Daugaard, the deaf community, and LGBT rights.
Both Cory at Madville Times and David Montgomery at the Argus Leader seem confused today. Montgomery “blink[ed] a little bit” and Cory found himself surprised that LGBT deaf people and their allies within the deaf community “went ape” over the fact that the National Association for the Deaf invited the governor to speak at their national conference. (Daugaard later backed out, citing a scheduling conflict, which surely saved both himself and people in the National Association for the Deaf from an even nastier fight with part of their membership.)
It’s not surprising, nor should it make you blink, that people from the disability rights movement would have a problem with inviting an anti-gay governor to speak at a NAD conference. Perhaps I and the rest of the Dakota Women can bring some concepts from feminism, LGBT rights, anti-racism, and disability rights to bear. Especially in the last 20 years, the concept from the social sciences of “intersectionality” has helped those of us concerned about oppression in all its forms to find allies in other movements. We’ve learned that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and all the other -phobias and -isms in our society operate together. In other words, you can’t talk about equal rights for deaf people without also thinking about racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and so on. You can’t fight homophobia without fighting racism, classism, ableism, and sexism. These systems are linked and cannot be untangled, because these systems of oppression operate together in people’s lives. David Montgomery is simply wrong when he says that the civil rights issues that face deaf people have “little or nothing to do with the issue on which Daugaard’s being criticized.” Obviously, there are deaf LGBT people who would disagree with that, but that’s also untrue on a bigger level.
So it doesn’t matter that Dennis Daugaard is maybe less homophobic than Fred Phelps. (Though I’d also point out to Cory and David that Daugaard’s assertion that he doesn’t “support discrimination against any class of people” is completely meaningless and absolutely not evidence of being “center-right” on LGBT issues. Give me examples where he has ever openly supported LGBT folks in anything and maybe we can talk.) No matter Daugaard’s upbringing or his ability to sign, he gives his assent to a system of oppression that ultimately hurts all of us.
Hold on, hold on: I’m not “surprised.” I don’t hold the DGLBT community’s going ape against them. I might have preferred their protest take the form of “That SOB’s coming here? Great! Everybody show up and ask him hard questions!” instead of “Don’t let that SOB come here at all!” And I don’t necessarily agree with Montgomery’s moderate characterization. There is a clear overlap between gay rights and deaf rights, one that our governor is wrong not to appreciate and that civil rights activists of all stripes are right to point out.
Your last sentence fits with the point toward which I was aiming: even if we can characterize our governor as not the most overtly or vocally right-wing culture warrior, his assent to the system tars all of us, just as our failure to change that system hurts the image of all South Dakotans.
I guess when I said that these -phobias and -isms “hurt all of us” I didn’t mean that they make us look bad, though I suppose they do. What I mean is that many activists for the rights of deaf people have rightly pointed out that someone who is supportive of the needs of deaf people but is openly anti-gay isn’t really supportive of either group because they don’t understand the way all of this works together. A racist feminist or a homophobic feminist (or a homophobic disability rights advocate) isn’t really my ally because they don’t understand something really important to the way that oppression and liberation from oppression works. And if that person isn’t really an ally to my movement, they have no business speaking at a conference for my movement.
Perfectly reasonable point. But I’ll stretch for an analogy. Consider HB 1234, the education bill we’re debating and referring in South Dakota. I know arch-conservatives who oppose the bill and are circulating petitions to refer it. If I held a conference of education supporters, I might hesitate to invite those conservatives, because even though they oppose this bill, they support other awful policies that undermine education. But I could justify inviting those conservatives with a coalition-building argument (they can help us with our immediate objective of killing the bill) and a longer-term mind-changing argument (if we invite them and interact on our shared goals, that common ground may help us win hearts and bring them closer to our side on other issues). That interaction at least increases the chance of future dialogue and more favorable compromise, doesn’t it?
I think there’s a difference between working on a specific piece of legislation or a specific goal and doing the day-to-day work of overturning a system of oppression.
I guess this is mostly about me. I am glad that there are people like you (and like Angie, and lots of others) who have the energy to do that kind of stuff. I’m happy here in my left-wing bubble, and I just find it too tiring to change hearts and minds. I raise a little hell among Lutherans, but that’s as far as I go these days.
Neat blog. I worked for disability and LBGT rights during my stint in ND, and I continue to advise a board in ND even though I’m in SD. I can’t do a lot from my location/position in SD, but I can probably shed a little light.
For the most part, disability rights groups are of the mantra where we don’t want division-lines at all. At all. The two non-profits I assisted have went through great strains to avoid talking about politics or anything that would cause a serious schism in the larger objective: securing at least modest changes in the Century Code that gives certain disadvantaged children in the North Dakota school systems a bigger chance to succeed. The board in particular that I still assist had everything from a Newt Gingrich supporter in the primaries to somebody that borders on anarchist politics working together to make sure that this goes down.
When inviting politicians to events, which we have done numerous times, we’re actually somewhat choosy on who we invite and don’t invite. Somebody best known for their decisiveness or for causing stomach aches or conflicting thoughts, Republican or Democrat, isn’t usually the first on our list. If they act with disrespect in the legislature, how can you expect them to act with respect and understanding at your event? What’s usually first on our lists are people that have attracted at least mutual respect and that we know listen first before mouthing off whatever their mission is.
To build coalitions properly on disability issues, you need people willing to be the blank slate (a big part of the disability problem is unawareness – blank slates are easier to deal with than those with thick heads full of, often false, ideas) and somebody who commands mutual respect.
So when somebody, even the governor, causes those divisive feelings on any issue, it’s understandable why disability rights groups get queasy…because you’re no longer talking about what we can talk about to advance the disability. You’re talking about gay things or abortion things or whatever else…which are important issues obviously (I’ve assisted with gay things and abortion things in the past as well), but the’re still secondary to the goals of such organizations.
Hey, Chris – thanks for the info! I don’t want to put words in their mouths, but I think what surprised people like Cory and David is that while Daugaard has pretty clear positions against LGBT rights, I don’t get the impression that he’s particularly known to be a culture warrior. None of these things are his pet issues.
I do find it irritating that David Montgomery talks about how this is evidence of “moral absolutism” on the part of LGBT rights advocates. Well, no, it’s part of being in an anti-oppression movement and having allies.
Thanks for the clarification – I may have been reading too much into the situation. I think I jumped headfirst into a conversation without fully reading the context. I’m also not terribly familiar with SD’s politicians yet.
Disability non-profits are…unique. They panic over things that aren’t always easily understood…even by the non-profits themselves.
It doesn’t get easier once you become familiar with them, believe me.