From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Fwd: SIGCHI reconsiders going to Denver in 95
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:50:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan27.015017.3103
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

This has been forwarded around, and now it's here.

Return-Path: <roberts@atqm.advtech.uswest.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 1993 11:34:17 PST
From:	"Terry Roberts" <roberts@atqm.advtech.uswest.com>
Subject: CO boycott discussion
To:	"announcements" <announcements.chi@xerox.com>
cc:	"Registrar" <REGISTRAR.CHI@xerox.com>

Mail*Link(r) SMTP               CO boycott discussion
Thanks very much to all of the members of announcements.chi who responded to
Scott Robertson's survey regarding CHI'95 and the Colorado boycott.  In case
you're interested, these were the results:
n=262
Question 1 (SIGCHI consider relocating): 79%yes, 18%no, 3%other
Question 2 (personally consider not coming):  62%yes, 32%no, 6%other
Question 3 (know others who wouldn't come): 64%yes, 22%no, 14%other

You have given us an overwhelming message that SIGCHI should seriously consider
the issues around the boycott, and reconsider holding CHI'95 in Denver.  The
Executive Committee and the Conference Planning Committee have been doing that.
 We would now like to open this up for public discussion.

Instructions for joining a new distribution list to participate in this
discussion are at the end of this message.  Please DO NOT respond to
announcements.chi.

This message consists of some background information regarding Amendment 2, and
then instructions for getting the discussion started:
I.    What the amendment does.
II.   The current situation.
III.  Responses of Colorado gay groups.
IV.   Pros and cons of the boycott.
V.    The SIGCHI Executive Committee's position.
VI.   Alternatives for CHI'95.
VII.  How to join the discussion.


I.  WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES

The cities of Denver, Boulder, and Aspen (along with approximately 60 other
cities nationwide) have ordinances that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.  Amendment 2 prohibits such ordinances in the state of
Colorado.  So when/if the amendment takes effect, the three cities with
antidiscrimination ordinances will revert to the same situation as most
locations in the United States: no specific protection for gays and bisexuals.

The amendment also prohibits affirmative action and quotas to favor gays.  No
entity has any such policies, and no one has been proposing any.

The argument in favor of the amendment is that gays should not have "special
rights" that heterosexuals do not have.  Proponents claim that existing
protections cover gays adequately; for instance, assault and battery laws cover
gay bashing.  They claim that the amendment is not based on homophobia, but
rather on equality.

Opponents to the amendment believe that homophobia is what really underlies it.
They also believe that nondiscrimination laws directed specifically at gays
are necessary, because there are situations in which other laws do not give
sufficient protection.  For instance, it's questionable whether gays would have
legal recourse if they were fired from their job or kicked out of rental
housing because of their sexual orientation, if sexual orientation is not a
valid basis for discrimination complaints.

The amendment passed with 54% of the vote.  Denver, Boulder, and the ski
communities voted 2-1 against it.  Colorado Springs, rural areas, and suburban
areas were strongly in favor of it.


II.  THE CURRENT SITUATION

The amendment was due to go into effect at midnight on 14 January 1993.  A
judge has issued a restraining order to prevent it from going into effect,
pending the outcome of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the
amendment.  The judge commented when he issued the restraining order that he
thought it was quite likely that the lawsuit would succeed.

The lawsuit was brought by the cities of Denver, Boulder, and Aspen and some
individuals.  It claims that the amendment is unconstitutional in several ways
at both the federal and state level.  Among the grounds are the rights of
Colorado's "home-rule" cities, and the federal 14th Amendment.

Denver has announced that even if Amendment 2 goes into effect, it will
continue to accept discrimination complaints based on homosexuality.  It claims
that right as a home-rule city.  State officials don't think it has that right.
This will also have to be decided by the courts.


III.  RESPONSES OF COLORADO GAY GROUPS

Colorado gay groups were taken by surprise by this boycott of Colorado's
tourism industry; they did not ask for it.  Some organizations have come out in
favor of the boycott.  Some organizations are opposed to it.  Some
organizations are so split that they have not adopted a position.


IV.  PROS AND CONS OF THE BOYCOTT

Pros:
1.  It might be effective in convincing Colorado voters to repeal the
amendment.  This strategy was successful in getting Arizona to reinstate the
Martin Luther King holiday.
2.  It allows individuals to make a personal statement of opposition to the
amendment.

Cons:
1.  It might not be effective in convincing Colorado voters to repeal the
amendment.  Recent polls have said that 96% of voters who voted in favor of the
amendment would not change their vote now.  There is quite a bit of anger at
the outside pressure.
2.  The boycott punishes the wrong people.  The tourism areas of Denver,
Boulder, and the ski communities are the places that have the nondiscrimination
laws and that voted against the amendment.
3.  Hispanic gay groups are opposed to the boycott.  They are afraid that
Hispanics will be disproportionally affected by any layoffs in the service
sector if the boycott is economically effective.


V.  THE SIGCHI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S POSITION

At a recent meeting of the SIGCHI Executive Committee, the EC adopted the
following position after considerable discussion:

"Motion: At the request of the CHI '95 conference chairs, the SIGCHI Executive 
Committee has reviewed at length the issue of Colorado's amendment 2 along 
with analyses provided by various concerned members of the SIGCHI 
community. The issue focuses on the protection of gay and lesbian rights with 
respect to the location of CHI '95 in Denver. The committee has come to the 
following determinations. 
1) ACM's policy on conference location is that equal access to the conference 
must be guaranteed to every potential attendee. Having reviewed the Colorado 
amendment and statements made to ACM by the mayor of Denver, the SIGCHI 
executive committee concludes that the Colorado amendment will not impair 
equal access. 
2) SIGCHI is committed to ensuring that equal access continues to be 
maintained. Therefore we charge the conference chairs to continue monitoring 
the situation and bring to the attention of the executive committee any 
problems in this regard. 
3) In order to ensure that SIGCHI continues to meet ACM's equal access policy, 
this policy will be explicitly included in all hotel and conference contracts.
Vote: 6,0,1"

The hotels have been very willing (in fact, eager) to add nondiscrimination
clauses to our contracts.


VI.  ALTERNATIVES FOR CHI'95

Any consideration of moving CHI'95 has to look at the practical aspects.

Currently, we can get out of our contracts without losing money.  This will
change in the spring, when it will become quite costly to pull out of Denver. 
We cannot know what the 1995 situation regarding Amendment 2 will be in the
timeframe when we have to make this decision.

We are approximately two years too late to find an alternative location for the
'95 conference.  It's quite unlikely that the Conference Planning Committee's
Site Selection Subcommittee would be able to find a site that could hold CHI as
we know it.  Are we willing to skip the conference in 1995, or to have a
reduced version of the conference?

What are the criteria we should use for an alternative site?  Should we require
city-wide nondiscrimination clauses for some set of groups of people?  (The CPC
does not currently use any such criterion, and past conferences have been held
in cities without nondiscrimination laws.)  Are there other criteria?  (For
instance, CHI'91 was urged to withdraw from New Orleans because of a proposed
censorship law.  Similar laws have since passed quietly in many locations.)

There are practical difficulties on the other side of the issue, too.  If we
left CHI'95 in Denver and a substantial number of people chose to boycott,
again we wouldn't have a CHI as we know it.  And SIGCHI would probably lose
money.


VI.  HOW TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION

The open discussion will be held on the distribution list
SocialAction.chi@xerox.com (the name is case insensitive).  This list belongs
to the SIGCHI Special Interest Area on social issues, which arose out of
CHI'92's discussion of the Los Angeles riots and other issues.  The fledgling
SIA has kindly allowed us to use their list for the boycott discussion. 
Joining the list for this discussion does not imply membership in the SIA, and
you are welcome to get on or off the list at any time you want.

To get onto the list, send a message to registrar.chi@xerox.com saying that you
want to get onto SocialAction.chi@xerox.com.  To make it easy for him, please
put the name of the distribution list in the header of your message.  Also,
please let him know if you already have an alias on the xerox system (usually
of the form lastname.chi@xerox.com) that forwards messages to your real
address.

To get off the list, send another message to registrar.chi@xerox.com, making
the request.

After you get onto the list, please wait a few days before you start sending
messages.  This will allow other people time to get onto the list, so your
messages can reach all interested parties.  (I will be sending out a few
initial messages containing more details, such as the full text of the
amendment and the letter from Denver's mayor to conference planners.)


Thank you for your interest and thoughtfulness about this very sensitive
subject,
Terry Roberts
CHI'95 Co-Chair