Alas, a Blog | Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about.

Three Updates on the Gallaudet University Story

Posted on October 26, 2012 by Ampersand

1) Angela McCaskill, the suspended Gallaudet University Diversity Officer at the heart of this story, is being used in an anti-same-sex marriage TV ad. According to CBS news, “McCaskill’s attorney says his client would like the ad to stop running,” but the Maryland Marriage Alliance intends to keep using it. Stay classy, MMA.

2) You could write one heck of a mistaken-identity farce set outside the gates of Gallaudet today, where two different groups — one pro-SSM, one anti-SSM — held competing protests. Interestingly, both protests were calling for McCaskill’s reinstatement.

Did either group bother to include Gallaudet students, or even any Deaf people, in planning their protests? If so, it hasn’t gone reported. In the ABC news video, at 1:04, and again at 1:20, there is a brief shot of Gallaudet students watching as a man in a suit signs to them. Did the protestors wisely bring an ASL interpreter to translate their protest? Or is the ASL speaker someone from the Gallaudet community commenting on the protestors? I can’t tell.

I suspect both protest groups are see this story in terms of how it affects Maryland’s anti-equality ballot measure on November 6. But the more important question is, how will this affect Gallaudet’s students? Is that a question either group protesting has seriously considered?

I still think Ms McCaskill should be reinstated. From the accounts I’ve read, she was an effective advocate for LGBTQ students in the past, and I hope she can mend fences and be effective again. But if she can’t do that, put her in some other job.

3) At Huffington Post, Josh Swiller focuses on the exclusion of Gallaudet students’ views from the coverage of the story:

Eager to score political points, the politicians, advocacy groups and national media miss the student position and the heart of the matter. Not one of them has asked what the Gallaudet students feel and desire. So let’s ask: Why do Gallaudet’s students resist the idea of immediately returning Dr. McCaskill to her previous position?

First, understand that respect for diversity affects them on the deepest personal levels. They are all minority students, part of the seldom-seen, seldom-heard deaf minority. It can be incredibly difficult to find common ground and understanding between deaf and hearing people, more so than between races and sexual orientations. For deaf students diversity is not a politically correct buzzword. The support of diversity programs and laws are some of the most powerful tools Gallaudet students have in their quests to have satisfying lives rich in opportunity.

Dr. McCaskill’s actions affected them deeply. […]

It has been disturbing to watch politicians and special interest groups run roughshod over the university’s internal dialogue. The vehemence and energy of those opposing Gallaudet (now they plan in-person protests) and their refusal to even consider the student position reinforces to those students that their opinions and emotions are disregarded.

Although I think Swiller’s post makes good points, I also want to point out that in comments, someone identifying themselves as a Gallaudet employee objected to the way Swiller seems to treat Gallaudet as possessing a “hive mind”:

It’s not a Hive Mind. There’s no such thing a a Deaf Community–or ANY community–that responds as one thing, that thinks as one. To assume otherwise is simply stereotyping and prejudice.

But Mr. Swiller is right that it’s shameful these protesting groups see an opportunity to score political points and now run roughshod over how anyone else might feel.

Posted in Disabled Rights & Issues, In the news, Same-Sex Marriage | 9 Comments

How I Voted This Year (Oregon election 2012), including in downballot races featuring candidates you’ve never heard of, and why

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Ampersand

How I voted!

NATIONAL

President
Because the Presidential vote in Oregon is entirely symbolic (Oregon is not a swing state), I was rather torn between giving my meaningless but fun vote to Jill Stein of the Green Party, whose policies I strongly agree with; Rocky Anderson of the Progressive Party (ditto); or Barack Obama.

In the end, I voted for Obama. Since it’s an empty symbolic vote anyway, I get to decide what it symbolizes, and I’ve decided my vote for Obama symbolizes support for good legislation like the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the stimulus package, and also his administration’s support for lgbt rights and for doing what environmental good the President can do without Congress. It doesn’t symbolize support for Obama’s more horrible policies.

Romney, of course, was not even in the running in the Presidential Election in Amp’s Mind.

Continue reading →

Posted in Elections and politics, Oregon blogs | 32 Comments

Postscript Regarding Employers Trying To Use Health Insurance To Force Their Beliefs on Employees

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Ampersand

Back in March, I argued that employers don’t have any moral right to prevent workers from using employer-provided insurance to buy birth control, any more than employers have the right to prevent workers from using employer-provided paychecks to buy birth control.

My view was met in comments with a degree of skepticism.

So forgive me if I’m pleased to note that Judge Carol Jackson, a H.W. Bush-appointee, said much the same thing in a ruling earlier this month (pdf link, emphasis added by me).

The health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees — money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise.

[The Religious Freedom Restoration Act] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. RFRA does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own.

Amanda at Pandagon writes:

Because this is about female sexuality and there’s all these sex-phobic and misogynist arguments being thrown around, the basic issue has gotten somewhat obscured, which is that your boss is not actually your master. […] If the door is opened to allowing employers to control how you use your compensation after you’ve earned it, god only knows what other kinds of restrictions on how you spend your money they’re going to start angling for.

I think this is one of the basic differences between conservatives (including, alas, most libertarians) and progressives. To paint in broad strokes: When conservatives talk about protecting liberty, they want to protect the bosses from the government; when progressives talk about protecting liberty, we want to protect the workers from the bosses.

Of course, this ruling is not the end of the matter; I’m sure eventually the Supreme Court will decide. Given the conservative majority’s dislike of rights for workers, I won’t be surprised if Judge Jackson is eventually overturned. One more reason to hope Obama wins reelection.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Class, poverty, labor, & related issues, Supreme Court Issues | 68 Comments

My New 24 Hour Comic: “Leaving The Bedroom”

Posted on October 21, 2012 by Ampersand

Yesterday (October 20) was 24 Hour Comics Day!

What’s a 24 Hour Comic, you ask? It’s an invention of Scott McCloud’s:

To create a complete 24 page comic book in 24 continuous hours.

That means everything: Story, finished art, lettering, color (if applicable), paste-up, everything. Once pen hits paper, the clock starts ticking. 24 hours later, the pen lifts off the paper, never to descend again. Even proofreading has to occur in the 24 hour period. (Computer-generated comics are fine of course, same principles apply).

Although one can do a 24-hour comic any day of the year, it’s more fun to do it in tandem, hence 24 Hour Comics Day. Yesterday, at the studio where I work, myself, Jake Richmond, Ben Lehman, and Alan Ward all did 24 hour comics.

So here’s mine. It’s silly and not enormously well written or drawn, but perhaps you’ll enjoy it anyway. And it not, at least it won’t take more than a few minutes to read.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 10 Comments

Book Trailer For Hereville 1

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Ampersand

Hereville: How Mirka Met a Meteorite’s release date is November 1, but it seems that some copies are showing up early… I heard on twitter yesterday that someone had bought one at a store. Very neat!

But in the meantime, I got this nice email early this month:

My name is Ellen Gustafson, and I am currently a student working towards a master’s degree in School Library Media at the University of Michigan. For a class assignment, I have been asked to create a video book trailer for a book of middle school or young adult fiction–I would love to create a book trailer for Hereville: How Mirka Got Her Sword.

I could not say “YES” loudly enough! So here is Ellen Gustafson’s very cool trailer for the first Hereville book. Thanks, Ellen!

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 3 Comments

Another Federal Appeals Court Casts A Cold Eye On DOMA

Posted on October 18, 2012 by Ampersand

Edith Windsor and her wife Thea Spyer, in the 1960s

Edith Windsor (right) and her future wife Thea Spyer, in the 1960s

The second circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which says that the Federal government will not recognize any same-sex marriage regardless of state law, “violates equal protection” and is therefore unconstitutional.

The case involves Edith Windsor, a widow from New York who had to pay an extra $360,000 in federal taxes because DOMA prevents the Federal government from recognizing her marriage to a woman.

Some notes:

* If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case on appeal, Justice Kagen will not have to recuse herself, since she has never been involved with this case. (Unlike the previous DOMA ruling.)

* The judge who wrote the opinion, Dennis Jacobs, is a Bush I appointee with a very conservative reputation. The dissent is a Clinton appointee (although one with a socially conservative record).

* Importantly, the two-judge majority decided to use “heightened scrutiny” (a standard intended to make it harder for the government to discriminate against unfairly marginalized groups) when deciding this case, rather than the weaker “rational basis review.” If this decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court, that will represent an enormous victory for lgb rights, and make future laws which discriminate against lgb people much harder to defend legally.

* The group defending DOMA, BLAG, was formed by the House of Representatives after the Obama administration declined to defend DOMA. David Lat comments, “It would appear that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is defending DOMA, has now lost at least six cases in a row — and spent about $1.5 million doing so.” Our tax dollars at work.

* Some good quotes from the ruling:

On the question of if homosexuals qualify to be a “protected class”:

BLAG argues that, unlike protected classes, homosexuals have not “suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded.” But whether such discrimination existed in Babylon is neither here nor there. BLAG concedes that homosexuals have endured discrimination in this country since at least the 1920s. Ninety years of discrimination is entirely sufficient to document a “history of discrimination.”

On the argument that section 3 of DOMA is needed to create uniformity in the law:

To the extent that there has ever been “uniform” or “consistent” rule in federal law concerning marriage, it is that marriage is “a virtually exclusive province of the States.” As the Supreme Court has emphasized, “the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce… The Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” DOMA was therefore an unprecedented intrusion “into an area of traditional state regulation.” This is a reason to look upon Section 3 of DOMA with a cold eye…

DOMA is an unprecedented breach of longstanding deference to federalism that singles out same-sex marriage as the only inconsistency (among many) in state law that requires a federal rule to achieve uniformity…

On BLAG’s argument that DOMA is justified because not paying benefits to gay people saves the government money:

The Supreme Court has held that “the saving of welfare costs cannot justify an otherwise invidious classification.” As the district court observed, “excluding any arbitrarily chosen group of individuals from a government program conserves government resources.”

On the “encouraging responsible childbearing” argument:

Incentives for opposite-sex couples to marry and procreate (or not) were the same after DOMA was enacted as they were before.

Other courts have likewise been unable to find even a rational connection between DOMA and encouragement of responsible procreation and child-rearing.

On civil versus religious marriage:

Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition. But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status–however fundamental–and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

And now, some unfounded speculation about the future:

Of course, none of this really matters until the Supreme Court either takes up the case, or declines it (which would let this ruling stand). My prediction is that the Supreme Court will decide to hear the DOMA case and strike down section three of DOMA.

But I also think they’ll decline the proposition 8 case, and thus sidestep ruling on the larger question of if it’s constitutional for states to deny legal recognition of marriages to same-sex couples. If the Supreme Court does take up that question, I think they’re rule that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages.

More blogging on this: The Stronger Argument against DOMA at The American Prospect and Does DOMA Discriminate on the Basis of Sexual Orientation, Gender, or Both? at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage, Supreme Court Issues | Comments Off

When it comes to free speech, the anti-gay-marriage movement is much, much worse

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Ampersand

Angela McCaskill

A quick summery of the “Gallaudet vs McCaskill” story:

Angela McCaskill, the Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University (a university for Deaf students), signed a petition asking for Maryland’s marriage equality law to be put to a repeal vote. Months later, a fellow faculty member noticed McCaskill’s name on a list of petition signers. According to Planet DeafQueer:

LGBT students, faculty and staff we spoke to said they felt shock, disappointment, anger and betrayal upon learning of the signed petition. Some are calling for Dr. McCaskill’s resignation. Others are waiting for an official response from Dr. McCaskill and wondering if it will be possible for her to regain their trust.

Shortly after this, Gallaudet University President T. Alan Hurwitz put McCaskill on a paid leave of absence. Virtually everyone, including leading advocates for marriage equality, disagreed with this decision. (Although a few Deaf commentators I’ve read seem to agree with the suspension.)

Initially, McCaskill explained that she signed the petition after hearing a sermon at Church against gay marriage. She later altered her story, saying that she is neutral on the SSM question, and only signed the petition so that voters could decide. As publicity mounted, President Hurwitz issued a statement of surrender, “to indicate forcefully” that he wants McCaskill to “return to the community from her leave of absence.”

McCaskill, however, doesn’t seem interested in accepting a surrender, at least not unless she is given money. In a press conference hours after Hurwitz’s statement, McCaskill made it clear that she considers herself the victim of persecution, outed Martina Bienvenu as the faculty member who noticed that McCaskill had signed the petition, and also made it clear that Bienvenu is a lesbian. (Bienvenu’s sexual orientation is no secret, but McCaskill going out of her way to mention McCaskill’s female partner during a press conference seems gratuitous). McCaskill’s attorney announced that McCaskill wants “compensation” from the university for her pain and suffering.

Okay, that wasn’t as quick as I’d hoped. Some thoughts:

1) My initial reaction to this story was that I might agree with the suspension. In general, I’m strongly against any employee being penalized for their speech, but I do make an exception for cases in which something an employee says will reduce their ability to perform their job duties effectively. I’m not sure what a “Chief Diversity Officer” does, but it certainly sounds like a job that may require the trust and confidence of Gallaudet’s LGBT community, and she certainly seems to have lost that (judging from comments I’ve seen left by Gallaudet students).

Having given it more thought, I think I was wrong. This isn’t really about same-sex marriage; it’s about worker’s rights.

Transferring McCaskill to another position may eventually be the right thing to do, if over the coming months her notoriety for signing an anti-queer petition impairs her ability to do her job. But McCaskill should have the chance to try. Penalizing an employee for not doing her job well is, generally speaking, reasonable; doing so pre-emptively, as Gallaudet did in this case, is wrong.

Frankly, I don’t believe that McCaskill supports lgbt rights, and it’s unfair that Gallaudet’s lgbt students may be stuck with an opponent where they should have an advocate. But not every injustice can or should be remedied by resorting to a law or an administrative action. In this particular case, worker’s rights — the need of workers to be able to participate in political advocacy without fear of losing their jobs — is the most central issue. And – as we’ll see below — the right to not be penalized by employers is an especially crucial right for lgbt people.

2) Gay rights opponents are jubilant about this case, claiming that this shows that pro-SSM folks are against free speech (ignoring the many pro-SSM folks who have objected to McCaskill’s suspension). In comments at Family Scholars Blog, Maggie Gallagher listed seven other examples of people’s jobs being endangered over their opposition to gay marriage – although several of her examples were dubious, as JHW pointed out.

I responded to Maggie in that thread, and a couple of people emailed me asking me to repeat what I wrote as a post. So here it is again:

Maggie, why not ask instead: how many jobs are you not allowed to hold if you’re glbt, gay and married, or just publicly or privately support gay people?

Is it okay for a university to fire a librarian because he refused to sign a statement opposing homosexuality? (Maggie, is there any university which has circulated a statement supporting SSM to all employees, who have had to sign it to remain employed?)

Or how about the time the Kentucky Farm Bureau fired a man because he publicly supported SSM?

Some headlines:

* GOP Rep. Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay: ‘It’s A Choice Issue’
* Mom Whose Gay Son Came Out Claims Christian School Fired Her
* Teacher fired for views on same-sex marriage. These “views” came up only in a private survey given by the school to the teachers, not because she said anything in public.
* Eagle Scout Fired for Being Gay
* Water Polo Coach Claims He Was Fired for Being Gay (The school claims they fired him because of a Halloween photo on Facebook in which he was standing next to drag queens, as if that’s somehow better.)
* Parents Say AZ Principal Fired For Being Gay
* Gay Teacher Fired from St. Louis Catholic School on His Wedding Day
* NC Catholic Church Fires Gay Music Director For Marrying His Partner
* Catholic School Administrator Fired For Supporting Gay Marriage – ABC News
* Ousted Eastside Catholic vice principal fired for his gay marriage will sue
* Catholic school assistant principal fired over pro-gay marriage comments on his blog

What other jobs have people been fired from for being lgbt, or for being suspected of being lgbt? Correctional officer, camera operator, lawyer – that lawyer, by the way, may not even be gay, but he was accused of being gay on a blog, and apparently that’s enough to get fired – auditor, college soccer coach, college Dean, legislative editor at a state assembly, Alzheimer’s caregiver, cop, lawyer (again), lab assistant, and (of course) teacher.

Believe me, I could go on and on. And on and on.

And this situation, bad as it is, represents a huge improvement from just 20 years ago. At least now there’s a large mass of lgbt people who don’t need to remain closeted just to keep a job. Of course, the change in social mores that now allows lgbt people to be somewhat more secure than they used to be was resisted passionately by the religious right.

I think there should be a lot less of this sort of thing going on. Except in a few particular positions where it genuinely interferes with their ability to perform their job, no one should ever lose a job for being anti-SSM, pro-SSM, anti-gay, pro-lgbt, straight, or lgbt. Or, for that matter, for being liberal or conservative. The core problem, I think, is that people in the US have a strong tendency to demonize those they politically disagree with.

But Maggie, if you really think that this is some sort of unique “gay bullies” problem, rather than something engaged in by many people, including people on your side of the debate, then you need to take that plank out of your own eye.

The truth is, although this problem exists on both sides of the debate, the censorship is much, much, much greater coming from the anti-gay side. Look at some of the examples above. It’s unimaginable that any school would demand that all employees sign a statement of support for same-sex-marriage or be fired; but when the opposite happens, hardly anyone bothered to report it. No Democratic politician, no matter how pro-gay, is standing up at a press conference and defending the right of employers to fire anti-SSM employees (nor would any).

And to the best of my knowledge, no anti-SSM leader has ever stood up to defend the free speech rights of any of the people I listed. In contrast, pro-SSM organizations have repeatedly stood up for the free speech rights of people like McCaskill and groups like Chick-Fil-A.

I don’t deny that there are flaws on both sides. But this is not a “both sides are equally bad” situation. Overwhelmingly, the anti-SSM side is more opposed to free speech, and less likely to stand up for free speech of opponents.

3) Interestingly, if the petition McCaskill had signed had been a Washington, D.C. petition (DC is where Gallaudet is located), then Gallaudet’s action would have been illegal. “The only reason Gallaudet isn’t facing criminal charges is because marriage petition has to do with a Maryland law, not a DC one.”

DC isn’t alone – I’m told that about half of the states have laws protecting the rights of workers to politically dissent without reprisal from their bosses. I’d like to see that protection extended to the other half of the states.

4) An unfortunate thing about the debate over Gallaudet and McCaskill is that the most important voices — those of Deaf students at Gallaudet and the Deaf Community in general — aren’t being quoted. Part of the problem is that many monoglots like me can’t understand what’s being said (my fault, not theirs, obviously). To counteract this problem a little bit, I’m going to be following this story on Planet DeafQueer, which seems to be the only news source that ever reports what Gallaudet students say, and I’d recommend other folks do the same.

(Note: I added a few to the list of headlines after this post was initially published. –Amp)

Posted in Class, poverty, labor, & related issues, Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc., Same-Sex Marriage | 25 Comments

Black Women, Violence, Or Why is Our Pain Funny to You?

Posted on October 16, 2012 by karnythia

Black Women, Violence, Or Why is Our Pain Funny to You?

So I asked this question on Twitter, but then I realized I wanted to ask it here too. As all the discussions circulate about domestic violence blackface at Waverly & the bus driver in Cleveland who decided to punch a belligerent female passenger at what point do we talk about why so many are quick to laugh about violence against black women? When do we talk about domestic violence stats in the black community & how often violence against black women is encouraged and supported by the mainstream narrative that black women are strong and can’t be hurt?

I’m totally willing to have a discussion about racialized misogyny, and what it means to say that WOC can never be victimized, but I’m not sure we’re ready to have it. Because it would mean talking about sexual abuse of black women before the age of 18, and intimate partner violence like black women are human. And so far I’m not seeing too many people willing to recognize our humanity, much less our vulnerability to violence. So when can we start the conversation, and how long before it is about the health and safety of black women, and not just another discourse on how we need to support black men?

Black Women, Violence, Or Why is Our Pain Funny to You? — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 14 Comments

I Got Your Book: A Triumphant Return

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Maria

Sorry, my beauties! This is a much delayed post.

Tanarive Due has a fantastic novel out.

The Fen of Color LJ comm recently celebrated spec fic authors of color.

Deluge features black mermaids.

Assassin’s Creed to feature a woman of color in its newest release.

Here’s a gorgeous, creepy anthology waiting to be yours.

“Who More Sci Fi Than Us?”

The Black Science Fiction Society wants to serve your nerdy needs.

Here’s an interview with Ken Liu, who’s a challenging and innovative writer.

Mainstream fiction isn’t about reflecting “reality” exactly the way it is. It’s about transforming it though the application of a map of metaphors. So I treat all fiction as speculative, because the really speculative element is always how fresh and how interesting the applied metaphorical logic feels, and how transformative of reality the vision is.

Sponsor a writer for a write-a-thon!

I Got Your Book: A Triumphant Return — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman