APA and Eidelson spar on LGBT boycott of Manchester-Hyatt
February 1st, 2010
There has been considerable controversy in the American Psychological Association regarding the association’s decision NOT to honor a boycott of the Hyatt hotel in San Diego that APA plans to use for its convention in San Diego next summer. [For background, see Olson & Eidelson's piece here and a Psychologists for Social Responsibility statement here.] In December Alice Dreger blogged on the issue for the Hastings Bioethics Forum. APA staff member Kim Kills has posted a response in the comments. In return, Roy Eidelson, President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, has posted a reply to Mills.
I post both Mills’ comments and Eidelson’s reply here. Mills:
The American Psychological Association has been a strong advocate for full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for nearly 35 years. We are proud of that record of advocacy based on the social science research on sexual orientation and gender identity.
APA has supported legal benefits for same-sex couples since 1997, and civil marriage for same-sex couples since 2004. Most notably, we have adopted policy statements, lobbied Congress in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment, and filed amicus briefs supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples in legal cases in eight states, including California. The APA brief was cited by the California Supreme Court when it ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in May 2008.
While we strongly disagree with Doug Manchester’s position vis-à-vis Proposition 8, APA has decided against joining the boycott based on several important factors that have not changed despite an expected budget surplus: a legally enforceable contract, the convention’s need for a large number of sleeping and meeting rooms, and APA’s intention to use the meeting in San Diego as an opportunity to promote public knowledge about scientific research relevant to marriage equality and communicate clearly where we stand on the issue.
This decision is consistent with that of several other large organizations—the American Public Health Association, the National Education Association and the American Educational Research Association–that are also supportive of LGBT civil rights.
Although honoring the contract is not purely a financial issue, it is important to realize that if APA were to cancel the contract, Mr. Manchester would lose nothing; his hotel would receive a $1 million penalty fee from APA. Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the Hyatt is the only hotel in the San Diego area (other than hotels we have already booked) that offers the number of sleeping and meeting rooms required by our meeting. In short, canceling the Hyatt contract would put our ability to host the 2010 convention in jeopardy. In addition, there are several facts relevant to the decision regarding a boycott that the Dr. Dreger did not mention: the boycott has been spearheaded by the union Unite/HERE; the hotel is managed by Hyatt, which has a good record on sexual orientation non-discrimination; and the boycott will also affect the hotel’s highly diverse work force at a time when unemployment is high and jobs are difficult to find.
The bottom line is we believe our resources are better devoted to other meaningful and powerful ways to stand up for our values. We see the San Diego convention as an important opportunity to call attention to the social science research on sexual orientation, the abilities of gay and lesbian parents, and the benefits of marriage for all people.
We plan to offer significant convention programming on these topics. We also plan to devote considerable resources to a national media outreach effort to generate coverage of the APA’s support of marriage equality and the benefits of marriage for all people.
APA believes that a boycott, although a strong symbolic gesture, would not achieve the desired results. In summary, APA’s goals are to give our members full information, respect the personal choices of convention attendees, publicize the social science research on sexual orientation, and use APA resources in productive ways that will move forward the cause of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Kim I. Mills
Associate Executive Director
Public & Member Communications
American Psychological Association
Posted by: kmills@apa.org
Eidelson response:
As a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association (APA), Kim Mills offers a series of unconvincing arguments in response to Alice Dreger’s recent essay, “Attention Shoppers: LBGT Rights Apparently Not Worth $6.67 to the American Psychological Association” (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4260). Mills attempts to defend the refusal of APA leadership to change course regarding plans to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt as the lead headquarters hotel for the August 2010 annual convention in San Diego. As is well known, the hotel’s owner Doug Manchester contributed $125,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign that abolished the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
My reply focuses on several of the specific claims Mills makes.
First, although APA’s past advocacy efforts on behalf of civil rights for LGBT people are commendable, they are no excuse for failing to directly confront the current issues surrounding the Manchester Grand Hyatt. In 2004 APA declared that the association “shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples.” Such a resolution carries with it responsibilities–otherwise it has no real meaning.
Mills’ claim that APA signed “a legally enforceable contract” provides little in the way of clarity. APA leadership has refused to reveal important details of the contract, including possible clauses relevant to cancellation for cause (e.g., failure to provide a quiet and non-controversial venue). Similarly, the $1 million “penalty fee” has been mentioned repeatedly, but requests for further information about it have gone unanswered. For example, it’s not clear what APA’s financial exposure would be if the Manchester Grand Hyatt were not used as a headquarters hotel but all of its sleeping rooms were filled during the convention anyway. There is also a troubling contrast in priorities worth noting here. When APA recently faced difficulties and embarrassment over errors in its latest publication manual, the association decided to pay as much as $1 million to provide replacement copies. In describing this potential financial loss, APA’s Rhea Farberman explained that it was “important to our long term reputation as a publisher.”
Meanwhile, Mills argues that APA has no choice but to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt because “a large number of sleeping and meeting rooms” are needed for the convention. This claim lacks credibility. A successful convention for APA might indeed bring as many as 15,000 attendees to San Diego in August. However, that is a relatively small number when compared to another event scheduled for San Diego just a month earlier. The annual July Comic-Con convention draws well over 100,000 attendees and uses dozens of local hotels.
At the same time, Mills diverts attention from the real issue when she emphasizes that APA intends to use the convention “as an opportunity to promote public knowledge about scientific research relevant to marriage equality and communicate clearly where we stand on the issue.” This is a laudable plan, but it doesn’t require APA to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt as its lead headquarters hotel (where meetings of the Board of Directors, the Council of Representatives, and other groups are currently scheduled to be held).
Finally, Mills claims that the Manchester Grand Hyatt boycott has been “spearheaded” by UNITE-HERE. This deceptive statement appears to be little more than an attempt to split the boycott organizers, a coalition of LGBT and labor groups–and it’s similar to the strategy adopted by Doug Manchester himself. Not only is this approach dismissive of the LGBT community, no explanation is offered for why APA leadership has adopted such an anti-labor stance. In this regard, it’s noteworthy that in an earlier communication about the Manchester Grand Hyatt, the APA Board encouraged association members to visit the explicitly anti-union websites of Richard Berman, a well-known lobbyist for big business.
In light of the misleading claims Kim Mills makes in responding to Alice Dreger’s essay, it’s rather stunning that she concludes by highlighting this APA goal: “to give our members full information.” Fortunately, many APA members and APA divisions have chosen a different path to knowledge. They are making independent decisions about the Manchester Grand Hyatt boycott, informed by their own core values and principles. I applaud them for doing so.
Sincerely,
Roy Eidelson, Ph.D.
APA Member
reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.comP.S. As president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, an organization unaffiliated with the APA, I welcome readers to review our recent statement on the APA Convention and the Manchester Grand Hyatt: www.psysr.org/apa-manchester.
Entry Filed under: APA, Psychology