unitarian Church of Montreal and Rev. Ray Drennan for more info.

A Google Groups search wouldn’t hurt either.

Try “unitarian church”. . .

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&q=unitarian+church

Other search engines such as -

http://www.alltheweb.com

may find some web pages that Google doesn’t index very well. . .

My very public "critique" of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the greater UU religious community's condoning and effective endorsement of Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive behavior, and of the subsequent injustices and abuses that resulted from the negligent and punitive (towards me that is. . .) responses of the Unitarian Church of Montreal continues. . .

Ray Ocasio says:

Well said Steve, but, I will have to stick by my previous post. Here is the reason why. I have for 52 years functioned bi-culturally within the workplace. I demanded respect and got it at every level of work. I didn't concern myself with wanting people to like me. That came later when they got use to the idea that, hey, I was no different than the next door neighbor. It comes with time, miscegenation in the workplace and equal pay. Having said all this, taking gay and lesbian issues separately from racial discrimination is like putting the horse before the cart. Discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace will continue as long as there is discrimination against races and ethnic groups. You are young enough to remember what I am about to say. Twenty years from now you will be fighting discrimination of gays and lesbians if you separate discrimination into neat compartments. Remember Ray Ocasio predicted 20 years from now you will be fighting for gays and lesbians. Some progress will be made, but, for the most part you will be expressing the same frustration that you expressed in your last post. The ONLY way to fight prejudice is in the workplace, because if we can win there, the populace will have no other choice but to accept gay and lesbian co-habitation and marriage. With familiarity comes acceptance. Separating discrimination into neat compartments means the bigots can play one group against another. For example, bigots can and have said to blacks--you don't want some queer coming into your house. If you side with us--you will come out the winner in the long run. Believe me, I have heard it in the workplace. A house divided cannot survive. Combat discrimination in the workplace, I.E. equal pay for women, blacks, hispanics, gays and lesbians and you cut off thier pipeline to discriminate by playing one group against another. What say you all?
Ray Ocasio

Steve Caldwell says:

Ray Ocasio wrote:
-snip-
"Having said all this, taking gay and lesbian issues separately from racial discrimination is like putting the horse before the cart. Discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace will continue as long as there is discrimination against races and ethnic groups."

Ray,

Working on a program like Welcoming Congregation has been successful in other UU congregations that are willing seriously address oppression. From what I've learned from friends in other UU congregations, the experience that you and I have witnessed in Shreveport doesn't represent "best practices" in Unitarian Universalism.

Remember that our congregation that wasn't interested in stretching and growing with respect to heterosexism also wasn't interested in looking at linked areas of oppression such as racism, classism, ableism, etc.

Also, we've had racial "equality" (so-called) in the workplace for many years and the result of that has been a mutation of racism from the classic "Jim Crow" variety to the more subtle neo-racism.

Workplace protection against discrimination is something that we need to have, but (based on experience with racism and sexism) it would be naive to assume that workplace anti-discrimination would make heterosexism go away. I suspect that heterosexism will simply mutate into a more subtle form.

To get to the soul transformation that I've seen in other UU congregations and communities regarding race, sexual orientation, class, etc, one needs both a dedicated community and dedicated leadership that will support this difficult work.

I haven't seen that transformation in Shreveport LA, but I have seen that in Longview TX.

If I were on the board in my congregation, I would ask the Longview UU congregation for their help and advice with this.

Ray Ocasio says:

Steve--I agree with most of what you say. You have my vote, now convince the rest of the congregation. Here are some facts that I have gleaned from a telephone survey I did some months ago with congregations around the country. A sprinkling of churches in the North,East,West and South. Those WC churches had A. An initial rise in membership, only to level off after four or five years of WC. The Ministers and/or Presidents that I talked to were all proud of WC, but, in truth that rise you are talking about, amounted to no more than five to ten percent over a five year period. B. The initial rise was something to be proud of over a one year period, but, nothing to write home to Rev Sinkford over the long haul. C. Since 1985, we have lost nationwide approximately thirty thousand members. Why? I cannot say it is because of WC, but, one has to wonder why a message such as ours is not more appealing to liberals nationwide. Metropolis' like New York, WashingtonDC, Philadelphia, etc are always goingto do well, but, why do medium sized cities continue struggling? Is it because the UU churches in these cities do not have WC? Remember also that UUA has lost whole congregations over the past five years. My reasoning for this lack of participation by liberals is the lack of fervor by our congregations for fighting discrimination as a whole. Something you alluded to in your last post. Until you take the fight to the streets, you will be saying these same words to me or someone else ten, twenty years from now on this blog. Again you have my vote for WC. It will not solve the problem of having a thriving liberalistic church in Shreveport. We will continue to struggle even after passing WC.

Ray Ocasio

Steve Caldwell says:

Ray Ocasio wrote:
"Since 1985, we have lost nationwide approximately thirty thousand members."

Ray,

That demographic statement is factually inaccurate.

Keep in mind that at least one member of our congregation has said inaccurate statements with respect to congregational and denominational growth as part of his arguements against Welcoming Congregation and other UU social justice work.

While the UUA hasn't had healthy growth since 1985, we have not lost 30,000 members since 1985.

You should check out the UUA Financial Advisor Report from the 2005 General Assembly:

http://www.uua.org/TRUS/reports05/FinancialAdvisor.pdf

Here's a quote from this report sumarizing our growth (or lack of growth) trends since the 1960s (see page 5 in the above-mentioned link):

"The next chart shows the overall trends since the consolidation that created the UUA in 1961. From every indication, our adult membership and RE enrollments were inflated in the 1960s based on the ways we counted at that time. Even so, on
balance the trends shown in the following graph are true. Overall, our community of faith grew in the 1960s, shrank in the 1970s, and grew, gradually, from 1982 to 2002. As reported earlier, for the past two years we have not grown if you combine adult membership and RE enrollments."

Again, I ask you to compare the experience we've had in Shreveport with our closest (geographically and culturally) UU neighbors in East Texas. Longview and Shreveport are both politically and religiously conservative "Bible Belt" communities.

But the growth experience in Longview (15%+ growth since 2000) has been markedly different from our experience in Shreveport (no growth to negative growth). I would ask what is Longview doing differently and how can we learn from their success.

Are they more "welcoming" to newcomers? Are we less "welcoming" to newcomers?

Are they just "smarter" on average than we are?

Are they less afraid of "what will the neighbors think" when it comes to being different from other churches in their community. Keep in mind that part of the fears surrounding Welcoming Congregation were in the "what will the neighbors think category."

I'd be willing to look at other issues such as race and class at All Souls Shreveport, but I don't think that our adult membership cares about racism either (based on my observations surrounding adult RE participation). Remember that when we attempted to offer an overview program that covered race, class, age, physical ability, etc that no one showed up.

So it appears that the same hostility we experienced with BGLT issues is also present with racism issues as well in our church.

A former member of our church who now drives 70 miles to Longview for UU church views the Shreveport UU congregational culture as mean and vicious. This alone would explain our lack of growth in Shreveport.

Ray Ocasio says:

Again Steve you will get no argument from me about the rightousness of WC. Figures can be skewed to whatever the reader wants as far as how big our population is. Suffice it to say that our message is not being accepted by liberals as a whole, not just in our congregation. Why? Why??? You don't answer that. You keep coming back to WC. If it were left up to me, I would pass WC and get on with life. A vote tomorrow will not get a sufficient enough majority in our congregation. To keep calling that portion of the congregation as mean and vicious, will keep that other side from coming over to our side. Namecalling should be stopped, but, our minister's admonition seems to fall on deaf ears. I will repeat what I have said all along, discrimination against gays and lesbians will not cease until discrimination is attacked as a whole unit instead of compartmentalizing discrimination. You seem to avoid that discussion. The bigots are laughing all the way to the polls(and winning) because they can play the black ministers off against gays and lesbians. Hispanics are so contemptuous of liberals that more and more of them are moving to the right. So too are blacks. Up to 11% voting rightwing. Failure to realize the real-politics will insure we will be fighting this argument ten years from now with the same frustration that you and I have right now.

Ray Ocasio

Steve Caldwell says:

On 23 October 2005, Ray wrote:
-snip-
"To keep calling that portion of the congregation as mean and vicious, will keep that other side from coming over to our side. Namecalling should be stopped, but, our minister's admonition seems to fall on deaf ears."

Ray,

I'm not "namecalling" here ... I'm simply reporting some of the reasons why All Souls lost a valued member in the late 1990s (sang in the choir, taught RE, taught OWL, worked on congregational fundraisers, etc). And this isn't an isolated incident.

When we rejected the Welcoming Congregation efforts last summer, we also lost another valued member.

Both former members were PFLAG parents who viewed the prevailing attitudes at All Souls Shreveport as an insult directed towards their children.

We've also pissed off some of our BGLT members as well with our unwillingness to do this sort of challenging soul growth.

When someone asks about our congregation in a local PFLAG meeting, the most positive thing I can say about us is we're affiliated with a gay-friendly denomination and we also offer gay-friendly sex education for our youth (and I leave it at that following the "Thumper" rule that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all).

However, my opinion isn't the only one out there about us.

One of our PFLAG parents who left thinks the prevailing attitude at All Souls is meanness and "what will the neighbors think" parochialism. The other PFLAG parent thinks that any association with us will reflect negatively on her ("guilt by association" due to prevalent anti-gay views). She didn't want people to think that she was anti-gay so she left us. She thought that membership in our congregation would affect her street cred as a BGLT civil rights advocate.

While you and I may disagree with these views, these views still exist in Shreveport and may impact on our congregational growth efforts. Our congregation's decision to retreat from tough issues last summer does have real consequences for us in terms of growth.

If our congregation's decisions are driving people off, our leadership needs to know about this.

I really don't place that much importance on the "vote" aspect of the Welcoming Congregation process. The study and discernment process is where the real soul work and spiritual transformation happen (or don't happen in the case of the Shreveport congregation). I really don't know why the study/discernment process derailed at All Souls Shreveport.

If we decide to re-engage on the Welcoming Congregation process, keep in mind that the vote isn't the goal. The goal of this process is intellectual growth and spiritual transformation. In the future, if we were voting on this, the vote should be a non-event and nearly unanimous.

You are right about the "divide and conquer" tactics used by conservative politicians to frame issues such as same-sex marriage and gay rights in terms that divide up what would otherwise be a strong liberal coalition. William Greider calls this "racid populism."

I just want to know how a UU congregation just 70 miles from us can easily explore issues of sexual orientation and race while we are stuck in the starting gate in Shreveport. They don't have the membership, professional leadership, or financial resources that we have but they were able to spend 1 to 1 1/2 years doing this challenging spiritual work.

While this was happening in Longview, I was repremanded by the church board for mentioning that we were exploring the Welcoming Congregation process on our web site. Apparently, the positive publicity that our web site brought us (a front page news story) was viewed as "negative publicity" by some very vocal members who complained to the board about it.

In case you're curious, the "negative" press coverage was preserved on the UUA's "BGILT-News" listserv dedicated to bi, gay, intersex, lesbian, and transgender news:

http://lists.uua.org/pipermail/bgilt-news/2004-October/001736.html

Look for the news story titled "Some churches make effort to welcome gays" ... this news story drove some members to complain to the church board about the web site and the fact that the web site mentioned we were engaged in the WC study/discernment process. Perhaps you can read this news coverage and explain to me what was "negative" about it? It looked like a positive news story to me and it was even on the front page of the newspaper.

A congregation that isn't willing to explore outside its comfort zone with respect to sexual orientation won't do the analogous exploration with respect to race and/or class either.

The bottom line to all of this is I'm spending my hours at All Souls working in youth religous education where I can make a difference. No offense, but I've given up on Adult RE work at All Souls for now. It's just too frustrating and I've grown tired of the struggle, the insults, and the questioning of my motives by those who disagreed with the Welcoming Congregation program and my involvement in it. I'm just tired of being hurt.

I'm there nearly every Sunday morning, but you won't see me unless you visit the RE wing.

Chalicechick says:

If a church is not accepting enough of homosexuality to pass WC, why on earth would we want them to pretend to be?

Do you really think a program from the UUA has the power to change people's deeply-felt predjudices? If so, why doesn't it work better?

If not, why would we want to lie to homosexuals and tell them we will give them an unquestioning support we clearly cannot give them?

CC

Leo Nagorski says:

In response to Chalicechick's comments: I agree that we really can't force, intimidate, shame, people into doing things that we might think are just grand or right and just.But, I think as a religious movement that, at its best, struggles to do more than just give lip-service to caring about our fellow human beings, it is important for us to take stands and implement programs that reflect those stands. Just as I'm sure federal officials and judges realized that they weren't going to change the hearts and minds of everyone in the country when they tried to deconstruct segregation. In a sense, one could argue that they, too, were asking restauranteurs and hoteliers throughout the nation to "just pretend", but the principle was important. In my opinion, affirming the worth and dignity of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is important also.
One thing perhaps, we could do is have more in-depth discussions of some of these issues, especially ones that people might think controversial. I hear from people all the time who get upset that the first time they hear of some program or initiative is AFTER GA has voted on it. Obviously, this won't eliminate the problem of people who refuse to participate in discussions they don't like. But, even here I wonder if one reason some people don't participate is that they are afraid of censure if they might say something in an open discussion that might be regarded as "politically incorrect".

Ray Ocasio says:

Steve-- do not want to see you in the back rooms but out front talking your beliefs. While we do disagree, I find it stimulating discussing a topic that is important to our church. Here are some tidbits to think about: A. After talking with those members who were negative about WC, one of the reasons given was that they RESENTED having to attend workshops and being made to feel that they are homophobes. This is an important psychological challenge for you to overcome. Until you find a way to make congregants feel that they are attending workshops NOT FOR THEIR OWN SALVATION, but, to strategize how to create a program to change the hearts and minds of the community, then you will have empty seats in Adult RE. B. Having a sermon given by two gay members that openly called members homophobes was the crowning blow to get the cooperation that you wanted. If I personally wanted to scuttle WC, the two gay members could not have done a better job for me. Full compliance with UUA desires to have full participation by every UU congregation, can never be achieved until you change your tactics. I wish you well my friend.

Ray Ocasio

Steve Caldwell says:

On 26 October 2005, Ray Ocasio wrote:
-snip-
"Here are some tidbits to think about: A. After talking with those members who were negative about WC, one of the reasons given was that they RESENTED having to attend workshops and being made to feel that they are homophobes."

Ray,

We attempted to present the same workshop series that was successfully presented in a UU congregation just 70 miles from us in the same "Bible Belt" culture that surrounds Shreveport.

In Longview, the response was one of thankfulness (thanks for providing us this great opportunity to learn and grow as individuals and as a congregation). The response in Shreveport was markedly different. The same curriculum was used in both locations. The only differences were the facilitators and the participants. Why do you think we got a different outcome than our Longview UU neighbors?

Then Ray wrote:
-snip-
"Having a sermon given by two gay members that openly called members homophobes was the crowning blow to get the cooperation that you wanted. If I personally wanted to scuttle WC, the two gay members could not have done a better job for me."

Regarding the sermon by the two gay members, keep in mind that one of these members was on our congregation's board (John). While he was on the board, the board voted to endorse the Welcoming Congregation program.

Once John left the board and had relocated to the Dallas area, the board as a body felt that there was no need to support WC by participating in the adult RE events.

Furthermore, the board voted to rescind their support after individual members complained about the WC process (making this decision with no first-hand knowledge of the actual adult RE program ... reacting from some very vocal individuals who complained to the board).

I don't know what John said from the pulpit (since I was teaching RE), but one needs to keep in mind the possibility that he may felt betrayed by a congregation that talked "nice" to his face but didn't act so "nice" when he wasn't around.

Again ... I would ask the question that I asked earlier. Why was our membership's response to the Welcoming Congregation program so hostile compared to the Longview congregation? Why did the Longview congregation say "let's do it" and the Shreveport congregation say "we don't want to be known as the 'gay church'"?

I'm just tired of the of having my honesty and my committment to my congregation questioned. My web site work earned us positive front-page coverage and I was chewed out for my efforts. No "thank you" for the publicity ... just a stern warning from the elected leadership of the board.

Steve Caldwell says:

Chalicechick wrote:
-snip-
"If a church is not accepting enough of homosexuality to pass WC, why on earth would we want them to pretend to be?"

CC,

I don't think anyone is asking for "pretend" or "false" compliance with any program vs. the real thing.

-snip-
"Do you really think a program from the UUA has the power to change people's deeply-felt predjudices? If so, why doesn't it work better?"

I think the question you should be asking is "why doesn't it work in certain congregations?"

Welcoming Congregation has been very successful in some UU congregations but not in others. There's probably an interesting UU sociology study lurking in this situation.

Also, as a Unitarian Universalist, I would like to think that everyone should have access to salvation. By "salvation," I mean salvation from those things that deny life, make it less whole, and keep us from forming authentic communities.

So ... I would hope that we (the UUA, an association of congregations) would be able to offer useful paths to salvation. Keep in mind that other UU congregations have found the WC program to be a very successful "path" to salvation.

-snip-
"If not, why would we want to lie to homosexuals and tell them we will give them an unquestioning support we clearly cannot give them?"

Are you suggesting that we change our congregation's marketing materials to better reflect who we are ... "if you're a queer, we'll tolerate your existence"?

Seriously, any UU congregation can create a culture that drives off BGLT members and BGLT allies. And adults do have the right of free association. No one is forcing BGLT adults to attend our congregation ... they can "vote" with their feet if we aren't welcoming enough to them.

But it's possible that we do have some BGLT members who don't have this freedom of choice when it comes to attending All Souls Shreveport.

These BGLT members are folks who are under the age of 18. Since they are brought to church by their parents and have no say in this decision, what responsibility do we have as adults to examine our atttitudes towards homophobia and heterosexism?

Paul says:

Racism works both ways and there are racists of all colors including UUs. We should not be so quick to castigate white racists and make excuses or apologize for black racists. Racism is bad regardless of whom is being that way!

Ray Ocasio says:

To CC/Steve/Paul--If WC is to succeed, then truly a different strategy must be hatched. Racism,homophobia, WC, I contend, is one package. Steve disagrees. I don't know about the rest of the bloggers. Steve, I am sure that the two gay members who gave their sermon meant no harm, but, the end result could not have been worse. One background fact that I would like to share with you all. One underlying reason that the civil rights movement fractured after winning some important gains during the LBJ adminisration was/is the perceived betrayal of white liberals. Instead of sticking to the elimination of racism, white liberals, after deciding that the civil rights struggle had been won, moved on to women's rights and anti-war. This infuriated the more radical elements(both black and white). Terms such as "limousine liberals", etc, traitors to the cause were thrown out to cover up the hurt that ran thru the mostly black civil rights leadership. Thus the toleration of gays and lesbians, and, the reverse racism that has been mentioned. I would also put up to the group that UU's not in favor of WC are never going to admit to latent homophobia. That is a non-starter if WC is to succeed in all the congregations. Clearly, in my unscientific study of churches around the country, most of the congregations realized the POLITICAL benefits of passing WC. Steve, why doesn't our congregation recognize the political benefits? Because our congregation is made up of individuals who do not care about the political benefits. THEY TRULY BELIEVE THAT CODIFICATION OF WC IS NOT NECESSARY. So, what Longview, Tx does is like comparing oranges to apples. There is a solution, but, attacking their latent homophobia(and they don't believe they are homophobic)will ensure continued non-compliance with Boston's desires. We must fight all discrimination as one unit. Not as single issue liberals. What say you all?

Ray Ocasio

Leo Nagorski says:

Ray Ocasio asks a question which has two different answers depending upon what exactly one is talking about (at least in my estimation). Can all (or at least) most UU's agree that bigotry and discrimination are wrong no matter to which group it is directed ? Probably. But, if one is talking about "practical" actions one should take as a church (or even as individuals), the answer isn't quite so clear. A UU friend and I were commiserating recently about how overwhelmed we sometimes feel re: social action. There always seems to be so much to do, so many causes, so many important issues. If it is difficult to get people to participate in a workshop on one thing at a time, imagine hitting your congregation with a dozen at once. While it might be easy to get everyone on board with a slogan like, "Let's fight bigotry against everyone !" once we leave the realm of individuals merely trying to behave themselves and into the realm of our church or denomination actually instituting programs with limited funds and volunteers; we need to think and plan intelligently. This doesn't mean we don't try to tackle every issue. In some ways, I draw an analogy to this past year; the tsunami, Katrina, the Pakistani earthquake. Many people have had to allocate their resources, prioritize, etc. This doesn't mean that they were unmoved by anyone's particular suffering, just that they couldn't act on everything all at once. I realize that some people might see this posting as trying to excuse or ignore people's non-participation in things, but it really isn't. When I first joined my church, it was very small. Any actions we took had to be evaluated in fairly concrete terms of money and people power.

Ray Ocasio says:

To: Leo Nagorski--everything youhave said is true. Fighting discrimination is hard. After all, it has been around for some 10,000 or more years. Here is what San Antonio 1st UU did to simplify their anti discrimination efforts. The Social Justice covenant group joined an interfaith group called COPS/Metro-Alliance. Its stance was/is: Code-compliance, road repair, living wages and non-discrimination clauses for all contractors bidding on city government projects. Some we won and others we lost, but, the city council could always, repeat always count on someone from COPS/Metro-Alliance to be at city hall raising objections whenever council was in session. They literally would run when they saw us. Over the years, poor(mostly hispanic and black) people began to have hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Discrimination went underground. Gays, Lesbians, blacks, hispanics started to have a fairer share of San Antonio Life. I am not portraying a pollyannish atmosphere in San Antonio, just some concrete progress rather than style over substance. Steve, you can check with Rev Severance at 1st UU to verify what I have said. This method is more lasting than signing a manifesto saying that we are all latent homophobes. My proof of what I have said so far, is that Boston has sent out new practices and principles about WC to those churches who have already passed WC. Style over substance. I am frustrated over and over again trying to institute procedures that do nothing but make us feel good. Gays, lesbians, blacks, hispanics need more than platitudes. THEY NEED CONCRETE ACTION RATHER WORDS.

Ray Ocasio

hafidha sofía says:

Ray, I like the sound of what happened in San Antonio. I do not know know if it extends to other religions as well, but in Islam there is the notion that faith increases along with one's deeds. Sometimes you have to begin a practice to see the benefit - to believe in it, even.

Most likely anyone joining a Social Justice group is already interested in overcoming discrimination, and in doing the work hopefully their dedication and commitment will increase, too. We have to be in the world, you know. Then we take back what we've learned to our homes (and churches).

I do ask one thing: - in the case of the church at San Antonio - was the entire congregation (or most of it) embracing this work or the concepts behind it? I can see how on the one hand, having a committed group like this could spread knowledge and understanding within the entire church; but another response by people could be to simply leave social justice to "the social justice people."

The revolution will be slow.

Steve Caldwell says:

On 27 Oct 2005, Ray Ocasio wrote:
-snip-
"Steve, you can check with Rev Severance at 1st UU to verify what I have said. This method is more lasting than signing a manifesto saying that we are all latent homophobes."

Ray,

You're perpetuating a misunderstanding about the Welcoming Congregation curriculum that I heard voiced by others at All Souls Shreveport.

This statement above is a grossly inaccurate over-simplication of the workshop series.

The curriculum never states anything like "we are all latent homophobes." To the best of my knowledge, none of the workshop facilitators said this either.

An online summary about the curriculum from the UUA web site does say the following about Welcoming Congregation:

"The Welcoming Congregation Program is a completely volunteer program for congregations that see a need to become more inclusive towards bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people. It consists of a series of workshops developed by the UUA. The goal of the workshops is to reduce prejudice by increasing understanding and acceptance among people of different sexual orientations. Some of the workshop titles include: How Homophobia Hurts Heterosexuals; Connections to Other Forms of Oppression; Gender Socialization and Homophobia; and Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality."
http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc1expln.html

The advantage that I see with starting with homophobia and heterosexism is I would expect greater buy-in to this exploration than I would with anti-racism work.

My experience with UU communities dealing with racism is that it's a bigger challenge than BGLT issues. The skills developed looking at BGLT issues can be extended to other types of oppression ... race, class, age, etc. Here's a very reasonable next step that a committed congregation could take after attempting the Welcoming Congregation program (again, from the UUA web site):

"Our vision goes beyond the Welcoming Congregation Program. By taking this first step, we hope to explore more issues than those presented here—like sexism, racism, ableism, to name just a few. Becoming a Welcoming Congregation will act as a catalyst to learning more about ourselves and to ending exclusion. Only when we are truly open to the wealth of diversity in our world will the inherent worth and dignity of every person be affirmed with a large voice."
http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc1expln.html

I would like to say that I would be willing to do anti-oppression work at All Souls Shreveport, but I'm really just worn out and fed up after my experience with the Welcoming Congregation efforts at All Souls.

I don't think the majority of the congregation would be interested in looking at race and/or class issues in the congregation and the wider community either. If the interest is there, it must be very well hidden.

Ray Ocasio says:

Sofia---not everyone was/is involved in social justice It was just a core group. What 1st UU asked of every congregant, was to get involved with a covenant group of their choice. Social Justice was about 8-10 people who regularly attended planning sessions at COPS/METRO-Alliance Hdqtrs. However, when COPS/Metro met to go to city council, we were 20-30 strong filling up a council meeting. Sometimes we were successful, sometimes we lost but in any event, we were always on the minds of every councilperson.

Ray Ocasio

Ray Ocasio says:

Steve--I have tried to portray to you the feelings of the group opposed to WC. No one is accusing the group favoring WC that you guys are saying everyone is a homophobe. It is the MISPERCEPTION that you have to deal with. As long as some people feel, repeat feel that they are made out to be homophobes, then you will not get the cooperation you want. Change your tactics, not your goals!!!!

Ray Ocasio