Discrimination Policy: Where’s SFWA’s?

Here we go.

You might remember that I’m board president of the Mindbridge Foundation. This dubious distinction means that I often get to field pleasant and unpleasant conversation as a representative of the organization. It also means I get to make the meeting agendas. Yeah. It’s a worthy thing. I also have an interest in organizations and visions because of it. So…let’s talk about SFWA.

***

I’m not even there yet, but I’ve had questions about joining SFWA when I do get there. First of all, I already belong to a freakin’ huge union that gives me benefits to all sorts of wonderful support (and it is the NEA). Secondly, I may end up being a better fit in SCBWI or another organization, as I don’t know if what I write when I have a writing career will be a good fit for SFWA. And thirdly, I have a tendency to wade into messes and try to fix them, so I may stay away from SFWA just so I don’t have another item on my to do list. 🙂

And then there’s the recent controversy regarding the Bulletin.

***

Here’s what I’m confounded by. What is SFWA? Because here’s why I question that. According to the website, I see that SFWA is a professional organization. It is not a union nor a corporation. As such, it would not have policies regarding gender equality such as my own college’s, where there is a formalized set of rules for any kind of discrimination, nor as the NEA’s, which takes a stance regarding discrimination for its membership.

I have heard SFWA referred to as a union, but it’s not. It’s not a union or a corporation, or a company, and that might explain why there is no formal discrimination stance for its members.

***

Since SFWA is a professional organization, there are other professional organizations that might provide a better model of comparison for SFWA than a union or workplace in regard to discrimination. The American Association of University Professors might be closer to the mark. This is a professional organization of teachers who do not negotiate a contract, but rather keep members who have a personal stake in a profession together, so that they can benefit from each others knowledge. That sounds a lot like SFWA.

Does the AAUP have a policy on discrimination? Yeah, they kind of do. It is in fact in order to assist their members in their job settings, and that they have a policy of any kind implies a commitment against discrimination among the members of the organization.

***

I do remember from Jim Hines’ journal that SFWA was moving toward (moved toward?) a policy protecting its members from discrimination in the publishing industry, but I cannot find information about that easily on the SFWA website. And I cannot find any sort of commitment of the members of SFWA toward openness and inclusiveness on their website. Maybe that’s all in the member only forums, but if so, that’s too bad, because that’s something that SFWA should display, loud and proud.

It might save a lot of grief if SFWA had some sort of active discrimination policy that called on members to treat each other with respect, or forfeit membership. You know, kind of like might happen at your job. Why? Well, emotions aside, there are laws in our country that guarantee certain freedoms. These aren’t “politically correct” liberals censoring you. These are actual federal laws that if not followed can get organizations and people into trouble. For example?

Equal Opportunity
Housing Discrimination
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
Hate Crimes

So…SFWA won’t be discriminating against housing any time soon, and last time I looked everyone in SFWA got paid nada. And God help us, no one has been shot yet, in spite of some of the hate mail. The point is this: People notice when discrimination takes place, and it is illegal in its extreme forms.

Let’s imagine the following scenario: as a professional writer, a woman (or homosexual or minority) feels uncomfortable with some sort of discriminatory dialogue held up by a member of SFWA (or a contingent party of SFWA) on the boards about this current issue, and they feel uncomfortable enough that they decide to litigate, perhaps on the basis of EO in the organization. It is true that SFWA is NOT responsible for the feelings and opinions of its individual members. Yet, without any sort of policy regarding this sort, SFWA is also open to litigation. Worse still, the SFWA Bulletin openly discriminates, and is not just the responsibility of individual members, but represents the views of SFWA as a whole.

A litigant may or may not win. Why open yourself up to that at all is, I guess, my question.

***

Now I know that there is a concern about alienating various parties and members of SFWA. No one is suggesting that the organization become homogenous.Actually, inclusion indicates quite the reverse.

HOWEVER, there are things that no one would put up in current workplaces, unions, or organizations. No one would tell a woman that Barbie is a good role model. No one would be allowed to put down how someone looks in a swimsuit as a recommendation on a resume. This is no longer appropriate. Also not appropriate? Calling someone a dinosaur because they would say these things.

The point is we don’t do these things in the modern U.S. We’ve come a long way since Little Rock Central and the kind of chase a secretary around a desk action you see on Mad Men. We are not perfect, and white privilege is still alive and well, but we still need to fight against this. Going backwards? That’s not the way the U.S. should roll. That’s not the way a professional organization should roll, else it’s not very professional.

I appreciate the hard work that has gone into making SFWA a more open, accepting organization, but when members who are still allowed to openly discriminate because that’s respecting their views, and the organization goes with that, well, that’s a problem. An organization cannot be inclusive and discriminatory at the same time. These two things cannot co-exist by their very natures.

I’ll be interested to see what happens next, but unless an earnest paradigm shift can occur, I suspect there will be some sort of schism based on irreconcilable differences. Which could be okay.