Get Used to It: Ep. 139, "LGBT Impact in the Larger World"

(typewriter keys clack) (keys clack more loudly) (keys clack very loudly) (upbeat music) - Hi, welcome to "Get Used To It". I'm Sheila Kuehl, your hostess for these lovely proceedings, and we do our very best to bring you a lot of interesting discussion about things of interest to the LGBT community, things about our community, and things, you know, much more broadly, because a whole lot of people who are straight watch us too. And we're glad to have you here. Today, we're gonna have kind of a wide-ranging discussion about our community and our community's impacts in the larger world and kind of the issues of the larger world impacts on us. And I have three wonderful guests today, John Maceri, who is the executive director of the Ocean Park Community Center, which is an umbrella organization over a whole lot of direct services, nonprofit services in the western part of LA. Welcome, John. - [John] Thank you, Sheila. John Perez, who is the political director of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union here in California. Welcome, John. - Thank you. And Charles Sterart, who is the chief deputy to Congresswoman Diane Watson, who represents a significant chunk of Los Angeles. Welcome, Charles. John, I'd like to start with you. We essentially represent three major sectors of society, here, or at least we're from those sectors, non-profit, labor, and politics and government. I'm just interested, from your point of view, your own personal experience, and also kind of in the broader world of nonprofits, has the LGBT community, or individuals from the community, had an impact on that sector in any way? I'm sure the answer's yes, but sort of a broader notion of that. - Well, I think definitely, and I think in the nonprofit sector, I mean, three areas specifically come to mind. I mean, the first and most obvious are organizations like this center and organizations like them across the country that specifically serve the LGBT community, The area of AIDS service organizations, certainly. Although there's been, you know, a growth in leadership over the last 20 years, but there's no doubt that many, most of those organizations were started in and have deep roots in our community. And the third, which is an area that my organization works in is the area of domestic violence. And again, that leadership has transitioned over the last 30 years, but if you really look at where the movement started, including with people like yourself, it really came out of really active feminism in the 1970s. So there certainly has been an imprint in all of those areas, and in others, I mean, those aren't the exclusive purviews, of course, of our community, but those are areas that I see in the nonprofit sector, specifically, where you see, it's not uncommon to see a lot of out folks, not only in staff leadership positions, but also boards of directors that have given community members active and very visible roles in leadership. - What drew you to the nonprofit sector? I mean, you are in, I'm very familiar with the Ocean Park Community Center, as you know, but there's organizations like it all around the country, And the nonprofit sector of society has really absorbed, or taken on, or been forced to take on a lot of things that government used to do, or maybe should do, I mean, a lot of energy, a lot of funds directed to taking care of people. What drew you to that sector? - Well, me personally, I mean, I really started as a volunteer. I've been a volunteer with nonprofit organizations all my adult life, but I specifically started working in the sector, initially, as a volunteer in the mid 1980s in an AIDS service organization, and was drawn to it, like most of us were drawn to AIDS service organizations because I had been personally impacted in my life with having, you know, close friends who had AIDS, and, you know, worked in an ASO for 12 years before I came to Ocean Park Community Center. And what I saw in that time, I mean, in the beginning, it was really very, what I describe as kind of up against the barricades work. This was pre-AZT, you know, the typical scenario where we were doing only end stage hospice care. The average length of stay for our residents was about 30 days, so the typical scenario is you had someone who had PCP pneumonia would go to the hospital emergency room, and within six months they would be dead. Over the 12 years I worked in AIDS, I saw an enormous shift. And certainly, while there's still no cure for HIV disease, it's moved more towards a chronically manageable disease, and we began seeing all the manifestations of poverty. So we were struggling with people who were living with addiction, mental illness, domestic violence, all the issues of sort of broader poverty work. And that is really the transition that I made to go to OPCC, which of course is an organization that serves low income and homeless youth, adults, and families, battered women and their children, and people living with mental illness. So for me, it was very much a personal journey, you know, an opportunity to live my values. And you're right, I mean, nonprofit organizations have often become the safety net, in many cases, for what government's not doing. - So it was kind of a connector that you hadn't made before, really, between people that you knew, people in our community, that everybody thinks are so rich, and finding that, no, impoverishment certainly followed you losing your job because you had AIDS, or because you were outed, or something. - Absolutely, I mean, and then of course I'm speaking in broad strokes, certainly not every one of the people we served in the early years fit this profile, but typically, in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, it was primarily gay white men, many of whom were middle class or upper-middle class, educated, had jobs, and the very typical scenarios, they lost their jobs, they lost their health insurance, they got sick, they usually had partners, or family, or friends, that could support them, but they got to a point where they couldn't take care of themselves. In the first five or six years, all of those people died. And the next wave of people were primarily people of color, primarily men of color, although there were more and more women, who were struggling with all the, AIDS and HIV were only one of many issues that they were struggling with. That's what sort of got you bumped up on the waiting list, you know, in terms of residential treatment, or whatever other services you need, but there were a whole host of issues that they had been struggling with long before HIV, you know, ever came into their lives. And so, it was really, for me, a very stark reminder that, you know, there is this huge disparity and we see this, of course, all the time in our work at OPCC, and in nonprofit work, generally, there's this enormous disparity between haves and have-nots. And so, you know, HIV disease was just one more, you know, layer on multiple layers of things that people were struggling with. - So have you seen a particular impact, because some of us are in nonprofit work, on the community itself? I mean, I see direct services through the center, and other, many, many other organizations in other states, and nationally, but I don't know whether there's more of a consciousness, I mean, OPCC had a youth services shelter for a while, and, you know, I'm not certain whether there, it brings a different perspective, or if there's sort of an issue there about our community. - Well, it's interesting that you mentioned youth. I mean, I think where youth, especially homeless and runaway youth are concerned, many of those are youth that are in fact gay or lesbian, and/or questioning, and they're often thrown out of their homes, or they're forced to leave a home situation that is really not comfortable, and it often has to do with their sexual orientation. It's not quite as true for homelessness, less so probably with domestic violence and mental illness, you know, again, not so much. But I mean, I think what I would say is, of the out folks that I know in leadership and nonprofit organizations, I think that they're, you know, not that we're special or unique, although one could argue that we are, I think there is a sensitivity and a compassion, I think, that folks bring to the work, and I like to think that some of that comes from a place of, you know, being part of a minority and understanding what it's like to be discriminated against, understanding what it's like to be on the outside of the circle looking in. Even if it's not an issue of socioeconomics, it's really an understanding of what it feels like to be different, to be looked at in a different way, or to be misunderstood. And I think from that perspective, you know, the organization I work in, because of our very rich heritage of sort of this feminist collective governance, I think there's a model of sensitivity and understanding that has kind of been passed on that makes it easier for, you know, lesbian and gay folk to work in those kinds of environments, because we understand cooperation and we understand respect, and we understand the struggles that people have to kind of pull themselves up. So I think that's the imprint, at least my experience, that's what it's been. - John, how about in the labor movement? I don't know very, personally, I don't know a whole lot of out gay men or lesbians sort of in leadership positions in the labor movement, though there may be many and I just don't know. Do you see an impact of our community, or our folks, on the labor movement? - Well, I think it's kind of in both directions, there's definitely an impact of openly gay and lesbian leaders in the labor movement on the value system of the labor movement, but really there's even a greater understanding of folks who aren't gay or lesbian that are in the leadership of the labor movement, understanding our obligation to the rest of the folks we represent. So, we don't have the numbers, in terms of leadership positions, that other communities do. You've got Nancy Wohlforth, who's the number two at the Office and Professional Employees International Union, she's probably the highest ranking openly gay or lesbian person in the labor movement in the country. And then you've got leaders at different levels spread out throughout the state of California, and other states as well, that have really been there for many years. When you look at the UFCW, for example, my union, for about 20 years, whenever there was a tough negotiations, the guy that got called in to close the deal was an openly gay guy, who was really just the most talented negotiator in the UFCW structure. So here he was negotiating with the top grocery companies across the country, or the top meatpacking companies, so he was having that impact on the general union membership. But now you look at the value system of the labor movement, and it really is very aligned with the issues impacting our community. My union, for example, at our last international convention, adopted a resolution that said one of our top priorities was passing legislation like ENDA, because there's this realization that in the majority of the country, somebody can be fired simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity, unless you're in a state like California that protects you by law. The other place that you can get that protection is under a union contract, because one of the core elements of a union contract is this concept that your discipline or termination can only be as a result of your inability to perform your job, not based on somebody's disliking you because of some immutable characteristic. - Of course, we've come along a little bit later than a number of other minorities that have struggled as well in the labor movement. I mean, I think one of, some of the history of the last, I don't know, 40 years or so has really been moving away from the kind of, you know, white guy ran the unions, white guys got into the unions, white straight guys, or at least that weren't out, to a much more, well, you know, attempt anyway, to have more of a blended, diverse leadership. And I think a lot of that, I could be wrong, came into this sort of breakaway between AF of L and SEIU, but I'm not sure, I mean, it looked to me like some of the new union organizing was a lot around people of color, immigrants, et cetera. - Well, I mean, the reality is that that the labor force in the country has changed. And the types of unions that have had the growth have been unions with greater level of diversity. So that's one thing. The other thing is, where you see the greatest advantage of unionization, it's disproportionately felt with women and people of color. There's a 15% wage differential for a worker in general, whether they're in a union or not in a union. It goes up to %20 or 25% for women, it goes up to the thirties and above for people of color, because there really is this soft level of sexism and this soft level of racism that creates this wage inequity, inequity in the general economy, and only through unionization are we able to level that playing field. I'll give you an example. In the 1940s, the first union that I've been able to find that negotiated a contract with equal pay for women as a guarantee, was the UFCW in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was the model for creating equal pay for women for equal work. So that really has been a long-term union value, but the dynamic of leadership, the reality is unions are democratic organizations, and with democracy, sometimes you have a disparity in representation, right? And you have to create the movements within that democracy to make sure that the leadership looks like the membership. But even when it doesn't look exactly like the membership to make sure that it values those things that impact all of the membership. - Do you see an impact of being a union member, or unionization, on people in our community? Maybe it's a stretch, but one of the things that we know from, you know, the last 30, 40 years, for lesbians, for instance, was because, as you said, women generally make a certain amount less than men for the same job. When you have two women living together, you're looking at even sort of less family income. Is there an impact that the union has had on our community? - Well, I think absolutely, especially when you get to these issues of wage inequity. You know, when you look at our lesbian membership, they're gonna be in a slightly better situation than their non-union counterparts, But it's not just about that wage differential, it's about feeling like you belong, feeling like it's okay to be who you are, feeling like it's safe to be out at work, feeling like you don't have to worry about your job being on the line. What we do for a living is an important part of who we are. And if you feel like you can be out in your social life, but not be out at work, that really is a very uncomfortable way to live. And so, the protections that we offer as a labor movement, I really do think impact the quality of life. But you know better than anybody, when you look at legislation to protect the LGBT community, other than LGBT organizations themselves, the most likely ally on every piece of those legislation is the labor movement. - Well, it's not only on work legislation anymore, either, in some cases. I mean, the allies that we had on the gay marriage legislation in California, I mean, Dolores Huerta sat in the back of the room the whole time and the farm workers were out en masse to convince assembly members they should vote for gay marriage. We thought, well, now that's, you know, along with the NAACP, who was also in the back of the chambers, going to people, you know, you've gotta do this. I think that's been a great thing, but it's also one of the things that unions have taught us, is the value of collective work, I mean, you know, from the '30s. - Absolutely. One other example, just using marriage, last year at the California AFL-CIO convention, as we were battling through what our appropriate positions should be on a variety of political campaigns, and on a variety of ballot measures, there was a voice from the floor asking for the delegates to vote to pass a resolution supporting marriage equality. Now, there was a time where the labor movement would say, that's not our core issue, we're not gonna take a position on it. It went through on a unanimous voice vote. That's a powerful thing, that doesn't happen lightly, and it's not insignificant that the collective delegates representing all the unions in California and the millions of members that we represent said that supporting marriage equality is a core value to us as a labor movement. - Well, it's stunning. Since you brought up legislation, we'll move to you Charles, because the sector, you know, we talk nonprofit, we talk labor, and then we talk politics, and really government. I mean, I see that as being, naturally, one of the main impact to the sector. But tell me, first of all, do you think people from our community have had an impact in electoral politics and in policy? - Absolutely. I think that, first of all, just being in the workplace, accessing the workplace, holding positions, working openly out of the closet for government, running for office, you are yourself a classic example of that. In 1987, I was the first openly gay person in California to run a legislator's office. Now, there's so many of us, I don't know them all anymore. (Sheila laughs) So, just the workplace visibility has stimulated others to come behind us to increase and see their options. But also in terms of delivery of services, in terms of how we craft what we craft, the most obvious, and in some senses, psychologically, the most important difference, is that it was absolutely common in most places of the workplace, anywhere in America, to be comfortable making jokes about gays and lesbians. You know, that was normal, that was the morning thing you did at the water cooler. And now, that's simply not acceptable. It's not only not acceptable, it's not desirable, people feel and perceive themselves that it's not right. It's not just because of law, although law protects us in those circumstances now, and that's part of our product, but also because we've created a sense of the person next to you, the person around you, the person that helps you, the person that you rely on as an ally and as a leader is also a person whom you don't want to talk about in a negative kind of way. And government has been the vehicle for that, both to create those protections, and to disseminate them. - But do you think that it makes an impact on policy? I mean, you're having a very big discussion in Congress these days, - Yes we are. - and your boss being right there in the middle of it, about who to include in hate crimes legislation, who to include in anti-discrimination in the workplace legislation. And they're pretty far behind California, there's no question about it, but that's understandable. You know, we're considered the "Left Coast", or the "Blue Coast", or whatever we are. - But Congress is coming along, slowly but surely. - Well, even to discuss it, of course. But even Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin are not agreeing on this. Can you talk a little bit about it as you see it? - Yeah, I would argue that that's good that they don't see eye to eye, because it needs to be clear that not all lesbians and gays have just exactly one agenda, or more importantly, that we don't all see going there, getting to the objective in the same way, we all want our rights, we all want our rights defended, but on end of the indiscrimination bill in Congress right now, there is a huge debate about do we include transgendered persons in non-discrimination law, or do we not? And the question is, when you count heads, when you do the most basic thing in politics, which is count up your votes, say the votes aren't there to end discrimination, against, to legislate an end to discrimination in Congress, against, transgendered people, but they may be there for lesbians and gay and bisexuals at this point, do we go with that? Do we take that win? And Barney Frank has said, yeah, we've gotta go for what we can get, because any victory against discrimination, it being fundamentally wrong to begin with, any victory against it is legitimate. On the other hand, Tammy Baldwin arguing that no, one of the lessons we've learned from other civil rights struggles, from other efforts, one of the things we're bringing along is that you don't abandon your allies, you don't abandon those who also need your protections, you don't walk through the door and leave others behind. And that is, I would argue that's a strategic difference, because ultimately, we're gonna get there. We're clear what the discussion among us needs to be. It's a strategic difference, the reality is the bill isn't going to get through, the president's made it clear he is going to veto it, so we're having a discussion about how we get to our rights, to our victory, to our success, not whether, and not whether, above all, I think there is consensus that whether we do it, whether we bring everybody through the door at the same time or we reach back and lift as we climb, we will bring everybody, we will go forward together. And that's something we've had to learn the hard way through learning from other struggles. - And in the district itself, in LA, is it a primarily African American district? No. It's pretty diverse now, right? - It's extremely diverse. Probably the largest number, in terms of population, will be Latinos at this point, as in many districts in Los Angeles. In terms of registered voters, high-propensity voters, African Americans, but we also include Hollywood, we include Silver Lake, we include the very wealthy Hancock Park area. It's a very, very diverse district, it's changing and that's appropriate, and that's inevitable. We also include part of West Hollywood. So one of the discussions we're having about whether or not to do subway here is we're talking about allies of communities. And one of the things that has emerged as a result of our work in the governmental area, and in the political area is people of color communities reaching out to lesbian and gay communities, and saying, we have common interest here, let us work together. - You know, the common interest issue of it is what I wanted us to be engaged to, I think, even for the rest of the program, because there was a conference many years ago, where two people were invited who had spent more than 20 years advocating in a particular community, lesbian-gay community, African American community, you know, it was by race, it was by economics, it was by interest, et cetera. And they were asked to identify the major issues for their community. And the interesting thing, of course, was that the major issues were all the same, though they manifested themselves differently. So let me ask you, for instance, in the major issues with which you're dealing now, whatever they are generally, do you see a common thread with the lesbian-gay community and other communities? - Absolutely. And I've gotta tell you, for us, one of our major issues is something you've been the principal champion on, and that's this healthcare issue. And access to healthcare, it is the single biggest challenge to working people in the United States. - Talk more about that, John, for sort of setting up. - Well, when you look at the numbers of people that are uninsured, and the crisis state that that really puts people in the fact that people really are making very difficult decisions about how they provide for their families, especially when somebody becomes ill without having that kind of health insurance. But even when you look at folks that have unions and that have healthcare, the fact is, for example, with my members, they had to forego a raise for five years just to be able to trade off to have some semblance of healthcare protection. So there's this new realization amongst many in the labor movement that the system of tying benefits to the paycheck isn't really the best approach, that we really do have to have a broader way of addressing the healthcare crisis for everybody in the country. And these issues are disproportionately felt in communities of color, but they're also disproportionately felt in the gay and lesbian community. When you look at the number of folks who have employer-provided healthcare throughout the country, but because their domestic partner relationship, or their relationship in whatever way it manifests itself isn't recognized, they don't have that protection. Now in California, we're lucky that the legislature said, if you provide healthcare to spouses, you need to provide it to domestic partners, but most people in the country don't have that protection. And unless we address the fundamental question of healthcare reform, that really does disproportionately impact these communities, we're all suffering. - Is the nonprofit sector, I don't wanna say I have to keep tossing the ball, let's have a conversation like we do, oh, you know, it's after dinner, we're drinking our coffee or whatever, so, you know, jump in, but I'm thinking healthcare and... - Well, certainly, I mean, healthcare, I think is an issue that cuts across every sector, not just non-profit. I mean, we see that, both as a social service agency that's struggling to provide living wages and benefits, including health benefits, for the people who work for us, because our goal is to lift people out of poverty, so the last thing we want to be doing is creating an environment where the people who work for us are living in poverty. So that that's a challenge. The issue of affordable housing, you know, for us, is again, enormous, both in terms of our workforce, and for the people that we're serving. And I don't see these as things that are unique or isolated, you know, for the LGBT community as well, because I think there's enormous crossover. The issue of family violence, I mean, sadly, same sex relationships, you know, same sex relationships experience a tremendous amount of family violence as well, sadly. So, you know, our work really, I think intersects at issues that are broader societal issues, poverty, family violence, affordable housing, healthcare. - We're still having problems though, aren't we? I mean, in terms of providing services, I know that there were issues about, for instance, shelters for battered women, and many times married women, or women escaping their boyfriends are coming to these shelters. And there was a question about whether the shelters could also take in lesbians. Some did not, and still do not. And also questions about where gay men go when they've, you know, or straight men. I mean, we have people who advocate in Sacramento for shelters for straight men. And I said, "Well, we started ours and got the money, you start yours and get the money," you know? Still, there's this sort of question where it's still, we're not totally accepted in many places. - Oh, absolutely not. I mean, I'm happy to say our domestic violence shelters, you well know, is one of the few, actually, that will accept, you know, lesbians, you know, adult, or, teenage males up to the age of 18. But it's an issue, ironically, that there is still prejudice and fear when many of these programs are actually operated by lesbians and are not necessarily serving lesbians. And so, there's this notion that, there's a fear or stigma associated with going to seek services, you know, in a place that is, where people aren't even aware that the place they're seeking refuge is actually operated by folks that they would exclude. It's a strange irony. - And yet, the discrimination that continues within our community, from those that we're trying to serve is still there, but there are also, we're still facing discrimination at a governmental, and at a power level too, and I can't pretend that that's not the case, despite all the advances that we've made. Hollywood is the, is the Mecca, the escape place, the Land of Oz for throwaway children around the world, when people get to the point where they can't stand anymore, and they feel discriminated against because they're a gay or lesbian, because they can't stay in the closet one more day and they decide to escape, where do they head to? They head to Hollywood. They head here. And yet, we can't get enough funding through to ensure that we can take care of all of throwaway children, all of these escapees who are on the street, and find themselves in inappropriate sexual relationships and drug use because they can't survive and they've been rejected by their families of origin. So those kinds of problems are still specific and directly related to being gay or lesbian, directly related to discrimination that continues despite all the gains and power that we've acquired. On the other hand, I think there are strategies that we've learned. I think, for instance, that one of the things that our movement has taught the world due to our struggle against HIV, is we chose not to be passive as the community. We took control of it, we said it isn't, no, we don't just have to accept the fact that there are no drugs that work, no, we don't just have to accept the fact that there are no places where we can be treated, no, we don't have to accept hospitals when what we need is hospice, no, we don't have to wait until the drugs are developed and tested, we have a right to know what's going on. We, to some extent, did more to contribute to the notion of transparency in the development of drugs, and in many ways, we as a community did that, and that is something we have to offer the entire world. As we approach globalization, we talk about the problems we're facing, one of them is, globalization isn't coming, it's here, we've gotta get our people ready for it. And one of the things we learned from the struggle with HIV is that we don't have to be passive and wait, we can turn to our government, we can turn to the people around us, and we can say, get us ready, help us, these are our needs, we want to see what you're doing to develop them. That's a strategy, that's a modus operandi that gays and lesbians originated and handed to the world. It's our gift. - It's interesting though, because both of you have talked about AIDS and HIV, and I want to take a minute and talk about that as well, too often, when we look at political discussions and people think of the LGBT community, they think of AIDS. Unfortunately, they don't think of AIDS in the way that it manifests itself today. And the fact that today, the new infections are disproportionately black and brown, they're increasingly women. And the fact that the progression from HIV to AIDS is very different in these communities. Nationally, somebody who's diagnosed with AIDS who's white got their AIDS diagnosis only 35% of the time within a year of their HIV diagnosis. If they're African American, it's 52% of the time. More than half of African American AIDS diagnoses came only a year after their HIV diagnoses. In the Latino community, it's 72%. So this gets at these other questions that we've talked about. Whether it's a question of access to healthcare, so you even get people in a place where they can get tested. When you get to the question of stigma, when you get to the question of all these other issues that really do manifest in themselves in different ways, we're really experiencing a new crisis. We're experiencing a crisis that's disproportionately impacting women and people of color, but it's also disproportionately impacting younger folks in a way that hadn't been the case for a long time. And we as a community have to struggle with that in how we adjust our approaches and how we get government to adjust its approach. And hopefully in the next year, we have opportunities to refocus the way government deals with these kinds of issues. - Well, we changed the law just in terms of HIV testing and who could do the tests, who could do the rapid tests, et cetera, because, partly because of the, not only the changing demographics, but what you mentioned, the stigma, people don't wanna know if they have AIDS, because it may mean... They think it's different for people of color than it was for gay and lesbian people. They think it's so much worse for people of color to be diagnosed, but in the old days, it really, it wasn't. You know, nobody wanted to know that they had it, because then you'd have to tell somebody else, or somebody else would tell somebody else, and it would be essentially over for you, is what you thought, and in the early days it was. But the other thing, I think, that we also learned, I was thinking when you were talking about our community taking some power over itself, was the interesting way that the inside and the outside were actually, in many ways, working together. You'd be in visiting with President Clinton and there would be act up outside yelling about how they were doing nothing, but we would've had a meeting beforehand of the people going in and the people staying out in terms of, again, a kind of strategy. - And you have that now, with ENDA trying to make its way through the legislature, through Congress, you have most groups advocating saying that we must include transgendered people. You also have the human rights campaign, that's saying, no, we'll take what we can get, we'll work with the political establishment, the carrot and the stick approach, we've learned to wield that to our good and to our benefit now. - But you know, the interesting point, I think that both of you make, and are actively involved in, if you talk about, you know, if you look at, not only creating a movement, but we, through the AIDS organizations really created the infrastructure which didn't exist. I mean, I think when the history of the HIV epidemic is finally written, there was enormous infrastructure that was created out of political organizing, which of course, the labor movement has been involved in for years and years. So when you talk about common visions and strategies, it's that ability to mobilize large numbers of people across the country around a shared vision. And I think that's interesting, that those sort of skills, you know, and techniques can be adapted, whether it's in the labor movement, whether it's in politics. I mean, I see so many advancements being made for our community around this issue of being able to organize and be more visible, and as the direct result, gain power. - John, it's more than inspiring, it's hopeful. I mean, it's the way we have to go, because the reality is that not only did we do that in fighting the AIDS epidemic, but lesbians came alongside of us. They chose to be allies. That was an act of choice on their part. It was an act of choice, it was an act of benevolence. It showed a community, we defined ourselves as a community because we decided to face adversity together. That's unique, and that's something, again, a new model, a new gift that we offer of solving problems together. - Well, we also got quite a sense of humor out of it, which we hadn't had at the moment, I remember. We were pretty grim and serious people. But one of the things I think we taught our brothers was about community organizing. - [Charles Sterart] Mm-hmm, yes. - There was a lot of gay men saying, I'd never faced adversity before that I thought about, you know, I either stayed in the closet or I didn't, I was so out that I didn't care what people thought. And that was a very, very interesting synergy. But you know, there's also a synergy in these sectors. I see it in young people who are sort of coming up into leadership, in interning, you know, in our offices, also apprenticing or interning, and certainly in the non-profit, starting their own. Then there, a lot of them are kids of color who check more than one box on the "what are you" form, and they're kind of the same around their range of sexuality. It's not just questioning, it's whatever, they wanna add a W kind of, you know, into the LGBTQ-W. And it's kind of like, whatever. Do you see this with young people in your areas, or your sectors, or whatever? - I mean, we do at OPCC, it's amazing how many bright, and I don't know, I've always wondered if this is a function of being on the West Side, where we seem to have a lot of very bright and eager, you know, folks generally. But it's interesting, I mean, we were just contacted by a, you know, a young man who's a junior in high school, he's an incredible filmmaker, you know, and interested in really making an impact. I mean, very interested in the issues, you know, that we are working on now, and, you know, very open about that, and open about his own personal story as well. And I mean, I think that's inspiring, because I can rewind 35 years ago and say that, when I was a junior in high school, I didn't see myself or many, you know, my peers checking any boxes, much less say "Here I am," you know, and, "I wanna serve," and, "I want to be involved." And you know, it's a way to kind of put myself out there, and I think it's great. - Yeah, and I think we see bright, talented young people everywhere. And it really is a hopeful sign, because the way they view the world is very different than people older than they are view the world. And I think that there is a greater sense of kind of equity in the way that they view the world. And so, issues of race, or gender or sexual orientation don't manifest themselves in the same way, they don't have the same baggage around some of those definitions. Now, that's the upside. The downside though, is that, I fear, that the way you create community, and the way you create advocacy is also shifting, and I'm not sure that the model that's being created now, where it's basically more of an online model, is the most effective way to advocate for the types of political change that we're looking for. And so the fear is, if you don't create that balance in the way that you create community and advocacy, do you get people to be excited for a little while and then burn out because they don't see the impact of their advocacy? And so I think it's incumbent on all of us to work, to make sure we figure out how to leverage that intelligence and that skill set and that commitment into ways to do leveraging. - Of course, we've seen people show up for rallies. We've got an issue, you know, Pete Wilson vetoed our bill, Now we're all gonna have a march, we're gonna have a rally, thousands of people show up, and then you wonder where the heck they went, you know, when it's time to bake the pie, or whatever. - But that's the difference between an event and a movement. - [Sheila] Right. - Right? And so, some skills are great to create an event, but if you're not actually creating a movement underlying it, if you don't create the infrastructure to do the leveraging, the infrastructure that we've learned from other places, then you have an ability to get people really amped up for a very short period of time and not get it to be sustainable so that you could actually move the ball in the direction you wanna move the ball. - And yet, you know what, we've gotta adapt to that, - Absolutely. - we've gotta work with it. And I have great faith in these younger folks. Because I'm tired. (all laugh) I'm gonna relax. But these young folks today, they're doing something that I'm not sure that I'm ready to do yet, Sheila, and that is, mainstream. - [Sheila] Mm-hmm. - They don't want to check the black box. Whereas I grew up where saying, being proud of being black was an enormous challenge, and enormously empowering. And when I go to the Halloween festival here in West Hollywood, and I'm there for an hour before I realize, this is, this was, or this used to be sponsored by the gay community, it doesn't feel very gay, because everybody's at the party, everybody's there now. And I'm saying, well, am I ready for this? Is this what I want? Do I want to give up our individuality, as a person of color, as gays and lesbians? But these kids, they're just taking it for granted. They're okay with it. The result of success of a movement, John, is mainstreaming. At some level, becoming ourselves part of the mainstream, and also, our values diffusing outward. And that's a challenge. I'm not sure that I'm ready to go there, but these kids are there. - They're there. But see, I get the value of the mainstreaming, what I wanna make sure is that there's the protections to enforce the mainstreaming when something happens, or to keep something from happening. And so, that's the leveraging part that I'm concerned about. And it's not to discount the new approaches, it's to say, what can we learn from them, what can we teach at the same time in the interaction so that we don't lose sight of leveraging it to actually make the progress we're talking about? - So when you say something about, sort of the downside of the mainstreaming, what do you mean, John? - Well, you know, sometimes we can all be so comfortable with the fact that, you know, I'm who I am, that we lose sight of the fact that that space isn't there for other people. I mean, each of us are at a place in our personal lives that we're very comfortably, being openly gay, not hiding from anybody, just having it just be a part of who we are. That doesn't necessarily make it the same for somebody in another part of the country. That doesn't make it the same for somebody in another socioeconomic status group, right? And that's what we've gotta fight to create the laws that make it okay for other people as well. So that's what I'm saying, if we get so comfortable because there's this individual level of comfort, that's really not that different than the straight, I'm sorry, the white gay males that were affluent that you talked about before, that it never felt like they were the other, and because of not feeling like they were the other, they hadn't initially focused on the social organizing that was essential to create that safe space. - Well, it's an interesting thing, because people have said, you don't wanna define yourselves as victims. You know, you're all victims, black people are victims, brown people are victims, gay people are victims, women are victims. And you need protection, protection, protection, protection. Where does that get you? Well, it actually got us to a very good place as the first step. Because we needed to be protected, we had to be honest about it. We didn't make up discrimination, we needed some help with discrimination, that was it, you know? But what you say, it's very true, and that's why I think this ENDA discussion is so interesting, it's kind of like, now we're gonna be in the law, okay? Somebody reached down their hand from the civil rights movement, and said, we're gonna bring you into this non-discrimination law. And the question is, do we then say to the transgender community, "Here's my hand, well, I'm not going anywhere without you," or, "Once I'm there, I'll make sure that you get in,"? Either of which could be a valid approach. - But you know, in having that discussion, we really have to be honest about who it impacts each time we make the decision. I think, intellectually, and kind of in our hearts, it is easy to say, unless we're all protected, we don't wanna move forward. But the reality is, every day somebody is being fired because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. And it's a real question we have to ask ourselves, if we could shrink that number of people who can legally be fired, what's the right moral decision for us to make? Is it morally right for us to say, we're not gonna protect these 20 million people until we could protect these 2 million at the same time? Or do we say, you know what, we're gonna protect these 20 million, but we're never gonna give up the fight for these other folks, you know? And the reality is, unfortunately, unfortunately, where the transgendered community is from the perspective of the majority of Americans is about 20 years behind where the gay and lesbian community is. - But of course, we were left out of all of that. - Absolutely. - You know, in all of the non-discrimination statutes. And the problem it created for us, and I know completely where of I speak, because I had to bring a bill that was just about us, because everybody else was already in the education code, it made it more of a hurdle, because it was just about us. And so, the right wing could go out and hang my colleagues in effigy and threaten them, and call the, you know, witchcraft or whatever, and special rights, as you said, John. So in a way, I mean, I think it's a very good discussion, but you're right, Charles, it's a discussion about strategy. - I mean, I remember when you had that legislation, I was in the committee rooms when we were lobbying the Education Committee, I think it was AB 101 the first time, the Dignity For All Students bill. And you're right, if we do everybody at once, that's great. The problem is we've already done race, we've already done gender, right? So now we've gotta add to it. And the question, it's not an easy question. - I hear you, I really do. I mean, I think it's the same with services, you look at, where's the money for services, and how big is it, small. I mean, it's small. We're really, essentially, we've got our donors, we've got a little government money, which keeps shrinking. How do you decide who gets services? - Well, and that's a struggle we live with every day, because it's always about priorities, it's always about triage, we want to say it's not, but until we live in a world of unlimited resources, certainly in the non-profit sector, you have to make those tough decisions all the time. And so it's always, I mean, I feel like we're always on the Maslow scale, it's like the highest in most need, and that's difficult. I mean, we're struggling with that right now, frankly, in our homeless services, about, as we see, so we look at, you know, chronically homeless individuals who've been on the streets a long period of time, and who have, you know, multiple needs, and are the hardest to serve, and the hardest reach, versus, you know, about half the people we're serving are people who've been homeless less than a year. And so, we're constantly in this dilemma, do you make a quick intervention and break the cycle of homelessness, you know, and divert your resources there? Which, there are all kinds of good reasons to say we should do that. Or, do you focus your resources on the people who been the hardest, and who have been left out and who have been marginalized and left behind, and those are the people we really need to serve, because that's the highest and best use of very limited resources. I don't have an easy answer for that. I mean, I think it's a balancing act, and I mean, I'm listening, and I think you make absolutely valid points. I think that the downside of mainstreaming, the upside is that it becomes okay to be out and be gay and lesbian, and that's wonderful, and the downside of that is there's a sense of complacency, and it's seductive, you know, it's almost like access to power, you know, become seductive. And we began to take for granted that lots of folks came before us that laid the groundwork for the four of us to be sitting here, you know, and talking about this openly on television, and we tend to forget that there's some sense of obligation for us to make sure that we don't leave folks behind. And I think, I mean, you live this every day, but I always think in the world, both of you, really, in the world of politics, you have to make decisions about incrementalism all the time, you know, do you- - But it's really no different from what you do, John. I mean, really, or the whole nonprofit community. I mean, when you look at limited resources, which we look at, - [Charles Sterart] Every day. and certainly, you know, the labor movement is also looking at it, you say, well, do I want permanent housing for these homeless people, or do I create a great, big shelter so that they're not sleeping in doorways while they're waiting for me to get permanent housing? Which I get, you know, three units at a time, or six units at a time, and sort of how you allocate the resources. But it's also interesting to me the way people from our community, and even here, move back and forth among these sectors, which I think is helpful. Do you... - Oh, absolutely, I mean, you know, I sit on public boards, right? I sit on the Redevelopment Agency Board where we're voting on affordable housing and homeless services on a weekly basis. I mean, we all interact in multiple places. You know, we talk about our primary role where your primary role's in government, and yours in non-profit services, and mine in labor, but all of us interact in these different ways, and I think that that really is very valuable, that we navigate these different parts of the community and bring these different perspectives to bear when we make these decisions in each of our roles. - And I think it's incumbent upon us, also, to bring to this table more and more of those who are involved in entrepreneurialism. I mean, we are all trying to be entrepreneurial in the services that we provide, but I mean those out there that own small businesses, those that are running major corporations, because when we are all trying to triage the small pie, part of the reason for that is they're saying, that's a priority for folks over there, but we don't want more taxes, we don't want more burdens on business, and so, that's the little pie you guys get to try and figure out and divide. We need to bring more and more of them along, more and more of them are saying, you know, it's not that we're opposed to more and more people lifting themselves up and becoming empowered and no longer being subjected to discrimination, but we believe in the, you know, the rising tide lifts all boats, kind of a thing. We need to bring them to this table, and we need. more and more, because we do, we engage them all the time, but we need to do that more and more, so that in fact the conversation includes more of those who are involved in running active in all sectors, and there are lots of lesbians and gays out there that are running now Fortune 500 countries. We are in pulpits, we are in office, we are running those companies. And we're running small companies as well, and they have real fears, as entrepreneurs, that we have to address as well, and we need to bring them more and more in. - But actually, I think that's one of the places where there really is some real depth in the gay and lesbian community, of folks who are business owners, who are entrepreneurs, saying that they're a part of this community and that they've gotta put their resources, I think you see a higher level of philanthropy, and you see a higher level of political activism. That really is important, because those are different ways to- - But on the flip side, when you look at the leadership of organizations that represent business, now, I don't know nationally, because I'm not in, obviously, national government, but in the state, the State Chamber of Commerce, for instance, opposes every anti-discrimination bill as a job-killer bill. I mean, there has not been one. Not only have they not supported, but I mean, you know, with a triple star against it. And that makes it very difficult, and I don't know whether, what your experience, really, has been, you know, with the business community. Both of you are... - I mean, I think you're absolutely right about the state chambers of commerce and the National Chamber of Commerce, that there's a huge disconnect between those bodies and local chambers of commerce, or other types of business associations. And it really is reprehensible that the State Chamber of Commerce in California, and the National Chamber of Commerce, always stands in the way of creating these kinds of protections against the dehumanizing practices that we know go on out there. - [Sheila] Mm-hmm. - Yeah, our experience has been, it's been very interesting, locally, and I have to say with the local chambers of commerce that I've worked with. And I think a lot of it gets back to the leadership of those organizations, because my, in my eight and a half years at OPCC, I've seen, you know, our local chamber, when I first came, and this is not the individual members of the chamber, because my experience, universally, with individuals and individual businesses in the community is they tend to be very generous and very philanthropic and very supportive of our work as individuals. As an entity, as a sort of a trade association, if you will, it really, in my experience, it's been very much driven by the leadership and the values of the leadership. When I first came to OPCC, the local chamber was much more supportive of the nonprofit sector, not just on the issues that we worked on, but the nonprofit sector, generally. And that leadership changed to a very, you know, hard nosed, had a lot of tension with the city government, and went through a period of time of trying to unseat the city council, and actually formed a political action committee. I mean, and there was a complete, you know, disbanded their nonprofit committee, and there are many nonprofit members of the local chamber. And we went, really, there was 180 degree shift. - Why, John, what prompted that? - Well, the leadership. Again, Charles, it was really a group of people who came into power in this organization that had a very different... And it was an interesting juxtaposition for me, because I said, on an individual basis with many of the members that I had worked with, and continue to work with, had been very supportive of our organization, had been very supportive personally, and had a good working relationship, but there's something that happens in that sort of group think that allows kind of a small cabal to kind of take over, and then you see the organization kind of moving. Now, interestingly enough, that group is gone, and there's a new group of leadership here, and the pendulum is swinging back the other way. There is much more of an open, they just hired a new CEO who's been very, very involved in nonprofits, in the community. But even prior to that, I mean for the last year, the leadership of the organization has really shifted. So, I mean, not that that would come as any surprise, but I mean, for me, that's a perfect example of what happens when you get a small group of people in power, and they start wielding it in ways that are really unhealthy and it changes this dynamic and whatever. - But there's an upside to that, too. I mean, one of the things that has been interesting, when we look at our community getting more involved in sort of civic, you know, good citizenship, is a lot of us went into nonprofit because it was a lot, and to government, because it was just easier, just like it was for people of color, it was easier to get jobs. You know, you weren't getting hired by the corporation, or the law firm, or whatever. And so, we were in nonprofits, or we would start up nonprofits. Then we went to work for foundations, because we'd been in the nonprofits. You know, and government seemed like, I mean, I don't think I know any African Americans in the legislature whose relatives were not in the postal service. I mean, that was just, it wasn't every single one of them, but you know, an awful lot, and we had sort of the same experience. And I think the more we encourage our kids, and frankly our, you know, our colleagues, to take leadership, to be on the boards, like you're on the City Board, and you're on the statewide, sort of services boards, and the stuff that we do, I think is really important. It's amazing. But there's only a couple of minutes remaining, so let me ask you one more question. What can we do to get our community more involved in these sectors, do you think? Or, people that you know that you would like to see more involved? Or maybe you don't care? - No, I absolutely care. I mean volunteer, first of all, I mean, I think that's important. That's, I think, where it started for many of us that serve. I mean, you know, my vocation is in the nonprofit, and my avocation, I serve as a volunteer on a nonprofit organization board, because I think it's important, and I think there really is joy in giving, and I think until you experience that, you don't understand what that means. So I think that's absolutely something that nonprofit organizations need, we need bright, smart, capable people. You don't have to be rich, you know, you have to be committed and passionate about our mission. So that is something that I would say there's, you know, plenty of opportunities to, if you can't serve on a board, you can volunteer in programs, there's always something that can be done. Everybody is busy, but we all can do something, and that's a good way to start. - I think he's absolutely right. Find something that you're passionate about and really commit yourself, roll up your sleeves and volunteer. - Engage people, personalize the effort and the struggle, and use technology. - Use technology? - Use technology. - No fear of technology. - No, can't have, can't. (Sheila Kuehl laughs) - Well, I want to thank you, all three, very, very much. John, and John, and Charles, I want to thank you very much for being with us. We had a, I hope, a discussion that kept you engaged. I know it's the holiday season, at least when the first run of the show is going on, all of our major holidays, so whatever you celebrate, however you do it, get engaged, be involved, and get used to it. (upbeat music)