LEGL 4500/6500 - Employment Law

Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander, Esq.

Terry College of Business

University of Georgia

DAVID SMITH, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

ELIZABETH BIRCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

DAVID ZINGALE, POLITICAL DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN
 
 

Transcript:

SMITH: First of all, my name is David Smith. I’m the Communications Director of Human Rights Campaign. And those of you who are familiar with our organization, just take note, that we dropped the word fund from the organization’s name last month. We’re known as the Human Rights Campaign. We believe we are so much more than just a fund. So, hence the name change.
 
 

We’re going to have two very short presentations. One from our Executive Director, Elizabeth Birch and our Political Director, Daniel Zingale. Then we’ll open the floor up for questions at the conclusion. Ok, at this time I’d like to bring up to the podium, Elizabeth Birch. She’s the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign.
 
 

BIRCH: Good morning everybody. The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay political organization in the country. We have members throughout the country. HRC effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support, and educates the public to ensure that lesbian and gay Americans can be open, honest, and safe at home, at work and in the community.
 
 

With the 1996 Presidential election less than one year away, voters should begin to familiarize themselves with where the candidates stand on issues of fairness for gay and lesbian Americans. To offer a first glimpse of the candidate’s actions and words on these issues, the Human Rights Campaign has examined public statements, campaign literature and the overall voting record where applicable, for a number of candidates including: Lamar Alexander, Patrick Buchanan, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Robert Dornan, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter, and potential candidate, Ross Perot.
 
 

The report officially designates three of the candidates, Buchanan, Dornan and Gramm as extremists who have gone out of their way to attack lesbian and gay Americans. As the campaign season continues, others may find themselves also so designated in this category. But we also allow for the possibility that candidates can redeem themselves to move from discrimination to decency.
 
 

As we enter this Presidential year, hard working Americans in 41 states can legally be fired from their jobs just for being gay or lesbian. Federal law does not include basic protections for gay and lesbian Americans. This group of Americans is not protected at the federal level from discrimination. And while most Americans oppose job discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans, the majority of Americans still do not understand that is perfectly legal to fire someone from their job just for being gay or lesbian.
 
 

The AIDS crisis also looms large as this election approaches. AIDS is now the leading killer of all Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. While the public supports a strong federal response to this disease, not all of these candidates do. All of the candidates have touched on some of these issues publicly.
 
 

BIRCH: Some have voting records while others do not. Many have taken positions on specific areas of concern such as ending anti-gay job discrimination, ensuring a strong national response to AIDS and combating anti-gay hate legislation.
 
 

Particularly for those candidates without legislative records, we hope this report will provide information that can be used to question the candidates on these issues and to help them move from public statements to actual public policy positions.
 
 

For example, would candidates who speak for equal rights under the law actually sign a bill that would secure equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans? Or, if the candidate says that, like other Americans, gay people should not be discriminated against, would the candidate endorse the employment non-discrimination act to prevent job discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans in the workplace.
 
 

The Human Rights Campaign is not making an endorsement of any candidate at this time. Like the election itself, this document and these briefings are a work in progress. So we will continue to monitor these candidates up to election day.
 
 

I’d now like to bring up our Director of Public Policy in all of our political endeavors at the Human Rights Campaign, Daniel Zingale.
 
 

ZINGALE: Thank you, Elizabeth. Good morning. Very quickly, just to reiterate, as Elizabeth Birch just said, our criteria for evaluating these candidates was based on the public record of statements that they have made and, where applicable, the voting records of those who have held federal office. So I’m just very quickly going to walk through the candidates we evaluated. The details are on your reports, but I’ll give you the general conclusions and at least a glimpse of what backs up those conclusions.
 
 

First, Mr. Alexander. Lamar Alexander. I think Alexander typifies those candidates for President on the Republican side who are positioning themselves as moderates. He has gone out of his way not to engage in any extreme anti-gay rhetoric. We do find that Mr. Alexander uses the term "special privileges" as a way of distancing himself from anything pro-active on behalf of lesbian and gay equality.
 
 

There are a couple of problems with the use of the term "special privileges." First, it misrepresents the reality of the state of federal law, as Elizabeth pointed out. Today, under federal law, lesbian and gay Americans are not protected from the most basic form of discrimination. In other words, you can be fired from your job simply on the basis of sexual orientation. It also gives a false impression that lesbian and gay Americans are seeking special protections, when in fact, no one is seeking that. What is being sought is simply equality under the law.

Second candidate that we looked at is Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan, I’m sure most of you are aware, the Houston convention of 1992 declared cultural war in American at the expense of lesbian and gay Americans and anyone else who disagreed with his extreme views. That speech has been widely acknowledged to have contributed to the defeat of the Republicans in 1992. But it has not dissuaded Buchanan from continuing to espouse extreme views, including his views on lesbians and gay Americans.
 
 

I think perhaps the most disturbing example of Buchanan’s extremism is that his views on gay and lesbian American Americans cloud his views on the public health crisis of AIDS. He has referred to AIDS, for example, as retribution against AIDS victims, which we think is not only insensitive to the men, women and children in this country affected by AIDS, but perhaps, even worse, it contributes to the disease itself.
 
 
 
 

ZINGALE: We know that discrimination and misinformation about AIDS have been accomplices to the spread of the disease. And Mr. Buchanan continues to engage in that. For that reason, he is the first of the candidates I’m running through who we’ve designated as an extremist.
 
 

The Majority Leader in the Senate, Bob Dole. I think perhaps the defining moment for him on lesbian and gay issues, and some of you may even say the defining moment for his candidacy involved the $1,000 contribution from a gay Republican organization. As you are probably aware, he first, the Dole Campaign solicited that contribution. They accepted the contribution. They then returned the contribution.
 
 

Senator Dole defended the return of the contribution. And then, the last we checked, he had denounced the return of the contribution. I think that interplay sort of exemplifies where Senator Dole is on lesbian and gay issues. And that is to say the ball is still in play. He really has been on both sides in many ways. And it’s not quite clear where he’s landing.
 
 

The next candidate we looked at is Bob Dornan. He is the most notorious anti-gay member of the House of Representatives. He has sponsored, is the lead sponsor of a proposed new federal law that would single out lesbian and gay Americans for discrimination. He has, in many ways, cost himself in terms of his own credibility among his colleagues because of his extreme and often bizarre antics on the floor.
 
 

Perhaps the most important, in terms of his colleagues and the way they view him was when he personally attacked his fellow Republican, gay Congressman Steven Gunderson on the floor of the House. He later recanted that under pressure from his colleagues. For a long list of reasons, many of which are remunerated in your report, Mr. Dornan clearly qualifies as an extremist candidate for President.
 
 

Publishing giant, Steve Forbes, again is in that category of candidates who are positioning themselves as moderates. Forbes, perhaps more than any other, is emphasizing economic issues, and going out of his way not to embrace any social agenda in his candidacy. But again, you see a troubling use of terms like "special privileges" in terms of defining what he’s against. And again, we see two problems with that. Principally, that it misrepresents the current state of law.
 
 

Senator Phil Gramm has really aligned himself with senator Helms on some of the most extreme proposals to have the federal government intervene in a discriminatory way on the lives of lesbian and gay Americans. He has also politically, he has a history of using anti- gay rhetoric to ignite support among a minority of anti-gay extremist in campaigns. He did this first in his campaign against Lloyd Doggett, I think in 1984, where he attacked Doggett for having received support from Gay groups in Texas.
 
 

And most recently this year in the Iowa straw pool, Senator Gramm embroiled himself in a local school board election where anti-gay extremists there were out remove a 12-year incumbent from the School Board simply because he happened to be gay. Senator Gramm is the third of the Presidential candidates who we have designated as an extremist.
 
 

Senator Lugar is a conservative Senator. Certainly from a conservative state, but his voting record and certainly, his lack of anti-gay rhetoric in the extreme, puts him in the category almost of a Goldwater conservative, or true conservative in that sense. That he has not in any way proactively endorsed government intrusion into the lives of lesbian and gay people.
 
 

Senator Specter has an even more moderate voting record. The most moderate voting record of any of the Senators running for the Presidential nomination on the Republican side.
 
 
 
 

ZINGALE: Specter, for example, is not the only in this crowd who voted to confirm Roberta Achtenberg. Ms. Achtenberg was the nominee for assistant secretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Her nomination was opposed by Helms simply because she was a lesbian. Specter was among the majority voting to confirm her. And that’s it for the Republicans.
 
 

On the Democratic side. Mr. Keys is included in your report. We discovered him to be, as you probably know, generally a one-issue candidate in terms of abortion. But he has made some troubling remarks about lesbian and gay Americans.
 
 

On the Democratic side there is one candidate – as you know – President Clinton. We found that, first of all, as the only candidate for president to have actually occupied the office, he has dealt with a broader range and a larger number of issues of concern to lesbian and gay Americans, than the other candidates.
 
 

We would characterize his record as mixed, but generally positive. In fact, we conclude that he has done more than any United States President to advance equality for lesbian and gay Americans. Perhaps the best, and most recent, example of that is his clear endorsement of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. That makes him the first president in history to endorse the inclusion of lesbian and gay Americans as equals under civil rights laws.
 
 

In the area of AIDS as well, Clinton has clearly distinguished himself from his predecessors in providing federal leadership and recognizing there’s an important federal role to prevent the disease, to take care of people who are sick, and ultimately, to find a cure. There are two areas in which we found President Clinton to have failed in terms of his leadership on behalf of lesbian and gay equality.
 
 

First and foremost is his "don’t ask, don’t tell" compromise on Gays in the military. That policy, which is in effect now, leaves service members two choices: Either they can be dishonest; or they cannot serve their country.
 
 

And secondly, President Clinton’s Justice Department failed to file a brief against the Colorado Amendment Two; that’s the anti-gay statewide initiative now pending before the United State Supreme Court.
 
 

Finally, we looked at Ross Perot as a potential independent candidate. We found the first record of Mr. Perot taking a public position on gay issues was in an interview with Barbara Walters back in ’92, when he appeared to be surprised by a question regarding whether or not he would appoint anyone lesbian or gay to his cabinet. He said, "no" and based that answer on the fact that he said it would be a controversial appointment with the American people.
 
 

Many of Mr. Perot’s supporters appeared to be surprised by that. And within a couple of days he issued a statement saying he was against anti-gay discrimination, and emphasized that he would vigorously enforce hate crimes protections. One thing worth noting is that the Perot supporters, or people who identified themselves as independent voters, have been found in all voter-opinion research to be the most supportive of lesbian and gay equality. So, whether Mr. Perot or anyone seeking to court that block of voters, they should be aware that they should not want to find themselves in the extreme that Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Dornan and Mr. Gramm find themselves in today.
 
 

We’ll take your questions.
 
 

QUESTION: You really don’t know any more about Alexander than you do about Dole, and you have five paragraphs on Alexander in your report. So, is it because he’s a kind of a mystery to you?
 
 

ZINGALE: I think it’s fair to say that, as Elizabeth said, this is a work in progress. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Forbes and others are individuals that we need to know a lot more about. We don’t have the benefit of a voting record on Mr. Alexander. As I said, he seems to have positioned himself as a moderate, but has said that he’s not for "special privileges." I think the answer to the question is, yes. We need more information on Mr. Alexander and a number of others.
 
 

QUESTION: Of all the Republican candidates – if you could just shift your focus for a minute – in terms of AIDS funding, which one would you think would be most inclined to support AIDS funding and would be most receptive to combating the epidemic?
 
 
 
 

BIRCH: I would say Dole.
 
 

QUESTION: What do you base that on?
 
 

BIRCH: Because he got put into a position in the 104^th Congress of whether or not to advance the bill and get it moving forward in terms of the Ryan White Care Act. What he did was engage in confusing behavior.
 
 

BIRTH: On the one hand he pushed the bill forward in the Senate; on the other hand he supported his colleague, Jesse Helms, in terms of voting for very cruel and damaging amendments to that bill. So, again, he’s engaging in behavior that is confusing and somewhat ambivalent.
 
 

QUESTION: OK. You make that statement, but you could take it a step further under a Dole administration, what do you think AIDS funding would look like? And do you think he would be receptive to funding AIDS programs and being supportive of trying to combat the epidemic?
 
 

BIRTH: I think Senator Dole has embraced the data that is clear in this country, that was conducted primarily by Lake & Associates, but also by the Tarrance Group, a respected Republican firm that shows that most Americans – every demographic slice – wants AIDS funding to either be left neutral or to be increased. Most Americans want it to be increased. And I think Senator Dole would understand and would probably come down on the side of that AIDS funding should be increased.
 
 

But President Clinton has increased funding 104 percent over his predecessor, Bush. So whether or not Dole would embrace the urgency of this disease and take the, you know, political step to increase it over and above where President Clinton has taken it, I’m not sure. I would guess not. That he would keep it at Clinton-type levels.
 
 

ZINGALE: Can I just add – I think that there is another, clearly another Senator on the list of candidates who…his record indicates he would be supportive of AIDS funding and that’s Arlen Specter.
 
 

BIRTH: Right.
 
 

QUESTION: Well how about Phil Gramm? How would you… I mean, I know he’s designated as an anti-gay extremist. But you could compare him with AIDS funding or seize him out to AIDS funding. He voted from the Ryan White Care Act as well.
 
 

ZINGALE: He voted for final passage but he also supported, actively supported, every effort by Senator Helms to undermine the way that that important bill would actually get the care to some of the people who needed it. So I think Mr. Gramm’s record on AIDS is suspect at best.
 
 

QUESTION: Do you plan to endorse a candidate?
 
 

BIRTH: We are going to continue to monitor all candidates and, frankly, let the primaries run their course before we make a decision as to whether or not we will endorse. The Human Rights Campaign never endorsed a candidate historically until President Clinton. So it would be a very large decision, not just for the staff of the organization, but for its board.
 
 

QUESTION: What is it that you’re kind of looking for from Republican candidates? Is it sufficient in your view, or is it (OFF-MIKE) in your view that they not try to stir up anti-gay prejudice with their rhetoric? It seems that that’s the big thing with you – not that they not engage in that sort of rhetoric. Is that a key thing for you all?
 
 

BIRTH: I think that’s only the sort of threshold issue. I think that what we’re looking for is that anyone who would lead this country would be in touch with the views of this country.
 
 
 
 

BIRCH: And what is true in poll after poll is seven out of ten Americans do not want to see gay and lesbian Americans hurt or discriminated against, particularly, in the workplace. So, I think any candidate for president in order to be in touch with the views of the majority of the American people would have to at a minimum, beyond just the threshold issue of countering anti-gay rhetoric, slurs, people that would look to export discrimination, you know, from the hallowed halls of Washington, D.C. They’d also have to affirmatively support the employment nondiscrimination act, I think, as a very basic pro-active step.
 
 

ZINGALE: I would just add that I think anyone seeking the office of president should do so to be a president for all Americans. And I think you take someone like Senator Gramm, for example, he’s refused to even rule out disqualifying someone from employment in his congressional offices simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. That position, which is an extreme position, puts him in not only a minority of the United States senators, but a minority of Republican senators.
 
 

And I think that’s the kind of test, obviously, that does not meet our requirement that it be the next president be someone who would be a president for all Americans.
 
 

QUESTION: Another question about Bob Dole, I think every paragraph that you had in there was a negative on Senator Dole and given what you said about his action with Senator Helms’ bill, why would you not give him a negative rating? What is it exactly that keeps him from the extremist view?
 
 

ZINGALE: Let me just give you one example which is in the report that distinguishes him from Gramm for example. And that is the employment policy that I just referred to. Senator Dole has adopted, at the request of the Human Rights Campaign, a policy which clearly says he would not disqualify someone from employment in his congressional offices on the basis of their sexual orientation. So that distinguishes him and the other senators on this list from Senator Gramm.
 
 

Senator Dole has also set and made statements such as, "Discrimination is wrong," "All Americans should be treated equally including homosexuals." So there are times when he’s indicated that he is in touch with the main stream and other times when he tends to give in to pressure from the extreme.
 
 

QUESTION: Isn’t there a danger here these three candidates that you’ve called anti-gay extremists may kind of take this as a badge of honor in their campaign?
 
 

ZINGALE: I’ll let Elizabeth speak to that too. But I think it’s worth noting that Congressman Dornan, who has really made his anti-gay attacks a centerpiece of his campaign, has failed to raise any money, has failed to get out of the single digits in the polls. I think we would even be willing to predict that Bob Dornan’s presidential candidacy will collapse before the race is over. That he’ll have to call it quits. So, I think Elizabeth’s exactly right when she says it doesn’t pay political points in the long term to associate yourself with the most extreme on these issues.
 
 

BIRCH: Yes, I think that they could very well wear it as a badge of honor and it would be a political miscalculation. It would be out of touch with where most Americans are. But, most important, I think what the 1996 election will be about is that independent voter. The swing voter. And what the polling data shows is that those swing voters are very much in favor of having basic protections in place for gay and lesbian Americans.
They do not like discrimination against this group of Americans.
 
 

QUESTION: Right now these guys are trying to get the Republican nomination and, you know, it seems to be playing pretty well among the Republicans, not so much the national level.
 
 
 
 

BIRCH: But the problem, that was the classic Nixon advice. Run as far as you can to the right, and then run back to the middle. The point is not to run off a cliff which I think is what these three have done. And I think that others have played with the notion of dropping off the cliff and have barely caught themselves on occasion. Our point is that this country is in a completely different place with regard to gay and lesbian Americans than are a number of particularly the Republican candidates.
 
 

President Clinton, in sharp contrast, has fully understood this and is now making intelligent, strategic choices about coming back into the civil rights fold for gay and lesbian Americans, and making some concrete decisions that are very decisive. And, I think, well implemented.
 
 

QUESTION: Doesn’t Senator Specter comply in the case of that logic. Isn’t he the opposite? (OFF-MIKE) through Florida. So doesn’t that suggest that running to the middle doesn’t necessarily always guarantee success?
 
 

BIRCH: The Nixon advice is run far to the right and then come back to the middle. So, his point is correct vis a vis Republicans running in the primaries. The point is to not hang yourself so you can never come back to a moderate position. And I think that a number of the candidates have simply overplayed their hand, and have gone way too far, and are in an extremists category. And in that way, are very, very out of touch with the voters in this country.
 
 

I would also venture to say that I think a number of the extremists views, I mean, even the theory of that was, in a way, unmasked by the potential candidacy of General Powell. Where we saw a lot of enthusiasm in the middle for much more moderate positions. So, I’m not sure even the theory of what a number of these extremists are running on is sound in terms of political strategy on other issues as well.
 
 

QUESTION: How would you grade Powell?
 
 

BIRCH: We didn’t.
 
 

ZINGALE: He dropped out before we finished our report.
 
 

QUESTION: Do you expect to raise some Gay issues during the campaign your self by (OFF MIKE)?
 
 

ZINGALE: Absolutely. I mean, we have already made, with a number of these campaigns, the issue of employment discrimination and the issue of the federal government’s responsibility around AIDS. What we hope and believe should be centerpieces of anyone’s campaign seeking the presidency.
 
 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)?
 
 

ZINGALE: Well, as remunerated in the case of President Clinton, his endorsement of Employment Nondiscrimination Act and we hope, one that sets a political tone in some ways for this election.
 
 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)?
 
 

ZINGALE: We’re asking all the candidates to. I should have noted on the Republican side that Senator Specter has endorsed the Employment Nondiscrimination Act although he had not yet co-sponsored it.
 
 

BIRCH: but we’ll also be very, very engaged in the 1996 campaign as it plays out. And we’ll have people on the ground participating actively in a number of campaigns, but also at the conventions, and to be present. To be able to ask these candidates to make a record of precisely where they stand. What we have to date are stray comments on stray positions that are being stated in public settings. We’d like to really lock these candidates in in terms of public policy positions.
 
 

QUESTION (OFF-MIKE)?
 
 

BIRCH: I just wanted to draw attention to everybody’s, in everybody’s press kit is an issue of "HRC Quarterly" which is our quarterly news magazine.
 
 

SMITH: On page 12 is our Campaign ’96, there’s an overview of our plans as an organization, for the ’96 elections. And, it gives you a good insight into what we’re planning for next year.
 
 

ZINGALE: Can I answer Lisa’s question?
 
 

QUESTION: Yes.
 
 

ZINGALE: We are asking, in the process now, of asking all the candidates for president about whether or not they would support and sign the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, about their commitment to AIDS on a range of issues form prevention to care to research. And, we think, very importantly, about their willingness to stand up to anti-gay extremism.
 
 

One of the issues that has faced most of these candidates who have served in the Congress is when a Jesse Helms or a Bob Dornan introduces a new federal law, which is designed to single out lesbian and gay people for discrimination, do you oppose that? Do you actively oppose that? That’s very high priority for us.
 
 

QUESTION: Is this something you’re doing (OFF-MIKE)?
 
 

ZINGALE: Yes.
 
 

QUESTION: When do you expect that?
 
 

ZINGALE: And through meetings with campaigns and candidates. I can’t tell you at this point.
 
 

QUESTION: Would you say that Senator Gramm, or any of these, I guess, the other two candidates, would be a threat to public health because they wouldn’t be supportive of AIDS. I mean, is there a danger of that?
 
 

BIRCH: Absolutely. What is understood about this disease is that when people are shamed or when they are afraid, they go underground. So, they don’t come up and into the public health system in order to get help and treatment and diagnosis, in the first instance. One of the most important aspects of battling this disease is to create a safe environment for people to come forward, to understand what their status is, their health status and to get treatment.
 
 

QUESTION: Do you think Dole would be able to create that type of environment?
 
 

BIRCH: Well, I think that his Republican predecessors, Reagan and Bush, did a horrendous job of it. Now, whether or not Dole could improve upon that record, I think he probably could, but could he do better than President Clinton? I’m not sure that he has taken any affirmative, leaderly steps on which we could judge to assume that he could improve on the Clinton record, which is frankly, substantially farther along than his Republican predecessors.
 
 

QUESTION: I understand that you actually did more research on the candidates; is there one candidate that you may be leaning towards right now, that you would be willing to give us more insight on?
 
 

ZINGALE: Well, we’re here today to tell you is, that we’ve identified three candidates who are in the extreme on issues affecting lesbian and gay equality, and that’s as far as we’ll go.
 
 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) campaign to date, could you mention meetings with the campaigns; have you met with any of these candidates?
 
 

ZINGALE: Yes, I mean, and two of those who we designated as extremist, I’ve engaged in public debates that were broadcast publicly. We’ve had private meetings with a number of candidates through our lobbying activities and with their campaigns, as well.
 
 

SMITH: Thank you all very much for coming.
 
 

END
 
 
 
 

NOTES:

???? - Indicates Speaker Unknown

- Could not make out what was being said. off mike – Indicates Could not make out what was being said.