How To Win: A Practical Guide to

Defeating The Radical Right

Ten Things To Do First (Page: 2)
Tips For Winning Elections (Page: 21)
Media Tools and Strategies (Page: 31)
Organize a Speak-Out (Page: 34)
Effective Speaking (Page: 36)
The Science of Spin (Page: 40)
Religious Voices Speak Out (Page: 42)
Separation of Church and State (Page: 45)
Theology v. Intolerance (Page: 48)
Public Aid to Parochial Schools (Page: 50)
School Board Watchdogs (Page: 52)
Case Study-San Diego (Page: 55)
Creationism (Page: 58)
Sexuality Education (Page: 61)
Prayer in Schools (Page: 65)
Missionaries in Schools (Page: 69)
Law, Religion, and Schools (Page: 72)
Secular Humanism (Page: 75)
Censorship in Schools (Page: 77)
Censorship in Libraries (Page: 80)
Funding and The Arts (Page: 82)
Organize to End Censorship (Page: 87)
Censorship, Sex, and Women (Page: 91)
Anti-Gay Attacks (Page: 94)
Pro-Choice Election Campaigns (Page: 100)
Talking Points on Choice (Page: 105)
Keeping Clinics Open (Page: 107)
Environment and Population (Page: 112)
Readings on the Religious Right (Page: 117)

Ten Things To Do First

Ten Things To Do When The Radical Right Comes To Town

Matthew Freeman People For the American Way Washington, D.C.

This article provides a brief introduction to the manual, and general
advice in ten areas for anyone whose community is facing an assault from
the Radical Right.
This manual is intended as a sort of one-stop, do-it-yourself guide to
fighting the Radical Right at the local level. In it you will find
hands-on information on a range of practical matters, including how to
organize coalitions, how to run an election campaign, how to work with the
media, how to use polling, and how to intrepret and put to good use the
relevant body of law. You will also find directories and lists of
organizations fighting similar battles around the country, as well as
directories of Radical Right groups and leaders. Finally, you will find
issue-based discussions that both map out the issue terrain and apply
organizing advice to specific issue-based work. The authors of this
report are affiliated with a variety of organizations that all work,
across a range of issues, to oppose the Radical Right. Neither they, nor
the organizations with which they are affiliated, agree on every issue;
indeed, on some issues, they disagree. Indeed, on occasion in this
document, the careful reader may find differences of opinions on
individual issues, or even on strategic questions. So be it. The purpose
in pulling this information together was to help provide the mainstream
community with the tools it needs to do the work it must. Who is to say
that all battles against the Radical Right must conform to one blueprint?
Many of the articles in this compilation are distilled from larger articles or
publications. The fuller versions are available (in some cases for a modest
cost, and in some cases for free) from the authors. Please contact them if
something you read in this manual strikes a nerve, if you would like more
information, or if you simply want to share your experiences.
Before reading the very specific advice in the articles that follow, you
might want to glance through the ten very general suggestions below. By
no means are they intended as a comprehensive checklist. But you might
find useful tidbits that will help with sorting through some of the bigpicture issues involved in your own battles.

1. Identify all your allies.

Because every issue has its constituency, sometimes the important task of
identifying just how broad that constituency is gets short shrift from
organizers. The truth is that when it comes to battling the Radical
Right, activists will find no shortage of individuals and organizations
who have reason to be involved. Among those whose interests are affected:
Librarians and library associations. They are often the targets of
censorship efforts.
Video and software dealers. Again, censorship.
Gay and lesbian organizations. The Radical Right is leading the charge in
opposition to gay rights.

Mainstream clergy. The religious community finds much to object to in the

Radical Right's agenda.
Reproductive choice advocates. With clinics being blockaded in
communities across the country, and anti-choice legislation being
considered in state legislatures and city councils, the choice community
has ample reason to be concerned.
Artists and arts groups. Censorship, yet again.
Moderate Republicans. As the Christian Coalition moves forward with its
promise to take over the Republican party, moderates are being squeezed
out.
Civil rights groups. The Radical Right has never met a civil rights bill it
liked.
Parents and educators. The schools are among the chief battlegrounds.
Environmental groups. Particularly in the West, the Radical Right is
working to gut environmental enforcement.
Not every group may join in every battle, but make it your business to
reach out to a broader constituency. And remember the old organizer's
saying: if you're comfortable with everybody at the table, your coalition
is too small.

2. Get your own ducks in a row before the battle begins.

No wounds are worse than those that are self-inflicted. In the schools,
for example, the Radical Right has made considerable hay out of incidents
where teachers or administrators mistakenly confiscated Bibles from
students at study hall. Or they've been able to win public sympathy when
counter-protests by mainstream groups turn violent. Be sure you don't
hand your opponents an issue by failing to get your policies in place and
understood before the battle begins.

3. Know thy enemy...Research!

Know who it is you're fighting and what it is they really care about. Get
on their mailing lists, send representatives to their public meetings,
read their literature. Also, be alert for outside organizations that may
be helping local ones. Chances are that if your local opponent turns up
with a pot of money, or a sudden, new-found "expertise" in a particular
issue, a national Radical Right organization may be operating behind the
scenes.
That kind of information is not just interesting, it's powerful. If you
can demonstrate that a national organization is behind a local initiative
particularly one that doesn't have the courage to reveal itself you can
raise appropriate questions about what it is that the local group has to
hide, and why it is that a national group should be trying to set policy
for your community.
Also, remember that if ties to national organizations are established, you
can and should give your opponents the opportunity to defend the broader
agenda of those national organizations. If you're dealing with a local
Christian Coalition chapter, let them defend Pat Robertson's views on a
range of issues.
If you find no national ties, you may still find some interesting information
about funding, broader issues, individual political ambitions or more.
A cautionary note is in order. Research is important, but don't let it
overtake the ultimately more important task of reaching out to the
community. (That from a researcher!)

4. Get help from folks who've faced it before.

Network with other organizations outside your community. The Radical
Right excels at communications. Tactics and rhetoric that work in one
community quickly emerge in others. Put communication to work for your

own effort by networking with others who've faced the same battles in
other communities. National organizations will be happy to try to connect
you with those groups if you can't find them on your own.

5. Get the facts out.

The biggest advantage you have is that you're right on the issues! Put
that to work by getting information out to the rest of the community. All
too frequently, Radical Right groups and leaders have a way of stretching
the facts, or in some cases, making them up altogether. Don't let those
half- and mis-truths go unanswered. Get the facts out and do it quickly.
Of course, you don't want your campaign to be nothing more than a reactive
effort to what your opponents are doing. Get your positive message out
throughout the battle.

6. Avoid jargon.
Our opponents are masters at using rhetoric that touches nerves. So don't
speak in jargon. Avoid acronyms and technical language. Speak plainly,
but with authority and some passion.

7. Organize, organize, organize.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that campaigns -- electoral or otherwise
-- are battles of ideas alone. There is no substitute for pounding the
pavement, shaking your neighbors' hands, hearing their concerns and
getting their support. You should expect that your opposition will be
doing as much.

8. Do not bash your opponents for their religious views.

Religion is something to be respected and honored. And while your
opposition's political views may flow from their religious views, in the
end the battle is over politics and policy. So don't criticize your
opponents' religion, and don't dismiss their movement as a bunch of
"fanatics."
The corollary of that point is this: they have as much right to
participate in the democratic process as you do. Don't suggest otherwise.
Along the same lines, resist the temptation to ridicule or belittle your
opponents, either on the grounds of their religion or their political
views. They're citizens taking part. They may be wrong on the issues,
they may have ideas, even motives, with which you find fault, but they're
entitled to be treated with respect.
These are not just sound principles, they're also good politics. If you
give your opponents grounds to accuse you of religious bigotry, they'll
surely seize the moment.

9. Take them seriously. They won't go away.

If experience is a guide, local Radical Right groups may lose a battle, or
they may get off on the wrong organizational foot, but they won't go away.
After a Radical Right group has taken root, don't make the mistake of
assuming that because you haven't heard from them they've gone away. It
may take them a while to get organized, but the fire that drives them
won't be dying down anytime soon.
For that very reasons, compromises with the Radical Right must be examined
with a careful, jaundiced eye. Experience suggests that what they do not
win today, they'll be back for tomorrow. Never compromise on a principle;
be very careful about compromising anything else. That's harsh advice, to
be sure, but it's born of bitter experience.

10. Build your support even before the Radical Right comes to town.

Nothing is more vulnerable to sudden attack by the Radical Right than a

program or policy nobody else knows about. So build support for the
programs and initiatives along the way. Don't wait for the attack to
come. If your schools are doing well with a new curriculum, get out the
word. If your local arts group is winning awards, get out the word. And
so on. Put out your positive message and save yourself trouble later on.
Read on and good luck!

How to Form a Mainstream Coalition in Your State

Donnah Marx
Colorado Democratic Party
Denver, Colorado

This article discusses how the broad-based Colorado Freedom Network was
formed, and offers suggestions for coalition building.

We have watched for nearly a decade as the radical right has become
increasingly successful at advancing their agenda under the guise of
political activism. One of the keys to their effectiveness has been their
ability to coalesce and build consensus on common issues and then
relentlessly push those issues through various effective means.

It's not enough to be offended or discouraged by the tactics of the radical

right. Anyone concerned about its progress must adopt their own
strategies of
coalition-building as a response.

The first step in coalition building is to identify and gain support from
others who also have concerns about the radical right. Find out who has a
vested interest in opposing this movement, and explain what is at stake if
its influence continues unchecked. Groups affected by the radical right
agenda are those concerned about choice, civil rights, gay and lesbian
issues, education and religious groups.

All coalitions should target parents and parent groups. Radical right
candidates are gaining a majority on school boards and pushing a
conservative agenda that threatens the constitutional guarantee of
separation of church and state. For the same reasons, education groups
such as the state's education association and the National Education
Association may be interested in joining your coalition. Some mainstream
church groups may also have an interest in joining your coalition, since
the ultra-conservative agenda of the radical right does not enjoy
unanimous support by all religions.

The coalition should be as comprehensive as possible in order to maintain

the broadest base of support. This broad-based coalition will make
decision- making more difficult but a broad coalition is needed to address
the broad range of issues being carried by the radical right.

One such coalition is the Colorado Freedom Network. The Colorado

Democratic Party already had a working relationship with a wide range of
groups. In 1993, in response to issues and legislative challenges, the
Colorado Freedom Network was begun by several of Colorado's more
politically active groups. Groups such as People For the American Way,
NARAL, Colorado Education Association and Colorado Republicans for Choice
were brought together initially for the purpose of sharing information.
The Colorado Freedom Network's reach has grown over the last year to

include more than 30 groups, including the Colorado Council of Churches,

the Anti-Defamation League, Equality Colorado, the American Civil
Liberties Union, Colorado Alliance to Restore Equality, CURE, Moderate
Voters Project, Citizens Project, Interfaith Consortium for Pluralism,
Ground Zero and Colorado Legal Initiatives Project.

Although the Democratic Party is the umbrella group, Colorado Freedom

Network members are decidedly bi-partisan in their response to religious
right activities. The bi-partisan approach lends credibility and allows
the group to address a broader range of issues.

Once support has been gained from identified groups, it is necessary to

motivate these groups and individuals into action. First, define the
coalition's mission. Identify issues on which your diverse member-groups
can agree. The mission must be broad enough to encompass the vested
interests and address the concerns of individuals in the coalition, but
specific enough to provide direction. Following is the Colorado Freedom
Network's draft mission statement:
To educate, inform, and provide research to the general public on issues
dealing with the activities of radical right-affiliated entities in the
state of Colorado. The Network serves as a clearing house of information
for member organizations, and the media, and as a vehicle for developing
joint strategy to counter the activities of this extreme political
movement.

The final step in coalition-building is to develop strategies for

implementing the coalition's goals. Some of these strategies may include
meetings, telephone trees, newsletters, speakers' bureaus, editorial
visits and working with local legislative bodies. The coalition should
maintain a data base of people to contact and receive mailings.

A strategy was developed by the Colorado Freedom Network to address the

problem of identifying school board candidates who have radical right
agendas. Colorado Freedom Network member groups conducted questionnaires
for candidates for school board races. The questionnaires attempted to
determine candidates' views on school-sponsored prayer, abstinence-only
sex education, outcome based education, multi- culturalism, teaching of
creationism in the science curriculum, and public/private school vouchers.
The information was then used to compile voter guides.

It is no longer sufficient, however, to examine and publicize a

candidate's link to the radical right, however. The value of such
identification is diminished by candidates who simply deny affiliations,
or by candidates without prior visible ties to the movement. Rather than
concentrating on proving radical right affiliation, it is now more
important than ever to concentrate on the issues. Voters can make
meaningful choices when candidates are forced to expand their definition
of such benign terms as "back to basics."

Coalitions must maintain visibility in the community and promote a

consistent message. The message must show the coalition's inclusiveness
and tolerance. The message should never include personal attacks, but must
address specific issues. The coalition's message must be consistent with
its goals and the message must be repeated as often as possible.

The value of coalition-building cannot be underestimated, especially

concerning this very important fight to preserve the delicate balance
established by our nation's constitution. Act now to respond to the
radical right's use of the political process as a tool to promote a narrow
religious agenda that threatens our country's institutions. u

Organizing Against the Far Right on College Campuses

Valerie Dulk, Americans for Democratic Action

Joanne Rising, Youth for Democratic Action
Washington, D.C.

In order to organize against the Far Right, students must first research
such groups and individuals in order to gather facts about their
philosophy and tactics. This information can then be disseminated
directly on college campuses or to young audiences in other settings. The
media may also be an effective vehicle for informing the public, but don't
assume that they will want to carry your message without analyzing it;
some media may even be hostile to your efforts. Finally, be informed about
Far Right national student organizations in order to be prepared for their
organizing strength.

The Far Right relies on college campuses as a source for recruiting young
people to their organizations. Radical Right youth organizations are
often formed and serve as focal points for Far Right campus activities.
They are similar to their parent organizations in that they operate with
little external publicity and espouse many of the same beliefs as the
non-youth centered groups, including opposition to abortion and
homosexuality, and general intolerance toward different perspectives.

Concerned individuals may suspect that their influence may be present on

the college campus. Radical Right campus groups may have already been
established. Similarly, the tendency of the student body to vote
conservatively on key issues may be an indicator of an evolving Far Right
campus movement, or a particular school official may be quietly working
with the Far Right. Following are key mobilizing strategies to follow in
countering the Far Right.

Seek Out Allies. Whatever the nature of your concern, allies should be
sought out before you undertake an organized attempt to counter Far Right
influence. Without question, others are equally concerned about the work
of the Far Right and will want to help.

Research Affiliations With the Far Right. Check out the faculty, staff,
Board of Regents, large donors, radio stations, newspapers, bookstores and
campus organizations to discover names and affiliations of individuals to
determine if they are associated with or participate in the activities of
any of Far Right groups. Remember, no local organization is too small, no
individual too insignificant, so do not overlook even the smallest tips.

Discovering affiliations can be difficult since many individuals and

groups will deny they are affiliated with the Radical Right. For example,
members will be encouraged to join the Republican Party in order to
influence it, but they discourage mentioning any other affiliation. As
one publication put it: "You should never mention the name Christian
Coalition in Republican circles...Become directly involved in the local
Republican Central Committee yourself so that you are an insider." Since
Radical Right organizations are operated in a top- down manner of decision
making, they do not encourage sharing information among the lower echelon
of employees. In many instances, individuals may be unaware that a group
to which they belong is affiliated with the Right. However, be cautious.
Far Right groups may become defensive and question your actions and
motives when they sense your scrutiny and review.

Be Honest About Your Assessment. The best policy when combatting the Far
Right is to be honest. When educating the public about the goals and

specific individuals and policies of the group, use factsboth about the
Far Right in general and the specific organization on campus. Keep the
focus on the Far Right since their tactic is to attempt to reverse public
scrutiny on to their "attacker" by denouncing the individual as
anti-Christian and reckless. The Far Right tends to go on the offensive
when under attack. Be aware of your tactics and motives since you, your
personal life, and goals could come under intense scrutiny by the public
and press.

In addition, don't underestimate their strength. One of the favorite

examples of the effectiveness and "stealth" quality of the Radical Right
was the employment of covert tactics that scored a big political victory
in San Diego County in 1990.

Assemble and Disseminate Your Information on the Far Right in a Readable

Format. Once you have assembled information about the local Far Right
chapter, put it together in a simple, clear fashion in a flyer or similar
document. Hand out the material in student cafeterias, lounges, at movie
theaters, book stores, and other areas. Be prepared for a flurry of
denial and insults and combat them with more examples from your research.
Know the key players and be prepared to state their affiliations with
confidence.

When lobbying an elected official, the same principle applies. You must be
prepared to make your case and not be deterred by indecision or
misrepresentations designed to confuse the case.

Turn to the Media, But Don't Assume They Are On Your Side. In your work,
you may try to take your case to the local media for added exposure. But
do not assume that the media is without bias or wants to help the cause.
In fact, the media can be hostile to your suggestions, especially in cases
where the local newspapers and/or radio stations are owned or operated by
people sympathetic to the Far Right. This can lead to hostile attacks
against you personally and may backfire by rendering the public more
sympathetic to the Far Right.

Far Right Youth Groups

The following are key Far Right groups focused on recruiting young people.

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship-USA. Its vision statement" is to "Build

Collegiate Fellowships which engage their colleges in all their ethnic
diversity with the gospel of Jesus Christ...(and) Develop Disciples who
embody these Biblical values." InterVarsity separates itself from other
parachurch organizations on campus, such as the Campus Crusade for Christ,
by noting that all of its chapters are student-run. Currently, there are
more than 26,900 students actively involved with InterVarsity, making it
the "largest inter-denominational college student movement in the United
States."

There is an obvious effort by InterVarsity to establish its legitimacy,

both socially and financially. InterVarsity is a member of the ECFA
(Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability). All of its staff
members are required to spend one-fifth of their time in fundraising.
They state that they are neither a cult nor a church, although
InterVarsity works cooperatively with local churches. In their annual
report, they state their goal of "reintroducing Christ to the campus."

In their literature, they recruit students to take part in their "Global

Projects" program in which students travel to other campuses, rural areas,
and developing nations as part of a ministry program. They also encourage
youths to help the nursing profession in terms of "mutual support, prayer,
Bible study and outreach." InterVarsity stresses that their main focus is
sharing Christian hope through relationship building.

Collegians Activated to Liberate Life (CALL). CALL is a network in

Madison, Wisconsin, which is active in protesting abortion, particularly
in the Midwest. Their brochure states: "The culture in which we live is
increasingly death centered and anti-Christian...Our Mission is to
liberate this culture and those who are captive to it, most especially the
preborn...We recognize that the college campus stands as a cultural
centerpiece and represents the epitome of our godless, self-destructive
society. CALL enters into this atmosphere with a spirit of love, with a
vision to convert hearts and impact collegians into serving Christ
passionately!" In their newsletter, they give national and international
updates on protests and other activist information. CALL, like Operation
Rescue, requests that its participants sign a statement about rules for
participation in the protests. These rules are supposedly based upon the
commitments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to non-violent protest.

While reproductive choice is an important issue to the Far Right, they

also expect to gain members with their crusades for anti-homosexuality
referenda at the state and local level. It is not unheard of for Far
Right groups to work with local groups who seem to have little in common,
except for seemingly insignificant issues. These issues, however, can lead
to extensive grassroots activities that both capture regional headlines
and result in little-known, but potentially devastating legislation.

For more information, please contact Valerie Dulk at Americans for

Democratic Action, 202-785-5980. In addition, information is welcomed
about the activities of local groups.

Hints for Amateur Campaigners

Poppy DeMarco Dennis

Community Coalition Network
San Diego, California

Coalitions run by novice campaign volunteers will likely experience some

difficulties due to their inexperience. San Diego's Community Coalition
Networka leader in local coalitions that have successfully fought the Far
Rightsuggests tips on how to minimize or prevent problems that may occur
in volunteer-run grassroots campaign efforts.

Coalitions run by volunteers new to the election process will likely

experience some on-the-job missteps. San Diego's Community Coalition
Network (CCN), a highly successful participant in efforts to defeat the
area's Far Right candidates, knows this from first-hand experience. CCN
was started and initially operated entirely by volunteers. While some had
experience (e.g., leaders of local organizations, local elected
officials), most volunteers were relative novices. Some were very
uncomfortable and inexperienced in politics and preferred action by
consensus rather than through the competitive spirit typical of campaigns.

Following are CCN tips on how to minimize or prevent problems that may
occur in volunteer-run grassroots campaign efforts. CCN advises groups to
expect problemsregardless of precautionary measures taken. The best
approach is to not expect perfection, learn from your mistakes, and move
along.

Image Counts. Cultivate and protect the image of your group. People will

take you more seriously if you look "professional."

Volunteers skilled in visual and graphic arts can help you convey a
feeling of quality and confidence through your name, logo, business cards,
letterhead, membership application or volunteer commitment card, or
newsletter. It costs only a little more to have a nice design and clear
typeface.

Your statement of principles and the character of your initial group

should help in getting respected community members with name recognition
as endorsers or "directors" of the group. Display these names
prominentlywith their titles if possible.

Designate press spokespersons and then make it clear that nobody but these
individuals speak publicly for your group. If your media representatives
aren't experienced, have them work with and learn from a mentor or
volunteer consultant.

Fight Volunteer and Staff Inertia. Anticipate difficulty in getting

volunteers to overcome their inertia and to take deadlines and schedules
seriously. By recognizing this at the start, you can plan a structure
that builds in safeguards. Even leaders of the group will need prodding
(e.g., that article they are writing really has an immediate deadline to
catch the press window of opportunity). Strategies include:

Stress the importance of schedules;develop a written timeline calendar and

put it where all can see.
Refer to the timeline at each meeting and update it as needed.
Discuss the timeline in your leadership group, perhaps mapping out best
times to contact individual members about their specific timeline and its
progress.
Give the timeline to more frontline staff so that more staff can use it in
keeping on track (but be aware that leaks of information are more likely
as more individuals have this information).

It may be essential to place one organizer or "whip" in charge of major

implementationeven if you have to pay a nominal fee to make it possible
for the individual to spend the time during peak activity periods. This
person can check frequently with people assigned to tasks to make sure
they are on schedule and to resolve difficulties.

It is also essential to have a strong and immediately available steering

committee of 3-4 members authorized to act at a moment's notice in crunch
times. Standards, goals and priorities can be set with your larger
advisory committee to help guide your steering committee.

Keep Peace Among Staff and Volunteers. Preventive measures may be needed
to deal with staff and volunteer problems. In particular, since a number
of people in the coalition are likely accustomed to power and recognition,
it is not uncommon to have conflict or close to open "warfare" when egos
get involved. This can be subtle: the stated concern (e.g., a petty
detail) is very different than the underlying problem (e.g., someone feels
they are not getting enough recognition or feels insecure because they
aren't in control). At worst, these situations can be dangerous because
the person may actively put "roadblocks" in the way of progress or act to
sabotage your efforts. Responses include:

Be sensitive to these problems and openly discuss matters, making it clear

that there is enough credit and work for all and that in this new field
nobody is expected to be perfect. Rather, everyone is an amateur trying
to take advantage of the variety of skills that the members bring to the
group.
In situations in which assertive activists overwhelm and intimidate
quiet/cautious volunteers, resolve resulting problems by allowing all
involved parties to voice their concerns directly and sensitively.
For particularly disruptive individuals, sometimes you have to temporarily
leave them on the fringe of your group if they cause severe problems.
However, continue to keep them up-to-date. Later, trust or understanding
may come so that the person may rejoin as a productive member.

Develop Candidates Early On. Early development of candidates prevents many

problems. Early endorsement processes and consensus building help sort
things out so that multiple candidates don't end up competing for the same
seat and allowing an extremist to win with relatively few votes. Also,
research and subsequent development of candidate name identification takes
a long time.

In practice, coalitions are first formed in the midst of a crisis or late in

the election process. However, the group should be prepared for the next
election by setting a goal to initiate efforts by at least January or February
for a November cycle.

Know the Best Candidates. Identify the most qualified persons who are
interested in running and actively recruit candidates if needed.

Avoid assumptions about potential candidates or group members. You may be

surprised if you just go by labels, and surprises can be dangerous! Don't
count on someone because they are a woman, an educator, a Democrat, a
"nice person," or belong to a certain club. Ask questions about important
issues, including those used in candidate survey forms.

Place a high value on experience and demonstrated commitment in selecting

a candidate. Consider that the candidate, if elected, will be responsible
for a budget, employees andfor school board seatsthe community's children.
If you have more than enough candidates, you may wish to encourage
relatively inexperienced ones to be involved with your campaign and take
other leadership activities and develop a plan for their campaign run
several years down the line.

Avoid Leaks. Leaks can be deadly! Check out people interested in your
group by using the candidate questionnaire, even if you think you know
them. Do cross-checks with people they know or have worked with if you
don't know them. Look for evidence of their commitment and positions.

Avoid Misstatements. When you send out newsletters or distribute flyers,

assume that the opposition will eventually get one, so monitor what you
say. Caution members about being sensitive to this. If you speak to
press "on background" or "off the record" to help reporters develop an
understanding and perspective on the story, use good judgement and proceed
with caution. Realize that they also speak to the opposition on
background. At worst, they may inadvertently or intentionally not
maintain the "off-the-record" commitment they made to you.

Make the Most of Available Resources. Money will be a problem, but you can
operate on much less than professional consultants will suggest. Make the
most of your local resources. You probably have skilled desk-top
publishers in your group and persons with duplicating facilities. Recruit
people that have the skills you need. Actively solicit "in-kind"
contributions. You'll be pleasantly surprised at what you can find when

you go on a "treasure hunt."

Avoid Paralysis. Above all, don't become immobilized by fear and doubts.
Take a deep breath, jump in and get started. Constant vigilance and
action is the price of liberty. You'll find the effort rewardingboth the
process and your success. u

There is No Rain Without Thunder

Kit-Bacon Gressitt
The Clearinghouse of San Diego County
San Diego, California

This article describes the hows and whys of forming grassroots coalitions
and what to do with it once you have it. "If there is no struggle, there
is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet avoid
confrontation, are people who want crops without plowing up the ground;
they want rain without thunder and lightning." FREDERICK DOUGLASS

Yes, freedom demands diligence. That means lots of time, attention,

advocacy, TLC, and even some occasional snooping. If you are
contemplating entering the struggle, be comforted in the knowledge that
you are joining the ranks of the activist elite. From our founding
mothers and fathers to our modern day rabble-rousers, you will now be in
the company of that small, dedicated minority who have effectively
committed themselves to furthering the concepts of our democracy.

The commitment to watchdog our government can seem daunting, even down
right hopeless, at times. But there is a trick to this trade of
protecting our rights: organizing volunteers. Indeed, contrary to media
rumours, volunteerism is not dead in the United States. Sometimes it
simply takes a local crisis to motivate armchair activists into action.

In San Diego County, California, that well-placed kick took the form of an
onslaught of right-wing radicals into local offices in 1990, mostly school
boards. When the shock wore off, grassroots organizations throughout the
county found themselves with a paradigm of motivators: an identifiable,
tangible threat to freedoms we had here-to-fore complacently enjoyed. As
sex education and self-esteem curricula, low-income meal programs, library
books, and teachers' personal lives came under attack from radical right
board members and their supporters, activists became aware that their
basic rights were in jeopardy; organizations became aware that time was of
the essence. All were eager to expose the rascals and prevent a second
wave of radicals from being seated, but no single organization had the
resources necessary to do the job.

After months of bemoaning the election outcome in righteous indignation,

but failing to respond, The Clearinghouse concept emerged: to create a
coalition of grassroots organizations which, among their varied agendas,
shared the goal of developing an effective, strategic response to the
newly- empowered radical right. Born of adversity, it became a coalition
of startling variety, with a highly motivated and directed body of
volunteers. Groups advocating for the environment, conservation, major
and minor political parties, women, gay and lesbian rights, educators,
minorities, reproductive rights, and mainstream churches and synagogues
found common ground to unite them.

Though working with existing organizations required dancing around

numerous bureaucracies, policies, and priorities, the benefits of working
through a coalition were far greater than the detriments. The waltz
gained the coalition access to information sources, membership, existing
administrative resources; and volunteers from 25 or more groups;
established name recognition and media rapport; and the public perception
of a balanced, unbiased approach lent by the persona of participating
organizations. Why recreate the wheel, when you can link up to a
locomotive?

The Clearinghouse participants agreed that the radical right had succeeded
because the public was un- or mis-informed, and this defined its purpose:
to compile and disseminate non-partisan (this is important to public and
media relations) candidate information for voters. The coalition would
become a literal clearinghouse of information on candidates' defining
positions and their supporters. The goal was three-fold: research all
candidates, identify those holding radical right positions on key issues,
and report findings to the public.

Objectives were concretely defined as establishing a county-wide school

board watchdog system) and developing a comprehensive voter guide to be
distributed by participating organizations and through the media.

Since its inception, The Clearinghouse has matured, participating

organizations have waned and waxed, and efforts have been streamlined.
The radical right berates the coalition publicly, a sure sign of
effectiveness. Unaffiliated individuals request the voter guide. And,
the media uses The Clearinghouse as a resource.

The coalition is one of several efforts in the county that is effectively

stripping the radical right of its camouflage and exposing its true
character to the public. Without any funding to speak of, and completely
reliant on volunteerism, The Clearinghouse has established a reliable and
unbiased mechanism, with broadbased support, for providing factual
candidate information to voters. And so can you.

Organizational Outreach or Yes, Politics Does Make for Odd Bedfellows

A basic rule of fundraising is, if you don't ask, you don't get what you
want. The same holds true for coalition building. Go ahead -- define your
fantasy coalition and pursue it. You may be surprised by the identity of
your allies. Not only is the personal political, so is the service
organization, the bridge club, the recycling group, the neighborhood
organization, the belly dancing class, ad nauseam.

Who is your core group? Parent-activists, a club, an organization? Call

a meeting. Have them bring like-minded friends. List all the
organizations in your area, omitting any known to support, breed, or
otherwise be aligned with right-wing radicalism. Identify a contact or
two for each remaining group. Then, assign each core group member to an
organization to make a personal pitch for its participation: for the use
of the organization's name, for a volunteer liaison. You won't get -- or
want -- every group you approach, but you will attract many of them. And,
some that won't lend their names publicly, will be anonymous sources of
information and will be chomping at the bit to get a hold of your voter
guide.

By the way, if you've not yet accepted it, come to grips with the fact
that computers are our friends. Start a data base immediately of
coalition member organizations and contacts, noting which will go public
and which will not. While you're at it, create a secondary data base of
volunteers. You'll need help with mailing preparation, phoning, attending
meetings, media relations, and voter guide compilation and layout. With

your coalition established, it's time to begin the task of research.

The Research: Dig Deep -- the Truth is Out There Somewhere

The primary purpose of the research is to identify right-wing radical
candidates, based on their positions on telling issues. Unfortunately,
many of these candidates will refuse to respond to questionnaires from any
but their own support groups. Hence, the need for research beyond your
questionnaire.

While many candidates in San Diego County are more overt now than they
were in 1990, they still try to temper their radical politics in mom-andapple pie language with a scoop of anti-tax rhetoric la mode. It's the
stuff that sways ill-informed voters -- and the stuff that can win local
elections if unchallenged. There is no greater joy for an activist than
being able to counter a schmoozy,
dump-big-government-lower-the-middle-class-tax- burden campaigner with the
revelation that the same candidate actively opposes abortion even in cases
of rape and incest, and advocates the elimination of low cost meals for
poverty-stricken children who come to school unfed. Yep, the truth can be
sweet.

If you begin your coalition in a non-election year, you can approach the
research methodically. You'll have time to thoroughly review public
records, newspapers, etc. Whatever your timing, remember the underlying
concept here: you are not a sole practitioner; you're a coalition. The
information you need might be right in the files or memory banks of your
partners. The Clearinghouse has met monthly in off-years solely for
information sharing.

The specific data you need depends on the questions your coalition agrees
to pose to candidates (see sample questionnaire). In general, the
following resources will prove rich in information:
Political beat reporters;
County Registrar's records: ballot statements, candidate petition signers,
voter registration, campaign financial reports, etcetera;
Newspaper articles and letters to the editor;
Special interest publications: religious, anti-tax, anti-abortion, gun lobby,
and conservative news, opinion, and education;
Statements at local public meetings or organizations' meetings;
Transcripts from past public meetings.

Again, a computer comes in handy. Create a data base of identified or

likely conservative radicals -- candidates and supporters. Include a
hefty comments section to document sources and activities. Sometimes the
only way to identify a radical right candidate is by his or her supporters
or endorsers. Always double check your sources, though. It's not
uncommon for a naive candidate to unknowingly accept a radical right
endorsement. For instance, an anti- abortion group's endorsement does not
a radical right candidate make. What's more important is support for the
separation of church and state. Make sure you have more than one defining
criteria for identifying radical right candidates.

Media Relations: It's a Love-Hate Thing

The media are the partners in this coalition that you'll love to hate.
But you do need them. The media should both inform the public of how to
obtain your voter guide and be a point of distribution for the guide. A
monthly newspaper with a large county-wide distribution has published the
Clearinghouse Voter Guide as a public service.

Most likely, one or more of your coalition members will have an existing
rapport with a political reporter. One good story about your efforts will
birth another. It is vitally important that your media releases emphasize
non-partisan voter education (see sample media release). If your releases
and spokespeople expound on the despicable horrors of the radical right,
you'll lose voters. Keep it simple; keep it straightforward. Your
coalition is providing a public service to mainstream voters. They'll
love you for it.

Rolling, Rolling, Rolling

So, you're ready to roll. Just a few more pointers to help smooth your
path.

1. A list of candidates who have successfuly completed the filing process

may be obtained from your county registrar within several days of the
filing deadline. This, or some part of it, is the list to which you'll
mail your questionnaire. Consider following up the mailing with phone
calls. This will increase the response rate. Your research kicks in when
questionnaires are not returned. If there's a conflict between a
questionnaire response and other sources of information, graciously
confront the candidate and ask for his or her intended response.

2. Select questions for your questionnaire carefully. They must be both

revealing and reflect your community's mainstream concerns. It's also
important to validate the participation of all your member organizations.
Try to include at least one or two questions in the candidate
questionnaire that reflect each group's primary issue: the environment,
women's rights, a local polemic, etc.

3. Your coalition's significant costs will be postage and copying. Ask

each member to contribute a roll of stamps and either a tenspot for
copying or time on their office machine.

4. If you find yourself in a jam, feel free to call The Clearinghouse at

(619) 728-4956.e

Legal Limitations on the Political Activities of Tax-Exempt Organizations

Nancy Yanofsky & Laurie Rockett

ProChoice Resource Center, Inc.
Mamaroneck, New York

This article provides a brief overview of three different kinds of taxexempt, public interest organizations 501(c)(3) organizations, 501(c)(4)
organizations and political action committees (PAC's) and some of the
major legal and political differences among them. It is important to
note, however, that nothing presented on the following pages is intended
to serve as legal advice; that is, this information must not take the
place of consulting with your own counsel on the desirability of
establishing the various organizations described and the activities in
which they may lawfully engage.

There are three kinds of tax-exempt organizations which address a range of

educational and/or political activities.1 They fall into the following
three categories: Educational and Charitable Organizations (501(c)(3))
Social Welfare Organizations (501(c)(4)) Political Action Committees (527)

With some technical exceptions, none of these organizations is required to

pay federal corporate income tax and each of them is permitted to carry
out a range of educational activities. However, the political activities
of all three types of organizations are limited under the Internal Revenue
Code (IRC) and the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

If these organizations are all tax-exempt, how are they different?

Educational and Charitable/501(c)(3) Organizations. A defining
characteristic of a 501(c)(3) organization is that all contributions to
such organizations are tax deductible. This means that all contributors
to 501(c)(3) organizations may claim their contributions as charitable
deductions. And private foundations may make grants to 501(c)(3)
organizations without administrative supervision or the risk of
substantial legal penalties.

On the other hand, by definition, the political activities of such

organizations are severely limited. A 501(c)(3) organization:

does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or

distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public office;

is not permitted to devote a substantial part of its activities to carrying on

propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.

These restrictions must be adhered to; the penalty for violating them is
loss of tax-exempt status. Moreover, if a 501(c)(3) organization loses
its exemption for engaging in excessive lobbying or participating in
electoral activities, it may not reorganize at any time as a 501(c)(4)
organization.

Social Welfare/501(c)(4) Organizations. These tax-exempt organizations

are permitted to engage in a broader range of political activities,
provided that their primary focus is to promote "social welfare."
However, contributions to these "social welfare" organizations are not tax
deductible as charitable contributions. Moreover, private foundations are
required to impose restrictions limiting the use of any grants made to
social welfare organizations to 501(c)(3) activities and must monitor the
use of these funds. Private foundations, as a result, prefer not to make
grants to social welfare organizations.

Political/527 Organizations. Organizations exempt under this section are

established for the express purpose of engaging in electoral activities
(which must constitute their primary purpose). Although political
organizations may legally engage in non-electoral, political and nonpartisan election-related activities, expenditures made for such purposes
are subject to income tax.

How are the organizational activities of these groups limited by their taxexempt status?
Lobbying Activities. There are two kinds of lobbying direct and
grassroots. Direct lobbying is contact with a member or employee of a
legislative body, or member of the executive branch in connection with
formulating legislation (but not regarding regulatory or enforcement
functions which are not considered lobbying). Grassroots lobbying, on the
other hand, attempts to influence the attitudes of the general public
regarding legislation.

Lobbying and 501(c)(3) Organizations. Organizations exempt under section

501(c)(3) may engage in lobbying if the lobbying activities are
insubstantial in relation to the general educational or charitable
activities of the organization. (The term "substantial" has never been
defined, although it is generally believed that a safe limitation on
lobbying is 5% of overall expenditures.) And, since 1976, organizations
can elect, under section 501(h), to spend a certain percent of their
operating budgets their "exempt purpose expenditures" on lobbying
activities, without penalty.

The limits are up to a maximum of 20% of the expenses of an organization

with total expenses of $500,000 with percentages declining thereafter to
an overall cap of $1 million. Only 25% of this limit may be spent on
grassroots lobbying.

Activities which do not constitute lobbying (and which may be engaged in

by a 501(c)(3) organization without limitation so long as they are
charitable or educational) include:

making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, study or research;

testifying before or providing technical assistance to a governmental body

or committee in response to its written request;

communications affecting the existence of the organization, contributions

to it or its tax-exempt status;

conducting training on how to lobby effectively, so long as participants are

not urged to lobby on any particular legislation;

communications with its members which inform them about legislation, but
do not urge them to lobby.

Lobbying and 501(c)(4) Organizations. There are no restrictions on the

amount of lobbying, whether direct or grassroots, in which 501(c)(4)
organizations may engage.

Lobbying and Political Organizations. There are no restrictions on the

amount of lobbying, whether direct or grassroots, in which PACs may
engage, but the money expended on such activities is subject to incometax.

Electoral Activities. Participating or intervening in a political

campaign, or directly or indirectly influencing an election to benefit a
candidate, a party or a ballot measure is considered electoral activity.
This is not to be confused with non-partisan voter education activities
that enhance the public's awareness of social and political issues.

The Internal Revenue Code

Electoral Activities and 501(c)(3) Organizations. A 501(c)(3)

organization is absolutely prohibited from engaging in any electoral
activities. Electoral activities do not include such non-partisan,

educational activities as voter registration drives or other

"Get-Out-the-Vote" activities or, for example, conducting seminars or
training sessions on the importance of becoming involved in the political
process and how to do so. Such activities must be strictly non-partisan
and, in most cases, not even issue-oriented. All activities in this area
should be cleared by legal counsel.

Electoral Activities and 501(c)(4) Organizations. The Internal Revenue

Service has ruled that an organization exempt under 501(c)(4) may engage
in electoral activities, but only if such activities do not constitute its
primary activity. Some apply a rule of thumb that electoral activities
must constitute less than 50% of the organization's overall activities;
the smaller the percentage, the less the risk of loss of tax-exempt
status. Note that, if the organization is incorporated, restrictions on
these activities are imposed under the Federal Election Campaign Act,
discussed below.

Electoral Activities and Political Organizations. Under the IRC,

political organizations may legally endorse, make expenditures and
otherwise make contributions intending to influence the selection,
nomination or appointment of any individual to public office.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Section 441(b) of FECA

prohibits a corporation, including a tax-exempt corporation, from making a
contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to federal
office except through a separately segregated fund (which may solicit
contributions only from its members). Contributions and expenditures are
broadly defined to include anything of value other than the value of
services or some in-kind contributions by individuals. Excluded from this
prohibition are independent endorsements of candidates made by taxexempt, public interest organizations which do not receive any funds from
corporations or labor unions.

FECA also provides for the organization of PACs (exempt as political

organizations under section 527 of the IRC) that are established
specifically to make contributions and expenditures in connection with
federal elections.

There are two kinds of PACs, separately segregated funds which may be
established by 501(c)(4) organizations, and independent PACs. A
separately segregated fund may receive contributions only from members of
the parent organization, while an independent PAC is not so restricted.

Please note that there are also regulations on state election campaigns
and contributions which vary from state to state. Again, legal counsel
should be consulted to determine what restrictions exist under state law.

How can a tax-exempt organization maximize its allocation of time and

resources? To maximize both fund-raising and the range of political
activities in which tax-exempt organizations may engage, it is desirable
to organize all three forms of organizations: a 501(c)(3); a 501(c)(4);
and a PAC.

Under the IRC, a 501(c)(3) organization may establish and control a

501(c)(4) organization, and a 501(c)(4) organization may establish and
control a 501(c)(3) organization, either as a separately segregated fund
or as a separate corporation. Under either structure, activities which
are considered educational or charitable or within the section 501(h)
limits for 501(c)(3) organizations may be carried out using tax deductible
contributions. Lobbying in excess of these limits and the political
activities permitted a 501(c)(4) organization should be done through the
501(c)(4) organization.

It is important to understand that no 501(c)(3) funds may be used

indirectly through the 501(c)(4) organization to conduct activities the
501(c)(3) organization could not itself conduct. The 501(c)(4)
organization may make contributions to the 501(c)(3); however, there is
ordinarily no benefit in the 501(c)(3) organization making any
contribution to the 501(c)(4) organization, because the contribution would
have to be used solely for activities the 501(c)(3) organization could
itself carry out. If staff, space or equipment is shared, separate books
must be kept, and resources and time carefully allocated between the two
organizations.

While the 501(c)(4) organization may establish and pay the administrative
costs of a separately segregated fund to conduct electoral activities, it
is generally preferable to establish a separate, independent PAC so that
fund-raising may extend beyond the membership of the 501(c)(4)
organization. A 501(c)(3) organization should not be in any way
affiliated with a PAC or make any direct or indirect contributions to one
(except in the limited case of influencing judicial appointments).

Coalitions with unaffiliated organizations may also be an effective way to

pool resources, but again, an organization may not do through a coalition
what it cannot do itself.

Summary of Permissible Activities

The following is a general summary of the activities in which 501(c)(3)'s,
501(c)(4)'s and PACs may engage. It is not intended to be comprehensive.
There are many legal limitations on the conduct of such activities and
legal counsel should be sought regarding them.

501(c)(3) Organizations may:

lobby within IRC limits
conduct public education activities on public interest issues
hold public education and training sessions about participation in the
political process
educate candidates on public interest issues
publish voting records
prepare candidate questionnaires
canvass the public on issues
sponsor candidates debates
lobby in connection with party platform issues
lobby with respect to judicial appointments
rent mailing lists and facilities to other organizations, legislators and
candidates at fair market value
prepare voter identification lists
conduct Get-Out-the Vote and registration drives
establish a controlled 501(c)(4) organization

All of the above activities must be conducted in a non-partisan manner

and, in most cases, should not target elections in terms of timing or
location. (An obvious exception is voter registration.) Under no
circumstances may a 501(c)(3) organization endorse or in any way support
any individual candidate for elective office.

501(c)(4) Organizations may:

engage in all of the 501(c)(3) activities without limitation
make independent endorsements of candidates or expenditures on their
behalf
allow candidates to address their members
restrict the rental of their mailing lists or facilities to certain candidates
establish and pay the administrative costs of a PAC
urge their members to vote for certain candidates in federal elections

PACs may:
engage in all of the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) activities, but are subject to
income tax if not within the primary electoral purposes of the PAC
mail voting that rate candidates to the general public
make direct campaign contributions
run ads in support of candidates
provide mailing lists to candidates without charge.

1 The term "political activities" as used in this article encompasses two

legally distinct kinds of activities: lobbying activities attempts to
influence the passage or defeat of legislation; and electoral activities
activities to affect the election or defeat of an individual to public
office. (There are some hybrids, such as the nomination of an individual
to judicial office, which are beyond the scope of this article.)

How to Win: A Practical

Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Tips for Winning Elections

Winning Elections: Organizing Tips from San Diego

Poppy DeMarco Dennis Community Coalition Network San Diego, California

Effective election strategies in San Diego helped beat local Far Right
candidates in November 1992 elections, representing the first major
reversal of the alarming national trend of fundamentalist successes in
local races.
Coalitions seeking to replicate San Diego's success should consider the
following strategies:
identify allies and common goals and concerns among various constituencies;
learn about the opposition and advertise their extremist philosophy to voters;
craft a written set of principles and beliefs to inform the community about the
progressive perspective;
establish a pre-endorsement process to help identify and support the strongest
candidate in multi-candidate races;
help qualified candidates speak to voters;
become familiar with voters through use of polling data;
become better informed about free speech rights and then use those rights;
learn how to use campaign tools and create new ones when needed;
and push for progressive policies after elections are won.

San Diego is proof that the Far Right can be beaten at the polls. In the now
famous election of November 1992, San Diego's Far Right was out-mobilized,
out-organized, and for the most part beaten in local races with the help of the
area's grassroots campaign group, the Community Coalition Network (CCN).
With a focus mainly on non-partisan races and issues, organizing and
commmunications were carried out on a county-wide and regional basis in
successful anti-Far Right campaign efforts. Following are strategies used in
winning local battles against Far Right candidates.
Know Your Allies and Your Base. Identify groups with common goals, find their
leaders, and invite them to meet and discuss problems and share experiences.
CCN included key local board members who faced extremists on their boards and
presidents of various groups. Wide diversity in geography and interest is
important in order to maximize learning and stimulate new alliances. This
process lead to identification of common concerns and goals and agreement to do
further research.
Know the Opposition. Find out as much as possible about the goals,
actions, and beliefs of the Far Right opposition. CCN read news articles;
attended Far Right rallies; and obtained materials from "Christian"
bookstores, radio stations, and newspapers. CCN found that the Far Right

was more open about their agenda when talking to their own people. CCN
members traveled with small recorders and taped Far Right representatives
in public meetings. This technique was useful in three key ways:
communicating with the media about the Far Right's agenda (i.e., tapes
were provided to the media); documenting Far Right activities; and as a
technique for energizing the organization against the Far Right agenda.
Significant help in monitoring the Far Right was provided through the
research of the Mainstream Voters Project (MVP). At times, research was
shared with reporters.
Define Your Goals. Articulate your key beliefs and principles. As the
common concerns of its diverse coalition became clear, and the tactics and
goals/beliefs of the opposition were better understood, key "Principles"
were identified summarizing CCN's strongest beliefs. This enabled CCN to
more readily identify those times when the opposition violated them and to
clearly state their own positions instead of just expressing opposition to
the Far Right's principles. They also served as the basis for questions
for candidates and criteria for use in examining records of candidates to
assess consistency with these principles. The principles were also
adapated by other communities-- including the Lubbock, Texas Moderate
Majority and Centerville, Ohio.
Establish a Pre-endorsement Process.
Work with reasonable and knowledgeable groups within a community to locate and
campaign for potential qualified candidates--particularly when there is no
primary. When too many good candidates are competing against each other, a
single extremist has a better chance of winning when the mainstream vote is
split.
Help Qualified Candidates Communicate With Voters. Publicize your principles,
evaluate candidates and publicize results of the evaluation. CCN evaluated
candidates and published the results in the local newsmagazine Women's Times,
various newspapers, and group newsletters and freely duplicated the results.
Many "election hotlines" used the list. This was carried out well before the
election--in time to reach absentee voters before they voted. CCN then
followed-up during the regular poll election time.
Know Your Voting Public. Candidates and campaign need to know the mood and
priorities of voters in order to make the wisest use of their time in
communicating their message to the public through such mechanisms as brochures,
interviews, speeches, and radio shows. A professionally designed poll was
developed and then administered, in a cost-cutting move, by trained volunteers
from the American Association of University Women and local churches. (See
article on polling for further information on this election tool.)
Know Your Free Speech Rights. CCN found that even the most active among their
ranks were not fully aware of the full range of their First Amendment Rights.
Training of school-based teams by mainstream specialists--such as the First
Liberty Institute or help from the ACLU or American's United for Separation of
Church and State-- provided CCN representatives with more confidence and answers
to support their instincts and beliefs. The value of this effort was
particularly evident when CCN found that school personnel or other public
servants often will not challenge abuses because they are not sure about their
standing.
Become Familiar With Campaign Tools. CCN has worked primarily with local people
and on non-partisan elections in efforts that have been very low budget or
no-budget. Local consultants volunteered to provide one workshop each to help
candidates get started and subsequently helped out on an hourly fee basis to cut
candidate costs. Candidates in the same region worked as teams or "slates" to
share expenses. Experienced elected officials acted as mentors for novice
candidates. Also useful are low cost workshops such as those offered by
National Women's Political Caucus and the California Teachers
Association/National Education Association.
Create Your Own Tools (When Existing Ones Don't Exist). Technology makes it
possible to do almost anything on a home computer given volunteers who are
bright, creative, and dedicated to tackle the task. CCN started the Bea Sweeney
Memorial Tech Center, a cooperative effort that has developed lists of all
registered voters with voting histories from 1988 and enhanced phone numbers.
The center can produce election analysis, precinct profile lists, and other
tools as needed, as well as precinct maps on mylar for easy copying. The
center's dedicated and talented programmer helps make this possible.
Other areas have carried out similar efforts. While a large user area is needed
to make it cost effective, the information is invaluable, particularly for jobs
that are needed immediately.
Avoid Duplication Through Collaboration and Communication With Allies -

Communications were centralized through a group called "Clearinghouse." Future

efforts may continue through a Pro-Choice Network or other group. Tasks such as
school board observing, candidate questionnaires, and voter identification
projects can be shared to avoid duplication of effort; calendars or regional
emphasis can be coordinated.
Continue to Work--Even After the Election - Push for policies that support your
progressive agenda. For example, a code of ethics policy for elected school
officials could call for loyalty to the public school district and the whole
community as a means for countering Far Right efforts that speak only to the
fundamentalist religious community.
Continue to work with your allies as well. Utilize positive relationships built
among qualified candidates in various districts to help strengthen policies
regionally, sharing strong solutions developed by one district with friendly
board members in another district when similar issues arise.u

Initiative Campaigns
Kimberly Moore Webster and Peggy A. Norman RightWatch PAC Portland, Oregon

Initiative campaigns, public votes on policy issues usually handled through

elected bodies, have become a tool for radical right-wing efforts to pass
regressive laws on such issues as homosexuality, school vouchers, and others.
Effective strategies to win initiative battles include: research; controlling
the debate; creating momentum; message delivery; aggressive media; effective
field work; building a broad coalition; doing the unexpected; and raising funds.

Initiatives are proposals to change laws or state constitutions through a

direct vote by the voting public, bypassing elected representatives. The
initiative, a tool available to voters in fewer than half of the states, has
become a favorite tool for the Far Right. Since the 1980s, initiative efforts
have been led by right wing organizations, most with national affiliations, as a
basis for building their political agendas. Initiative campaigns have enabled
them to garner national publicity while building voter lists and perfecting
their language and tactics.
The most visible Far Right initiatives have included anti-gay and school voucher
measures. Oregon's Initiative 9, which sought to repeal rights laws protecting
gays and lesbians in the state, grabbed national attention in 1992. Initiative
9 was successfully beaten by Oregon's "No on 9 Campaign," which turned out to be
a rare victory among the major fights over anti-gay votes held in recent years.
Progressives must learn how to win on the initiative battlefield. What are the
elements of a winning formula? Research. Control of the debate. Create
momentum. Message delivery. Aggressive media. Effective field work. Building
a broad coalition. Doing the unexpected. Raising enough money to pull the
whole thing off.
Research. Campaign research collects data about supporters and detractors and
finds common denominators in words and messages that will move the most voters.
Months of hard labor in the campaign should be grounded in the best information
you can buy about what the voters think and what they feel about your issues and
where your opponents' strengths and vulnerabilities lie. Polling presents your
campaign with an in-depth picture of what the voters think at a given point in
time. Focus groups help campaign strategists understand the nuances of how
voters feel about the issue as it relates to their lives. Opposition research
provides you with the keys to understand your opponents' base of support, the
money trail financing their campaign and how and when to take the offensive with
the opposition.
Many campaigns win with good polling alone. But if you want to ensure that you
control how the campaign unfolds, and that you have the best chance of achieving
a solid victory, incorporate all three research components.
Controlling the Debate. The side to seize and control the debate wins. When
you control how the issue is viewed by the public (i.e., discrimination v.
special rights), you are on the offensive, which forces your opponents to
respond. When your opponents are on the defensive and responding, you prevent
them from moving their own message. In the "No on 9 Campaign," we succeeded in
making our opponents and what they were trying to do to lesbians and gay menand
to Oregonthe issue in the campaign. We forced them to continually explain
themselves and justify their tactics, instead of allowing them to force us to
explain that gay and lesbian people really are not child molesters out for
special rights.

Creating Momentum. Imagine your campaign as a symphony and yourself as the

conductor. It is your job to orchestrate all the instruments playing together.
When they play together, they build momentum, creating a whole larger than any
one instrument. To create momentum, show the voters that significant numbers of
diverse groups support you. When you get support from the teachers union, go to
the librarians. When labor signs on, go to business. When members of the faith
community come on board, branch out to bring others in. At every step, let
voters know who is supporting you. You create the momentum and orchestrate it
to peak on election day because you want a campaign to which nobody can say NO!
Message Delivery. Good research provides you with words and phrases that become
your campaign messages. Sticking to the most powerful messages identified by
your research will undoubtedly prove difficult for some. Some may believe they
know the state better than the pollster. It is possible that leadership will be
uncomfortable with the messages that come from your research. For example,
polling for the "No on 9 Campaign" showed that comparing our opponents to Nazis
could well lose us votes. Yet some community leaders persisted in using that
analogy. This is your campaign's challenge and responsibility: do good research
and listen to what the voters tell you. Embellishing your messages to please
yourselves or your friends will not help persuade the undecided.
An Aggressive Media Campaign. Most winning campaigns spend close to two- thirds
of their money on television and radio with supplementary print ads to bolster
the electronic media. Why so much? Because most voters watch a significant
amount of television and will see and hear your message on television!
If you really intend to take your case to the people, you must buy significant
amounts of television timeyou can reach the same number of voters with two weeks
of advertising as you can with months of door to door canvassing. Ideally, your
campaign targets and coordinates both media and field to deliver a knockout. In
the "No on 9 Campaign," we began advertising two weeks before our opposition was
on the air, and we ran hardhitting ads that put them on the defensive. Our
opposition never came close to regaining their composure or their momentum.
Effective Field Work. Organizing in the field is a key way to reach voters and
to puncture stereotypes about who cares about your issues. Target field work
first toward solidifying your base and organizing and educating your natural
constituencies. Then begin the crucial work of expanding your base and
coalition-building.
Whether your field plans include voter identification, literature drops, doorto-door canvassing, town meetings, huge rallies and marches, or just good solid
get-out-the-vote projects, your field campaign should echo and reinforce the
same messages and themes as your media campaign.
Initiative campaigns have succeeded all across this country with strong media
components alone. But controversial proposals brought forth by the radical
right wing require extraordinary public education. Grassroots organizing is an
excellent method for delivering that education and it uses many volunteers
anxious to help. To ensure a win on these hot-button issues, your campaign must
have a strong, aggressive media component and a strong, aggressive field
campaign.
Doing the Unexpected. Winning campaigns are usually campaigns that conduct good
research, develop effective messages to move the voters, ensure that voters hear
and see those messages several times before election day, and turn out their
votes. And, winning campaigns usually do morethey stand out from the ordinary.
Plan the unexpected element in your campaign. In the "No on 9 Campaign," we
broke stereotypes wherever possible. We won endorsements from chambers of
commerce and top business leaders. Supporters held a huge multi- denominational
religious rally. Both the Democratic and Republican party leaders appeared in a
television spot for us. The two bitterly opposed candidates for U.S. Senate
appeared in a joint print ad. Librarians marched and rallied in the streets.
Campaigns that do more than the same old events and tactics stand outand the
press and electronic media love it.
Building the Broadest Coalition Possible. The job of a campaign steering
committee is to forge a campaign broad enough so that the majority of voters
decide to ally themselves with you. The more your campaign and its supporters
reflect the diversity of your state, the more you will signal that you are the
majorityand the closer you will be to winning. Your campaign messages,
spokespeople, advertising, and actions must dovetail to pull the majority of the
voters in to your camp on election day.
Raising the Funds to Pull the Whole Thing Off. If your campaign concerns a
controversial issue, it is important to realize that in all likelihood, you will
need to significantly out-fundraise your opponent.

The messages your campaign crafts carry over into fundraising. Momentum helps
build your fundraising efforts. Field organizing will yield new volunteers and
supporters. The media campaign will carry your messages to large numbers of
concerned people. The surprises your campaign produces help imbue voters and
donors with a sense that they're on a winning team. All these elements will aid
in your fundraising efforts, which must start early and stay consistent right to
the end.
Balance defines all good fundraising plans. Ideally, your campaign will not
rely on any one element for too many dollars. Elements could include: house
parties, direct mail, major gifts from individuals, business, organizations,
labor, special events, sales of merchandise (buttons, bumper stickers, lawn
signs, T-shirts), rallies, monthly pledges, telephone solicitations.
One final word about fundraising. Don't think small. Assume that the entire
world cares about what's happening in your state. Assume that the business
community cares not only about the economic impacts inherent in the proposal,
but that they also care about how the issue tears at the heart of your state.
Assume that everybody has something at stake and that everybody wants to give.
And ask as many of them as you can, using whatever method is most appropriate
for the time, place, and potential giving.
Conclusion. It should be apparent by now that every element of a campaign works
together. If you do solid research, create strong, clear messages which speak
to the largest segment of the voters, control the debate and keep momentum on
your side, your chances of winning are very good. Two things are certain: after
going through a campaign on a controversial initiative, your state will never be
quite the same again. And winning feels a whole lot better than losing.u

HOW TO CONTACT ELECTED OFFICIALS

Linda J. Yanney, Ph.D., ed. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute
Washington, D.C.

One thing elected officials do - and do well - is count. They count votes, they
count contributions to their campaign, and they count phone calls, letters and
office visits. This article contains practical advice on contacting and
influencing your local elected officials on issues of importance to lesbian, gay
and bisexual people.

M any elected officals are happy to meet with constituents in their offices.
State and federal officials have their primary offices in Washington or in the
state capitol, but they usually will meet with constituents when they are in the
constituents' home area.
When you call the official's office, ask to speak to his or her scheduler or
appointment secretary. Be specific about your reason for wanting the
appointment. Do you want to discuss a vote with which you agree or disagree?
Do you want to speak generally about AIDS and its impact on your insurance,
health care, or employment? Do you want the official to cosponsor or support a
specific idea or piece of legislation? Are you inviting the official to speak
at your annual award dinner?
Whatever the reason, be honest and keep your request for time brief 15 minutes
is a long time to discuss your views on a particular vote or issue. Respect for
an official's time will be appreciated and remembered the next time you want
access to his or her office.
During the Visit. Present yourself and your views in a respectful, dignified
manner. Dress appropriately as if you were going to a business appointment.
Local elected officials often meet with constituents themselves, others have
staff. Don't assume you're "getting blown off" because you're dealing with a
staff person. Most of the information officials rely on comes from their staff.
If you get a credible staffer to see things your way, you have been successful.
Be direct and concise in your presentation. Know what you want the official to
do (cosponsor, vote for/against, write a letter to an agency, etc.) and be able
to present your views clearly. It's the quality of the discussion that is
important, not the length.
If you're going to see an official who has a bad voting record on
lesbian/gay/bisexual issues, you might be tempted to tell him or her off. Don't
do it! If he or she says things that offend you, keep a cool head and respond
rationally with facts. In some offices, all you may achieve the first time out
is a civil exchange of conflicting opinions, but if you handle yourself well you

can begin to establish a working relationship with that office. They'll

recognize your name when you write or phone the next time, building the base for
continuing communication .
Whenever possible, demonstrate that you speak for other voters in the community.
Back up your claim with petitions and letters. Let the official or staffer know
that you intend to communicate with the lesbian/gay community about your visit.
If an official has a good or excellent record of support thank them! Our
friends in government need to know that their support is appreciated.
After the Visit. Be sure to summarize your discussion in a follow-up letter.
If the official holds a federal office, you also may want to send a copy of your
letter or other correspondence you receive from the official to the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force. NGLTF is in contact with Congressional offices daily
and your visit is important information for future lobbying work. If there is a
state or local civil rights or gay/lesbian/bisexual rights organization, they
also may be interested in the results of your visit.
Tips For Contacting Officials By Letter. Individuals need to stay in written
contact with their elected officials. Officials use letters as one way to
measure public opinion in their district. Officials count the pieces of mail
for and against every issue.
Identify Yourself. Make sure your elected official knows you are his or her
constituent. You can also assume the staff person recognizes most addresses in
the community or district which means you must include your name and address.
Avoid anonymous letters.
Topics. Cover one subject per letter. In a large office, different staff
persons cover different issues. Your letter may get lost or hung up with one
staff person if you cover several topics in your letters. If you have more than
one issue to raise, write more than one letter.
If the issue can be identified by a bill number, include the bill number. If
possible, mention who introduced the legislation, how many others have
cosponsored the bill and what it will do. This demonstrates to the official
that you are serious about the issue and are keeping a close watch on the
progress of the bill.
Selling Your Position. Be brief and concise. Type or write legibly so that
your letter is easy to read. State your position and exactly what you want the
official to do in your first paragraph.
For example, "I urge you to support state efforts designed to end the irrational
discharges of lesbian and gay national guard personnel." Or, "I urge you to
support and cosponsor the Johnson County Domestic Partnership Policy."
Give reasons for your position. Remember, when you write, you are essentially
trying to sell your idea or position on an issue to the official. Avoid deeply
emotional appeals, demands, threats or promises. These are not effective letter
writing tactics. However, if you are writing about discrimination and have been
a victim of discrimination, explain that to the legislator. Officials will want
to know how a bill or proposal will affect the lives of their constituents.
Your own experiences and observations will help sell our position.
Follow Up. Request a reply. You can ask your official how he or she will vote
on a particular bill; you can ask about his or her position on an issue; and/or
you can request his or her personal involvement in a particular issue. You are
more likely to receive a reply if you ask for one.
When you receive a reply from the official indicating that he or she agrees with
your position or that he or she intends to vote for the position you have
advocated, write back and thank him or her.
If you receive a reply which indicates that the official intends to vote in
opposition to your position, write back and explain your position again. Don't
let him or her off the hook. Keep the heat on!
Addressing Your Letter. Officials are addressed in a variety of ways. Some
titles may be obvious, such as "Dear Senator Spring." Some forms of address
require phrases such as "The Honorable." If you know the proper title, use it.
You can find out the proper title from the official's office or look in the back
of most dictionaries. If you don't know the proper way of addressing the
official, you can't go wrong with a simple "Dear Mr. Fehrman" or "Dear Ms.
Carpenter." Politeness will usually substitute for properness. Remember: the
only effective letter is one which is written and mailed!
Host a "Letter-Writing" Party. Parties can be hosted by individuals or

organizations, and can be as large or small and as formal or informal as the

host wants. The basic goal is to make it easy for individuals to write their
letters. Have sample letters and information on legislation available for use
by your guests. By making it easy for people to write letters, you are helping
them to be heard, and making sure that our community is represented.
Tips For Contacting Officials By Phone. Just as letters are used by officials
to measure public opinion, officials also count phone calls which are either for
or against an issue. Phone calls to a policy maker's office are most useful
when a vote has been scheduled and there isn't time to write or visit the
office. Congress and state legislatures often have one general number for each
chamber which can be used to leave messages about an approaching vote.
What to Expect. When you call your official's office, expect that the call will
be taken by someone on the office staff. If you're calling to request
information about the official's position on an issue or to register an opinion,
your call will most likely be transferred to the staff person in charge of that
particular issue. He or she will be able to discuss in more detail the
official's position on the issue and the current status of any pending
legislation.
Identify Yourself. Make sure the staff person knows you live in the official's
district. Be sure to provide the staff member with your name and address for
follow-up.
Topics. Cover one subject per call. Different staff persons cover different
issues. Do not assume that the person you are speaking with handles all lesbian
and gay issues for the official. If you have more than one issue to raise, ask
to speak to the staff person who is in charge of each issue.
Selling Your Position. If there is a pending vote on the floor of the House or
Senate, or before the City Council, your phone call should be simple and to the
point: "I support S. 242, the state gay and lesbian civil rights bill, and I
urge Senator Tinsman to vote for the legislation." The information will be
recorded and forwarded to the appropriate staff person.
If the issue isn't pending on the floor of a governing body, it is still
important to be brief and concise in your conversation. Your opinion is
important, but the staff person will respect your use of their time. Be
prepared to state your position, what you want the official to do, and be ready
to back up your position with one or two supporting arguments.
Follow-Up. The official may not have an immediate answer for you. Ask when you
can expect an answer. If a staff person doesn't have an answer for you, ask
that they speak with the official and get back to you, either by letter or
phone.
When you receive a reply by phone, be sure to thank the official or staff person
for getting back to you, even if the information about the official's position
is bad news. Establishing a good relationship with the staff will help you when
you need to speak with them again.
Other Kinds of Contacts. There are many occasions, formal and informal, where
officials interact with the public. Elected officials need to spend a lot of
time meeting constituents, contributors, and party workers and volunteers. Most
of these opportunities are open to the public for free or for a very small
contribution. Legislative forums, candidate forums during elections, public
office hours and attendance at civic events are all opportunities to talk to
officials. They are expecting it, so ask questions during question and answer
sessions. Keep your questions short and to the point. Often, officials are
available before and after the event to meet people. You can use this time to
introduce yourself and make brief comments. Remember that officials are often
criticized and rarely thanked, so if you like something an official has done,
thanking them can make a big impression.
Party fund-raisers are great informal occasions to get to know officials as well
as the political movers and shakers in your area. Some fund-raisers can go for
as little as $5-$25 dollars. If the crowd is large, you may have to work to get
a hand-shake, but if the crowd is small, you may be able to engage the official
in a real conversation.
Follow-Up. It can't be said enough: you will maximize the impact of your
contact with any official by following up. Following up lets the official know
that you are serious and committed, and it gives you an opportunity to get to
know each other. You may not agree this time, but whatever you learn about an
official may come in handy on the next issue.
Congratulate Yourself. Every call you make and get others to make! and every
letter you write is a triumph of participatory democracy. For most people,

government is a spectator sport. By using the techniques discussed here, you

will become one of the most important and powerful people in America
an active citizen.u

The Numbers Say What?! A Primer on Polling

Peggy Norman and Kimberly Moore
Webster RightWatch PAC Portland, Oregon

"The Numbers Say What?!" is a primer on campaign polling. It reviews the two
most frequently used types of campaign polls, provides direction on what to look
for in a campaign pollster, how to write polling questions, and how to use the
data once it's collected. The authors discuss the necessity for security and
provide some cautions to help readers how best to make use of campaign polling.

You're facing a statewide electoral campaign on an issue spawned by the

Radical Right. Don't panic. Sooner or later it happens to all of us. Your
first steps are clear. Your campaign needs to fundraise in order to make a
serious investment in voter research. Until data is available on what the
voters think about an issue today, there is no effective way to plan a campaign
to capture their hearts and minds on election day.
Conducted properly, polling yields essential information that influences every
area of your campaignfrom your name to your spokespeople to your campaign
messages. Polling data tells you your strongest arguments and who already
supports your position. It also tells you what arguments work best for your
opponents and where you're most vulnerable politically. With cross-tabulated
information about voters across the state, you can even determine specifics
(e.g., what the male Republican voter over 50 years of age who lives in a
particular county and makes over $50,000 per year thinks on the issue). Polling
numbers assist in setting budget priorities, timing, and strategy.
Good polling is the single most important piece of your campaign infrastructure.
Without it, you're just guessing....
The Benchmark Poll The first poll you conduct is often called a "benchmark"
poll. It establishs a baseline from which to measure your campaign's progress
as election day draws near. The benchmark poll should establish voter
familiarity with your issue and give you initial numbers for and against. It
should tell which age groups of which sex are your best supporters. It should
tell which groups are undecided and which are against your issue. It should
test particular words and ideas, allowing you to begin crafting messages. It
should rate spokespeople and organizations, and it should delineate your
opponent's best slogans and strategies.
Timing of the benchmark poll is important. If you have no idea of how voters
feel about the issue in your state, you can't start too soon. If you already
have information from a previous poll, don't go out more than 11 or 12 months
before the election. If you do the benchmark poll that early, plan another
"mini-benchmark" along the way to gauge progress.
How many people should you poll in the benchmark poll? Each state is different,
with populations varying greatly. Your pollster will advise you on numbers.
Don't poll just the minimum number of people. Be certain that you have a
statistically sound sample of opinions and that you test all the messages you
are likely to want to usebefore you say them in public. Polling is NOT the
place in your campaign to be miserly with your money.
Tracking Polls Near the election, keep a close eye on your numbers. At that
point, you'll need daily information that you will use to adjust advertising and
strategy. Tracking polls test smaller numbers of people with one, two, or three
questions generally, and target segments of the population. They generally run
over a series of days, providing the freshest information possible. Low budget
campaigns are forced to rely on "handouts" from the media's tracking or a
friendly politician to know how they're doing. But if you have the money, it's
much safer and wiser to do your own tracking.
Piggybacking Questions If the pollster you hire has other clients in your state
who are also in political races, you may be able to piggyback a question or two
when they are doing polling. This can be an especially useful tactic as it
allows you to get some polling information without going to the expense of
conducting an entire poll. The down side of piggybacking is that you're
dependent upon someone else's schedule, so you can't always plan to make use of

it.
Choosing Your Pollster Like every other vendor associated with your campaign,
your pollster's reputation and connections will add to or detract from the
credibility of your campaign. If your issue is a controversial one, and
bringing mainstream respectability is a consideration, be especially aware of
your pollster's connections and expertise. Many pollsters have no experience
doing political polling: they survey products or attitudes. Steer away from
them. Ideally, the chosen pollster will have experience polling on your issue
or on another controversial or related measure in your state.
It is not necessary to choose a pollster from your state. It is critical,
however, that your steering committee and staff feel comfortable working with
the pollster and that you are sure you'll have adequate access to your
pollster's time.
Writing Polling Questions Polling is an art and a science and most pollsters
will write the poll for you. However, most steering committees and campaign
managers have strong opinions and want to help design the polling instrument. A
subcommittee of your steering committee can come up with the questions and you
can work with your pollster on wordsmithing.
The questions you write for your poll depend on the questions you need answered
for your campaign. If you do not already know how familiar the public is with
your issue, you need to establish that base. For example, if your campaign is
about an issue pertaining to discrimination against lesbian and gay people, what
kind of research do you already have to suggest the public's attitudes about
discrimination? Are there previous votes on this issue? If you have no
research upon which to draw, you must start at the very beginning. If the issue
is discrimination, you may want to test similar words (i.e., bigotry, prejudice,
hate). You'll very likely find that some words are better for your cause than
others.
Uses of Polling Data The results are in from your benchmark poll. What do you
do with the information? Perhaps the polling data has yielded information with
which some members feel uncomfortable: you're 20 points behind and the public
believes gay people are a danger to their children. Now is the time for your
steering committee to redouble its commitment to running your campaign based on
research and not upon comfort levels or "gut feelings."
The polling data you've collected will always give you a picture of your
friendly and your persuadable audiences. These data help you plan your campaign
strategy and focus your resources. For example, if the data suggest your issue
is particularly weak with women under 35 with children, your media consultant
should craft advertising that speaks to that audience. You might run those ads
during daytime television and then do tracking polls to see if your advertising
is making a difference. If the data suggest you are faring poorly with older
Republican males, make it a priority to get public endorsements from older
Republican men, or decide that they will be a low priority for organizing.
Security and Confidentiality Your polling results are essential to the planning
of your campaign. So too could they be essential in the planning of your
opposition's campaign. It is important to keep your information confidential!
You probably just spent $20,000 or more to get these data. Why make a $20,000
donation to the opposition's campaign by leaking the results?
Your steering committee will be privy to the results of the poll. You need a
clear agreement on confidentiality ahead of time. Most campaigns agree that
under no circumstances may they release information from the poll to their
friends and colleagues. It may be helpful to everybody to prepare one or two
summarizing statements about the poll and its uses such as "This poll shows us
that campaign is definitely winnable if we get our message to the voters" or
"Our poll shows this race is too close for comfort and we will be putting
forward an all-out effort to win."
Security of the polling data is also a critical issue. Many campaigns agree to
have copies available for steering committee members and top staff to review,
but no copies are allowed to be taken out of the campaign office. The physical
security of your polling data is as critical an issue as the protection of your
donor list.
Some Words of Caution Polling data give you an in-depth picture of what a
statistically significant sample of the voting public thinks about a key issue
on the day they were interviewed. Things change. So do polling numbers. The
side that is 30 points down in January can still win in November if that side
understands what the polling numbers mean and if they run a savvy campaign. And
the side that is 20 points ahead in January can easily lose if they run a
campaign as though they can cruise along basking in the public's support. Run
your campaign as if you're dead even or just a little behind.

Also, be aware that controversial hot-button issues such as the proposals to

require discrimination against lesbians and gay men have a significant "lie
factor" or hidden "bigot vote." After consulting several pollsters, the "No on
9 Campaign" in Oregon decided to simply assign 10% of its vote to the opposition
to account for that hidden vote. In addition, toward the end of the campaign,
the bulk of all undecideds were assigned to the opposition. This came very
close to the final voting results.
Building a Map for the Future Many of the campaign issues progressives are
working on in the 1990s are breaking new ground. Learning is still ongoing on
how to poll on progressive issues and how to speak convincingly to the public.
As polling data are gathered to track these issues over time and across state
boundaries, a map is being built for the future.

How to Win: A Practical

Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Media Tools and Strategies

Telling Your Story To The Media

Pat Lewis National Jewish Democratic Council Washington, D.C.

Working with the media is tough, but ignoring it is tougher. It's also, in the
end, a losing strategy. Ease the way by planning ahead: Know what you want to
say, why you want to say it, who to say it to and how to phrase itand you're
practically there.
Introduction.
Next to asking for money, talking to reporters can be one of the
most difficulteven unnervingaspects of an organizer's work. But it's every bit
as important. Whether you're trying to shine the light on stealth candidates or
keep books on the shelves of your local library, the media can play a critical
role in how your story ends.
I. Starting out or First Things First
Before you can begin telling your story,
you have to know what it is. That means being able to talk easily and succinctly
about who you are, why you formed this organization, and what you hope to
accomplish. One way to make sure you can do this is to formulate a mission
statement. Even if it's seldom used, the process of writing it helps hammer out
these and other answers. Be able to answer these questions:
"Why are you doing this?"
"Who are you?"
"Why should anyone care about this issue?"
Next, think about why you want to tell this story. Do you want to influence
policy makers? Increase awareness among voters? Increase membership? These
questions may not be asked directly, but it's always a good idea to keep your
focus in mind when talking to the press.
II. Impress 'Em With Paper
Have your materials prepared before you approach the
press. Your general information piece should include: a standard oneor
twosentence paragraph explaining your organization, the names and affiliations
of the people involved in your organization, an address and working phone
number. That means a number that doesn't go unanswered and isn't busy 23 hours a
day.
Don't let a small budget hold you back. Your material doesn't have to be glossy
and expensive just neat, wellwritten and typofree.
III. Finding Those Reporters
Now you're ready to begin identifying the media in
your area. Start a list of daily and weekly newspapers, radio and television
stations, the Associated Press bureau that serves your area, and college papers
that cover offcampus news.
Monitor media coverage regularly to find out who is most likely to cover you. At
smaller outlets, particularly television and radio stations, reporters are more
likely to be general assignment, covering dozens of different stories every
week. This means it may take more time to develop a relationship with certain
journalists, and also that you have to be ready to go over background more than

once.
Make sure you have correct phone and fax numbers, and mailing addresses.
(Widespread fax technology has made the written release a relic, but you may
want to mail other kinds of information.)
Deadlines are critical information. Remember that not only do different outlets
have different deadlinesthe same outlet may have different deadlines depending
on the day of the week and the subject matter.
Finally, put together a list of alternative media sources. This includes talk
shows on radio and TV, and the op-ed pages of area newspapers. Again, assemble
the names and numbers for the people in charge.
IV. Setting the Stage
The media can be approached in a number of different ways:
Press release
Ideally, a one-page, double-spaced news announcement that talks
about an action taken, a position staked out, people appointed to positions,
suits filed. Releases can be used alone or in lieu of a press conference.
Press conference
While print reporters may be able to work from releases,
television needs visuals. That's not a criticismjust a statement of fact. Press
conferences allow you to use props to make a point as well. (Talking about
censorship surrounded by stacks of books that someone is trying to ban, for
example.) Of course, holding a conference is more complicated and risky than
sending out a release, too. You have to find a good location accessible to
reporters, at a time that makes it easy for them to meet their deadlines. And
you have to have a reason. A release that doesn't grab anyone's attention will
just get tossed in the trash. A news conference without news can actually
generate hostile attention.
Press advisory
This is a written announcement of a scheduled eventpress
conference, rally, speechsent out in advance. Although not a news release, it
should contain enough of a hook to get the media there.
Editorial boards
These scheduled meetings are on or offtherecord conversations
with a paper's editorial staff, taken to introduce an issue or organization,
scheduled at your or the paper's suggestion. They may result in editorials and
they may not. Reporters may or may not sit in. They are useful, but be careful
not to assume that discussions with editorial staff are the same as discussions
with reporters.
V. Talking to Reporters
Just as there are different ways to approach the media,
there are different reasons. Those break down into two main categories:
Proactive and reactive.
Proactive
This means taking the initiative. It can range from announcing the
formation of your organization to coming out in support of proposed legislation.
It means you are seeking out reporters, which means you have the task of
convincing them that something is newsworthy.
It helps to have a hook to sell your story. Is your event the first of its
kind? Is it in recognition of an anniversary? Does it tie into a national event?
Think about how reporters will phrase the part of their stories that explains
why they're writing it. (If you're not sure what that is, take some time reading
and listening to news reports. Pinpoint the reason why stories appear when they
do.)
Getting your story told on talk shows and in the op-ed pages is part of being
proactive. Don't wait for talk show producers to call you. Let them know you're
available and why. Don't wait for newspapers to call, either. If you have an
idea for an opinion piece, call the paper's editorial page and find out how to
submit an idea.
Reactive
This involves responding to actions or comments by opponents. Part of
your media work is intended to make sure reporters know you're there so you will
hear from them when your issue is the topic of a news story. But you don't
always have to wait for a call, either. For example, if you know that a local
antigay group is holding a news conference on Tuesday at 1 p.m., call the
reporters ahead of time to make sure they know you'll have a response. If you've
just settled in for the evening news and see something that warrants a

responsedon't wait until the next day. Call the paper and see who is working on
that story. Call the TV station and see if they're planning to rerun the story.
Tell them you have something to add.
VI. Conclusion
These suggestions will help you get started. Remember, there are
always people out there who have done it before and would be more than happy to
help. If you're not sure how to approach the media, call a national
organization's press office. Talk to someone locally who has spent a lot of time
with the media. The most important point to keep in mind: you have something
newsworthy to say. Say it.
Pointers from the Pros Media tips from three professionals.
Susan Bennett, producer for CNN's "Crossfire." Bennett says talk shows should be
an integral part of an organization's media plan. These are her tips on making
the most of this medium.
"Call ahead of time and let producers know you have someone they might find
interesting. Call in advancenot when news breaks."
"Know what different shows are looking for. Not all shows want the same thing.
'Equal Time' is different from 'Nightline' which is different from 'Crossfire.'"
"No one wants someone who is dull, who's slow. We look for someone who engages."
"Consider taking a publicspeaking class. Become more versatile at quick
analysis. Learn to articulate your viewpoint in a few short sentences."
Eric Alterman, author of "Sound and Fury," senior fellow, World Policy
Institute, Washington Correspondent, Mother Jones:
Alterman offers advice as a writer and as someone who has written extensively
about the media.
"Don't sound like a nut. The media thinks anyone with a cause is crazy. Be as
unemotional as possible."
"It's got to sound like news. The first question is 'what's new?"
"Look for a larger hook. Tie your news into something national."
"Never assume a reporter is telling the truth when he says he won't tell
anyone." Reporters using your off-the-record information may name you in a quote
directly above, he explained, virtually giving away your identity. In addition,
reporters may not report what you say, but may use it along with your identity
in conversations with other sources.
Doug Bloomfield, columnist and political analyst Bloomfield emphasizes the
importance of knowing reporters personally, working to develop a relationship
over time:
"The information highway is a twoway thoroughfare. A good reporter can also be a
good source. If you have a good relationship, they can serve as an earlywarning
system for you."
"Be sensitive to the personal interests and idiosyncracies of journalists most
important to you."
"Different reporters put different degrees of credibility on different sources.
Know how to take advantage of the special relationships that may exist between
some of your staff or board and key journalists."

How to Win: A Practical

Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Organize a Speak-Out

How to Organize a Community Speak-Out Project

Oregon Speak Out Project

Portland, Oregon

The Oregon Speak Out Project is a grassroots service organization designed to

educate people about the realities of gay, lesbian and bisexual people by
countering stereotypes and negative images in a non-confrontational style.
This article describes the basics of establishing a.speak-out project.
Goals and Philosophy. The Oregon Speak Out Project works to support efforts
to educate the public about the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual people by
training and supporting communitybased organizations, speakers, writers and
researchers.
Our philosophy is that everyone counts. We cannot afford to ignore anyone. We
are not waging war, but conducting an educational dialogue. We don't want to
win because we have the biggest guns, but because we will win people over to
our side with the truth.
We also believe that local voices matter most. Members of a community speaking
to other members can accomplish what no outsider can.
OSOP helps groups start speakers' bureaus, and offers concrete suggestions and
suggested guidelines for organizing community speaking projects. We also serve
as a continuing support service that works to keep local groups energized,
empowered, and most importantly, informed.
An effective community outreach program will reach business, professional and
religious organizations in suburban and outlying communities of urban areas.
It coordinates and develops speaking engagements. It includes monitoring local
media, issuing press releases, providing support for speakers and pursuing
civic support.
Finding Speaking Engagements. Speaking engagements are an essential element
in any educational program, allowing your group to get its message out. These
engagements, however, don't just come your way. An effective way to maximize
the number of speaking engagements for your group is to:
Identify fraternal, civic, religious, and secular organizations in the
community and develop a database.
Send introductory, informative letters that request the opportunity to speak
to the organization's board or membership.
Follow up to arrange to speak or to provide more information.
Keep a master calendar of speaking engagements and a record of the degree of
receptiveness of the organization.
You should compile a database of all the organizations contacted. This
database will become an invaluable instrument as you schedule your speaking
engagements. As items change, update the database. An inaccurate database
will lose you time and likely speaking engagements.
Speaking Out In Schools. Include educational outreach to high schools as part
of your speaking program. Look for opportunities to provide speakers and
educational materials that emphasize respect for diversity in our communities
and support of equal rights for all citizens.

It is important to bring the debate to students, many of whom have never given
much thought to equal rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Most
students are not of voting age, but it is important to begin the debate at
this level, since continued ignorance will need to be addressed in the future.
The most important element of speaking at a school is to be aware that there
may be significant intellectual and cultural differences between the speaker
and the audience. Never assume that students share the same value system with
the speaker, or that they understand themes such as constitutional rights,
civil rights, or even the Golden Rule. When speaking to students, it is
important to have a certain level of personalization of issues to effectively
communicate any point. Two speakers, preferably with different styles and
backgrounds, are best. Always have a message when speaking to students. The
students may be able to relate to a theme, and it is important to have it
developed prior to your engagement.
Media Outreach. No community outreach program would be complete without a
significant media component. The following are the ways we have worked with
the media to deliver our message.
Newspaper monitoring. Monitor national, regional, and local newspapers and
periodicals for articles or letters to the editor addressing gay/lesbian
issues. Train volunteers to write letters and articles about the real lives
and concerns of lesbian and gay people.
Coordinate responses. It is equally important to make your community aware,
both in advance and afterwards, of any positive public educational event.
Press releases announcing the event need to be sent to the media. Speakers
should be prepared to speak to local reporters or, if possible, editorial
boards.
Write letters and opinion pieces. Your local newspaper is a key educational
forum. A coordinated lettertotheeditor program can be extremely effective
in getting correct information and supportive themes to the community.
Letters need to be sent rebutting any erroneous arguments. Part of your
program needs to include submission of letters prior to the opposition's. By
taking this approach, you will see the tenor of the debate turn to your
control.
Letters-to-the-editor campaigns need to be coordinated with individuals in
locations around your state. Sample letters providing accurate information
can be provided on computer disk. These letters can then be revised and
personalized. Coordination with other individuals allows for a common theme
to appear regarding your issues. An effective letter will include:
Identification of the individual responding as a resident of the area
Concise, not terse, prose
Factual, not clinical, information and analysis
At least one positive theme.
Regional radio and cable television. Contact radio stations and cableaccess
television to offer local speakers for talk shows, callin shows, or other
forums on gay and lesbian concerns. In most areas, local subscribers must be
provided cable access, something that was used effectively in the counties
adjacent to Portland, Oregon. If there is cable access in your area, consider
providing the cable companies with a videotape of a public educational event,
speaking engagement, or other positive video for airing.
Talk shows: Your outreach program can also look for opportunities to
participate in radio debates and talk shows in the area. Local radio stations
will often have guests for comment or to participate in live debates.
Speakers should be prepared in much the same way as for speaking engagements.
In a state such as Oregon, it was relatively easy for OSOP to coordinate
monitoring the statewide media from a central location. This centralization
allows for a coordinated effort statewide. However, the responses should be
from local citizens.
For more information, please contact the OSOP Resource Center: 503-223-4992.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force

Effective Speaking

TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE SPEAKING

Oregon Speak Out Project

Portland, Oregon
This article includes tips on becoming a more effective speaker, particularly
on gay and lesbian issues.

Know Your Audience. Whether you will be speaking to a small, informal

audience (e.g., the grocery checker, your Mom, the neighbors, the bus driver
who overhears your "chatter"), or to a more formal, larger audience, perhaps
as an invited speaker (e.g. a debate, a talk to high schools students, a
speech to the Rotary Club), your effectiveness will depend on how well you
"connect" with your audience. And that connection will be much more effective
if you know your audience in advance.
1. If your audience is an individual or small, informal group, conjure up the
best image you can of who you will be addressing. Find out who they are, what
their lives are like, what their main concerns are about your issue, what
their best characteristics are, what gets in the way of their believing as you
do. Create a threedimensional picture of the people you'll be speaking to.
See them as goodhearted, wellmeaning people with some gaps in information
and experience. Gaps you have developed a realistic picture of. Gaps which
you, after acknowledging their good character, will try to fill.
2. If your audience is a group that you are a part of as a member of the
public (a City Council taking testimony, a school board debating curriculum),
or a group you have been invited to address (school students, the Rotary Club,
a debate or panel), your effectiveness will be proportionately enhanced by how
well you actually know the group and its context. Contact someone who might
know, or the person who arranged for you to speak, and discuss, in as much
detail as possible, the following:
Who is the group?
What does it do? What causes or activity does it embrace?
How many members does it have? Who are they?
Does the group have a position on this issue? What is it?
What are the group's main concerns about this issue?
What questions might the members ask, or want answered?
What is the most negative response that could be expected?
What is the format of the meeting? How many people will attend?
If you have more time to devote to this, do the following:
3. Contact a member of the group who is opposed to your views (get the name
from your contact person or someone else who might know). "I am ________,"
you will say, "and I will be speaking to your group on ___________. I got
your name from ___________ and wonder if you would be willing to help me in my
preparation. I am interested in what you, as a member, would want to get out
of attending my speech. What questions would you like answered if you were to
come hear me speak?
This is an excellent way to learn "from the horse's mouth" what the hard
questions will be. But the surprising benefit of this approach can be that
the opposition member takes some ownership in your speech, is curious about
the advice will be used, and encourages friends to attend.

Prepare. The best preparation is experience. The next best is hours and
hours of nostress time in which to work. The reality is that you often have
little (or no!) time, and must get ready under pressure. My strong advice is
that you should say "no" to the invitation if you can't do at least the
following:
1. Gather information and evidence to use to substantiate the things you will
claim in your presentation. You can do this by requesting material from all
available local, state, and national sources. READ the material. Put it in
an accessible format, such as a loose-leaf binder or index cards. MEMORIZE the
most salient information. The ability to quote authority and give citations
to promote your position or debunk your opponents' is a critical tool in
effective, persuasive speaking.
2. Write out a draft of your speech (or the answers to the questions you'll
be asked). Do not plan to read it. You'll use it as a model to work with.
If you are uncomfortable with writing as the vehicle for preparation, tape
yourself. As you gather and read your substantive material, write it (or tape
it) into your existing model. Revise, enhance, subtract. Your model will
continue to be organic. You may think you haven't time for this, but the
truth is you'll be doing it anyway in an unproductive way by worrying about
it. That time could be spent rolling around the speech, the answers, plugging
in new things you've learned, testing it out on your tongue or your computer.
Practice. This sounds so simple, but feels so strange. Yet it is the most
critical part of public speaking for the beginning or intermediate public
speaker. Fumbling, stumbling, and feeling defeated or foolish is truly one of
the worst things that can happen to us as public speakers, and it can always
be avoided by practice, practice, practice! You owe it to yourself, your
audience, and your cause, to do the following:
1. Say the speech out loud over and over again. Give the answers to
questions out loud over and over again. In the shower, in the car, to your
companion, with your family listening, at the mirror, into a tape recorder,
mumbling in your sleep. Do it in whole, or in part. Work on the one question
that trips you up, or on the opening or closing of the speech.
Once you have the substance down, practice delivery techniques over and over
and over. Try doing it angry, sad, reasonable, yelling. Try a variety. Do
it without pausing, pause after every main point. Do it very fast, then very
slow, then vary it. Vary the pitch of your voice high, then low, then
mixed. Wave your arms in front of a mirror, then stand stock still where did
it seem that the waving worked? Practice expressions smiling, being
earnest, jeering. Emphasize every work in one sentence. Make yourself pause
for four seconds after you've made a startling statement.
Now try making it sound like it's totally spontaneous never been practiced.
I will venture to guarantee that the success of the speech will increase
dramatically based on the number of times you have practiced it.
2. Have your speech and delivery critiqued by someone whose opinion you trust
and who you are certain will give you honest feedback. How do I look? How do
I sound? Does my argument persuade you? Am I being nice to you if you
disagree with me, but firm in my opinion? Where can I improve?
3. Finally, use your critiquer to help you practice other skills of public
speaking:
Bringing the subject back to your issue
Calming the hostile participant
Saying "I don't know," or "See me later about that"
Buying time ("Let me think" or "Let me see if I heard what you said")
Diversion("That's an interesting question. But the real issues is...")
Personalizing ("You know, when I...")
Deliver. Much of the skills of delivery will be honed during practice. Other
ways to improve delivery:
1. Tape your presentation. Listen/view it later and critique it.
2. If appropriate, ask that participants fill out evaluation forms and give
you suggestions for improvement.
3. Have the group, on the spot, engage in an evaluation of the presentation.
4. Bring friends to the presentation with the task of watching and critiquing
you.

Responding to Questions. One of the most difficult piece of any presentation

or conversation is answering people's questions. Some are asked to
intimidate, others to learn, still others to provoke. Regardless, you can
control the terms of the debate and avoid using misleading terms that are
created by misinformation campaigns. The following four steps can help avoid
confrontation and educate listeners.
1. Listen. What is the question about? What do they really want to know? Is
it intentionally inflammatory? Does it express a real conviction and concern?
If you believe that they don't really want to know anything, but are just
attacking you or showing you up, consider what part of their questions might
be considered reasonable by others in the audience.
2. Affirm. Sometimes it may be extremely hard, but find the kernel of truth
in the question and affirm it. This moves the situation into a dialogue. You
demonstrate that you have really listened, and care about this question. In
turn, the questioner will really listen to your response.
3. Respond. Offer the affirmation they are seeking in a short concise way.
If you use statistics, be prepared to cite your source.
4. Add information. It is very easy to respond to questions. Memorize the
facts, and what could go wrong? Actually, a lot. If all we do is respond to
questions and never take the opportunity to talk about what we want to talk
about, the issues are controlled by others. To maintain control and educate
effectively, use this last part to move away from the direct question and
offer new information that can educate and enlighten.
Example: Q: All these homosexuals just want to have sex with our children
and abuse them. This is pedophilia. That is disgusting and wrong. Shouldn't we
have laws to prohibit this unnatural behavior?
Listen: (I hear concerns about children and a misunderstanding that sexual
orientation is a behavior. The real question I believe is the concern about
children.)
Affirm: "I understand your concerns about protecting our children. Reasonable
people are concerned about the safety of our youth. We all are concerned about
the safety of our children and protecting them from sexual abuse."
Respond: "Many people are unaware that most sexual abuse is committed by
straight men against children in their families. In one study, more than 98%
of sexual crimes against children were done by straight men, many of them
members of the same families."
Add information: "Child sexual abuse needs to become a top priority of all
people . Laws already exist that protect children. These need to be enforced.
No single community can do this alone and rather than fighting one another, we
need to combine resources to adequately address this issue."
Additional Tips.
To create a sense of safety, establish similarities between yourself and the
audience: be aware of your appearance and dress, be personal, be positive and
assertive, but also open and willing to be vulnerable.
Assume that the audience shares your basic values, at least to the extent that
everybody want to be a good person and "do right". Assume they are motivated
by love and basic respect for democratic principles.
Share the pain you've experienced around the issues; own your own difficulties
in coming to understanding -- people tend to sympathize if they can see the
pain their actions cause.
Try to stay calm and softspoken, make eye-contact and smile.
Don't be angry at people --direct your anger at the system of homophobia, or
at the pain your loved ones have suffered, not at the people you are talking
to.
Don't make fun of anyone -- use humor only if you think the audience (and
those opposing you) will join in, and then do so very gently and with
kindness.
Don't guilt-trip -- help people understand that they can take responsibility
to end injustice without being "guilty" of wrong-doing or "sinning."
Points of Concern for Both Sides of A Debate.
Attention is on the extremists on each side; both sides feel the other is
engaged in distortion and exaggeration.
Most people on both sides acknowledge that the real difference of opinion is
over homosexuality; most people recognize that all reasonable people,

heterosexual or homosexual, condemn childhood sexual abuse by anyone.

Many people realize that they personally know friends, neighbors, colleagues
or family members who are lesbian or gay, and they are concerned about how the
outcome of political decisions will affect that person.
As parents, we want assurance that our children have the opportunity to learn
our values and are not unduly biased by school- and/or state-imposed values.
Both sides are (or should be) concerned about how the community will reconcile
after the debated referendum is put to a vote.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

The Science of Spin

The Science of Spin

Pat Lewis
National Jewish Democratic Council
Washington, D.C.
Spinning is the art of framing an issue in the way that you perceive it. It's
your message, your interpretation. The key to a successful campaign, spin
should be an automatic piece of anything you write or say.

I. What is it?
First, it is not something negative. Forget the sweeping criticism you've
heard about 'spin doctors.' Spinning isn't lyingit's interpreting and
defining. It's an integral part of all political work, something that needs to
be done whether you're writing a news release, testifying before the school
board or debating a caller on a radio talk show.
What is spinning? It is the process by which you frame the debate in your own
terms. It is how you define yourself and your opposition. It is your message.
II. Does it Work?
Yes. A number of political movements have had success in framing themselves
and presenting their message in language that determines the parameters of the
debate before it even begins. For example, antiabortion activists have been
insistent that they be referred to as 'prolife' groups. By staking out the
high ground, they played on the tendency in the media to assign two sides in
every story. If these people were prolife, than that made the other side
'proabortion.'
It took a while of concentrated message, but the choice community has reversed
the direction. The phrase 'a woman's right to choose' has become commonplace,
and the value of the word 'choice' has become apparent. Now, we see people who
favor using tax money for private schools referring to 'school choice.'
III. Making Your Message Stick
Start framing your issue from the beginning. It's virtually impossible to stop
and expect people to reexamine your issues and arguments midway through any
debate. That's why early message development is so important. So is an
accurate message. Remember, your message must ring true to work.
Once you've developed your message, use it consistently. This is the key to
getting it across. Work it into soundbites for the media. Use it in all your
communications, and work with other organizations in your network or coalition
to do the same.
IV. Content
Thematic consistency works the same way. Strive for a constant note in the
tone of your message.
Also, fashion a message that people will listen to. That means working on
succinct, tothepoint statements. Don't make sweeping generalizations or sound
an unbelievable or unpalatable alarm. Be positive; avoid attacks on your
opposition. Debate the message, not the messenger.
V. Playing Defense
As important as it is to concentrate on your message, you should also work to

prevent anyone else from doing it for you. It's easier said than done, but far
from impossible. For example, seize every opportunity to define the debate.
Don't answer every question or attack just because it's there. Restate the
question or the attack. There will be times you choose to ignore it
completely.
VI. Conclusion
The issues that make up the Radical Right's agenda present a problem for
public debate. Although they are personal, emotional topics, they are also
about much larger, public questions. The debate over protecting gay and
lesbian civil rights is also about continuing our country's move toward
providing fairness and protection for its citizens. Arguments about censorship
are about the right to have access to information. Keep these concepts in mind
as you take your message to the public. Keep educating people about the
underlying issues. But do it with perspective and humor. Nothing can drag a
debate down faster than a narrowly focused diet of deadly serious argument.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Religious Voices Speak Out

Using Religious Voices to Confront the Religious Right

Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, Rabbi Daniel Swartz and Aaron Bisno

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Washington, D.C.

Any successful campaign to confront the agenda of the Religious Right will
need the involvement of at least some segments of the local religious
community. This chapter briefly outlines why such involvement is critical and
discusses how to organize most effectively within the religious community.

WHY INVOLVE THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY?

1) The power of a religious response to religious claims:
The religious right often claims to have "God" on their side or at least to
represent the "religious" perspective. They accuse their opponents of being
hostile to religion. The simplest and most effective way to reveal the
falsehood of such claims is to have in your coalition active representatives
of religious communities who oppose the agenda of the religious right from a
religious viewpoint. Representatives of such viewpoints clearly illustrate
that your side also has moral and value-based arguments it can marshall.
Inclusion of such individuals or faith groups indicates clearly that religious
people believe the separation of church and state to be good for religion,
that religious people support gay and lesbian rights, and that religious
people in fact, most mainstream religious denominations support a woman's
right to choose for reasons rooted in their faith. With religious support for
your cause, you will have come one giant step closer to defeating the
religious right.
2) The resources of the religious community:
Religious communities are ready-made, "pre-organized" communities, with a
variety of resources, including: organized humanpower, fully equipped
buildings, public relations connections, and financial resources that
potentially can be put to your use. It should be noted, however, that
churches, synagogues and mosques or other religious organizations are
primarily religious, not political bodies; people do not join their particular
religious institution in order to support political activity. Nonetheless,
with this caveat, you will find religious institutions that will gladly join
you in your endeavor and may very well make their resources available to you.
3) If you don't, the Religious Right will:
The Religious Right uses religious organizations as its primary organizing
focus. You can be assured that if you do not reach out to the religious
community in your area, the Religious Right will. In particular, the
religious right is making a concerted effort to win the support of minority
churches. Unless you present yourself and your cause effectively to these
churches, they may be persuaded to ally themselves with the Religious Right.
Conversely, if these churches ally themselves with you, it will immediately
broaden the impact of your efforts.
HOW TO ORGANIZE WITHIN THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY
1) Work within existing institutional infrastructures:
Before approaching individual churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., you should

tap into already existing interfaith networks and denominational institutions.

Most communities have some sort (or several sorts) of interfaith clergy
councils. In small towns, these are volunteer-run groups, while in larger
cities they may have professional staff. In addition, areas with significant
Jewish populations usually will have a Board of Rabbis with representatives
from all the different movements within Judaism. Finally, most denominations
have some sort of regional structure, such as a diocese or presbytery. By
working through these types of structures, you will be able to reach larger
numbers of religious leaders and congregations with less effort. Ask for
permission to use a mailing list or to have an article included in a regional
newsletter; see if you can speak at a meeting to many members of the clergy at
once; ask one sympathetic staff member at the regional level to give you names
of clergypersons who also are likely to be sympathetic to your cause.
2) Clergy are the key to their congregations:
Once you have utilized regional structures to the fullest extent possible, you
can turn to individual congregations. To get a particular church, synagogue,
etc., on board your campaign, you will first need approval from the
clergyperson in charge. As you try to get such approval, keep two points in
mind. First, clergy respond best to other clergy. Once you have one
minister, rabbi, priest, etc. who strongly supports you, ask him or her to
help you with calls to other members of the clergy. Second, members of the
clergy are usually overworked. Make your presentation brief; show how he or
she can plug into your campaign with a minimal time commitment; have written
material available for the clergyperson to include in a sermon or use in a
congregational newsletter; ask for names of lay leaders in the congregation
who you can turn to for more extensive commitments.
3) Non-congregational institutions:
Don't forget potential allies in non-congregational institutions. The Jewish
community in particular has a variety of "non-religious" Jewish institutions
that may be effective allies, ranging from community relations councils to
local chapters of national groups such as the American Jewish Congress and the
American Jewish Committee. The Protestant and Catholic communities also take
part in private, voluntary organizations and/or ecumenical, lay movements such
as: the YWCA, the YMCA and Church Women United. These two should be sought
out. Additionally, do not overlook state or local chapters of interreligious,
political networks such as: Interfaith Impact for Peace and Justice and the
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
4) Choose your allies carefully:
Not all religious institutions are alike; they differ greatly both between and
within denominations in terms of political influence and attitudes. You will
need to make decisions such as: do I first approach congregations that are
likely to be sympathetic, or do I focus instead on those with the greatest
numbers and political resources? Once you have some members of clergy on
board, you can ask them for their evaluation of how likely it is that a
particular congregation might join with you and what resources they might
bring to your campaign.
5) Indicate how the religious institution might benefit:
Know how your campaign can benefit your allies even as they help your cause.
First of all, many members of the clergy see themselves as being called to
work for justice but they may not know exactly how to do such work. By
giving them a good cause and an effective organization to work with, you are
giving them a desirable opportunity. Second, their congregation may receive
positive recognition through your campaign, making its members feel more
excited about their participation in the congregation as a whole and perhaps
even attracting new members. Finally, your organization may help with
leadership development within the congregation.
6) Know how to respond to church/state and tax-exempt concerns:
Some members of the clergy or congregational leaders may be hesitant to get
involved in your activities because they are concerned about violating the
separation between Church and State. You should make it clear to them that
speaking out on issues is not a violation of the law interpreting the
constitutional separation of church and state, and that such efforts do not
jeopardize their tax exempt status. The law states that a congregation can
not spend a "substantial" portion of its budget on direct lobbying (visiting
congresspeople, letter writing, bulletin articles urging action on specific
legislation, etc.). Because the term "substantial" is ambiguous, the rule of
thumb is that no more than five percent of a congregation's budget may be used
for such activities. It is highly unlikely that a congregation would come
close to using five percent of its budget for such purposes, because most of
the lobbying and/or letter writing is done by individual members and not the
institution itself. Furthermore, there is no cap on the amount of money,
time, or resources a congregation and/or clergyperson may use to speak out on
issues, generally through articles, op-eds, sermons, public speeches,
educational forums, etc., so long as they do not address specific pieces of

legislation.
Note well, however, that congregations may not get involved in partisan
support for candidates and/or political parties without jeopardizing their
tax-exempt status, but they can get involved in such non-partisan activities
as sponsoring a voter registration drive or a multi-candidate debate.
7) Know what to ask for and of whom to ask it:
Even though members of the clergy are often overly busy, they will frequently
respond positively to invitations to speak at public rallies, press
conferences, etc. and they can often be powerful speakers. Ask the clergy
for opportunities to publicize your cause within their congregation, either
through a congregational newsletter or through an opportunity to speak at the
congregation. Ask them as well to put you in contact not only with other
members of the clergy, but also with the lay leadership of the congregation
most likely to be of assistance to you. These lay leaders may be able to help
with publicity, space for meetings, letters and phone calls to elected
officials, and turnout of large numbers of people for public gatherings.
8) Build long-term relationships:
For the involvement of the religious community to be most effective, you have
to develop long-term relationships and not merely approach religious leaders
for crisis intervention. This can be done structurally by inviting religious
leaders onto any formal board structures you develop. Equally important as
such formal recognition, however, is involving the religious community in the
early planning and strategy stages of your campaign; such involvement gives
them ownership of the issue. Furthermore, once involved in the planning, they
will be able to help you shape your campaign to use the resources of the
religious community most effectively.
(The authors owe a debt of gratitude to Kim Bobo of the Midwest Academy for
inspiration for sections of this article. For more in depth information on
organizing the religious community, we refer you to Organizing for Social
Change: A Manual for Activists in the 1990's, Working with Religious
Organizations, pp. 140ff.; Published by Seven Locks Press, Washington 1991.)

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Separation of Church and State

Bad History: What the Right Says About the Constitution

Facts to Help You Set the Record Straight

Rob Boston
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Silver Spring, Maryland

Far Right groups often make false claims about constitutional history in
an effort to "prove" that separation of church and state was not intended
by the nation's founders or that the United States was founded to be a
"Christian nation." This article refutes these claims and others made by
the Far Right.
Far Right groups frequently argue that separation of church and state is a
myth or that the concept was not intended by the nation's founders.
Several different Far Right groups spread this view, including Pat
Robertson's Christian Coalition, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, The
Rutherford Institute and TV preacher D. James Kennedy.
Much misinformation about the history behind separation of church and
state may be traced to David Barton, a Texas-based propagandist who
attacks separation of church and state in books and videos. Barton's
materials contain numerous errors, distortions and half truths. His book
The Myth of Separation, although heavily footnoted, is riddled with
factual errors. Nevertheless, Barton's revisionist history is appearing
with increasing frequency in Far Right circles and is leaching into the
secular media by right-wing activists who write letters to the editor and
op-ed columns regurgitating Barton's bad history.
It is important, therefore, that pro-separation activists learn to respond
to some of the Far Right's common distortions about separation of church
and state. The following list of myths and facts was prepared by
Americans United for Separation of Church and State with help from the
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. It is by no means exhaustive
but touches on some of the Far Right's most common claims. For help in
responding to specific Far Right assertions not covered here, please feel
free to contact the author.
MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution. It
is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not
appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't
there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to
the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, the-president Thomas Jefferson
declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected
a "wall of separation between church and state," echoing religious freedom
advocate Roger Williams who a century earlier alluded to the "hedge or
wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of
the world."
James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution and author
of the First Amendment, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the
industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the
people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the

church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s),

Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and
government in the Constitution of the United States."
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was
inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to
verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American
people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a
constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the
Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that
'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is
not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms,
including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would
seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
democratic principles."
MYTH: Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was a mere
courtesy and should not be regarded as important. Far Right activists
have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation"
response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily
written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a
glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.
Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major
pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson
had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told
Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and
principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among
their political tenets."
MYTH: The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because they were worried
that a national religion was about to be established. Not true. The
Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because they were tired of being
treated like second-class citizens in Connecticut and being forced to pay
church taxes. The Baptists knew of Jefferson's views in favor of
religious freedom for all and wrote to tell him that they hoped his views
would be adopted throughout the country.
MYTH: Thomas Jefferson later said his "wall of separation" was meant to be
one-directional and designed to keep "Christian principles" in government.
This statement is a complete fabrication and appears nowhere in
Jefferson's writings; he never said it. Jefferson's writings indicate
beyond a doubt that he believed separation would protect both church and
state. If anything, most scholars believe Jefferson was more concerned
about the church harming the state than the other way around.
MYTH: The United States was founded as a Christian nation. Most of the
first Europeans to arrive on our shores were religious dissenters who
sought religous freedom, and many believed they were establishing some
type of Christian utopia. But many supported religious liberty only for
themselves, and some of the early colonies were theocracies where only
those who worshipped according to state orthodoxy were welcome. All but
four colonies had some form of an established church.
Following the American Revolution, political leaders began to construct
the new U.S. government. Although a minority clung to European notions of
church- state union, a general consensus emerged that the new country
should steer clear of officially established religion. States with
government-supported religions also began moving toward separation.
Massachusetts, the last state to maintain an official religion,
disestablished its state church in 1833.
During the Constitutional Convention, a minority faction favored some
recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, but their views were
overruled. Many framers had seen the dangers of church-state union in
Europe and in the colonies; they wanted no part of such a system for the
federal government. Thus, the Constitution does not mention God, Jesus
Christ or Christianity. In fact, the only reference to religion is in
Article VI, where the founders provided that there could be no religious
test for public office.
MYTH: The Supreme Court has declared that the United States is a Christian
nation. In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church v. United States
decision Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation."
Brewer's statement occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that
reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement
that sets legally binding precedent. From the context of the quote, it is

clear that Brewer only intended to acknowledge that Christianity has

always been a dominant force in American life.
Brewer clarified his views in a book he published on the "Christian
nation" concept in 1905. In the volume, Brewer argues that the United
States is "Christian" only in the sense that many of its traditions are
rooted in Christianity and rejects the notion that the nation's laws
should be based on Christianity.
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church. If all the framers wanted to do
was ban a national church, they had plenty of opportunities to state
exactly that in the First Amendment. In fact, an early draft of the First
Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be
established...." This draft was rejected as too weak. The historical
record shows clearly that the framers wanted to ban "multiple
establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds or
supports many religions on an equal basis.
Far Right groups are aggressively spreading myths like this and deceiving
many well-meaning people with their anti-church and state separation
propaganda. Activists who support the separation principle must respond
promptly to these myths every time they appear.
NOTE: This article is a condensed version of a piece that originally
appeared in Church & State, March 1992, Vol. 45, No. 3.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Theology v. Intolerance

Theological Arguments Against Intolerance

Dr. W. Kenneth Williams, Scholar-in-Residence

Baptist Joint Committee
Washington, D.C.

The concept of civic tolerance is grounded in theological conviction as much

as in constitutional principles. God has created human beings as free moral
agents to respond as they see fit. We must not violate the rights of others
to respond to God freely and without coercion.

The notion of religious liberty is founded upon the primary theological

precept that God created humanity in God's own image. The image of God,
however poetic or prosaic it comes to be expressed in our various religious
forms, has everything to do with the human ability to choose. As rational
beings, humans are separated from the rest of creation by the gift of
discernment. Human beings are free of any divine programming so that they
might, of their own choice, accept the invitation to partnership with God.
God wants voluntary worshipers, not automatons or slaves.
It is this principle against which every effort towards religious conformity
must be measured. Attempts to coerce others to comply with religious values
with which they do not freely agree denigrates the principle of freedom. This
is particularly true when government is solicited to endorse and promote
specific religious views.
Some believe that the Christian faith should be favored both in government and
in citizenship. They believe that the United States was founded as a
Christian nation and should be maintained with that religious identity. They
would show tolerance for the presence and practices of other faiths, but
Christianity would be the preferred faith.
Two presumptions come together to make such an elitist claim possible. One is
the belief that the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ cancels any
possible - even partial - truth in other religious expressions. The other is
a reduction of democracy to simple majority rule. The government should
reflect the religious sensibilities of the majority and require a Christian
conversion for aspirants to political office. The majority would be more free
than the minority. Full citizenship would be denied a large segment of the
population simply because of their chosen and claimed religious beliefs.
The inconsistency of this thinking with the notion of God-given freedom of
choice and the integrity of personal response to God is obvious. It is
equally inconsistent with the history of the United States and the Bill of
Rights.
Many of the early exponents of religious liberty in the emerging republic were
people of faith. They understood the primacy of free choice in religious
practice. For the most part they were persons who had been persecuted as
religious minorities in Europe and in new world colonies with established
churches. They knew personally the penalties to be paid for the expression of
conscience.
With the coercive power of the state at the disposal of established churches,
the choice for minorities was to go along or flee. The record shows that the
individual freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights came out of intense

lobbying from those who paid the price for daring to claim conscience as a
part of their religious practice.
To claim the right of conscience for themselves, that same right had to be
guaranteed for all people. Only in this kind of society could such a
guarantee of conscience be recognized.
How could those who had come out of deeply evangelical roots who were
absolutely certain of the truth of the claims of their faith and the authority
of Christian scriptures have such tolerance for the religions of other
cultures, as well as for those who rejected religion entirely? The answer
lies, at least partially, in their understanding of revelation. These early
proponents of religious liberty came to understand revelation as progressive.*
Rather than believe that God had revealed all truth at once, to be observed as
the final authority for all generations, they believed that the future might
be open to further divine revelation. This made possible a degree of humility
that tempered the exclusivism that some faiths might otherwise hold as
absolute over others.
In their passion for freedom, and with their notion of divine revelation yet
to come, the builders of the foundation of America proposed and fought for a
society in which religion would stand on its own merits, free of state
sponsorship or control. God's ultimate reality supersedes any earthly
authority. So it is that in government's eyes, the religious convictions of
the smallest sect would be on equal footing with those embraced by the
greatest majority. With tolerance for all and preference for none, the
religions of all people could be practiced freely.
The Religious Right is wrong to claim a favored place for Christianity in
American society and governance. They are wrong both constitutionally and
theologically. The Bill of Rights cannot be erased by the will of the
majority. History cannot be rewritten to defend the claim that America was
established as a "Christian nation." God's creation of humanity as free and
capable of choice is a theological 'first principle.' In political society
the corollary is freedom of conscience. To abridge the first denies the
intention of God. To abridge the second is to replace liberty with tyranny.
*. See Williams E. Estep, Revolution Within the Revolution: The First
Amendment in Historical Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1990).

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Public Aid to Parochial Schools

Public Aid to Parochial Schools

J. Brent Walker, General Counsel

Baptist Joint Committee
Washington, D.C.
Public aid to parochial schools is constitutionally suspect, bad public
policy, and disruptive of the autonomy of religious organizations. Schemes to
provide such aid are not improved by couching them in the attractive rubric of
"parental choice". Inevitably it is the private schools, not the parents, who
exercise the choice.

Should tax dollars be spent for religious education? Is aid to parochial

schools desirable or even constitutional? Does aid open the door for
government regulation of parochial schools? The answer to these questions is
'no, no and yes.'
Nevertheless, there are those who would like to see parochial schools receive
public funding. Some simply want to have their children's religious education
paid for by someone else. Others advocate such programs out of a belief that
competition will improve the public school system. Still others, with less
noble motives, see this as an opportunity to destroy the public school system
and "privatize" public education. Most recently these schemes have been
couched in the deceptively attractive rhetoric of "parental choice". Although
the freedom to choose is a good thing, when it becomes a vehicle for funding
parochial schools it is constitutionally suspect, bad public policy and
disruptive of the autonomy of religious organizations.
Constitutionality. The Supreme Court has time and time again ruled that aid to
parochial schools at the elementary and secondary levels violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While some non-financial aid has
been upheld, these exceptional cases have involved benefits conferred directly
on the students and available to all regardless of whether they attend public
or private schools. Decisions prohibiting aid to parochial schools are
grounded in the fact that such schools are "pervasively sectarian"
institutions. That is, every aspect of parochial education at the elementary
and secondary levels includes religious training and indoctrination of some
kind or another. It is, thus, impossible to isolate and fund secular
activities at parochial schools. These constitutional infirmities cannot be
cured by relabeling the program "choice" or by issuing parents vouchers to
"spend" at parochial schools. Significant tax dollars, in any case, will
eventually be paid directly to the parochial schools.
Fairness. Common fairness requires that government not tax people to support
teaching of religious beliefs with which they disagree. All parents have the
right to choose to send their children to parochial schools. But they don't
have the right to choose other taxpayers to help them do it. On the other
hand, it is not unfair to require all citizens to support the public school
system. Public schools benefit all citizens without regard to whether they
actually use them. Parents who send their children to parochial schools are no
more entitled to tax relief or a voucher than the person who chooses not use
the public library or swim in the public swimming pool. Americans simply do
not have a cafeteria-style system of public services where people support only
the programs they like.
Taxation without Representation/Double Taxation. Those who presently pay
tuition for parochial education are not subject to "double taxation" as many

claim. Parochial school tuition is not a "tax." It is an expense some parents

voluntarily have undertaken to pay for religious education. If anything, it is
choice plans themselves that impose double taxation: taxes for the public
schools and more taxes to pay for the dollars channeled to parochial schools.
Competition will not improve public education. Putting public schools in
competition with private schools will not improve the public school system.
Public and private schools live by different rules. The public school must
take every student regardless of intelligence, handicap or socio-economic
status. Private and parochial schools are able to screen students and pick and
choose among the best and brightest. Because of these and other differences,
public and private schools simply do not compete on a level playing field.
Trying to reform the public schools by funding parochial schools is like
trying to improve the public water supply by investing in Perrier, or
attempting to upgrade the public library by assisting persons in stocking
their own private studies.
Bi-partisan opposition. Neither party, Democratic or Republican, should find
aid to parochial schools appealing. No true Republican would endorse another
expensive entitlement program that opens the door for governmental regulation
of religious institutions and cuts the cord of fiscal accountability for
public expenditures. No true Democrat would choose to widen the gap between
the haves and have-nots. Even the most generous of voucher plans will not
allow the poorest of our children to afford most private school tuition. For
them "choice" is a cruel joke. It is simply "welfare for the already well
off."
Autonomy in Governmental Regulation. Aid to parochial schools opens the door
for government regulation of religious institutions and jeopardizes their
autonomy. Government aid always drags behind it the strings of government
regulation. Religious organizations must continue to be free from government
regulation in order to teach according to its religious beliefs. The cost of
this freedom is the churches' refusal to accept offers of public assistance.
Public Opinion. A majority of people in this country are opposed to private
school aid. Over the last three decades, 19 referenda have been defeated in 18
states and the District of Columbia. Only one has passed. Most people do not
want, nor see a need for, aid of this sort.
Notable Quotes
Justice Hugo Black - "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called,
or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
Thomas Jefferson - ". . . to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and
tyrannical."

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

School Board Watchdogs

Don't Let Them Out of Your Sight for a Second

Kit-Bacon Gressitt
The Clearinghouse of San Diego County
San Diego, California

This article describes the hows and whys of developing and maintaining an
effective regional school board watchdog system

Did you really think, even for a minute, everything would be okay with someone
else in charge? Casting your vote is not the last thing on your list of civic
chores; it's the first. Once folks are elected, they bear watching, or
they'll wander out into political traffic.
In San Diego County, California, the need to watchdog elected representatives
became critical in 1990 when a slew of right-wing radical candidates washed
into office like a rogue wave. In the aftermath, an eclectic coalition of
grassroots organizations, The Clearinghouse, coalesced around the goal of
developing a strategic response to these political newcomers. The intent :
prevent a second migration. The article "There is No Rain Without Thunder"
describes the creation of the coalition and its comprehensive voter guide.
The second part of this group's efforts was the development of a county-wide
school board watchdog system.
The purpose of the system is two-fold: it complements the research necessary
to compile an accurate voter guide; and it facilitates an immediate call to
action when school board agenda items so demand. When successfully
established, a watchdog system allows activists throughout a county, or in an
individual school district, to be alerted to a critical discussion or decision
planned by a school board. This, in turn, allows mainstream activists to be
directly involved in the process and effect its outcome. Like it or not -and despite the law -- guests are not always welcomed at public meetings with
open arms .
Love Your Volunteers
Volunteers are the key ingredient to a watchdog system. The more
organizations in your coalition, the more volunteers you'll have available..
Create a data base of watchdog volunteers, their school districts, and
schedules and locations of their meetings. Always have more than one
volunteer to cover each district, particularly those that meet weekly, so
volunteers can trade off. You'll need a form for volunteers to report on
meetings, a method for reporting, and a list of issues to watch (see the
sample watchdog guidelines at the end of this article).
Your coalition must decide which issues you want to track. Be sure to alert
volunteers to the myriad of euphemisms used to bury a polemic in an agenda.
It is not uncommon to find the most sizzling of issues disguised in brown
paper language.
Watchdog volunteers should also be alert to speakers appearing at school board
meetings. They often reveal new volunteers, or potential right-wing
candidates. Encourage watchdoggers to take down names in either category and
send them on to your coalition's researchers. The watchdoggers are in a good

position to be charged with clipping articles about the school board they
watch. These, too, should go to your researchers.
One Ringy-Dingy
A well organized phone tree of activists is one of the most powerful tools of
a grassroots organization. In a watchdog system, it's your life line. The
phone tree should be activated when an agenda item demands public attendance
at a school board meeting, when letters should be written to a board or
newspapers, or whenever you need a mass intervention to a pending board
action. Often you'll have to move swiftly to effect a decision. Having a
phone tree of volunteers who you know will take immediate action will make
your coalition the most effective advocacy force in town.
Watchdoggers should know how and by whom decisions are made to activate the
phone tree. Their first-hand knowledge of board members and their agendas
will be the primary factors in the decisions, so it's important that they
understand the criteria for using the tree.
Try testing the phone tree once before you need it -- to iron out the
glitches. Ideally, the coalition list will comprise the first few branches of
the tree, and each member organization will then implement its own tree as it
sees fit.
A watchdog system needs lots of nurturing. Create occasional opportunities
for volunteers to gather and stroke each other. It can be awfully lonely out
there in sometimes hostile territory. If you need a nudge, feel free to call
The Clearinghouse at (619) 728-4956.

ClearingHouse School Board Watchdog Guidelines

PURPOSE
The purpose of watchdogging school boards is to allow a community's mainstream
to be alerted to the influence of right wing radicals in our school systems,
so that the majority's moderate, more inclusive values may be promoted and
protected from extremism. Identifying problems as they originate -- and
potential community leaders who can respond effectively to them -- will help
guard against erosion of democratic principles at the local level.

METHODS
Volunteers will be identified in each school district. They will be oriented
to the purpose and process of watchdogging, and will collectively perform the
following tasks:
add name(s) to agenda mailing list
review agendas for hot issues (see list below)
attend board meetings regularly
track progress of agenda items through process
alert the phone tree when necessary
identify potential candidates, activists, and extremists
clip letters to the editor and articles pertaining to the local district and
copy to central file

HOT ISSUES TO WATCH

1. any religious observance at any school district function
2. school-based clinics
3. confidential access to off-campus services, social services referral lists
4. gender equity:
budget items that distinguish between genders
consideration of gender in access to programs such as sports, honors programs,
awards, etc.
5. sexual harassment
6. religious curriculum materials, dogma, indoctrination, or propoganda
pay particular attention to science and humanities curricula
7. review of curriculum materials, literature, library books, etc., with an
eye to censorship
8. sex education, family life curricula, values-based education, morals

education
9. parental permission for anything
10 . policies for guest speakers, assemblies, etc.
11. school vouchers
12. non-education related issues on board agenda
13. board micromanagement of school affairs; particularly look at legal
services
14. discrimination toward students or staff or public based on anything:
gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, citizenship, marital status,
religion, etc.
15. appointment to committees
16. self-esteem programs
17. any social services programs, particularly for low-income or otherwise
disadvantaged children (breakfast-lunch programs, etc.)
18. use of district facilities for religious activities
19. bi-lingual education
20. home schooling
21. sectarian requirements for district employees

REPORTING
1.Upon receipt of a board meeting agenda, volunteers will review scheduled
items for "hot issues." If there are any hot issues on the agenda, for either
information or action, contact one of the action coordinators listed below, to
determine if we need to prepare a response to the agenda item prior to the
meeting.
1. 2. 3.
Continue calling the action coordinators until you make personal contact
with one of them. This is critical, because, if we need to implement the
phone tree to get people out to a meeting, we need adequate advance notice.
2.If there are no hot issues on the agenda, or if an action coordinator
determines with you that we need not respond to any of them prior to the
meeting, simply attend the meeting and indicate on the report form any
pertinent board actions.
3.Complete a report form for each board meeting. Make note of any hot issues
on the agenda, any action that is taken by the board on those issues, any hot
issues that will appear on future agendas, and the names and affiliations of
any noteworthy speakers from the public. If a speaker seems inclined in our
direction, try to obtain his or her phone number.
4.If an issue arises at a board meeting that you believe may require some
response from the coalition, call the action coordinators immediately so we
can kick into gear if necessary.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Case Study-San Diego

The San Diego Model: A Community Battles the Religious Right

Matthew Freeman
People For the American Way
Washington, D.C.

This article discusses 1992 efforts by the San Diego-based Community for
Responsible Education to combat a Religious Right attempt to take over local
school boards. The group used a three-prong strategy: organizing mainstream
activists and organizations, raising voter awareness of Religious Right
efforts, and denying the Religious Right its presumed base the religious
community by organizing local mainstream clergy to oppose the takeover
effort.

The following is excerpted from "The San Diego Model: A Community Battles the
Religious Right," published by People For the American Way. The booklet seeks
to tell the story of one community's courageous battle to defeat an attempt by
Religious Right activists to seize control of local school boards. It is the
product of extensive research, including interviews with most, if not all, of
the significant players in the political mainstream's campaign. The booklet
highlights the work of three San Diego area mainstream organizations the
Community for Responsible Education, the Mainstream Voters Project and the
Community Coalition Network, each of which played a vital role in the 1992
elections. Solely for reasons of space, this excerpt focuses on just one of
these groups, the Community for Responsible Education.
Setting the Stage
In 1990, San Diego, California became a testing ground for a new Religious
Right tactic, the stealth campaign. That year, leaders of the Christian
Coalition joined forces with a number of other Religious Right groups and
individuals to field and then work to elect a slate of like-minded candidates.
Among the offices for which these candidates ran were a handful of state
legislative seats, and a host of positions on hospital planning boards, city
councils, water districts, and, most significantly, school boards.
Altogether, these forces fielded some 90 candidates in 1990, nearly two-thirds
of whom were ultimately elected. Apart from ideology, what distinguished
these candidates from all others was their method of campaigning. While most
candidates seek opportunities to meet the voters, these candidates rarely
ventured beyond the safety of their church communities. They came, in fact,
to be referred to as "stealth candidates," and one longtime school board
member would say of an elected slate member, "Nobody laid eyes on her till the
day she was sworn in."1
The movement's successes in 1990 put it within striking distance of a still
more significant victory in 1992: in a number of school districts throughout
the county, Religious Right forces, with at least one board seat already
safely in their control, were poised to seize voting control of the board with
just modest gains in 1992's elections.
With control of school boards would come virtual carte blanche for the
Religious Right to enact its extreme agenda for the schools, which often
includes censoring selected novels and textbooks, teaching Creationism
alongside evolution in biology classrooms, gutting sex education programs, and

ending school breakfast programs and daycare, on the grounds that such
programs undercut the family.
Because of the efforts of a number of San Diego residents concerned about the
Religious Right's efforts, the movement's drive for control was largely
although not completely defeated. This case study that follows seeks to
tell the story of one part of that effort, the work of the Community for
Responsible Education.
Mobilizing to Defeat the Religious Right
Almost immediately after the 1990 elections, awareness of and opposition to
the Religious Right's efforts in San Diego began to emerge. Mindful that the
movement would seek to continue in 1992 the takeover effort it launched in
1990, local citizens moved to fight back. In the process, several new
organizations were formed, and several existing ones added the issue to their
own agendas. Though the groups did not, by and large, work together as a
formal coalition, their combined efforts turned the tide in 1992. Without
question, these mainstream efforts were the difference between the 1990 and
1992 experiences.
The first organization established to do battle with the Religious Right was
the Community for Responsible Education (CRE). Founded in January, 1991 by
former La Mesa-Spring Valley board member Carroll Albright in the wake of her
defeat by a Religious Right slate-member, CRE organized as a political action
group. Albright was later joined as co-chair by Ken Blalack, a local parent,
management consultant and self-described "Goldwater conservative." Although
Albright and Blalack would come to be personally active in a number of school
district races in the eastern part of the county, CRE focused its activities
on the La Mesa-Spring Valley school district, where it felt the presence of
1990 slate-members Don Smith (San Diego Christian Coalition co-chair) and
Cheryl Jones personified the Religious Right takeover threat in a way that
lent itself to county-wide concern.
CRE's principal contributions to the battle were two-fold. First, the group
sought to take on the Religious Right in a direct and hard-hitting way, to
some degree sparing individual candidates that largely negative task. CRE,
for example, worked to force 1990 slate members Smith and Jones as well as
their 1992 counterparts to answer for the broader record of the Religious
Right, thereby putting their slate on the political defensive.
Second, by the time 1992 election campaigns were in high gear, members of CRE
followed the organization's lead in developing campaigns for individual
candidates that reflected the broader values and no-nonsense tactics of the
group. These campaigns were independent of CRE, but both their approach and
the remarkable degree of organization were plainly in tune with CRE's efforts.
Early on, CRE mapped out a three-part approach to the 1992 elections:
organize the mainstream opposition
raise voter awareness to the Religious Right threat
cut off the Religious Right from its political base the religious community.
Organizing the Mainstream
In accomplishing its first objective, CRE immediately went about the business
of establishing its credentials as a nonpartisan organization independent of
special interests. It was important, said CRE's Blalack, "that we not be
perceived as a stalking horse for some partisan political agenda." The
group's mission, therefore, was to work to ensure that a "school board
majority would not fall to any narrow interest group."2
Beginning in 1991, the group began monitoring school board meetings to be
certain that Smith and Jones would not be able to escape community scrutiny
while serving on the school board, as they had while running for office.
While the three-member moderate majority on the school board sought
opportunities to force Smith and Jones to state their extremist views
publicly, CRE representatives dutifully documented the record. By the summer
of 1992, the two had provided CRE with more than enough examples to build a
case against electing a third slate member to join them.
At roughly the same time, CRE endorsed a series of candidates from among the
existing 1992 field in La Mesa-Spring Valley. These candidates would later
run their campaigns in a coordinated fashion, appearing together at forums,
printing signs and other campaign literature jointly.
CRE's candidate-selection process coincided with similar endorsement decisions
by the two major education unions in the district. Although the three groups
made independent judgments, the deliberations of each group appear to have
been informed by one another. In the end, all three endorsed the same set of
three candidates from among a double-digit field. Blalack and Albright

described the various organizations' ability to arrive at a single slate as

important to the mainstream candidates' overall margin of victory.3
Raising Voter Awareness
CRE was able to help all the candidates by laying groundwork for their efforts
with a concerted voter awareness initiative that sought to portray the extent
of the Religious Right threat.
That involved several distinct initiatives. First was a public relations
effort that included a steady stream of press releases, letters to the editor,
op-eds, opinion pieces, and media appearances. Next was participation by
slate candidates in a series of candidate forums sponsored by a diverse group
of organizations. By the reckoning of one CRE-slate candidate, "the forums
didn't really change anybody's mind,"4 but they did generate a considerable
amount of media attention, feeding the voter awareness effort still further.
Spurred by the Religious Right controversy, hundreds of local citizens turned
out for forums, in sharp contrast to sparse attendance in previous years.
With the Religious Right's efforts exposed, the candidates were able to set
about the business of framing the alternative. Toward that end, for example,
La Mesa resident Ellen Yaffa resigned from CRE to take charge of the La MesaSpring Valley moderate slates' efforts. She and the candidates were able to
fashion a remarkably efficient series of voter-awareness efforts that included
many of the traditional hallmarks of precinct-level grassroots campaigning:
lawn signs, door-knocking by candidates, phone banking, T-shirts, and enormous
mailings. This broad outreach effort relied substantially on personal
contacts between candidates and voters, and between neighbors. In its attempt
to reach out to citizens in La Mesa-Spring Valley, the campaign conducted an
effort that displayed extraordinary energy and thoroughness.5
Denying the Religious Right Its Base
The third prong of CRE's effort was a classic stratagem of political
campaigning: work to deny the opposition its political base. Commonly, that
effort involves conservatives seeking to cut into progressives' core voter
groups, or vice-versa. In this case, it involved an effort by CRE to organize
San Diego's mainstream religious community to condemn the blatant politicking
of their fellow religious leaders, or at minimum to disavow it.
This effort was spearheaded by Blalack himself, who carefully tapped into a
network of religious leaders in the community through an exhaustive series of
one-on-one meetings, speeches to congregations, and efforts to counteract
anticipated Religious Right leafletting at churches. In all, some 100
ministers joined the effort in some capacity. By working with individual
leaders as well as ministerial associations, CRE was able to blunt the
misperception that the Religious Right spoke for religious men and women.
Albright and Blalack have subsequently formed the Organization of Mainstream
Activists. For more information on OMA's work, call Ken Blalack at 619-6981334.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Creationism

Creationism

Eugenie C. Scott
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
Berkeley, California.

Creationism is a growing threat to America's public schools. All over the

country, Religious Right groups are working to water down the teaching of
evolution and promote unscientific ideas of origins. Unless creationists are
combatted effectively at the grassroots, the nation's schoolchildren will not
receive the good science education they deserve.

The teacher from Florida had a sense of urgency in his voice. A group of
state legislators had proposed a resolution that would encourage school
districts to include creation "science" in their curricula. The measure looked
like it would be appended to a bill promoting prayer in schoola shoo-in, in
the teacher's opinion. What could he do?
Earlier that month a parent had called from Colorado, upset because the
teachers in her son's high school had decided not to teach evolution "because
it went against religion." Did I have any suggestions for what she could do to
see that her kid got a decent education?
From Vermont came the call from another teacher, worried because her school
board had passed a resolution directing teachers that, "Whenever origin of
life is presented at Blue Mountain Union School that creation be presented as
a viable theory on an equal status with the various theories of evolution."
What's going on? Creationism in public schools in 1994? Wasn't all this
settled with the Scopes trial in 1924? Certainly, it must have been settled
with the Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard decision in 1987, striking down a
Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism whenever evolution was
taught. Wasn't it?
No, it was not. And, yes, evolution is a controversial issue in 1994, right up
there with sex education, AIDS education, and supposedly "satanic" elementary
school reading texts. Evolution is taught less frequently in 1994 than in 1984
because of parental pressure on teachers, occasionally because of official or
unofficial policy, and most frequently because teachers anticipate "problems"
from the community.
The National Center for Science Education is a clearing-house for information
about the creation/evolution controversy. I get calls like those mentioned
above every week. It is my job to try to help people keep evolution in the
curriculum and keep creation science out. I do this by sending information on
the scientific, legal and religious issues involved in this controversy, and
by galvanizing grassroots opposition to those who attack the integrity of
science.
"Scientific" creationism was born when the Supreme Court declared in 1968's
Epperson v. Arkansas that it was unconstitutional to ban the teaching of
evolution. The notion developed that by calling biblical literalism "science,"
it might validly have a place in the public schools. Creation "science" was
declared religious advocacy in Edwards v. Aguillard, but this has not

noticeably slowed down the movement.

In response to such legal decisions, creationism has evolved by avoiding the
word "creationism." A current euphemism is "intelligent design theory,"
promoted in a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People. It comes as no
surprise to someone familiar with the arguments of the now-discredited
"scientific" creationists that "intelligent design" and "abrupt appearance"
proofs are identical with those of "scientific" creationism.
The most sophisticated anti-evolutionists have shifted to arguing for a
teacher's "academic freedom" to teach "arguments against evolution," which
upon analysis prove to be (surprise!) identical to the positions held by the
now legally discredited "scientific" creationists. In Vista, Calif., a
Religious Right-dominated school board attempted to pass a resolution calling
not for creation science, but for teachers to teach "weaknesses that
substantially challenge theories in evolution."
It is a tactically excellent argument. The Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment protects us against proselytizing in the public schools; it does not
protect us against bad science.
To the scientific community, "evidence against evolution" and in fact, the
entire anti-evolution movement, is incomprehensible. Evolution is the
foundation of biology and geology, and of primary importance to many other
sciences. The famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said it best: "Nothing
in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Biology without
evolution, he observed, is "a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting
or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
In the world of science, arguments occur over how evolution occurred, or how
fast, or what creature is descended from what. Whether evolution occurs is
just not an issue at the university level. Noteworthy is the fact that in
every prominent university or college in the country, including Brigham Young,
Notre Dame, Southern Methodist, and Baylor, evolution is a naturally-occurring
part of the curriculum.
Nevertheless, anti-evolutionism remains widespread in popular culture. In
1992, CBS aired a two-hour program purporting to "prove" scientifically that
there was an actual, literal Great Flood and that human and dinosaur
footprints are found together in a Texas river. Even public television is not
immune: In promotional literature sent in late 1993 to PBS stations
nationwide, a creationist videotape, "Voices for Creation," produced by a
Marquette, Michigan public television station, was offered to PBS stations
because "a growing number of scientists are forsaking evolutionary theory for
creation science." The promo also noted that the documentary was produced "in
response to increasing criticism of public television for its perceived proevolution stance." To practicing scientists, this is akin to criticizing PBS
astronomy shows for their pro-spherical earth stance.
What can be done to oppose creationism? Try the following:
Work with pro-evolution clergy: The best kept secret in the creation/evolution
controversy is that Catholic and mainline Protestant theology has no problem
incorporating evolution or other scientific ideas. The creation/evolution
controversy is not one between science and religion, but between biblical
literalist theology and everyone else. The plaintiffs (opponents of
creationism in the schools) in the famous McLean v. Arkansas federal court
decision were bishops and other high officials of the Methodist, A.M.E.,
Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Southern Baptist churches..
It is clear that Christian theology can accommodate evolution. In a statement
opposing "scientific" creationists who were attempting to influence the
Lexington, Kentucky, school board, the Lexington Alliance of Religious
Leaders, composed of mainline clergy, issued a statement saying: "As religious
leaders we share a deep faith in the God who created heaven and earth and all
that is in them, and take with utmost seriousness the Biblical witness to this
God who is our Creator. However, we find no incompatibility between the God of
creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally verifiable data to
explain the probable process by which life developed into its present form."
Expose the 'equal time' argument: The concept of 'equal time' may be a
praiseworthy cultural value, but it is irrelevant in the world of science.
Science, after all, is not a democratic process; scientists do not decide
which theory is correct by taking a vote. Even unpopular explanations, if they
answer questions, prevail. The key to the acceptance of a scientific theory is
if it explains facts and observations better than others. Evolution explains
observations in paleontology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, embryology,
biogeography and many other fields. "Scientific" creationism explains
nothing.

But to the average American, it seems "reasonable" that if one teaches

evolution, one should also teach creationism. It's only "fair." The answer, of
course, is that it is only "fair" to give our students the best possible
education, and to teach them state-of-the-art scholarship. It is not "fair" to
teach that the world goes around the sun, and then give "equal time" to the
geocentrists. It is not "reasonable" to teach students that six million Jews
were killed by the Nazis, and also, in "fairness" to teach that the Holocaust
is actually just a propaganda ploy of Zionistseven though there is a
constituency for this point of view. We shouldn't be teaching crackpot
history to our students just because someone thinks it is "fair," and we
shouldn't be teaching crackpot science - creationism - either.
We must teach Americans how science works, and why it is the best method human
beings have developed to understand how the natural world worksthough it has
nothing to say about ultimate cause.
Finally, we should all support the teachers who want to be professionally
responsible and teach state-of-the-art science, evolution. And let NCSE know
when creation "science" or anti-evolutionism comes to your school district.
National Center for Science Education
1328 6th St.
Berkeley, CA 94710-1404
510-526-1674
FAX: 510-526-1675

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Sexuality Education

Community Organizing for Sexuality Education

Leslie M. Kantor
SIECUS
New York, New York
Proponents of comprehensive sexuality education need to rely on community
organizing strategies that mobilize large numbers of mainstream and
progressive citizens to counter the misinformation campaigns of the Far Right.

Since the mid-80s, the Far Right has shifted from its insistence that
sexuality education remain in the family's domain to the position that
abstinence should be the only sexuality education topic taught in the public
schools. The Right is pushing programs that promote stereotyped views of the
way people should live. These fear-based education programs are inappropriate
and damaging, distorting medical information, displaying sexist, homophobic
and racist biases and relying on fear and shame to promote abstinence.
This new strategy has created the need for strong community organizing that
can counter the push for fear-based programs and can provide support for
comprehensive sexuality education.
Successful Strategies for Supporting Comprehensive Sexuality Education
1. Understand and Articulate the Significance of Sexuality Education
The problems associated with a lack of education and skills for maintaining
sexual health are well knownepidemics of sexually transmitted diseases,
escalating HIV infection, teen pregnancy, infertility. Yet SIECUS estimates
that fewer than 10% of students in the U.S. currently receive comprehensive
sexuality education.
However, sexual health is also much more than simply avoiding disastrous
outcomes.
Comprehensive sexuality education provides opportunities for students to learn
critical health information, develop a positive sense of self-worth and an
understanding of their own development. It can create a forum for discussing
gender roles, be a course of study that develops critical thinking and
decision-making skills, and be a place to learn about family roles and
responsibilities.
Many adults think back on the minimal sexuality education they received and
assume sexuality education classes to be unhelpful or unimportant. By
educating the community about the broad range of topics covered by
comprehensive sexuality education and the effectiveness of approaches that
combine information with skills-building, people will see that fighting for
this type of program is essential.
2. Make Connections Among the Issues to Build Diverse Coalitions
Another strategy for building widespread support for sexuality education is
illustrating the connections between sexuality education and other critical
issues, such as self-esteem, HIV/AIDS, women's equality, gay and lesbian civil
rights, reproductive rights, maintaining health through preventative measures,

etc.
Ideally, sexuality education provides opportunities for students to learn
tolerance, build awareness of differences, and come to respect all people's
values, priorities and needs. Sexuality education is much more than what we
do with our body partsit addresses who we are as people and how we will
relate to one another. All groups fighting for justice and fairness can
recognize how lessons that build interpersonal skills will aid their goals.
While widespread Far Right attacks on public education are disruptive, they
also provide an opportunity for unlikely allies to come together. Groups
concerned with poverty may come to the table over sexuality education if
sexuality education proponents will continue to sit at the table when Head
Start, school breakfast and school lunch programs come under fire. Mainstream
Republican groups are very concerned about the Far Right takeover of the
Republican party and may be willing to join local coalitions addressing these
issues.
Coalitions may already exist around the issues of AIDS, teen pregnancy and gay
and lesbian rights. These coalitions can offer support, members, meeting
space, and suggestions of allies to contact. Youth-serving organizations such
as the YMCA and YWCA, Girl's, Incorporated, and local recreation and parks
departments are important potential coalition members. Reproductive rights
organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood are logical members of any
coalition to support comprehensive sexuality education. Contact the Junior
League, the League of Women Voters, and other political and civic groups.
Don't forget to approach religious leaders in the community. Many religious
people in this country do not agree with the politics or the positions of the
Far Right! Mainstream Protestant ministers and reform rabbis are good
candidates for coalition membership. Students are also important members of
this coalitionstudents are powerful voices for their own needs.
3. Develop Public Awareness About Sexuality Education Controversies
A lack of awareness about issues surrounding sexuality education leads to the
lack of public support at school board meetings. It ensures that few
volunteers will volunteer to sit on advisory committees that will revise and
recommend curricula, and allows those who promote fear-based educational
approaches to implement their agenda largely unchecked. Here are some ways to
create awareness:
Meet with the editorial board of the local newspaper and encourage them to run
editorials and feature articles on the issue.
Write letters to the editor about the current controversy.
Set up tables at malls or other busy areas and distribute information about
these issues.
Place flyers in grocery stores, libraries, day care centers, schools and
restaurants that encourage people to get involved.
Hold an educational forum to discuss current sexuality education programs, any
proposed changes to the programs, what the facts show about effective
sexuality education, and the shortcomings of fear-based approaches.
At the local level, the perception of teachers, school administrators and
school board members is greatly influenced by Far Right community groups who
seek to weaken existing programs or replace them with fear-based programs.
Supporters of comprehensive programs have often been less likely to make their
feelings known.
Many people are not aware that a controversy over sexuality education is
taking place in their community.
People may not appreciate the significance of the sexuality education battle.
Especially in areas which devote few hours to family life education, people
may not feel compelled to defend such a short school program.
People may not realize that the same people attacking sexuality education are
usually the same people who oppose teaching reading through whole language
methods, school breakfast and school lunch programs, self-esteem education and
outcome-based education. These Far Right activists also desire reinstituting
school prayer, teaching creationism alongside evolution, and implementing
school voucher programs.
4. Investigate the Current Structure for Recommending and Approving Sexuality
Education Curricula and Get Involved
Most communities have some type of community advisory committee responsible

for periodically reviewing sexuality education materials. During a

controversy, this type of committee is often charged with looking at the
current program, investigating alternative programs, and making
recommendations to school administrators or to the school board. The committee
is typically made up of teachers, school administrators, parents, local
religious leaders, and medical professionals. One tactic of the Far Right is
to ensure that they are well represented on this committee. Schools are often
in a dilemma when only Far Right parents come forward to serve on these
committeesmainstream and progressive parents do not always offer to put in
the time and effort needed to serve. Encourage supporters of comprehensive
sexuality education to find out who chairs the committee and let them know
that they are available if and when new members are needed.
5. Educate the School Board about Sexuality Education
Local school boards often make the final decision about which sexuality
education program will be used in the district's schools. Although school
boards are charged with creating policy, not deciding curricula, the charged
atmosphere surrounding sexuality education has led to more and more decisions
being made at the school board level. School board members may have little
prior knowledge about sexuality education. Knowing the position of board
members on this issue and working to bolster the position of those who favor a
comprehensive approach and educating those who have yet to form an opinion,
are critical tasks. Share the literature on effective sexuality education
programs and help board members to understand the difference between peer
reviewed, scientific literature and pieces developed by national Far Right
political groups. On boards which have majority support for fear-based
education, bring political pressure to bear on board members by having
supporters of comprehensive approaches write letters, testify at school board
meetings, and promise to vote against them in the next election if they don't
support a comprehensive approach.
6. Support Teachers and Offer Strategies for Promoting their Programs
Teachers often become the target of attacks by the Far Right. Teachers who
have taught for many years and received praise and recognition for their
efforts are often unprepared when they become the target of virulent
distortion campaigns. Teachers can be better prepared to deal with potential
controversy if they take steps to keep track of parents and students who have
benefited from their programs. Keeping a simple phone list of parents and
students who have enjoyed the program and might be willing to write letters of
support or testify at meetings is a good idea for teachers. Also, invite
teachers to join coalitions. The coalition can be a source of strength and
support should the teacher ever encounter problems.
7. Develop a Visible Campaign in Support of Comprehensive Sexuality Education
In Hemet, CA, a parents group began sporting navy ribbons to show support for
comprehensive sexuality education. Many strategies exist to make sexuality
education a visible issue and create community awareness. Bumper stickers,
flyers and buttons proclaiming "Just Say Know" or "Ignorance Kills" can help
educate the community about the issues surrounding sexuality education. These
campaigns can take place proactively as well as in response to controversy.
8. Know the Opposition
Local opponents of comprehensive sexuality education often receive funding and
materials from national organizations such as Citizens for Excellence in
Education and the Christian Coalition. Watch for names like "Citizens for
Educational Accountability" or "Parents for Excellence in Education."
Confront local groups with the positions and statements of national leaders
and ask them to defend the national groups. Most local communities do not
appreciate being targeted by national organizations and will react negatively
to local groups' associations with national Far Right groups. Become familiar
with Far Right arguments related to sexuality. Whenever possible, get on the
mailing list of Far Right organizations to keep abreast of new materials and
tactics.
SIECUS is available to offer consultation, technical assistance, written
materials and contact people to community members who are involved with
controversies over sexuality education. Technical assistance may be obtained
by calling or writing to SIECUS. In addition, SIECUS publishes a Community
Action Kit which includes a range of materials designed to educate people
about the content of comprehensive sexuality education, public support for a
comprehensive approach, how to community organize to support comprehensive
sexuality education, and the shortcomings of fear-based education. Action
Kits are available for $29.95 from the SIECUS Publications Department, 130
West 42nd Street, #2500, New York, NY 10036. u

Sexuality Education Talking Points

Leslie M. Kantor
SIECUS
New York, New York

Here are some key points about sexuality education from the Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the U.S

I
n national polls, over 85% of adults support teaching sexuality education in
schools. Majority support exists for teaching a comprehensive approach
including subjects which are sometimes viewed as controversial such as
contraception, sexual orientation, abortion, and masturbation.
Forty-seven states either mandate or recommend sexuality education. However,
SIECUS estimates that fewer than 10% of youth in the U.S. receive
comprehensive sexuality education.
Studies published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals have shown that
skills-based sexuality education helps students to postpone sexual intercourse
and helps those students who do engage in intercourse to use contraception
consistently and correctly. There is no evidence that sexuality education
increases the likelihood that someone will engage in intercourse.
Comprehensive sexuality education encompasses 36 topics which are introduced
in an age-appropriate manner. These topics include body image, family roles,
gender, parenting skills, anatomy, physiology, sexual behavior, prevention of
pregnancy, STDs, and AIDS, decision-making, communication skills and refusal
skills. The goal of comprehensive sexuality education is the development of
sexually healthy adults.
Abstinence is an important component of any comprehensive sexuality education
program. Comprehensive programs enforce abstinence through teaching skills
such as refusal, communication, and decision-making which will help students
to maintain abstinence. So-called "abstinence-only" programs substitute
slogans for effective skills-based strategies.
Adolescents explore their sexuality as a natural part of their development.
Effective education must begin in the earliest grades to ensure a strong
foundation for the subsequent introduction of more complex concepts later on.
The same is true for any academic subject-students begin studying addition and
subtraction in the lower grades before progressing to algebra in junior high
and high school.
The values that underlie comprehensive sexuality education include respect for
individuals and their differences, respect for oneself, and the belief that
students have a right to accurate information that will aid them in making
responsible decisions. In a pluralistic society, it is critical that we
respect all people's values when it comes to the myriad issues related to
sexuality.
Fear-based education programs have not been evaluated using accurate research
methodology. Fear-based programs are flawed because of their attempt to use
fear and shame to promote abstinence, use of medical misinformation, inclusion
of sexist, racist and classist stereotypes and lack of opportunity for skills
development. Scare tactics have been shown to be ineffective in changing
health behaviors.u
1 Interview with Carroll Albright, December 8, 1992.
2 Interview with Albright and Blalack, December 8, 1992.
3 Ibid.
4 Interview with Ted Crooks, successful candidate for La Mesa-Spring
Valley school board, running with CRE endorsement, December 9, 1992.
5 Interviews conducted on December 8 and 9, 1992 with Ted Crooks, moderate
slate member in La Mesa-Spring Valley; Bud Willis; Ada Reep, moderate slate
member in Grossmont High School district; Ellen Yaffa, campaign manager in La
Mesa-Spring Valley; Vern Sweigard, La Mesa-Spring Valley field worker
coordinator, precinct and voter analyst; Jane Vorrath, La Mesa-Spring Valley,
Classified Employees Union representative; Sharon Jones, moderate slate member
in La Mesa-Spring Valley; Bob Arganbright, training consultant to La MesaSpring Valley moderate slate; Cathy Potter and Donna Masters, Lemon Grove
Teachers Association.
How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Prayer in Schools

Prayer in Public Schools and Graduation Ceremonies

Dr. W. Kenneth Williams, Scholar-in-Residence

Baptist Joint Committee
Washington, D.C.

State sponsored prayer in the public schools, whether in the classroom or at

graduation ceremonies, violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment and offends the consciences of those would not choose to participate
in the prayers. This does not mean that students are prevented from engaging
in voluntary private prayer in accordance with their own religious tradition
and convictions, only that they cannot ask the state to help them do it.

Those favoring prayer in the public schools believe that government has the
responsibility to interject religion into the educational process. They
reason that American's history tells of religious peoples seeking freedom to
exercise their religious commitments. They reason, further, that the framers
of American democracy were religious persons who intended government to
reflect a generalized faith while defending against the establishment of any
particular faith. Therefore, exposing school children to a divine referent
through non-sectarian prayers at the beginning of the school day or in
graduation exercises is defensible. It continues a well-founded American
tradition, contributes to general morality, undergirds the spiritual welfare
of impressionable children, and is generalized enough so as to be inoffensive
to religious minorities.
Reason gives way to emotion when the premises of school prayer supporters'
logic is challenged. Ever since the Supreme Court's landmark decisions1 of
the early 1960s holding school-sponsored prayer to be unconstitutional, school
prayer proponents have made increasingly emotional appeals to restore prayer
in schools, essentially making their case on the basis of majority rule. In
spite of these efforts, the Supreme Court has consistently held to the notion
of governmental neutrality concerning prayer in schools.2
The focus of the debate lately has shifted from the classroom to graduation
ceremonies. Most recently, in Lee v. Weisman (1991), the school's principal
selected the cleric and gave him guidelines to follow in fashioning his
prayer. This amounted to an establishment of religion, said the Supreme
Court, and therefore violated the First Amendment.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, declared that the government cannot
make religious conformity the price for attending one's graduation ceremony.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Souter made this observation: "One may
fairly say ... that the government brought prayer into the [graduation]
ceremony precisely because some people want a symbolic affirmation that
government approves and endorses their religion, and because many of the
people who want this affirmation place little or no value on the costs to
religious minorities.'"
Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, a legal advocacy group
established in counterpoint to the American Civil Liberties Union, has sought
to capitalize on a 1993 case that the Supreme Court chose not to review. In
Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District, the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals held it permissible for a student to say a "non-proselytizing, nonsectarian" prayer in graduation ceremonies, if the students voted to have

prayer. The ACLJ sees the Supreme Court's choice not to hear the case as
tacit approval of the lower court's resolution.
This is wrong. The Supreme Court receives more than 6,000 petitions for
review annually. It accepts only a little over 100. Does this mean that the
court approves of the other 5,900? No. It is simply impossible for the high
court to review every case presented to it. The ACLJ is making a claim that
cannot be legally supported.
Other points to consider:
It is not true that God has been thrown out of the public schools. Students
may offer private prayers, read their scriptures during free time, and often
may gather in groups for religious purposes before and after classes, so long
as the school is not the sponsor and no member of the staff or faculty
participates.
The proper place for corporate prayer at the time of school graduation is in a
place of worship. Baccalaureate services sponsored by a community's religious
institutions reflect the very bedrock of American tradition free people
exercising their chosen religious commitments under the absolute protection of
a free state.
The liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not subject to majority
vote. In fact, they are "counter majoritarian" established for the very
purpose of defending minorities against the tyranny of majority action. The
framers of our republic saw that majority rule can be as oppressive as that of
a powerful dictator. The use of public schools to endorse and promote the
religious sensibilities of the majority rides roughshod over the rights of
those of minority persuasions, or those who desire no exposure to religious
practice at all.
There is no such thing as a "non-sectarian" prayer. It is a contradiction in
terms like "grape-nuts." It is really neither one. True prayer has to come
out of some sectarian tradition. And if it could somehow be made truly "nonsectarian," it would not be prayer. Moreover, prayer reflects the missional
purposes of a particular religion. Therefore, how can there be, by
definition, prayer that is "non-proselytizing"? Such prayers have the same
banal effect as letters bearing the salutation "To Whom It May Concern."
Children are impressionable. They can be easily confused when the religious
traditions of their home life conflict with the traditions to which they are
exposed at school. Religious instruction should be left to the home and to
the religious institutions, thus freeing children particularly those of
minority persuasions from the pressures to conform to the majority.
However well intended, the reasoning of those who support state sponsored
prayers in the public schools is flawed. Government cannot endorse religion.
It is not the government's place to endorse the religious practices of the
majority culture. Prayer is a private matter, to be taught in the places that
are most competent for such instructionthe religious institutions of our
communities. We uphold the best of our democratic ideals when the roles of
church and state are well separated. u

Talking Points About Prayer In School

Rob Boston
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Silver Spring, Maryland

Much confusion exists in the minds of the American people over the issue of
prayer in public schools. Religious Right groups have added to this confusion
by making untrue claims about school prayer. This article gives responses to
some of the Religious Right's most common claims about the issue.

The Religious Right would have Americans believe a great deal of mythology
about prayer in public schools. According to the Religious Right, even
voluntary school prayer is illegal. They say students can be expelled for
reading the Bible during free time and that religion can't be discussed in any
context in public school classrooms.
None of this is true. Students are free to engage in voluntary prayer in
public schools and may read religious texts during their free time. In
addition, public schools all over the country use the Bible and other types of
religious literature in objective programs of instruction designed to teach

about religion.
Here are some common Religious Right arguments in favor of government
involvement in school prayer with responses:
Statement: Children can't pray in public schools.
Yes, they can. In 1962 and 1963 the Supreme Court struck down mandatory,
state-sponsored programs of prayer and Bible reading in public schools. The
high court has never ruled that truly voluntary, individual prayer is
unconstitutional. Individual students are free to recite voluntary prayers or
read from religious texts during their free time.
"Voluntary" prayer must really be voluntary and not a ruse to reinstate
school-sponsored religious worship. Federal courts have struck down efforts by
school officials to set up programs whereby teachers ask a student volunteer
to lead the class in prayer. They have also struck down so-called "voluntary"
prayer during "optional" student assemblies held as part of the school day.
Statement: We had prayer in schools for 100 years and it never hurt anyone.
This is simply not true. Many Americans don't know it, but prayer in public
schools was quite contentious in the mid and late 19th century. Roman Catholic
objections to Protestant religious practices in the public schools led to
civil strife in some cities. (Thirteen people were killed during ProtestantCatholic riots in the Philadelphia area in 1843 after Catholics demanded that
their children be excused from mandatory religious practices.) In modern
times, members of minority religious groups have complained that governmentsponsored worship in schools favors majority faiths. Even many Christians
considered forced religion to be distasteful.
Statement: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist who hates religion, is
responsible for having prayer taken out of public schools.
Well-known atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair has taken credit for having removed
prayer from public school, but she played only a supporting role in the cases.
The first school prayer case, 1962's Engel v. Vitale, did not involve O'Hair
at all. It was brought by a group of parents on Long Island, N.Y., of various
religious and philosophical backgrounds, who challenged a "non-denominational"
prayer state education officials had composed for public schoolchildren to
recite.
One year later, a Philadelphia-area family named the Schempps challenged
mandatory Bible reading in Pennsylvania schools, and their lawsuit eventually
reached the Supreme Court. At the same time, O'Hair was challenging a similar
practice, as well as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, in Baltimore's
public schools. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and in 1963 ruled 8-1
that government-sponsored Bible reading or other religious devotions in public
schools are unconstitutional.
Statement: The school prayer rulings are hostile to religion.
Just the opposite is true. The rulings preserve religious freedom by giving
parents the right to decide what religious views and prayersif anytheir
children are exposed to. Also, the justices have stated many times that
objective study about the Bible and religion's role in history is legal and
appropriate in public schools. In the Schempp decision, Justice Tom Clark
wrote for the court majority, "[I]t might well be said that one's education is
not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of
religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly
may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic
qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or
of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of
education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."
Statement: Most Americans support prayer in schools. The majority should get
to do what it wants.
Public opinion polls on school prayer show different results depending on how
the question is worded. While many people say they support "prayer in
schools," they have different ideas about what that could mean. In addition,
even if a majority did favor requiring prayer in schools, it would not matter.
The Bill of Rights protects everyone's beliefs and ensures that majorities do
not run roughshod over the rights of minorities.
Statement: Ever since prayer was removed from schools, public school
performance has declined and social ills have increased.
It is true that some indices of school performance have decreased since 1962,
but the problems experienced in our schools are reflections of the problems in
American society that are caused by a whole range of socio-economic factors.
We cannot blame every societal problem, from the increase in teenage
pregnancies to the escalating divorce rate, on a lack of required prayer in
schools. Complex problems require complex solutions, something schools across
the nation are working on. We should support efforts to make schools safer and

healthier but we don't have to go against the U.S. Constitution to do that.

Statement: The Supreme Court has said organized school prayer is OK as long as
it is "student initiated," "non-sectarian" and "non-proselytizing" in nature.
The Supreme Court has never issued such a ruling. One federal appeals court
has approved prayer during public school graduation ceremonies under these
conditions, but other federal courts have disagreed with that ruling. Many
observers believe the question will eventually end up before the Supreme
Court.
Some state legislatures are moving to enact laws permitting public school
prayer that is "non-sectarian" and "non-proselytizing." Such legislation is
almost certainly unconstitutional because it gives government officials the
power to determine which prayers qualify as "non-sectarian" and "nonproselytizing." It should also be noted that many believers consider watereddowned, generic prayers to be deeply offensive.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
8120 Fenton St.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 589-3707
(301) 495-9173 (FAX)

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Missionaries in Schools

Missionaries in Public Schools

Edd Doerr
Americans for Religious Liberty
Silver Spring, Maryland

Religious pluralism and the constitutional principle of separation of church

and state require public schools to be religiously neutral. This article
shows how that neutrality is being violated on a large scale by fundamentalist
missionaries being allowed to operate in public schools.

American public schools are required to be religiously neutral by both the

richly pluralistic nature of our society and the constitutional principle of
separation of church and state. If the schools prefer one or some religions
over others, they violate the rights of conscience of both students and their
families.
Neutrality does not prevent schools from teaching about religion in an
objective, academic manner (e.g., comparative religion, religious literature,
etc.). Nor does it mean that students are prohibited from exercising their
religion or speaking about their faith in a way that is not disruptive of the
educational process (e.g., reading religious literature during free time,
private prayer). It does mean, at least, that the schools cannot proselytize
or allow other adults to do so on campus.
Probably the least reported, least analyzed, least well understood threat to
public school religious neutrality is the intrusion into the schools of
sectarian proselytizers. According to a survey in 1983 by Education Week,
some 4,500 trained missionaries were then operating in U.S. public schools.
Since then the number has surely increased. In an article in USA Today in
1987, I referred to this as "the invasion of the soul snatchers."
The proselytizers who use our public schools and compulsory school attendance
laws would surely agree with evangelist Jerry Johnston of Shawnee Mission, KS,
who declared in a promotion piece for his Life Public School Assembly program
that, "In the public school junior and senior high school age bracket there
are approximately 40,000,000 [sic!] teenagers in the United States. This
large group of young people represents one of the greatest virgin mission
fields existent today and yet by and large, they are unreached by the
Christian community." In the same piece, Johnston urged fundamentalist "youth
pastors" to use the Equal Access Act passed by Congress in 1984, and later
upheld by the Supreme Court, to gain entry into public schools. (The Equal
Access Act allows non-curriculum related student groups, including religious
clubs, to meet before and after school in secondary schools. They must be
student-initiated and outsiders may not attend on a regular basis. The
Supreme Court upheld this law in 1990.)
Johnston boasted that by the mid-1980s he had already spoken to more than two
million students in more than two thousand public schools. His technique is
to put on assembly programs in secondary schools during school hours on teen
substance abuse and suicide, and then invite students to attend an evening
meeting to hear the rest of his "message." For example, in Pinellas County,
FL several years ago, Johnston used assemblies to attract about 4,000 public
school students to the Russell Stadium with promises of free pizza. Later,
kids complained in letters to the editor that they had to sit through what

they described as a two-hour revival service before they got their free pizza.
There are other proselytizers and other methods.
Young Life is one of the largest groups, with over 400 missionaries. Their
method is to contact students in school during the school day and invite them
to social gatherings outside school hours and off the school premises.
Typically, Young Life missionaries get permission from local school
authorities to "hang around" school corridors and lunch rooms to contact
students one at a time. Northern Virginia Young Life director Chuck Reinhold
told a Roanoke gathering, in justification of their activities, that 85% of
all conversions are made by age 18.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes has chapters in hundreds of public high
schools. It has 168 paid missionaries and some 3,200 volunteers. Appealing
to youthful interest in sports, the FCA sends well-known sports figures across
the country to promote conservative evangelical Protestant Christianity in
school settings, though some such activities may technically be legal under
the Equal Access Act.
Sports World Ministries has gained access to public schools in nearly every
state and claims to have reached over a million students. Its answer to teen
problems is Christian fundamentalism. SWM has at least 14 former professional
athletes on its circuit, and has been endorsed by NFL commissioner Pete
Rozzell and former HUD secretary Jack Kemp. School officials in Williamsburg,
VA, and North Haven, CT, have complained that SWM speakers turned required
attendance assemblies into religious services, with prayer, calls for
acceptance of Jesus as savior, and the passing out of cards to obtain names
and addresses of potential converts.
Sports World Ministries and an ancillary group called "Children's Bible
Ministries" were forced out of public schools in Claiborne County, TN, when a
local parent and the ACLU complained. Federal District Judge Thomas G. Hull
issued a restraining order prohibiting the groups from "conducting prayer,
Bible teaching, Bible reading and/or proselytizing for fundamentalist
Christian beliefs in the public school system for Claiborne, Tennessee [the
groups' home base], during school hours."
Athletes in Action is a similar group. Its Cincinnati chapter even got a
$23,000 federal grant to pay for a school assembly program featuring players
from the Bengals pro football team who would "discuss the detrimental effects
of drug abuse and share Christian principles which they have found meaningful
in their lives." (Complaints by Jewish groups forced Athletes in Action to
present a nonreligious program, which was why the grant was made in the first
place.)
The fast-growing Pentecostal denomination, the Assemblies of God, has set up a
"Youth Alive" movement to proselytize in public schools. They have been
successful in the South, particularly in Texas. According to Pentecostal
Evangel, 325 of 350 students who attended an anti-drug seminar at a public
school in Lufkin, TX, "accepted Christ as Saviour through the meetings."
Don Brazile of Texarkana, TX, has addressed numerous rallies in public
schools. He gives an altar call and provides "salvation packages" of followup literature to those converted at the rallies.
The National Educators Fellowship, made up of evangelical teachers, encourages
its members to "witness" for their faith in the classroom. They are often
supported by the Rutherford Institute
Campus Crusade for Christ puts on religious assembly programs in public
schools. Its handbook warns its missionaries to be cautious in communities
with ACLU chapters
..
Another proselytizing gimmick has been uncovered in St. Mary's County, MD.
Fundamentalist missionaries become substitute teachers in public schools and
use the opportunity to promote their religious message among students.
Still another kind of missionary activity involves the holding of religious or
Bible study classes in public schools, taught by religiously biased and
academically uncredentialed personnel. These programs are especially popular
in the South. In Bristol, VA, a devout Methodist couple protested
fundamentalist-slanted Bible classes in their community's public schools.
Students were pressured to "come forward and be saved or face eternal
damnation." A fourth grade teacher showed Billy Graham films, while a first
grade teacher read Bible passages to her students every day. The couple,
aided by the ACLU, won a federal court suit in 1983. The classes were
stopped, but upset neighbors made life unpleasant for the couple

Virtually all of this proselytizing activity is carried out by conservative

Protestant fundamentalists, to the best of our knowledge. Catholics,
mainstream Protestants, Jews, Unitarians, and Humanists apparently are never
involved.
This writer has personally spoken with parents whose children have been
proselytized in public schools and with some whose children were converted to
other religions by in-school missionaries. Although there is no way to
prevent students from discussing religion among themselves or attempting to
convert classmates, public school staff have no business whatever allowing or
encouraging proselytizing in public schools either by school personnel or
outside adults. Schools and school districts should have enforceable
regulations to bar such activity.
Violations of the religious neutrality of public schools should be protested
by parents, religious leaders, or civil liberties organizations. If protests
alone do not resolve the problems, litigation should be considered.
Keeping our pluralistic public schools religiously neutral and free of
sectarian divisiveness is in the interest of the religious liberty of all
children and parents of all persuasions.

___________________
Edd Doerr, executive director of Americans for Religious Liberty,P.O. Box
6656, Silver Spring, MD 20916. This article is based on a chapter in a book
written by Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr (ARL, 1991).

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Law, Religion, and Schools

How The Law Deals With Religion In The Public Schools

Marc D. Stern and David Harris

The American Jewish Congress
Washington, D.C.

The following is a very brief summary of a comprehensive report by AJCongress,

titled "Religion in the Public Schools." Copies of that report, which
includes citations for decisions on this topic, are available from AJCongress.

School Prayer. The Supreme Court first held in Engel v. Vitale (1962) that
the practice of having a prayer recited daily in the classroom, even if nondenominational, is unconstitutional. This holding has been repeatedly
reaffirmed, most recently in Lee v. Weisman (1992). The prayer at issue in
Engel was composed by the state. Although the opinion makes it appear as if
that fact alone decided the case, subsequent cases have held that all schoolsponsored prayers and religious exercises are unconstitutional. That includes,
for example, opening exercises consisting of the reading of passages from the
Bible, even where participation in such exercises is "voluntary."
This rule against officially-sponsored religious exercises is thus not
overcome by requiring students to choose between attending the prayer session
or going to another classroom. Nor is it permissible to permit student
volunteers to select the prayers for public recitation, either in the
classroom or at school assemblies. Lower courts have generally extended the
ban on school prayers to include all regular school functions, including
assemblies and athletic events. In one case, an appellate court held that a
school district could not constitutionally delegate the task of offering
prayers at high school football games to the local Ministerial Association.
Equally unconstitutional was an "equal access" plan under which student
volunteers could recite prayers of their own choosing as part of a pre-game
ceremony. Similarly, the common practice of high school coaches leading a
team in prayer, or calling upon a team member to do so, is unconstitutional.
Individual students, however, may engage in private, quiet, religious
activities, so long as the conduct is not disruptive and does not interfere
with the right of others to be left alone. Contrary to what is sometimes said
by advocates of prayer in the public schools, the Supreme Court has not
prohibited students from reading the Bible, praying, reciting the rosary, or
informally discussing religious subjects with classmates. On the contrary,
any official interference with such activities would itself be
unconstitutional, unless demonstrably necessary to maintain order in the
school or to protect the rights of other students. Thus, a teacher may not
insist on teaching creationism, or resist teaching evolution, on the theory
that evolution is a religious viewpoint. And public school teachers may not
pray with, or in the presence of, their students. A teacher who abuses his or
her position in this way may be terminated.
The extent to which school authorities may set aside a moment for silent
prayer or meditation remains unclear, as courts have continued to send mixed
signals in this regard. Moment-of-silence statutes not mentioning prayer will
likely be found constitutional. But even if a statute is not unconstitutional
as written, it can be implemented in an unconstitutional way, e.g., if
students are told to bow their heads or stand for the moment-of-silence, or if

a teacher urges that the time be used for prayer.

Teaching About Religion. The Constitution permits objective teaching about
religion. In fact, one cannot teach the history of civilization without
teaching about religion. Neither can art or music be taught without reference
to religion. Objective teaching about religion has given rise to numerous
difficulties, among the most intractable of which are those arising from the
teaching of "Bible as Literature" classes. It has been suggested, by one
court, that only regularly certified public school teachers, not uncertified
ministers, can teach such courses. And, at the secondary school level, modern
critical Bible scholarship should be included in the curriculum. In short, to
pass constitutional muster, any course on the Bible must be devoid of
denominational bias.
Public school libraries may include significant religious literature, provided
that no one sect's literature is favored, and the library as a whole does not
show any preference for religious works. Similarly, the Ten Commandments may
not be displayed on classroom walls. Neither may a student painting depicting
the crucifixion be left on permanent display in the school auditorium.
Use of Classroom Space For Student-Initiated Religious Activities
Constitutional Claims for Student Religious Clubs. Student religious groups
have often requested permission to meet in vacant public school classrooms
during school club periods held either before or after school, or, less
frequently, during free periods during the school day.
The Supreme Court has held that a public university which allowed secular
extracurricular student groups use of empty classrooms could not deny access
to student religious groups. Since the university was a limited public forum
(a place deliberately set aside for members of the student body to express and
exchange views), the university's rule distinguishing between secular and
religious groups constituted an impermissible discrimination against speech
based on the content of the speech. The Court concluded that the bare granting
of access to religious clubs did not amount to the university aiding or
endorsing religion. It therefore invalidated the university's rule against
the use of its premises by religious clubs.
The lower federal courts have divided on the question of whether this ruling
should be applied to elementary and secondary schools. However, this
unanswered constitutional question is now of practical import only in those
cases in which the Equal Access Act does not apply; that is, in the case of
non-elementary and non-secondary schools or during instructional time. Those
cases are far less likely to involve limited public forums, and therefore,
present a far easier case for excluding religious speech.
The Equal Access Act. The Equal Access Act provides a statutory basis for
claims for and against extra-curricular religious clubs. As a result,
constitutional claims are now of secondary importance. The Act is a complex
piece of legislation. In brief, the Act provides that a secondary school that
chooses to allow non-curriculum related student-initiated groups to meet
before or after, but apparently not during, the school day may not
discriminate against any other student-initiated club based on its
philosophic, religious or political content. Thus, the Act confers a right
upon all student clubs to meet, but only if school officials permit noncurriculum clubs to meet. Curriculum-related clubs (e.g., the Spanish Club)
do not trigger the provisions of the Act.
Schools are free under the Act to insist that each meeting be attended by a
school employee, who may only maintain order, preserve discipline, protect the
rights of other students, or prevent illegal acts.
Teachers' Rights to Hold Religious Meetings. Unless a school permits teachers
to use empty classrooms for meetings on whatever topic they choose, teachers
have no right to hold religious meetings in an empty public school classroom,
before or after school, even when only other teachers will be in attendance.
However, teachers may informally discuss religious topics among themselves,
provided those discussions do not interfere with their duties and do not take
place in the presence of students.
Rental of School Facilities. The question of equal access to student clubs
must be distinguished from the question of whether school officials may make
school facilities available for after-hours use by religious groups, even if
no religious symbols are displayed when the public schools are in session. If
broadly available to community groups, school facilities probably must be made
available to religious groups on a less-than-permanent basis upon the payment
of a fee approximating either the cost of the facilities (heat, light,
maintenance) or, perhaps, the fair rental value. At a minimum, religious
groups may not be excluded because school officials disapprove of the
viewpoint they express.

Holiday Observances. In the leading decision on public school celebrations of

religious holidays, an appellate court upheld school board rules which
permitted the observance of holidays with both a secular and religious basis,
provided that the observances were conducted in a "prudent and objective
manner." The court was careful to point out that the rules adopted by the
school board were, as written, constitutional; however, particular events
conducted under the authority of the rules might nevertheless be
unconstitutional.
The rules in question permitted the display of religious symbols as teaching
aids, and provided that religious works of drama and music could be performed
as well as studied. Students who objected to participating in Christmas
observances were to be excused. In a similar vein, it has been noted by the
Supreme Court that the singing of carols at Christmas time is a common
occurrence in the public schools. In general, however, the constitutional
problems with public school holiday observances are not cured by observing the
holidays of all faiths, although they are exacerbated when the schools observe
only the holidays of one faith.
Baccalaureate Services and Graduation. The Supreme Court recently held that
school officials may not invite a clergyman to begin or end a graduation
ceremony with a prayer, even though the prayer may be non-denominational and
even though attendance at graduation is voluntary. One appellate court has
held that the graduating students may choose to have a prayer offered,
although other courts - and the weight of authority disagree. Because
attendance at baccalaureate services is not compulsory, and frequently takes
place away from the public school, some authorities have refused to interfere
with the practice.
Official sponsorship of baccalaureate services is impossible to reconcile with
the Supreme Court decision mentioned above. Of course, the Constitution does
not prohibit a purely private baccalaureate service. Two courts have
permitted privately sponsored baccalaureate services to take place in rented
public school facilities if appropriate disclaimers of public school
involvement are posted. Certainly no student may be compelled to attend such
a service, or be penalized for a failure to do so.
Compulsory Attendance and Religious Holidays. School officials are required,
by federal statute, to accommodate students' religious practices unless the
officials can demonstrate that they have a compelling interest in not doing
so.
Two types of conflicts arise from conflicts between the school calendar and
religious holidays. The first of these is excusal from compliance with
compulsory attendance laws, and is usually covered by a statutory exemption.
Where no statutory exemption exists, the student must be excused, at least for
a reasonable number of days. However, a policy of excusal must be available
equally to members of all faiths. The second problem is whether schools may
or must close on religious holidays so as to avoid a conflict with students'
religious practices. While public schools need not close on religious
holidays, they may do so as a matter of administrative convenience, where, for
example, large numbers of teachers or students are absent.
When a school chooses not to close on days observed by some students as
religious holidays, conflicts between scheduled events and religious holidays
will exist. One court has held that school officials may, without
unconstitutionally establishing religion, prohibit the scheduling of extracurricular activities on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday morning to avoid
conflicts with students' religious observances. And another court has held
that penalties (such as the refusal to provide make-up examinations or the
lowering of grades) cannot be imposed on students absent for religious
holidays. A school need not, however, reschedule graduation in order to avoid
a conflict with the Sabbath observed by some of the graduates.
Dress Codes. Students may not be compelled to wear gym clothes which, for
religious reasons, they consider immodest. Two key decisions on this matter
are in conflict as to the appropriate remedy. One Court held that such
students must be offered excusal from mixed gym classes in order to avoid
exposure to those wearing what they consider to be immodest clothing. The
other Court held that, while students themselves must be allowed to dress
modestly, they would not be allowed to absent themselves from the class to
avoid viewing others dressed immodestly or to avoid ridicule for their chaste
dress. Students with religious objections to mixed gym classes, but only such
students, may be offered sex-segregated gym classes without violating federal
law.
How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Secular Humanism

Secular Humanism

Richard T. Foltin
American Jewish Committee
Washington, D.C.

This article is a response to the Right's claim that public schools promote
secular humanism and, in doing so, inhibit the practice of Christianity.

One claim made by the radical "religious right" is that the public school
curriculum promotes a religion called "secular humanism" and, in so doing,
ostensibly inhibits the practice of Christianity. Alternatively, the claim is
made that "secular humanism," if not a religion in of itself, constitutes an
anti-religious point of view.
These claims have served as the basis for challenges to certain textbooks and
portions of curriculum as prohibited establishment of religion. (By virtue of
the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, schools may neither endorse nor
derogate any religion.) But, as is discussed below, the putative "secular
humanist" religion, at least as that term is used by the religious right,
signifies nothing more (or less) than the failure of the public schools to
teach a particular form of Christianity.
In one notable instance in which this issue was raised, Judge Brevard Hand, a
federal district judge sitting in Alabama, stated in 1983, in a subsequentlyreversed decision, that:
"[C]ase law deals generally with removing the teachings of the Christian ethic
from the scholastic effort but totally ignores the teaching of the secular
humanistic ethic.... [T]he curriculum in the public schools of Mobile County
is rife with efforts at teaching or encouraging secular humanism - all without
opposition from any other ethic - to such an extent that it becomes a
brainwashing effort. If this Court is compelled to purge "God is great, God
is good, we thank him for our daily food" from the classroom, then this Court
must also purge from the classroom those things that serve to teach that
salvation is through one's self rather than through a deity."
Thus, for Judge Hand the public schools are defined as disseminators of
"secular humanism", because they are not allowed to teach patently religious
points of view.
Insofar as the radical right is asking that public schools remove from the
curriculum all teachings or textbooks that are inconsistent with their
religious views, and replace those texts with books that are consistent with
such views, they are seeking a result that is, in and of itself, antithetical
to the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion. As a
federal appeals judge has stated:
"It is apparent that [those who]... deem that which is "secular" in
orientation to be anti-religious... are not dealing in the same linguistic
currency as the Supreme Court's establishment decisions. If the establishment
clause is to have any meaning, distinctions must be drawn to recognize not
simply "religious" and "anti-religious," but "non-religious" government
activity as well.... Therefore, [one]... cannot succeed in demonstrating a

violation of the establishment laws by showing that the school authorities are
somehow advancing "secular" goals."
The arguments asserted by the radical right would, then, read all meaning out
of the First Amendment. They would treat all texts and all school subjects as
either pro-theistic religion or as a promotion of the "religion" (or "antireligion") of "secular humanism." Implicitly, this analysis is based on the
premise that the state cannot be neutral toward religion because all thought
is religious religion having been implicitly defined as anything anyone
thinks is important.
Part of the problem is that the radical right has taken a term referring to an
actual philosophical perspective a perspective that may or may not properly
be deemed a "religion" for constitutional purposes and applied it to the
actions of school officials in a fashion that is wholly inappropriate.
"Secular humanism" is a world view that is premised on the non-existence of a
Deity and which embraces reason as the sole appropriate response to the
universe. There is simply no evidence that educators are "secular humanists"
seeking to proselytize through the public schools. The argument that
educators are proponents of that viewpoint relies on the obfuscation of the
differences between the particular school of thought known as "secular
humanism" and the more general concept of "humanism."
As one school board stated in response to a challenge to its curriculum:
"In the broadest sense a "humanist" is quite literally anyone who is
interested in the study of humanities: the artistic, cultural, philosophical,
and social achievements of human history. As such, humanism is the deepest
stream of philosophical, scientific, literary, artistic, and moral thought in
Western Civilization and is basic to the entire tradition of learning. A
humanist is one who is dedicated to the achievement of the highest possible
human potential. Humanism in this sense is not necessarily inconsistent with
religion, theistic or non-theistic; indeed, throughout history there have been
many "Christian Humanists."
The school board went on to note that "by blurring the distinction between
humanism and Secular Humanism, [those challenging the school curriculum]...
can quite literally take any proposition with which they disagree and put a
`humanist' label on it.... [T]hey rely on the... the ambiguity and
malleability of the term `humanism' to contribute to their dualistic social
outlook, under which everything is either traditionally religious or part of
the `religion' of `humanism.'"
In sum, the assertion that textbooks and educators are advocates of "secular
humanism" is premised on the interchangeable - and inappropriate - use of the
terms "humanism" and "secular humanism." The acceptance of this assertion
would, in the end, lead to the dismantling of the entire system of public
education, because it would then be impossible for school boards to decide to
promote any values or even to convey any information without being subject to
attack from some religious group or another.u
1 Engle v. Vitale, 1962; Abington Township School District v. Schempp,
1963.
2 Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Censorship in Schools

Protecting The Freedom To Learn

Deanna Duby and Mark Sedway

People For The American Way
Washington, D.C.

The single most important way to protect the freedom to learn, to protect
against censorship of educational materials and programs, is to get involved.
Challenges are reaching every part of the public school curriculum: library
books, reading series, health and sex education, counseling programs,
environmental education, school plays, student newspapers, and more. Just as
these censors have become more effective in their strategies, citizens and
educators must organize and be decisive in their responses. The following are
some questions and answers to enable activists to respond more effectively to
censorship attempts.

What is censorship? Censorship is the removal or restriction of materials by

a governmental entity (e.g., a school system) with the intent of suppressing
ideas and information. The hallmark of a censorship attempt is one person's
desire to examine books, films and curricula for "objectionable" material as a
means of supervising conduct or morals. Censors impose their views by
deciding what others should not read or see. In schools, censorship occurs
when materials are removed at least in part for ideological, religious or
other reasons not having to do with their educational suitability. The
Supreme Court has made clear that, under the First Amendment, a book may not
be removed from a school simply because school officials or community
objectors disagree with its ideas. Rather, school board decisions removing
materials must be based on educational criteria, not on ideological, political
or religious grounds.
How do I know if an objection to school materials is a censorship attempt?
Ask two questions. First, do the objectors demand removal of the material for
all students, not just their own? Second, are the objections ideological,
sectarian or otherwise non-educational in nature? If you answer yes to both
of these questions, it may be a censorship attempt.
What's the difference between the activity of concerned parents and the
activity of those who are attempting censorship? One difference is crucial:
concerned parents try to determine what books and materials their child can
read. By contrast, those who attempt censorship insist that the school remove
works for all children. Further, while concerned parents are content to speak
for themselves, the would-be censor often claims to represent the views and
concerns of all parents in the community, even in the face of strong evidence
to the contrary.
What tactics do the censors use? The tactics of censorship groups vary from
community to community, but the campaigns employ a number of common
strategies. Here's a composite model of a Radical Right censorship campaign,
based on numerous incidents People For the American Way has tracked over the
last several years:
A local group distributes Radical Right materials in churches and throughout
the community to mobilize opposition to a particular book or program that
conflicts with their ideological or religious views.

The group files complaints with the school or district demanding the material
be removed.
They appeal to the school board any committee decisions retaining the
material.
They use intense lobbying, aggressive publicity strategy, and threats of legal
action to pressure the board.
They often respond to any school board rejection of complaints with costly and
time-consuming lawsuits, school board recall campaigns, or attempts to defeat
school tax levies.
If these strategies fail, Radical Right groups often sponsor candidates to run
for local school boards who, if elected, will, carry out their agenda.
In contrast to individual protesters/concerned parents who usually are
willing to work with the schools, discuss the merits of challenged material
and live with the decision of review committees and school boards Radical
Right groups often promote hostility between parents and schools by their
statements, divide communities with their tactics, and represent an
ideological extreme in their views. Many groups will pursue challenges for a
number of years until the material is removed. And even if the schools are
able to withstand a protracted challenge to one program, attacks on other
programs are never far behind.
The success of these local censorship campaigns often depends on how well the
groups can carry out their specific public relations strategies. For example,
they often claim to speak for all parents, citizens and religious people in
the community, even though research shows that this is rarely the case. And
they often use a divide-and-conquer strategy, trying to cast the schools as
"anti-parent," "anti-community" or "anti-Christian." The best antidote to
these strategies is organizing broad support from all segments of the
community parents, educators, community leaders, clergy and students.
Steps In Fighting Censorship. The first step in fighting censorship is to
gather the facts. Some of the questions to ask:
What material is being challenged? What is the title? Who is the author, the
publisher?
Where is it being used in a classroom or library? What grade level? How is
it being used? Is it a part of the regular curriculum or is it a supplement
to the curriculum?
How long has it been in the schools? Has it been formally adopted by the
school board? Is it under consideration for adoption now?
What is the objection? List the specific objections. What sections of the
book or program have been cited as objectionable? Why?
Look for "buzzwords" or rhetoric that may suggest organizational involvement.
What does the objector demand? Removal of his or her child from the lesson or
program? Restriction of the material to a certain age group? Outright
removal of the text from the school system?
Who is the objector? Is it an individual or a group? Who are they?
If a group, do they have any affiliations with state or national
organizations? Are they using Radical Right or other materials to support
their challenge?
Have they read the challenged material in its entirety?
Have they raised objections to other programs or books in the schools?
Do they have supporters in the community? Churches? Parents? Teachers?
School board members?
Does the school district have a reconsideration policy? If so, what steps
does the policy require? Formal complaint? Review committee? Have these
steps been followed? If there is no policy, encourage the district to adopt
one.
What actions have already been taken? Has the objector filed a formal
complaint?

What other action has the objector taken? Has the objector spoken with anyone
in the school or on the school board? Gone to the local media? Circulated
any information?
Has a review committee been appointed? If so, who is on the committee and
what is its schedule? Will there be an opportunity for public comment?
Have the materials been removed during the review process? If so, does this
conflict with the school district's reconsideration policy?
When is the next decision? By whom? Is there an appeal process in place?
Arguments Against Censorship Attempts. Censorship attempts threaten students'
freedom to learn, teachers' academic freedom, and parents' rights. In fact,
most parents are outraged when they learn of attempts to ban the books and
materials their children are reading because efforts to remove books and
materials for all school children undermine the right of each parent to ensure
that their child receive the highest quality education, uncompromised by the
ideological or religious objections of some individuals. Someone who objects
to a book, most parents argue, may have a right to stop their own child from
reading it, but not their neighbor's.
Moreover, many censorship challenges represent conflicts between two opposing
views of what public education in America should be. The most accepted view
recognizes that creating productive, responsible citizens requires that young
people be taught to think critically, to understand and respect the views of
those different from them, and to appreciate a broad spectrum of ideas. This
view also holds that children should be taught to respond to controversial
ideas and different views with understanding and open talk, rather than with
censorship and suppression. The opposing minority view is against teaching
children critical thinking skills, self-reliance, and an appreciation for
diversity. From this viewpoint, public education is instead seen as a vehicle
for ensuring conformity with a particular ideology. This minority further
believes that schools should teach simple "yes" or "no" answers to complex
questions; condemn, rather than accept, those who behave and believe
differently; and be stripped of any materials that conflict with a narrow,
sectarian set of beliefs.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Censorship in Libraries

Public Library Censorship

Judith F. Krug and Anne Levinson Penway

Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
Chicago, Illinois

The following article describes the ongoing assault on public library

materials. It describes recent trends, common tactics of pressure group, and
ways to fight back.

Censorship attempts are on the rise, and public libraries are being targeted
as never before. Demands that materials be removed or restricted in library
collections soared in 1993. The pressure groups will not be appeased, and
compromise only brings more demands for censorship.
Censors can never be persuaded that materials they do not like should be
available, particularly to children; likewise, they are rarely amenable to the
argument that their right to voice their objections is the same right as that
exercised by the authors and artists who created and disseminated the
expression to which they object. Censors would violate others' right to read,
while perceiving no threat to their own - and there are plenty of topics about
which the censors believe one simply shouldn't be informed, and about which
minors, particularly, should know nothing.
In 1993, 697 challenges to books and library materials were reported to the
Office for Intellectual Freedom. This compares with a total of 651 challenges
in 1992 and 514 in 1991. There has been a steady increase in complaints about
materials having to do with homosexuality or gay lifestyles. In 1991, only 40
of the challenges received were due to homosexual themes. In 1992, that
number rose to 64 and in 1993, 111. There is no doubt that in 1993,
homosexuality was at the top of the target list.
The most challenged book of 1993 was Daddy's Roommate, by Michael Willhoite, a
picture book designed to help children understand a non-traditional family
setting. It is the story of a young boy whose parents are divorced and whose
father is gay and lives with his "roommate." The book merely tries to make
the point that non-traditional families are loving, too. But the title has
engendered a storm of controversy nationwide in school districts and public
libraries. Also on the list of the top ten most challenged books for 1993 are
Heather Has Two Mommies, a story about lesbian parents, and The New Joy of Gay
Sex.
Sex is always high on the list, and the book which bears that title, Madonna's
Sex, was the second most challenged title in 1993. Communities from North
Carolina through Texas, Illinois, Colorado and Washington state fought heated
battles over whether the title should be in library collections at all. Some
libraries rejected it based not upon its content but its binding, contending
it would fall apart almost immediately. Other libraries decided that since
Sex was one of the most hyped titles in history, and since public interest was
at a fever pitch, they were obligated to "give the public what it wants."
The remaining titles on the "most challenged" list include classics, award
winners, and titles that no librarian would be without: Bridge to Terabithia,

by Katherine Paterson; Forever, by Judy Blume; The Adventures of Huckleberry

Finn, by Mark Twain; I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou; and two
titles that reflect a continuing focus on witchcraft and Satanism - Alvin
Schwartz's More Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark and Roald Dahl's The
Witches.
Several techniques turn up frequently in pressure group attacks on libraries,
some of them (arbitrarily nicknamed) include:
Bait and Switch. Using highly controversial materials like Madonna's Sex or
Playboy magazine to stir up lots of local controversy, and once that is done,
shifting the focus to challenges to other materials by, about or depicting
gays, or witchcraft, including scary stories and mythology.
Divide and Conquer. "Yours is the only library in this county that has this
stuff -- you are obviously out of line!" This is the technique used by groups
who like to pit librarians against librarians, using some as weapons against
others, without regard to any legitimate differences in selection criteria due
to the needs of the service populations of various libraries.
Let's Count Books. "You have 57 titles on evolution from a secular humanist
point of view, and only 5 on Creation Science! Your collection is out of
balance!" Numerical equivalence of titles from differing points of view under
particular subject headings is not the way to evaluate library collections.
The goal is to provide a diverse collection which includes adequate
representation of the broadest variety of points of view possible.
The Community is Us. This one goes, "you are unresponsive to the community -you are ignoring community standards." This tactic presumes that the only
community that counts is the one represented by the complainant, as if the
First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
speech of everyone who thinks just like me."
The Taxpayer's Revolt. "How dare you waste my tax dollars on this garbage! I
should get to decide how my tax money is spent!" Contrary to popular belief,
paying taxes does not buy the right to violate the rights of other taxpayers.
If every taxpayer had a veto over library selections, the shelves would be
empty.
The most consistent thing about censors is that they are never content to
regulate only their own reading or that of their own children. They believe
they should decide for everyone what is appropriate, and if you don't agree,
you're immoral, un-American, and a lousy parent.
How do public libraries respond to challenges? Most have written selection
guidelines that set forth the criteria under which materials will be selected
for the collection. An important, and standard, element of such policies is a
statement of principle on intellectual freedom, which declares that the
library will strive to provide a diverse collection representing a broad
selection of points of view on topics of current and historical interest for
all users, and will not exclude materials just because they may be
controversial or offensive to some people. Another essential element of such
policies is the reconsideration procedure for responding to demands that
materials be removed or restricted. Under such procedures, the patron
completes a complaint form. The library director responds after a careful
review of the materials in their entirety, explaining how those materials meet
the criteria of the library's materials selection policy. If the patron is
not satisfied with the library director's response, a reconsideration
committee is formed. Each member of the committee reviews the materials under
question in their entirety and weighs them against the criteria set forth in
the materials selection policy. If the complainant is not satisfied with a
committee determination, they appeal to the library board.
At a board meeting, the community has an opportunity to view the First
Amendment in action. It is possible to come out of such a meeting with new
and committed supporters of intellectual freedom -- but there has to be
someone there to use First Amendment rights to defend the First Amendment and
win converts. The pressure groups have defined the playing field for now:
local politics. Library supporters must assert their presence. If they do,
defenders of the First Amendment may one day succeed in redefining the field
to look more like what the founding fathers intended -- a free marketplace of
ideas.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All

Funding and The Arts

Public Funding And The Arts And Humanities

David Mendoza
National Campaign for Freedom of Expression
Seattle, Washington & Washington, D.C.
Public support for the arts and humanities is not an indulgence, but a
necessity. In recent years, attacks from the radical right have threatened to
hamper freedom of expression. This article outlines ways you can help protect
society's vital signs inherent in free expression.

In early 1989, the arts became the focus of attacks by the radical religious
right, thus adding the arts and humanities to the list of targets in their
"Culture War." The initial volleys came from the Reverend Donald Wildmon, head
of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Mississippi, to be taken up by
Senator Jesse Helms. Since then, the arts and humanities have been one of the
most visible and constant battlegrounds of the radical religious right. During
the 1992 presidential campaign, Pat Buchanan used the National Endowment for
the Arts to attack George Bush after the New Hampshire primary, leading to the
dismissal of John Frohnmayer, who was then the NEA chairman. After the
election, the right focused on President Clinton's appointments to lead the
NEA and National Endowment for the Humanities. Buchanan and others attempted
unsuccessfully to derail the nomination of Sheldon Hackney as NEH chair.
Why the arts and humanities? The arts and humanities produced in our time will
reflect our society's dreams and ideas, hopes and fears, mistakes and
advancements, for generations to come. The arts - literature, visual, design,
music, theater, dance, film and the humanities - history, languages, society,
philosophy, religion, and politics - represent the entire spectrum of culture.
Inherent in the American cultural ideal, these disciplines explore new
directions, challenge the status quo, and confront the most complex social
issues of our time, including some that the radical right considers offensive
or contrary to their world view. These include feminism, sexual orientation,
multiculturalism and diversity, revisionist history, environmentalism, and
reproductive rights.
The mark of a great society is its culture: its arts and humanities. These
are the evidence of civilization left to posterity long after the people and
societies that conceived and created them have returned to dust. Public
funding for the arts and humanities, therefore, is not a matter of indulgence
but of necessity. The arts and humanities serve multiple national purposes
that merit public support, including:
Education, not just by imparting knowledge, but by enhancing cognitive
development, improving analytical thinking, motivation, inspiring teamwork,
and improving self-esteem;
Fostering a sense of community by promoting understanding of history,
cultures, and ideas;
Instilling social values by helping people recognize common bonds and
connections to spirituality;
Stimulating the economy through positive impact on job creation, tax base
enhancement, increased tourism, improved community development, and growth of
auxiliary service jobs.
All of these purposes can be realized only if freedom of expression is

protected.
While not very large in budgetary terms, the programs of the NEA and NEH serve
as an important catalyst and source of recognition for artists and arts
programs throughout the country. Beyond this, these agencies were founded in
part to represent the principle commitment on the part of the nation to the
protection and furtherance of cultural diversity and freedom of expression.
Diversity can lead to divisiveness, or it can be a source of energy, vitality,
imagination, and creativity. The purpose of the arts and humanities is to
develop a shared understanding and respect for diversity in order to ensure
that diversity is a source of strength, not a weakness.
Free expression debate, discussion, even outrage are recognized as
freedom's vital signs. The arts and humanities can speak of things that
cannot be spoken of in any other way. Censorship kills imagination, squelches
creativity, stifles intellectual inquiry, and drains vitality from a society
and its culture. Free societies embrace the opportunity to bring the arts and
humanities, unrestricted and uncensored, to those who, without public support,
might be excluded from access. Those who are not free to question or offend
the status quo, as well as those who are not free to encounter, comment upon
and criticize such expression, are not equal participants in a democratic
society. And those who withstand the pointed criticisms of others are
strengthened in their beliefs.
For five years, British writer Salman Rushdie has been under a death warrant
(a fatwa) issued by the Iranian government for exercising his freedom of
artistic expression. Rushdie says: "Free societies are societies in motion,
and with motion comes tension, dissent, friction. Free people strike sparks,
and those sparks are the best evidence of freedom's existence."
What YOU Can DO
The following straightforward tasks can be undertaken by individual citizens
and/or groups
and can have a significant impact on freedom of expression.
INFORM YOURSELF
Get the facts on current issues and events surrounding attacks on freedom of
expression. Stay informed. Things are happening constantly these days. Keep
your ears and eyes open
The main battle over freedom of expression and the arts and humanities
involves "public funding" i.e. "taxpayers dollars." In 1960 the move toward
providing public (government) support to the arts and humanities began. In
that year the New York State Council on the Arts was created by then-Governor
Nelson Rockefeller. In 1965 the National Endowments for the Arts and
Humanities were created under President Lyndon Johnson. Since then, every
state in the union, and the territories, has created a state arts agency, and
many counties and municipalities have, as well.
How much tax money goes to the arts and humanities? It varies from state to
state, and city to city, but the bottom line is that a very tiny part of the
public budget is used for culture. The NEA budget represents less than 1/200
of 1% of the federal budget, or about 64 cents per person.
To find out what arts programs are funded in your community or state with
public funds contact the state arts agency. (Most state arts agencies are
located in the state capital.). State arts agencies maintain records of their
grants and those made in your state by the NEA. Some city and county arts
agencies are part of local government and some are private non-profits. Your
state arts agency will be able to tell you if there is a city or county arts
council where you reside.
The humanities have a similar history of public funding. Since the creation of
the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1965 (simultaneous with the NEA),
each state has formed a humanities council/commission. Unlike the state arts
agencies, not all are part of state government. In some cases the arts and
humanities agencies are combined; in other instances the humanities commission
is a private non-profit organization. There are very few municipal or county
humanities commissions.
The arts and humanities grants that are targeted by the radical right mirror
their agenda described throughout this workbook. They focus on subjects
including gays and lesbians, multiculturalism, feminism, reproductive rights,
revisionist history, and views of religion and patriotism that do not coincide
with their own.
EDUCATE OTHERS
Share your information with friends, colleagues, co-workers, members of groups
you belong to, students, at social gatherings. Form a discussion group or put

the issue of freedom of expression on the agenda for a meeting of an existing

group. Bring the topic up at dinner parties and over coffee or drinks.
Set up panel discussions with local community members who might be informed on
free expression such as attorneys, social/history educators, librarians,
artists and arts administrators, journalists, record and book store owners,
etc. Use videos (see "Resources") at meetings to educate and promote
discussion.
ACTIVATE THE MEDIA
If you do not find coverage of free expression issues (NEA and NEH,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, record lyrics legislation, book banning,
etc.) in your local newspapers or on your radio and television, call them and
get the name of a reporter to work with. Then offer to provide them with
information to educate them on the issues. Usually the person who will cover
this is not an "art critic" but rather a news reporter. If you become a key
source of accurate information you are doing the media a favor. Tell them that
the wire services (AP, UPI) do not always carry complete information on these
issues.
Start with National Public Radio (NPR). There are many items produced by
various local NPR-member stations that are available to other stations. Get
several people to call the station and express interest in this coverage.
Call local talk radio hosts and suggest the topic of censorship or freedom of
expression or tax support for art.
ACTIVATE YOUR NETWORKS and GROUPS
Get statements from organizations. If you are a member of a local, statewide
or national organization suggest that they issue a statement in support of
freedom of expression. Then get it published in the organization's
newsletter, send it to the local media, and elected officials (see "Contact
Public Officials" below). This serves two purposes: 1) if there is a
statement you can get it and distribute it locally to other community groups
and media; 2) if there is no statement, your inquiry can encourage the
organization to make a statement.
Set up a phone/fax network. These networks dont have to be huge to be
effective. If you can get 5-10 people in a network in your community or
neighborhood to respond to a phone-tree alert, this is 5-10 people more than
yesterday who will be informed and can act.
CONTACT PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Call, write, fax, mailgram your viewpoint to your members of Congress, state
legislators, governor, city council, mayor, President Clinton. Letters ARE
IMPORTANT. They count them. And you must do this MORE THAN ONCE. The
opposition does! Visit your members of Congress when they are at home for
district breaks; these are usually around holidays like Easter, Passover,
Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Christmas. Set up meetings in advance
and bring a group of people with you. Prepare your thoughts and agenda in
advance. Be forceful, not intimidated.
Testify before hearings on free expression issues or ask someone whom you
think has been articulate and informed on these issues if s/he would testify.
Print postcards pre-addressed to your U.S. senators and representatives with a
specific message regarding a free expression issue. Distribute them at
performances, meetings, events, festivals, book and record stores, etc. Leave
a space on the side with the message for the person to write their own name
and address and even some personal comments.
Create a petition with a strong statement at the top such as "I AM A TAXPAYER,
I VOTE, AND I SUPPORT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONand I oppose/support..."
START A FREE EXPRESSION COALITION
By working together with other organizations, you can significantly strengthen
you efforts.
Responding to Common Questions and Criticisms
(Adapted from a document distributed by the Emergency Campaign to Save the
Arts, a project of American Arts Alliance, American Association of Museums,
National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies and National Assembly of State Arts
Agencies.)
1. "The NEA is elitist."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The way to ensure that the arts in
the United States are elitist is to eliminate the Endowment so that only rich
people can afford them.
Without Endowment support we would risk not having outreach programs for
children, free concerts and theater in the parks, and special ticket prices

for students and seniors.

Many of the more than 300 multicultural organizations supported by the
Endowment would have to decrease their programming significantly if they could
no longer receive NEA support, thereby cutting off a diverse group of
Americans access to the arts.
As well as supporting museums and operas, the NEA supports folk artists and
their work though the Folk Art Program, helping to preserve the traditions
unique to our shared American history.
By pure numbers, the Arts Endowment has fostered a non-elitist arts
environment in this country. When the NEA started in 1965, 80 percent of all
dance was located in New York City. Today dance is spread across the country;
indeed, in the same period of time, dance audiences have increased twentyfold. This is true of every significant arts discipline thanks to the NEAs
leadership and monetary support.
2. "Who decides what receives public funding?"
Grants at most levels of public arts funding are determined by the peer panel
process. At the NEA, peer panels include citizens from all across the country
working together to provide support to artists and arts organizations all
across the country. These decisions are then reviewed by the National Council
for the Arts, a presidentially-appointed body, and the Chair of the NEA. This
three-tiered system is democratic and accountable, and is backed up by highly
competent and thorough staff work. This process exemplifies the federal
government and its citizens working together to achieve common goals.
3. "Why fund the arts when we have other pressing needs in our society, such
as homelessness, drugs, and violence?"
The budget for the National Endowment for the Arts represents 1/200th of one
percent of the national budget. We spend less than one-half of a cup of
coffee (64 cents) per year per taxpayer on everything the Endowment does. A
retreat from funding the NEA would signal that Congress does not care about
creativity, and that art, music and design are not important to the American
character. A retreat on the national level would precipitate a retreat on the
state and local arts council level, and the network we have so carefully put
in place over the last 29 years would be imperiled. Currently, there are over
3,000 local arts councils nationwide. When the Endowment started, there were
162.
Arts indeed would be for the elite, because our Expansion Arts Program to the
multicultural community, our rural arts programs, our Folk Arts Program and
others would all vanish. Arts education would not be promoted by the federal
government. We would not be teaching our children, at least not with federal
government support, that the arts help make sense out of chaos; that they
teach the tolerance learned through viewing things from different
perspectives; that they allow children to learn with both hemispheres of their
brains.
And finally, it would signal a country so uncomfortable with itself that it is
afraid to dare, afraid to take chances, afraid to visit the unfamiliar.
Always in our society, we have promoted the vigorous clash of ideas as being
the most fundamental way of achieving the truth. For the federal government
to retreat from this proposition would signal far more about us than the
demise of the National Endowment for the Arts.
4. "NEA funding is a small percentage of many arts organizations' budgets.
Why does it matter?"
The Endowments funding has always served two purposes:
1. The money itself.
2. Recognition by the NEA that the applicant is producing excellent art. That
endorsement allows much greater fundraising and signals to the business and
private community that this grantee is indeed worthy.
Moreover, emerging, multicultural and smaller budget organizations are far
more dependent on NEA support than some large budget institutions. Just
knowing that the Federal government cares about a particular project often can
inspire those working on it to far greater achievement.
Resources
After more than five years of battles over the arts and humanities, there are
many good resources available. Here are some that NCFE recommends:
Books
Arresting Images by Steven D. Dubin (Routledge)
Bookbanning in America by William Noble (Erikkson)
Culture War edited by Richard Bolton (New Press)
Culture Wars - The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter (Basic

Books)
Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy (A guide to America's Censorship Wars) by Marjorie
Heins (New Press)
The Cultural Battlefield - edited by Louis Crozier; due out summer '94;
(Avocus)
Videos
State of the Arts: Art of the State, produced by Branda Miller (available
from NCFE)
Publications
ACLU Arts Censorship Project Newsletter
NCFE BULLETIN (quarterly)
National Coalition Against Censorship Newsletter
People for the American Way Artsave Newsletter (quarterly)
(All three groups listed below maintain extensive clipping files for
background information on a variety of free expression incidents, litigation,
and legislation.)
Organizations
ACLU Arts Censorship Project - 212 944 9800 ext. 704 (also local ACLU
affiliates)
National Campaign for Freedom of Expression - 800 477 6233
People For the American Way/ArtSave - 202 467 4999 (local offices in Florida,
North Carolina, New York, Colorado, California)

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Organize to End Censorship

Organizing Against Censorship

Deanna Duby and Mark Sedway

People For the American Way
Washington, DC

This article outlines various action steps that citizens, teachers and
administrators can take in the face of attempted censorship.

Religious Right groups and their local followers have become more
sophisticated in their tactics and rhetoric. Citizen action has emerged as
the key ingredient in successful campaigns to keep challenged materials in
place in the public schools and protect the freedom to learn. When the shouts
of the censors are met by silence, when schools are left alone in defending
materials against attack, attempts to ban books and programs often succeed.
But when citizens get involved, form alliances with the schools and organize
broad community support, such challenges can be defeated.
Citizen Mobilizing Steps
Listed below are some simple first steps that will help citizens build a
successful campaign against censorship.
1. Find allies. Start by calling friends and colleagues, and build a nucleus
of committed parents, citizens and school teachers, librarians and
administrators. Then reach out to other people in the community: civic
leaders, clergy, business people, women's groups, and students. Remember, for
every individual who tries to censor a book, there will be dozens of potential
allies in the communitypeople who, when warned of looming censorship, will
come to the defense of the material, the schools and the freedom to learn.
2. Arrange a meeting of your group. Inform your group of the incident and
the issues involved. Create a mailing list. Give your group a name. Define
your goals. Then carry out the specific activities listed below.
3. Keep a file of information. Collect and save all information on the
incident, including newspaper clips, school board meeting minutes,
correspondence, fliers, meeting notes, and material distributed by the
objectors.
4. Meet with the teacher, librarian or administrator who is in charge of the
challenged material. Keep in mind the objector's complaints and learn how the
teacher or librarian uses the material. Read it yourself. Develop a pointby-point rebuttal of the objector's claims.
5. Write letters to school officials. Mobilize your allies to write to the
school board and school district voicing support for the challenged material
and opposition to censorship. The more letters, the better.
6. Write letters-to-the-editor to local newspapers. Letters-to-the-editor
are widely read, will increase awareness of your cause, and may inspire others
to take a stand.
7. Contact and work with the local media. Notify the local media of a
censorship attempt by calling reporters and providing them with information.

Identify someone who would be a good spokesperson for your group. Write and
distribute a press release announcing the formation of your group and its
activities. Meet with newspaper editors or editorial boards to discuss the
issue. Working with the local media is one of the most criticaland
overlookedways to stop school censorship.
8. Mobilize your allies to attend all relevant school board meetings or
public hearings. The more people you get there, the better. Obtain the
agenda ahead of time. Ask for a chance to speak. If possible, have your
allies wear buttons, t-shirts or some other visible form of identification so
the board and media will see the strength of your support. Become the vocal
majority.
9. Start a petition drive. Get the signatures of as many people as possible
on a petition opposing censorship. Present the petition at a school board
meeting or other public forum. Send a copy to each school board member.
10. Broaden your coalition further to include community groups and leaders.
Broaden support for your cause by calling any groups or leaders who may have
an interest in the matter or influence with the school board. Ask them to
join your coalition. Prepare a coalition statement, have them co-sign it, and
send it to the school board and media.
11. Hold community meetings to discuss the issue. Publicize them well and
try to attract a broad range of citizens.
12. Research and expose possible connections between objectors and national
Religious Right or censorship groups.
13. Work to frame the debate to your advantage. In your meetings and
letters, put the challenge in its appropriate context by discussing broader
issues such as censorship and academic freedom, any similar incidents that
have taken place around the country, and the broader agenda of any national
organizations involved in the challenge. When challenging school materials,
many would-be censors claim to represent the views of "parents" and
"Christians." Prevent them from staking a claim to these important
constituencies by pointing out the inclusion of parents, churchgoers and
clergy in your own group. Argue that neither parents nor Christians think as
monolithic groups.
Teacher and Administrator Mobilizing Steps
Teachers and administrators can also combat censorship by organizing and
preparing in advance to respond to challenges to the curriculum. Some
guidelines:
1. Develop broad community support. Teachers can also spearhead or join a
community coalition to come to the defense of the material, the schools, and
the freedom to learn.
2. Have a reconsideration policy and use it. Require objectors to file
formal or written complaints that spell out specific objections and
substantiate their claims. The policy should require that materials not be
removed during the reconsideration process.
3. Inform other teachers and administrators whenever a book or program is
challenged by an organized group. Rely on your colleagues for guidance and
support. Speak with any teachers who have used the challenged material.
Don't hesitate to ask for help from school or district administrators.
4. Speak with educators who have faced similar attacks. Educators from your
district or around the country who have experienced similar challenges are
valuable resources.
5. Teachers should refer complaints they receive to administrators at the
schoolor the district level for highly organized challenges. This approach
will ensure that district reconsideration procedures are followed and that
teachers and librarians are spared the disruption of daily visits by
objectors.
6. When faced with an organized attack, district officials may want to
provide school board members with thorough information on challenged
materials. Likewise, teachers and librarians may provide school or district
officials information on materials and how they are used. Informed board
members and administrators are better able to respond to challenges, more
likely to withstand distortion campaigns, and ultimately more willing to
defend materials under attack.
11. Do not hesitate to contact the local media if a challenge develops into a
big battle, since organized would-be censors will likely do the same. Meet

with publishers or editors, provide reporters information, have supporters

write letters-to-the-editor, ask a parent activist to write an op-ed. Media
exposure will help your cause.
12. Find out about the objectors, their claims and any outside groups they
might be working with as soon as possible. Although objectors often claim to
be acting alone, many receive information or help from national Religious
Right groups. It will help if you expose this larger network. Also, verify
whether objectors know about the materials they are challenging or instead are
acting at the behest of outside groups.
13. Many district and school officials send a newsletter to parents
explaining the truth about the challenged program or book, its educational
purpose, and how it is used. Such newsletters often solicit parental input
and support.
14. Don't assume that an organized challenge will simply go away if you don't
fight it. Take it seriously.u

Combatting Censorship In The Arts: Action Steps

Jill Bond and Michelle Richards
People For the American Way
Washington, DC

The following is excerpted from People For the American Way's artsave action
kit. The kit provides suggested techniques for artists, arts administrators
and activists facing censorship challenges to the arts..

Developing a Freedom of Artistic Expression Policy. A strong freedom of

artistic expression policy can be a first line of defense against any attack
or controversy. Although policies cannot prevent censorship attempts, they
can help combat such efforts. Specifying and publicizing the importance of
artistic freedom to the mission of your organization helps educate the
community about your overall goals and objectives. Then, if a challenge
occurs, it is easier to defend against it by showing how you have not strayed
from your goals and objectives as outlined in a formal policy.
Any organization or group involved in the funding, promotion, production or
presentation of art should make it a priority to have a freedom of artistic
expression policy in place. It is especially important for colleges,
universities, and state and local arts agencies to have such a policy.
Policies are most effective when:
they are created before a censorship challenge;
their drafting involves both staff and directors;
they are tailored to their environment (e.g., college or university gallery
policies address the parallel between academic and artistic freedom);
they use existing, working policies as models;
they are publicly announced, printed in programs or posted on plaques.
Building a Coalition. The purpose of building a coalition is to demonstrate
the breadth of support for your anti-censorship position. A coalition should
include organizations or individuals who agree at least on the fundamental
issue at handopposition to arts censorshipalthough they need not agree on
specific issues. A viable coalition is an important tool when a would-be
censor attacks a work of art in your community. When a challenge arises, it
is important to strengthen any existing coalition and broaden your support.
First, get the facts. Understand the censor's challenges and familiarize
yourself with policies and procedures for handling a challenge.
Then begin to identify your naturaland sometimes not so naturalallies.
At your first meeting, begin to define your goals. Set specific organizing
benchmarks for your coalition. Ask coalition members to do something
specific, being careful not to overwhelm them with too much work.
Announce the formation of your coalition by releasing a public statement of
purpose, along with a press release.
Working with the Media. When an institution or individual comes under attack,
the media can be contacted to express your side of the issue. Favorable media
attention can decide the battle.
First, set a goal for your media efforts. It may be as general as building
support for free expression or as specific as correcting misinformation about

a particular exhibit. Then define the audience you're trying to reach and
select the media outlet that best targets that audience.
You can approach the media through a number of avenues: press releases, public
forums or news conferences, letters-to-the-editor, meeting with editorial
boards, speaking directly with reporters covering the arts, appearing on
television and radio programs, and submitting op-eds. Here are a few specific
tips:
Letters-to-the-editor should be to the point and brief. Focus on one or two
points. Letters should, if possible, refer to a specific story or article
that has already run. Remember that readers are not all experts on the
subject, so you may need to repeat key facts. Be sure to include your name,
address and phone number.
News releases should read like a news storyattention-grabbing headline, most
important information in first paragraph, answers for the questions who, what,
when, where and why. They should include a quote or two from your
spokesperson. Always include a contact name and phone number so reporters can
follow up. Be sure to get the press release to the individual reporters
covering the story.
Well-planned news conferences include a visual backdrop that complements your
story. They should be held at a location convenient to the media. Be brief
and include no more than three or four speakers. Distribute a news release at
the press conference, and fax or messenger copies of the release around to
reporters who were unable to attend..
Radio and television interview programs are always looking for ideas. Contact
the producer of a given program and suggest your story and a spokesperson. Be
ready to send background material.
Letter-writing Campaigns. Letter-writing campaigns to defend freedom of
expression can be vital tools in the effort to influence decision-makers.
Target decision-makers who can help sway the outcome of a challenge. These
include elected officials, boards of directors, and others.
Letter campaigns require lots of preparation. Start by preparing an action
alert that lays out all the facts for writers. The alert should be brief (one
to two pages), describe the incident or threat to free expression and announce
the letter-writing campaign.
Include in the alert a clear call for immediate action and provide simple
steps that an activist can follow. Provide a sample letter that activists can
use as a guide, while encouraging them to express their own personal
perspective as an artist or patron of the arts.
Distribute the alert to all potential allies and encourage them to share it
with others. You can often get mailing lists from other organizations or ask
them to mail your alert.
Pass out the alert at meetings, events or wherever likely allies would be.
Display the alert (or an abbreviated "flyer" version) at galleries, museums,
book stores, video stores, libraries, universities or wherever allies have a
public venue.
Keep your sample letter brief, limited to a few artfully worded points.
Describe them clearly and back them up with facts and examples.
Adopt a constructive tone. People are more likely to be receptive if they
receive a persuasive letter, not an attack.
The First Amendment and the Artist. In dealing with censorship threats, it is
important to consider the legal issues raised and to understand your legal
rights. Of course, not all arts censorship controversies wind up in court,
but some important ones do. Moreover, arguments based on the First Amendment
can be very compelling in the court of public opinion as well. Of course,
you'll want to consult an attorney if you think a legal case may be brewing,
but here are some important things to keep in mind along the way.
The First Amendment applies to artistic expression, verbal as well as nonverbal, just as it applies to political and other speech. It is a shield that
protects against government restriction or punishment of expression,
particularly when the government discriminates on the basis of content or
viewpoint. The First Amendment applies to action by federal, state, or local
government, but not to purely private art galleries, theaters, or other
organizations.
Not all expression is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has
found that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates "a clear
and present danger" of violence or injury, such as shouting "fire" in a
crowded theater. There are limits on the First Amendment in prisons and in
the military. Libel and slander are generally not covered. Finally, the
Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity or child
pornography.
How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Censorship, Sex, and Women

The Sex Panic: Fighting The Myth That Censorship Is Good For Women

Roz Udow
National Coalition Against Censorship
New York, New York

"I do not believe we should allow government to tell women or men how we
should think or write about our lives, including our sex lives. I don't think
those kinds of laws are a good idea for anybody, and I know they are bad for
women." Ann Lewis, political analyst.

The culture war in our society, declared by Pat Robertson and spearheaded by
the Radical Right, has at its heart a sex panic. Sex panics are not new in our
history. They have occurred many times in the past, always with disastrous
effects on the quality of women's lives. Margaret Sanger, Planned
Parenthood's founder, was jailed in 1916 for telling women they could choose
when and whether to have children. Until 1971, vestiges of "Comstockery"
(obscenity laws initiated by Anthony Comstock in 1873) prohibited mailing
birth control devices or even contraceptive informationall in the guise of
protecting the "virtue" of women. In this same tradition, "moralists" across
the nation have attacked sex education and such feminist works as The Feminine
Mystique, Our Bodies Ourselves, and Ms. Magazine.
Social purity movements inspired by law enforcement vice squads and
conservative and religious "decency" groups are familiar episodes in our
nation. Today, these forces have joined with a small but fervent feminist
movement that claims "pornography" is the central cause of women's inequality.
Most feminists do not support these views, however. A great number of those
who support women's rights understand that censorship is dangerous to women
and that they will always suffer disproportionately as a result of censorship
campaigns. They reject claims that freedom and equality principles are in
opposition and that women must choose between them; they insist that justice
requires both. They are determined to dispel the myths that censorship is
good for women, that women want censorship and that those who support
censorship speak for women.
Though women may criticize some pornography as sexist, it is unfortunately not
the only form of expression that meets that definition. Many women -- artists,
writers, lawyers, historians, scholars, home makers -- believe that women's
serious efforts to achieve equality are derailed by simplistic notions that
focus on words and images. Emotional rhetoric about expression that appeals
to fear is intimidating; it makes discussion about these important public
policy issues more difficult. It doesn't address real violence and it fuels
the notion that women's sexuality is dangerous and must be controlled.
Historically, women have always been harmed by censorship. In the name of
"protecting" women from "smut," birth control information has been withheld,
great works of art have been removed from display; books that describe women's
bodies, and sex education and information about AIDS have been banned.
Feminists who oppose censorship are especially dismayed that right wing
groups, well known for their opposition to enhancing women's independence,
have discovered women's rights as a reason to impose censorship.

In fact, anti-pornography campaigns can have dangerous impacts. For example,

the Supreme Court of Canada adopted an argument put forth by censorship
supporter Catherine MacKinnon, allowing expression to be banned if it
denigrated women. The first target of the censors? Lesbian expression.
Canada's experience demonstrates the harmfulness of laws that give government
the power to decide what expression is degrading to women.
Certainly there is sexist material out there. Some of it is violent and may be
horrifying to some of us or even most of us. But, once we allow censorship of
these publications, we will see history repeat itself. Censorship has always
been used to keep materials from the least powerful people in any society. It
wasn't too long ago that information on birth control was kept out of the
hands of women. People in favor of censorship know that knowledge is power
There is also the question of defining exactly what is meant by the term
"pornography." It is frequently and incorrectly used as though its
meaning has a widely-accepted common understanding. In fact, the term is not
used in U.S. law, and it is considered by most scholars and critics even more
vague than the legal concept "obscenity," long famed for lack of clarity.
Pornography is a subjective term that is customarily used for words and images
whose sole purpose is sexual arousal. It has also been used to attack and
suppress literature, art, sex education, AIDS education and information about
women's sexuality. Recently, it has begun to be used by certain feminists as
though sexually explicit expression is inherently "subordinating" or
"degrading" to women (and as though these terms are themselves not subject to
disagreement).
Some arguments are also made that it must be banned to protect children. But
even if everything some people deemed pornographic was banned, young people
would continue to be exposed to sexual images in all kinds of media. The best
way to help protect our children from images we believe inappropriate is
through education. Education about sexuality and expression is the best
defense.
And as with other arguments, too many would-be censors would lump a lot of
literature into the pornography pot, including the illustration of a naked
little boy in the classic children's book, In the Night Kitchen, by Maurice
Sendak.
There is no evidence to support the repeated claims that exposure to sexually
explicit expression causes violence against women, despite many attempts to
find links.
For example, the 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography extensively
researched a possible link between sexually explicit expression and antisocial behavior. Its conclusion: "Empirical research designed to clarify the
question has found no reliable evidence to date that exposure to sexual
materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal
sexual behavior among youths or adults. If a case is to be made against
pornography in 1970, it will have to be made on grounds other than
demonstrated effects of a damaging personal or social nature."
The 1986 Meese Commission on Pornography commissioned a review of the social
science data, desperately hoping to find a causal link between sexually
explicit materials and sex crimes. It could not do so. In fact, its
insistence on recommendations for censorship included in its final report drew
a powerful dissent from two women members of the Commission. Said Dr. Judith
Becker, a professor of psychiatry and psychology whose entire research career
has been devoted to studying sexual abuse and sexually violent behavior,
"Pornography is an insignificant factor, if any factor at all, in the
development of deviant behavior."
The women who oppose censorship are everywhere. We have varied experiences,
interests and views regarding sexuality, its representation and what we each
may refer to as erotica or pornography. We know censorship is not a remedy
for sexism, racism, homophobia, violence, poverty or inequality in our society
and that groups with real grievances that must be addressed are always the
first to be harmed by censorship. As journalist Ellen Willis says: "How long
will it take oppressed groups to learn that if we give the state enough rope,
it will wind up around our necks?"
The National Coalition Against Censorship's Working Group on Women, Censorship
and "Pornography" is a diverse group of 70 feminists, including artists,
writers, critics, scholars, activists and intellectuals. They have joined
together to let others know that women don't want, can't benefit from, and
won't tolerate censorship.
Selected Quotes About the Harms of Censorship
Author Judy Blume: "If I were starting out now, I might not even write

children's books. In this climate of fear, I might find it impossible to

write honestly about kids."
Historian Lisa Duggan: "[Obscenity laws] have always been used to restrict
information about birth control and abortion, to limit public sex education,
and to seize literature and art."
Betty Friedan: "To introduce censorship in the United States in the guise of
suppressing pornography is extremely dangerous to women. ...if antipornography legislation were passed, the first targets of it would be feminist
books...[those] giving women control of their own bodies."
Molly Ivins: "... women's major problems are still racism and sexism. Where I
am, poverty and violence are the most serious problems, and it always amazes
me to find people spending their time worrying about how women are depicted...
We get so scared of something terrible-so scared of communists, of illegal
aliens, of pornography, or of crime-that we decide the only way to protect
ourselves is to cut back on our freedom. Ain't that the funniest idea, that
if we were less free, we would be safer."
Author Wendy Kaminer: "[MacKinnon's] is a very traditional theory of gender
difference [which argues that] pornography is not speech, because men are
beasts. When confronted with misogynist literature, they are seized with an
irresistible impulse to act it out. ..It feels like fighting back, not asking
for protection."
Anthropologist Carole Vance: "The query, 'What do women want?' remains a
provocative question in regard to art, imagery and sexual culture. And it
is not a question that can be easily answered in a sexist society.
Still,...the answer lies in expansion, not closure, and in increasing women's
power and autonomy in art as well as sex."

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Anti-Gay Attacks

Mobilizing A Strong Response: When Your State Is Targeted For An Anti-Gay

Initiative

George Neighbors, Jr.

Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG)
Washington, D.C.
Rev. Meg Riley
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington, D.C.

This article talks about building a coalition and training leadership when
your state is targeted for an anti-gay initiative.

Begin by identifying the broadest coalition you can to oppose the initiative.
Strive for representation from the greatest possible strata of racial, ethnic,
geographic, economic, political, religious, ideological groups. Your
coalition should resemble the community that is being targeted by the ballot
initiative (i.e., your state or town.)
BUILDING A COALITION
1. Start by gathering those leaders and groups who are your strongest allies.
Consider, for instance:
WOMENS' GROUPS. Statewide branches of the National Organization for Women,
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Older Womens' League,
International Womens League for Peace and Freedom.
RELIGIOUS GROUPS. American Jewish Committee, National Jewish Democratic
Council, other liberal Jewish groups, United Church of Christ, Unitarian
Universalists, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, gay caucuses of all
religions [eg., Dignity, Integrity], the state branches of the National
Council of Churches, interfaith alliances. Be sure to identify supportive
religious leaders in communities of color.
LES/BI/GAY GROUPS. Social, spiritual, political, professional, university,
corporate, sports teams, support groups. Pick up a copy a local gay newspaper
for contacts.
CIVIL RIGHTS/ CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS. Statewide chapters of NAACP, ACLU,
Prisoners' Rights groups, Welfare Rights, Gray Panthers, AIDS groups, PFLAG
[Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays].
POLITICAL PARTY LEADERSHIP. Elected representatives, Democratic or Republican
party leaders, political candidates.
LABOR UNIONS AND BUSINESS GROUPS. Progressive Unions such as SEIU, AFLC-CIO,
progressive corporations vis a vis gay/lesbian/bisexual employees, Bureau of
Tourism, Chamber of Commerce, Convention centers, small business owners.
Realize that gay business owners might be especially receptive and supportive.
SEX EDUCATION/ HEALTH ADVOCACY GROUPS. Planned Parenthood, AIDS groups,
neighborhood clinics.

ANTI-CENSORSHIP GROUPS. National Coalition Against Censorship, American Arts

Alliance, artists, theatre companies, libraries, etc.
2. Gather the group with the specific intention of broadening it. Brainstorm
a list of groups and prominent individuals who are connected to your issue,
and strategize about how to reach out to them. Consider as potential allies
any groups that have tangled with Religious Right groups around other issues.
"The enemies of my enemies are my friends." For instance:
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS such as the Sierra Club, Audubon, etc.
PARENT/ TEACHER GROUPS who have struggled with school voucher initiatives,
censorship, curriculum issues.
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS GROUPS who have struggled with English Only initiatives.
PSYCHOLOGISTS/ SCHOOL COUNSELORS.
DEATH WITH DIGNITY GROUPS.
3. Provide training for this group about coalition building. Agree to
disagree about that which is not central to the ballot initiative. Create
clear expectations about communications and behavior within the group.
LEADERSHIP TRAINING
Once you have come this far, it's time to educate your leadership and work to
expand even more. One way to to begin is by asking your strongest allies to
sponsor a day, evening, or weekend seminar on leadership training and
development for interested groups and/or individuals.
Planning for this training should include:
Brainstorming about your group's needs as related to strategies, messages,
public relations, and fundraising opportunities.
Obtaining ideas for specific workshop topics and presenters from national
organizations and other state groups who have faced similar challenges.
The following are essential topics and issues for any initial leadership
workshop:
1. Media Training
Understanding the press and contacting them
Interview skills and appearance (role-play)
Overcoming public speaking fears (role-play)
2. Electoral/Political Process
Understanding the initiative/ ballot/ legislative process
Understanding who can influence the outcome and how to contact/influence them
(lobby skills)
Understand the political calendar (how long it takes to get funding,
advertising, task forces up and running)
3. Building Stronger Coalitions
Understanding leadership involves compromising, listening and doing
Reaching out to new coalition partners (What do you have to offer them in
return for their help?)
Understanding the need to check "baggage" from past campaigns/ experience and
egos at the door.
Developing intra-coalition communication vehicles (phone, Internet, fax)
Phone tree system and on-line computer communications
4. Message Development and Messengers
Conducting polling and focus groups
Developing sustainable messages and consistent delivery
Identifying the right messenger for the right audience (same messages
different messengers)
5. Fundraising
Forming a budget
Finding resources grants, donations, house parties
Setting budget limitations
Remember that no one person can or should try to do everything. Have
participants evaluate their professional skills and personal interests and
concentrate their expertise in those areas or projects. Initiatives do not
provide a lot of time to train people from scratch. Keep your eyes on the
prize!

================================================================

TALKING POINTS AGAINST ANTI-GAY RHETORIC

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute
Washington, D.C.

Radical Right opponents to civil rights for gay/lesbian people use similar
arguments and rhetoric around the country, whether they're in Corvallis,
Oregon; Albany, New York; or Lebanon, Tennessee. This article is a tool for
action. It includes responses, ideas, and themes you may use to respond.
Each topic begins with the rhetoric used by the Radical Right, followed by
some ideas on how to respond.

"Gay men and lesbians are already covered under the Constitution just like the
rest of us. What they want is special rights. We oppose special rights for
gay people."
The Radical Right's use of the phrase "special rights" skews the issue. The
right to get and keep a job based on merit is not a special right. The right
to have housing is not a special right. The right to be served food in a
restaurant or stay in a hotel are not special rights. The right to have and
raise children without the state seizing them is not a special right. The
right to walk down the street and not get attacked because of who you are and
whom you love is not a special right. Gay and lesbian people want the same
rights guaranteed to all American citizens. However, without civil rights
laws that specifically ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay and
lesbian people can lose their jobs, their homes, and their families and be
refused service at public accommodations simply because they are gay with no
legal recourse. Right wing zealots who speak of special rights, in fact, want
their own very special right to discriminate against those whom they hate.
"Local ordinances for gay men and lesbians force the rest of us to live
against our religious beliefs. We're entitled to our rights too."
Most civil rights ordinances provide exemptions for religious institutions.
And extending civil rights to one sector of society does not withdraw rights
from another. In addition, many gay and lesbian members of religious
denominations are organizing within their religious communities so that
religious institutions may become more accepting of the diversity of their
members.
"They want to be treated like a minority, like an ethnic minority. The
Supreme Court says they're not. And we know they're not because they never
rode in the back of the bus and they are not economically deprived."
Like other minorities, gay men and lesbians face job loss, eviction, nonservice at public accommodations, and the loss of their children simply
because of who they are. And like other minorities, gay and lesbian people
face harassment, physical assault, and murder because of hatred against them
as a group. A Department of Justice study reported that "homosexuals are
probably the most frequent victims" of hate crime. Our Constitution says all
citizens are created equal which includes gay and lesbian Americans.
"Homosexuals lead an abominable lifestyle. People who care about traditional
family values must not encourage the open expression of sexual depravity."
Discrimination is the abomination, not gay and lesbian people. We uphold the
family values of support, love, understanding and respect between family
members. Discrimination and bigotry are not and never have been
traditional family values.
"Gay people want to force their lifestyle on us and take away our rights."
Civil rights laws that include gay and lesbian people do not limit the rights
of others. Instead, they extend to gay and lesbian people the same rights
already enjoyed by most Americans the right to obtain and keep employment
based on ability to do the job; the right to acquire housing; the right to
raise children; and the right to live free of violence. Gay and lesbian
people are not interested in forcing anything on anyone. Just the opposite.
Most gay and lesbian people would prefer to live in privacy, without intrusion
by Radical Right bigots.

"You can't let gays be near children since they can't reproduce, they
recruit. And they are all pedophiles."
Statistics show that the vast majority of sexual abuse is committed by men
against women, usually within the same family. One 1992 study from the
Children's Hospital in Denver showed that children are 100 times more likely
to be molested by a family member than by a gay or lesbian person. Sexual
abuse therapists have denounced statements by the Oregon Citizens Alliance

that link homosexuality with pedophilia in order to achieve OCA's extreme

political agenda. Lies perpetuate stereotypes that are then wrongly used to
deny gay and lesbian people their rights.

"What this is really leading to is marriage licenses for gay men and lesbians,
joint benefits, formalized domestic relationships, child adoptions, and the
destruction of the American family. This is wrong."
Civil rights laws that include gay and lesbian people do not grant gay and
lesbian people the right to marry. Society has failed to recognize the
committed unions of gay and lesbian people while it continues to perpetuate
the stereotype that all gay and lesbian people are sexually promiscuous. But
gay and lesbian people are continuing the struggle for the legal recognition
of their loving relationships including the right to obtain employment
benefits for spouses equivalent to those available to heterosexual co-workers.

"It's within our First Amendment rights to say what we think of homosexuals."
Radical Right organizations hide their homophobia behind the First Amendment.
While the Radical Right demands the right to speak out against homosexuality,
they simultaneously run well-financed campaigns to censor and squelch positive
images of gay and lesbian people on television, in schools, and in the arts.
The hatred and lies that Radical Right organizations spew create a hostile
environment for gay and lesbian people. Their rhetoric bolsters the hatred
expressed by bigots who physically attack gay men and lesbians. A national
study conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute
documented 1,822 anti-gay incidents in just five U.S. cities in 1991, a 31
percent increase over the number of incidents in 1990.
================================================================
Close Encounters With The Gay And Lesbian Community
Three Steps to Organizing around Gay and Lesbian Issues
Tom Swift
Human Rights Campaign Fund
Washington, D.C.

Attacking the gay and lesbian community has become a popular scare tactic with
the Radical Right. The concept of sexual orientation is still difficult and
uncomfortable for many Americans, and with this issue the Right claims a
'clear' moral authority that at the same time serves as an excellent tool for
mobilizing voters, enrolling members and raising money.

Any organized right wing political movement in your community will eventually
use the gay rights issue, or will focus entirely on gay and lesbian rights as
part of an electoral strategy. You need to be prepared and you need to take
steps now to include lesbians and gay men in your organizing.
The lesbian and gay community is well-organized, motivated and educated. You
need their help, their expertise and their resources. The battle for equality
for gay and lesbian Americans will eventually be won, and it will be won by
this strong, cohesive community. You cannot successfully battle right wing
forces without gay and lesbian participation.
However, prejudice and ignorance often prevent first-time organizers from
building bridges to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Here's how to reach out to that community.
FIRST SIGHTING
Many people have little or no experience working with the lesbian and gay
community. As in any new endeavor, a little knowledge can go a long way. The
first step in building bridges to the lesbian and gay community is to take the
time to learn.
Most major communities have a thriving lesbian and gay publication. Call your
library and see if they carry copies. If they don't, perhaps the librarian
will know where to find it. Most importantly, get a copy and read it. Find
out about the gay men and lesbians in your community. Where do they gather?
What are their concerns? Most publications also list local resources,
political groups, social groups and religious groups. Read about these groups
and add them to your Rolodex.
If there is no local publication, find out if there is a lesbian and gay

community center. Stop by and look around. Find out what groups meet at the
center and when they meet. Look on the walls of the center and read the
flyers, brochures and other postings. Ask questions.
Most cities have a bookstore that serves the lesbian and gay market. Browse
around, pick up state and national publications, and look at the postings
there, too. At this store, ask for a copy of The Gayellow Pages. This
publication lists every lesbian and gay group in the country. It is an
invaluable resource, and every organizer who is serious about working on
lesbian and gay issues should have a copy. Buy this book!
Once you've done your homework, try this exercise. On the bus home from work,
or in the doctor's office, or at the school board meeting, or anywhere in
public, take out the local gay publication or The Gayellow Pages and read it
(cover page up and visible!). If this makes you uncomfortable, that's okay.
But understand that this discomfort -- and your natural inclination to hide -is what gay men and lesbians face every day. Once you understand this
feeling, you are on your way to understanding these issues.
FIRST CONTACT
Once you have done your homework, it's time to make contact. The best place
to start is an organization called PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays).
PFLAG is a national organization with chapters in every state and most cities
in the country. Local chapters will be listed in The Gayellow Pages, or you
can contact a chapter in your area by calling the national office at 202-6384200. Although PFLAG is made up largely of parents, it is a diverse group
that is well-organized and always willing to lend a hand. Call the co-chair,
go to a meeting and begin to learn more about the community within your
community. PFLAG was founded, in part, to help people cope with sexual
orientation issues. If you have questions, now is the time to ask!
PFLAG can lead you to every other local gay organization. Use your contacts
in PFLAG to learn about community leaders, political organizations, AIDS
services and street activists. Once you have learned about these individuals
and organizations, make contact.
As with all coalition-building, sensitivity and mutual interest are key. What
are you bringing to the gay and lesbian community that they need? How can you
help them? And, what are your common goals? In most cases, you will find a
well-organized, politically astute core of individuals who tend to speak for
and organize your local gay and lesbian community. Creating a dialogue with
these leaders is crucial, and the first step towards substantive organizing.
You will probably find that these individuals have already begun to respond to
local Radical Right organizing.
Call the local gay and lesbian Democratic club, and the Log Cabin Club. The
Log Cabin Club is an organization of gay and lesbian Republicans. Their
national office is in Washington, D.C., and they have many local chapters.
Make contact with the Log Cabin Federation. Gay and lesbian Republicans can
be an effective voice against the Radical Right and can possibly help you make
contact with sympathetic Republican leaders.
Go to the meeting of local gay and lesbian political club, the Community
Center and the gay and lesbian business guild to introduce yourself and make
alliances for future political organizing. Be sensitive, listen and ask
questions. Explain that this is your first meeting, and be open about why you
are attending. All people respond to honesty, and you may be surprised that
your simple gesture of outreach will have a lasting impact. Most Americans
try to avoid gay and lesbian people. Making an effort to include them in
your organizing will not be forgotten.
If none of these avenues appeal to you, go to church. The gay church.
There is a rich and diverse gay and lesbian spiritual community that is very
welcoming. Attend a service or become a member of a congregation. The
following groups are most prominent: Metropolitan Community Church (NonDenominational, largest and best organized); Dignity (Catholic); Integrity
(Episcopal); More Light Churches (Presbyterian); Bet Mishpachah (Jewish);
Lutherans Concerned. Again, all of these congregations have national
governing bodies, listed in The Gayellow Pages. The church is a strong force
in the lesbian and gay community. Use it, and build bridges to your own
congregations, if possible. Consider creating a coalition of gay and non-gay
church leaders to oppose Radical Right religious arguments.
TAKE OFF
Substantive organizing in the lesbian and gay community rests largely on your
ability to find the lesbian and gay community. Once you've found it, getting

the constituency mobilized is simple.

Most gay men and lesbians are used to volunteering. They fight AIDS, breast
cancer, hate crimes, bigotry and discrimination every day. You should
understand that the gay and lesbian community is, for the most part,
politically aware, politically motivated and politically involved.
Use your coalition partners to your best advantage, but also know that on any
weekend in the year you can set up a table at any number of local gay bars and
sign-up volunteers, raise money, register voters or mobilize the constituency.
Be patient, because you may have to get in line behind the AIDS services
organization, the lesbian breast cancer coalition and the men's volleyball
league. But, a polite approach, endorsed by your new gay and lesbian
coalition partners, will yield access. If the issue you are fighting is
electoral, access will improve as election day approaches.
You can use this approach in any lesbian and gay gathering, and in fact it is
the most effective way to organize in this community. You must go where the
people are, because otherwise gay men and lesbians look just like everyone
else (which is not a bad message), and this is a community that congregates.
The best way to reach thousands of gay men and lesbians is at community
events. Again, check the local gay paper and rely on your coalition partners
to help you get access. Over 150 communities in America celebrate Gay Pride
Day (usually held in June). You should always march in the Pride Parade (for
visibility and solidarity), but you should also consider renting a booth. Use
this opportunity to raise money, recruit volunteers and get the message out
about the Radical Right. Other community events occur throughout the year.
Look for AIDSwalks, Rodeos, Dances, Halloween parties, National Coming Out Day
Events (October 11, every year) protest rallies, candlelight vigils, AIDS
quilt displays, picnics, sporting events and women's music festivals.
Always be sensitive, ask about event restrictions and follow the rules.
However, you must understand that in order to organize with the gay and
lesbian community, you must organize in the gay and lesbian community. Your
efforts will be well-rewarded.
CONCLUSION
If you don't grasp the importance of equal rights for lesbian and gay
Americans, you are not alone. Most Americans believe that it is illegal to
fire someone from a job because of their sexual orientation. Most Americans
are wrong. Only eight states have civil rights protection that covers gay men
and lesbians. For the most part, it is legal to discriminate against gay men
and lesbians.
If you still don't understand this issue, that's okay. The purpose of this
article is to teach you how to learn about these issues and how to meet the
gay men and lesbians who live in your hometown. When you meet them and when
you work with them, you will learn everything you need to know about equal
rights. The Radical Right is looking to limit everybody's rights. This is a
threat that should help us to forge alliances and embrace our differences. We
are fighting for liberty and justice for all.
TALKING POINTS AND TIPS
Never refer to sexual orientation as sexual preference. Most gay men and
lesbians believe (and most scientific evidence concurs) that homosexuality is
not a choice, but an orientation. This is an important distinction.
Always use the term gay, lesbian and bisexual. Using the blanket term Gay
Community can be considered exclusive. If you are unsure what is considered
most inclusive in your community, listen.
Avoid the term homosexual in just about every situation.
Always use the term equal rights instead of civil rights or special rights
whenever referring to lesbian/gay rights.
Lesbian and gay Americans are seeking equality under the law.
Gay men and lesbians believe that employees should be judged on job
performance, instead of non-job related factors.
Use the term unity when referring to other groups coming together to support
lesbian and gay rights.
Discrimination is un-American. Americans oppose discrimination and that's
what this issue is all about. This is about principles we all cherish -equality, unity, spirituality and privacy. Equal rights is reasonable. The
radical right is forcing this issue to further their broader agenda.

Pro-Choice Election Campaigns

ProChoice IdEA: A Technique that Works

Nancy Yanofsky
ProChoice Resource Center
Mamaromeck, New York
ProChoice IdEA is the vehicle by which a group can Identify, Educate and
Activate the pro-choice supporters in a given geo-political area. The acronym
IdEA sums up its method: it provides pro-choice groups and coalitions with
techniques and strategies on how to Identify sympathetic pro-choice supporters
in the grass roots. Educate them about the issues; and Activate them to
volunteer, lobby, speak out, teach others, protest, demonstrate, write their
elected officials--and vote.

ProChoice IdEA provides framework through which grassroots groups can approach
the issue of choice and related reproductive health care matters. Recognizing
that each community is unique in its political culture and has its own
particular set of requirements necessary to effect change within that culture,
the ProChoice Resource Center helps groups assess how to turn reproductive
rights into a "bottom line" issue and create real change in their communities.
Using this system, grassroots groups take lists of registered voters, develop
a pro-choice questionnaire to canvass (typically by phone) each name on the
list in order to identify supporters, and ultimately compile an extensive prochoice database. It bypasses the filter of the news media and the rhetoric of
campaign propaganda by going directly to people in their homes. The identified
pro-choice supporters are continually educated about the issues by mailing
alerts, newsletters, public forums, etc. and are made aware of challenges to
reproductive freedom. Then these supporters are activated by phone, fax,
mailings, voting guides, etc. to stand watch and act on choice year-round--and
to vote the issue at election time.
The value of a pro-choice database lies in its many uses
It can make the grassroots major players in state and local politics. Any
group armed with a significant computerized list of constituent supporters has
the ability to influence public opinion. Politicians and other public
officials know very well the power and clout of groups that have such a list.
It indicates a high level of public support for reproductive freedom, and puts
heat on legislators to actively support reproductive rights.
It supplies grassroots groups (and candidates) with a constituency for
rallies, events and year-round public education on local, state and federal
legislation.
It provides a list of pro-choice supporters, especially women, for who choice
is a bottom-line, defining issue.
It provides a mailing list for voting guides, educational materials, action
and legislative alerts, funding appeals, persuasion pieces, and a list for
get-out-the-vote calls near election day.
It gives grassroots groups (and candidates) access to potential donors and
volunteers.

This is exactly what grassroots groups need to secure reproductive freedom.

Academics agree. According to Debra Dodson of the Center for the American
Woman and Politics
"[One cannot] assume voters are able to connect their abstract concern about
abortion policy to the specific choices between candidates on election day.
Even voters who hold strong consistent views about abortion policy must be
educated every single election season and for each race where it matters,
otherwise they may be unaware that candidates differ over abortion policy or
that these differences matter.")
A study of the 1992 Presidential election by Alan Abramowitz of Emory
University confirms the efficacy of the approach behind this program.
Abramowitz found that abortion was the second best predictor of voting
preference, after party affiliation, among voters who could identify
candidates' positions. However, among those voters who were unaware of the
positions of the presidential candidates, he discovered that there was no
significant correlation between voters' positions and their voting
preferences. In sum, those who don't know the candidates' positions on
abortion don't necessarily vote for the candidate who agrees with them. How
can they?
Both these studies point to the crucial role played by this project. Polls
show that the majority of Americans who are pro-choice don't by themselves
change public policy. But identified, educated and activated pro-choice
supporters do.
With the right tools--i.e., an up-to-date database, a corps of volunteers,
phones, mailing lists and voting guides--policy makers need never be forced to
guess what "pro-choice" really means, nor how the pro-choice community feels
about including abortion services in a national health care package. Neither
can elected officials forget how they got where they are.
The inability of a seemingly pro-choice Congress to repeal the Hyde Amendment
indicates that the pro-choice community needs to be more diligent about who is
allowed to use the politically powerful pro-choice label. Clearly, it is time
for the pro-choice grass roots to say: There is no free lunch. If you want our
support, you must support us and this kind of project provides the wherewithal
for that to happen.
But this is not just for use at election time. To truly protect reproductive
freedom, this project must function throughout the year. The list of
supporters who have been identified provides the means to move a pro-choice
agenda forward once pro-choice officials are in office. A grassroots group can
use its clout to ensure accessibility, accountability and, most importantly,
action from elected officials on a full reproductive rights agenda.
Starting an IdEA Project
1. An organizational structure must be established, that is, an organization,
an organizational name and a governing body. While this structure does not
have to be elaborate or "official," it is important for phoners to be able to
identify the organization conducting the canvass. This lends credibility to
the canvass and also helps get the organization's name out into the community.
2. You need a computer (at least a 386, and preferably a 486 or one that is
even more powerful). You also need a database program, a person (or persons)
to do data entry, and whenever possible, a computer consultant who you can
call on for assistance.
3. The project needs a coordinator or co-coordinators. Although a project of
this type is not difficult, and in many ways embodies the essence of
grassroots organizing, there must be someone who knows what is happening at
all times, who can recognize glitches--and solve them, and who can keep track
of who is doing what, when, and who needs to be doing what when
4. The project needs a core of dedicated volunteers and/or paid staff who
will make the project happen. People are needed to write the canvass
questionnaires, code and tabulate the results, make phone calls, answer
questions, write voting guides--and mail them, organize and attend events,
help with fundraising, oversee a letter-writing campaign--and find other
volunteers to do the same.
5. You need a place from which to conduct a phone bank.
6. You need a fundraising plan--so that there is money to educate and
activate the pro-choice supporters that have been identified, so that there is
money to keep your lists up-to-date, and so that you can continue to identify

registered voters. New people move into the area you Id'd, other people move
out and hopefully, you will increase the geo-political sphere you decide to
canvass.
Identifying Pro-Choice Supporters
Identifying pro-choice supporters is neither difficult nor magical. It is the
result of conducting a systematic phone canvass of registered voters in a
given geo-political area. The ProChoice Resource Center offers sample canvass
questionnaires and coding sheets and can give your organization technical
assistance in tailoring those materials to fit your needs.
To conduct a canvass you will need phoners: volunteers, paid staff and/or a
telemarketing firm, a phone bank and phone captains. Lists of registered
voters are available on computer disk or tape and most often can be brought
from the local Board of Elections. Your organization must then determine when
it wants to conduct the canvass questionnaire. As a general rule, the best
time to canvass is in the evenings, from 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. Most people are home
at that time and despite what you have heard, do not mind being interrupted to
answer a short questionnaire, particularly when callers identify themselves
politely, say that there are no personal questions, and that the call will not
take more than a few minutes. And, when you find that someone will not answer
the questionnaire because they are busy, ask if there is a more convenient
time that you can call back.
It is important to train the phoners at least half hour prior to each phone
bank so that they become comfortable with the script (i.e., they can read it
easily and naturally) and are prepared to fill out the coding sheet for each
call they make.
The people you identify in these calls are the people who will receive your
educational and fundraising materials. These are the people who will become
activists for your organization. These are the people who you will count on:
volunteer, lobby, attend forums, fund-raise--and vote.
Because an accurate, up-to-date list is central to all of your other
activities, it is critical that the list be maintained. A hidden benefit of
spending money on mailings is that it inevitably generates a mass of returned
mail. Since we live in a mobile society, it is common to have about 10% of
your mailing returned from the post office, labeled "return to sender,"
"addressee unknown," or "note new address". However, don't be discouraged, you
will use these rejected parcels to clean your lists (and prevent you from
making the same mistake twice). Some organizations hire a company to maintain
their lists while other maintains their list "in-house." This is often
determined by the organization's size, database, software capacity and
available financial and organizational resources.
Educating Your Identified Supporters
In every training or workshop given by the Center, the E component of IdEA is
stressed as being a crucial stage of the project. Year-round communication
with supporters, the media, and the general public is essential if IdEA is to
be effective.
The list of supporters, therefore, has another function, aside from being a
list to call. It is used for one of the most home-spun--and effective--tools
of grassroots organizing: a mailing list. Once entered into the computer, the
list can be converted into mailing labels, which groups use to keep in touch
with, and therefore educate, supporters. Remember: an informed group of
supporters will effect the most change.
Mailing labels can be used on a variety of educational materials, all designed
to advance the pro-choice agenda. The Center can provide a variety of
materials to pass along to supporters, including a quarterly newsletter that
can be copied and distributed, articles about upcoming issues, information
about the pro-choice movement; and action alerts. Aside from the materials the
Center provides, groups should use the wealth of their own material.
Educational strategies include:
Mailing voting guides at election time.
Mailing fliers or invitations for rallies, lobbying days and important votes
in legislative bodies.
Background brochures or "white papers" on new issues such as health care,
minor access, parental consent, mandatory delays, and the opposition.
Background information and brochures on clinic-defense training and clinic
defense.

Sending a compilation of articles from local papers.

Mailing invitations to house parties where speakers inform groups about issues
and enlist volunteers.
Organizing town meetings or public forums with a local/regional/national panel
of experts.
In addition to the supporters a group already knows about, groups must also
work with the media to generate coverage of issues which can hopefully reach a
wider audience.
Groups can also:
Hold reporters' briefings to educate the media about issues.
Arrange editorial board meetings to challenge/encourage newspapers to take a
pro-choice editorial stand.
Buy paid advertising space to assure that the message remains intact.
The last (and most elusive) group to reach directly is the general public.
While media outreach efforts help, groups also need to prepare fliers and
brochures to pass out to the general public at rallies and meetings.
As you can see, education is a key part of this strategy. It is the bridge to
what is perhaps the heart of IdEA--activation.
Activating Your Supporters and Keeping Them Involved
Keeping supporters involved and motivated is the most difficult--and most
rewarding--element of this strategy. While having an informed group of
identified pro-choice supporters is essential, what those supporters do with
the knowledge is what will protect reproductive freedom.
At election time, the identified supporters are the easiest to activate.
Supporters understand the importance of making sure the pro-choice candidate
wins or that an anti-choice ballot initiative loses. And, elections are timebound, so supporters realize the "campaign" mentality they must adopt. At the
very least, during elections, activation is voting--and making sure others
vote. For the more committed supporters at election time, activation is
attending and asking questions at candidate forums, volunteering at a phone
bank to get-out-the-vote, and poll watching.
Between election cycles, however, activating a constituency and creating a
lobbying bloc is usually more difficult. Yet on-going activism is crucial to
keeping pressure on elected officials; it is the only way to keep leaders
honest when it comes time to vote on tough issues.
Because the anti-abortion opposition has become so masterful at grassroots
lobbying with direct mail, cable television, and fundamentalist church
networks, the pro-choice community needs to re-double its efforts to protect
reproductive freedom. Regular newsletters, telephone trees, phone banks and
action alerts are important activation tools. And as technology becomes more
widely available, computer networks and bulletin boards will enhance these
efforts.
To keep policy makers informed and aware of the fierce pro-choice constituency
in their districts, grassroots groups need to activate supporters to:
Write letters and make phone calls to elected officials
Attend meetings with local leaders and with state and federal legislators
Write letters to the editors and op-ed pieces
Attend rallies, forums and workshops
Monitor school board meetings--and speak out and distribute literature
Volunteer for IdEA projects
Organize forums and invite speakers
Donate money to local pro-choice organizations
Hold fundraisers or house parties
Defend clinics

Monitor the opposition's activities by attending their meetings and getting on

their mailing lists.
Conclusion
In November 1992, reaping the rewards of years of organizing, 500 candidates
supported by fundamentalist organizations ran in elections from school board
to President of the United States--and they won with a success rate of 40
percent. Without the effective counter force of programs like Pro-Choice IdEA,
however, their success would have been greater.
Groups that used ProChoice IdEA in the November 1992 elections have said they
were able to defeat anti-choice candidates by a margin of 14 percent by
identifying pro-choice supporters, talking to them in a compelling and
personal way, educating them and activating them to support pro-choice values
with their votes and voices.
Pro-choice grassroots groups won 54% of elections in which they were involved,
and identified nearly 900,000 pro-choice supporters across the country who
were interested in changing the political landscape and protecting
reproductive freedom.
While results from November 1992 prove that programs like Pro-Choice IdEA are
crucial for protecting reproductive freedom, grassroots leaders have learned
that many anti-choice candidates evade the issue of reproductive freedom,
especially radical right candidates. This makes it crucial to talk to
supporters early and often. Research proves that in an election, whichever
side frames the debate on tough issues has an advantage.
The overwhelming success of Pro-Choice projects proves they are a necessary
tool for grassroots groups to use in framing the debate honestly and
accurately in terms of women and women's health. In doing so, Americans will
be able to understand what is at stake in a particular election. And they will
be able to block the opposition from achieving its goal of denying women the
constitutional human and civil right to reproductive freedom.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Talking Points on Choice

Talking Points on Choice

Ann Lewis
Politics, Inc.
Washington, D.C.

Unsuccessful efforts to impose an outright ban on abortion have driven the

anti-choice forces to shift gears, concentrating on erecting expensive,
humiliating and even dangerous barriers. What follows are suggested responses
in two categories: Abortion and universal health care, and general
restrictions on abortion.

Abortion and Health Care

Why should abortion services be included in national health care?
Because the American people want comprehensive, reliable health care for women
and men, a system that combines access to quality care with the ability of
individuals with their own physicians to make their own health care decisions.
Access to safe abortions that are medically necessary or appropriate is
important to women's health.
Why should 'pregnancy-related' include abortions?
Because health care services must include whatever procedures are considered
medically necessary or appropriate according to women and their doctors. These
are difficult, complicated decisions. They should be made privately, by
doctors and patients.
Why not leave this question up to the states?
Because I want to see a national health care policy that combines full
coverage with individual choices. Not a fold out road map where we tell people
you're covered for this procedure in this state, but not in that one; you and
your doctor get to make your own decisions in state A, but not if you cross
the state line.
Why not have abortion services as an extra cost?
Because I believe that we should use the same standards for health care
coverage for everyone. If a procedure is medically necessary or appropriate,
it should be covered. That's the rule for every other kind of health care, and
I think it should be the same rule for women's reproductive health care.
Abortion is not some kind of luxury; it is a difficult, complicated decision.
Are you saying that taxpayers should support this? Is that fair?
This is very much about fairness. It's because we care about fairness that
we're talking about national health care reform. Even people who disagree
about certain aspects of the administration's proposals agree that it's time
to adopt a national policy that includes access and coverage.
We believe that government should set basic standards for care, and that
people should not be barred from exercising certain basic rights because they
don't have a high income. That's fairness.

Why is it fair to use the tax dollars of people who disagree?

It is fair to see that individuals are able to make their own decisions, in
consultations with their doctors, about procedures that are medically
necessary or appropriate. Now, that may mean some people make choices other
people don't agree with. For example, some people disapprove of blood
transfusions. That doesn't mean we should tell doctors they can't prescribe
blood transfusions.
I think it is very important that we respect individuals' moral decisions.
That's why the administration plan includes a conscience clause, which ensures
that doctors or health care providers who are morally opposed to abortion
don't have to participate.
Won't this make abortion too easy?
One of the goals of a comprehensive health care plan is to put more emphasis
on prevention, education and family planning. We can do that with full health
care coverage, including sex education, contraceptive services, prevention and
family planning.
Other Restrictions
Waiting Periods
I understand the theory behind this, but let's talk about reality. Does this
pass the common sense test? What happens to women who work, who have to travel
hours to get to a clinic? This bill will double the time she must be away from
her family and her work, double the loss of salary, double the cost of travel
and child care.
That can be a painful difference for women living on the financial edge.
Sometimes that difference delays the abortion, increases the cost and the
chance of complications. Sometimes anti-choice extremists identify women on
their first trip and then harass them at home. I don't think we should expose
women to that kind of bullying.
Informed Consent:
I agree that women considering abortions or any medical procedure should have
access to complete and accurate information. The question is, who will decide
what that information should be? I don't think politicians or government
bureaucracy should be in charge of writing health care information. I think
medical issues should be handled by health care professionals, and that
includes producing information.
Abortion as a Means of Birth Control:
This is another example of why the questions of abortion is so difficult to
legislate. Suppose there were laws on this subject. How could it be proven
that a woman deliberately chose not to use contraception, because she
preferred to have an abortion? Are we going to tape people's bedrooms? Use
detectives? I think this gets us into an absurd area. It's an area where
government doesn't belong.
Outlawing Abortion for Sex Selection:
I think this is a repulsive concept. I also think that laws proposed to ban it
are a kind of smokescreen by people who want to see all abortions banned. They
use this example because they know that people like you and me will be
repulsed, so we might be willing to outlaw it. Because, as I think about it,
how would government ban this? What kind of evidence would be obtained to
prove it happened? Who would testify? Who would be punished? Fortunately, the
simple fact is that there is no evidence that this occurs in the United
States.
Parental Consent:
We all want to make the family stronger. The question is, how do we achieve
that goal? The good news is that 85 percent of young women do discuss the
decision to have an abortion with their families. Now, how do we reach the
remaining 15 percent? I have a problem with a legislative mandate. It does
nothing to help families that work, and it penalizes those young women unlucky
enough to be born into families that don't work. In the worst cases, it can
expose them to real danger.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Keeping Clinics Open

How to Organize Support for Clinics, Physicians and Staff

Ann Baker, President

National Center for the Pro-Choice Majority
Hightstown, New Jersey

It is important to understand that the anti-abortion militants believe they

can isolate and embarrass abortion providers by their campaign of harassment
and intimidation. They see this as a more effective way to stop abortion than
any legislative strategy promoted by the more "mainstream" wing of the antiabortion crusade. The militants will succeed if the communities in which
doctors live and abortion clinics pay taxes take a pass on standing behind
these courageous medical personnel. The local pro-choice organizations may
initiate systems of support for abortion providers, but it will be vitally
important for the larger community to denounce the militants' tactics and show
its appreciation for the providers' courage.

For years before Operation Rescue was launched in 1988, there were small
groups of abortion protesters who focused their efforts on the women who used
abortion clinics and the clinic staffs who provided abortion services and
other reproductive health care. Although few in numbers in most communities
and scattered around the country in no more than three dozen cities and towns,
the protesters devoted their energies to making life miserable for clinics and
their clients. They probably numbered no more than 200.
The mentor of this movement has been Joe Scheidler who founded the Pro-Life
Action League, based in Chicago, in 1980. Scheidler had been dismissed as
executive director from two anti-abortion organizations because they were
displeased with his emphasis on direct-action at the clinics.
In 1985 Scheidler found a publisher for his manual of dirty tricks called
Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortions. And in the same year he began to hold an
annual conference for people from around the country who were engaged in
direct-action at their local clinics. The participants in these conferences
generated a month-by-month schedule of activities they would all do together.
This schedule was called "The Year of Pain and Fear." It was this group of
people, coming together for an annual conference and focused on making things
unpleasant at abortion clinics, that developed the strategy of large clinic
blockades known as Operation Rescue.
At the same time that Scheidler published Closed, a still-obscure militant,
Kevin Sherlock, wrote and distributed The Abortion Busters Manual. Sherlock's
focus was not on the visible harassment of providers at the clinics but on
researching the professional histories of the physicians in the hopes of
uncovering malpractice cases. To date this has not been a successful strategy,
despite the fact that three anti-abortion organizations have dedicated much
time and effort to it. However, it continues because those in the antiabortion crusade passionately believe that only the dregs of the medical
profession do abortions. It is this kind of thinking which pervades the
direct-action movement that has led inevitably to the murder and attempted
murder of doctors.
By 1985 most of the tactics used against abortion providers existed in some
form, although many of them needed refinement to become effective. But the

groundwork had been laid and all that remained was for the various groups of
militants to field-test these tactics until they had effective "products."
The militants' actions are based on their view that they may do anything if it
prevents even one abortion. Their justification for blocking access to clinics
is the same justification they use when clinics have been damaged by
arson/firebombing or vandalism, and when doctors are murdered, i.e., that they
must do whatever is necessary to save lives. As a legal theory the necessity
defence has failed repeatedly in the courts, but it allows the militants to
rationalize their actions.
Clinic blockades engaging large numbers of people and frequent activity
dominated the efforts of the anti-abortion crusade during much of 1988-1989.
the corollary of the blockades was clinic defence organized by the pro-choice
community. Large numbers of people were trained to keep clinics open by
arriving at a targeted clinic before the anti-abortion militants did--if
possible. Sometimes this became a game of cat and mouse, but it often
succeeded and enabled clinic staff and their clients to gain access to the
facility while the police made arrests. However, when the frequency of
blockades diminished in 1990 there were few local actions to prepare for.
Since that time, the national blockade organizations have found it necessary
to announce large national actions, allowing targeted cities to prepare for
the intrusion of hundreds of out-of-towners intent on disrupting the clinics
and the courts.
Frequent blockades ended because the fines became too great for all but the
most dedicated militants. Out of a total of about 14,000 people arrested since
1988, only 1,000-2,000 remain active in the direct-action movement. And most
of their activity has shifted from clinic blockades to less-predictable and
more intimidating forms of harassment. This ominous shift in tactics requires
a similar shift by the pro-choice community, not to directly confront the
militants as was possible with clinic defence but to out-maneuver them with
strategies that generate community support for abortion providers.
The general public has expressed its disapproval of clinic blockades and the
disruption and cost associated with them. Richard Wirthlin observed in the
summer of 1991 that the blockade movement had discredited the entire antiabortion crusade. His concluding comment was that "Operation Rescue might just
as well have been funded by NARAL." In many of those communities where the
militants have waged their campaign of harassment and intimidation, the public
has been clear in rejecting their tactics. It is important that the community
also step forward to support the providers.
In Omaha, NE where a few militants took their campaign to a local Lutheran
congregation because a physician and his family were members, denunciations
came in the editorial pages and from civic leaders. The tactics included
graffiti at the church, interrupting religious services, and obtaining a
mailing list of the members of that congregation and mailing a disgusting
attack of the physician to each household. The people of Omaha found these
tactics repulsive.
The individual responsible for organizing the intimidation quietly slipped out
of town because of the opprobrium and showed up next in Providence, RI where
he launched a harassment campaign against the local leaders of the Religious
Coalition for Abortion Rights and the Planned Parenthood clinic. Again, he was
denounced by the community, and the clinic was actively supported.
Similar tactics are in use in cities all over the country and the militants
who are organizing the campaign are not moving away. Sometimes this is because
the city is too large and their actions don't outrage a large-enough segment
of the community. Sometimes the militants are gratified by the attention they
receive from the media for their persistence. Often it is because there have
not been any concerted efforts at organizing community outrage. The militants
believe that abortion providers are outcasts and no respectable person will
stand up for them when they are victimized.
The pro-choice community faces a bigger challenge from these more covert
threats to abortion providers than it did during the heyday of clinic
blockades. It must become the agent that reaches out to the larger community
in those cities where the militants are getting away with their campaign of
intimidation, and generate a variety of supporters and affirmations that will
defuse the smear campaign waged by the anti-abortion militants. Rather than
trying to counter the tactics used by the militants, it is necessary to
educate the public about the motivation of those who provide abortions and the
nature of the abortion decision.
In the overall struggle to guarantee the constitutional right to preproductive
choice, pro-choice support will be less fragile as we successfully make these
points. And when it comes to protecting access to abortion clinics, unless the

pro-choice community undertakes this kind of public education campaign we will

find that the direct-action against the clinics will succeed in many cities.
Many people who are aligned with the pro-choice movement have taken their
position because they perceive the anti-abortion crusade to be a wedge in the
separation of church and state. Or, they advocate population control. But they
are uncomfortable with the fact of women actually choosing abortion. These are
the people who don't want to see abortion become illegal again, but they wish
that only a few women needed abortion and could obtain them from their own
gynecologist. The fact that 1.5 million women obtain abortions annually, and
that there are specialized clinics that provide abortions, is something these
people would prefer to ignore.
If there is ever going to be strong support for providers, the pro-choice
community must find ways to educate others who are fundamentally pro-choice
but ill-at-ease with abortion. It will be impossible to generate support for
providers from the civic associations, service clubs, public officials, and
the local media until the pro-choice community undertakes the kind of
effective public education about abortion that has been associated with the
anti-abortion crusade for twenty years.
The opponents of abortion recognized that they were a minority movement and
needed to change minds. So they concentrated on people who can be made
uncomfortable with the fact of abortion even as they support the right to make
reproductive choices. The success of this strategy is revealed in public
opinion polls in which large percentages of those who affirm the right to
abortion indicate their support for government restrictions on some abortions.
Because of the polling research of NARAL, the pro-choice movement effectively
asked the question, Who Decides? You or Them? Now the pro-choice movement must
go beyond that challenging question to personify the women who make that
decision. By telling the stories of the women who need abortions, and thereby
easing the discomfort many people have with abortion, we will be able to
highlight the courageous people who provide abortions in the combat zone that
exists around their clinics and their homes. There are few other areas of work
in which people live with such an intense level of personal threat. They are
willing to do this because they believe women need caring places in which to
receive abortions. There is no amount of money that can adequately compensate
for the threatening environment in which they provide reproductive healthcare.
Thousands of people belonging to hundreds of organizations will have access to
this manual. Many of them may be challenged by the anti-abortion harassment of
doctors in their communities, and wondering what can be done to alleviate the
threatening environment around abortion clinics. Developing concrete responses
to any situation must always emerge in the local community, although national
organizations may be able to suggest guidelines. The National Center for the
Pro Choice Majority is accessible to any group that is working to provide
support to abortion clinics through a public education campaign.
=================================================================
This Door Stays Open: A Community Action Guide
National Abortion Federation
Washington, D.C.

Abortion is a part of good reproductive health care. By providing this

service, health practitioners who perform abortions have contributed to the
improvement of the health of women and children in this country. What can you
do to support abortion providers in your community and protect access to
reproductive health care? Plenty and here are some ideas to get you
started:

Supporting Providers

1. Wear a "This Door Stays Open" Button all the time! Put it on when you
go shopping, when you're on public transportation, when you go out to eat.
You'll get lots of questions "What door? Why should it stay open?" These
are opportunities to get more people involved! (Carry a few extra buttons
with you.)
2. Ask your local abortion provider what you can do to help. Some
possibilities:

Volunteer as a patient escort when clinics have blockades or picketers.

Sponsor a "clinic watch" program if you live near a clinic or drive by one
regularly, make a point of scanning for anything or anyone unusual on the
premises, especially late at night. You can even set up a schedule if enough
people are interested and the clinic agrees.
Offer your professional services pro bono legal work, accounting, graphic
design, or other skills.
Provide transportation for patients or staff, especially in bad weather.
Host a fundraiser many clinics have funds to help women who cannot afford to
pay for abortion or birth control, and these funds are usually stretched to
the limit.
Organize a neighborhood or city "clinic support" group and plan activities.
For example, if a nearby provider is being personally harassed, sponsor a
block party for their family. When the picketers arrive, the neighbors will
all be out on their lawns, socializing, having a potluck meal, and displaying
signs that say "Friends of Dr.
," or "We support Dr.
."
3. Correspond with the clinic regularly. Send the staff holiday cards, and
write notes of encouragement and concern if you hear of an incident of
blockading or vandalism. A positive letter from a supportive neighbor will
brighten the day for the entire staff.
Involving Other Physicians and the Medical Community
4. Ask your own family physician or OB/GYN if he or she performs abortions.
If the answer is yes, refer friends to this physician and back him or her all
the way! If the answer is no, ask why not. Ask if they support the abortion
providers in the area and would consider working with them. If your physician
is anti-choice, change doctors!
5. If there is a medical school in or near your community, find out if their
program includes abortion training. If not, submit a proposal that they add
this training. Ask if the medical school's residency program includes a
rotation with a local abortion provider. Again, if it does not, demand that
it be added. Abortion is one of the most common types of gynecological
surgery, and it must be taught universally in medical schools and residency
programs.
6. Do you know a retired doctor who remembers the days when abortions were
illegal? Ask him or her to speak out about those experiences and share the
understanding of why we must protect access to safe, legal abortion.
7. Find out if your local hospital provides abortions. If they do, send
supportive letters to the hospital board. If not, organize a petition drive
asking the hospital to add abortion services.
Work in Civic, Religious and Professional Groups
8. Join local civic organizations where you can make a difference on this
issue. Get involved with the PTA, the school board, the hospital committee,
and other educational, medical, and public service groups.
9. Involve your professional, philanthropic, educational, religious, or other
community group. Do you belong to an organization such as the Jaycees,
Kiwanis, the library association, the downtown merchants' association, or a
church council? Ask if you can plan a program for one of your group's
meetings, and invite a provider to speak as part of the program.
10. Ask your minister, pastor, rabbi or other clergy to speak out during
worship and condemn violence and intimidation directed against providers.
11. Go to city council or neighborhood committee meetings, and get on the
agenda! Prepare a brief statement calling on the city or your neighborhood to
get involved in supporting abortion providers.
12. Ask local and national organizations to which you belong to adopt an
official pro-choice position, if they don't have one already.
13. If you are a lawyer, and you don't belong to the American Bar
Association, join! Be sure to tell them that one of the reasons you are
joining is because the ABA has readopted its official pro-choice position.
Letters and Lobbying
14. Write a letter to the editor or op-ed page for your local newspaper.
Talk specifically about the services of abortion providers, their importance,
and how urgent it is that your community stand together against harassment and
terrorism. (Be sure to share copies of these and other letters with your
providers.)
15. Write to all your community leaders, asking that they advocate strict

penalties against those who blockade, vandalize, and terrorize abortion

facilities and their staffs. Write to and follow up with your mayor, city
council, city, district and state's attorneys, local judges, and chief of
police.
16. Encourage city officials to adopt a resolution or policy statement
stating the city's pro-choice position, and declaring that the city welcomes
abortion and reproductive health care facilities as part of the community.
17. Find out if your state has an anti-stalking law, and if so, if the
state's attorney general has an opinion on whether the law applies to those
who stalk abortion providers. Lobby your governor and state legislators for
such laws.
18. Write to companies with which you do business, and ask their position on
choice. If they have a corporate giving program (most large companies do),
ask if they give to Planned Parenthood or other reproductive health service
organizations. Explain why every corporate giving program should support
abortion services and reproductive health care. Do not do business with
companies whose policies are anti-choice.
Media Advocacy
19. Call in to community talk radio shows or national call-in programs such
as C-SPAN, and speak out against clinic blockades and antiabortion violence.
20. Ask your local radio or television stations to air programs on the need
for accessible abortion services, and the threat posed by antiabortion
militants. One good film to suggest is Dorothy Fadiman's "When Abortion Was
Illegal: Untold Stories." You can find out more about this Academy Awardnominated documentary by calling (415) 321-5590, or writing Concentric Media,
1070 Colby Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
What Doctors Can Do
21. If you're a physician and have not been trained in abortion practice,
find out if a local facility offers a training rotation.
22. Support colleagues who perform abortions. If a colleague in your medical
building or hospital is being harassed or picketed, work with other physicians
to lend your personal and professional support.
23. If you are a medical student or resident and your program does not offer
abortion instruction and training, organize a student movement to demand that
it be added to the curriculum. Hold petition drives and speak-outs.
If You've Had an Abortion
24. Claim the experience. Share it with friends and help to combat the idea
that having an abortion is a shameful or secret experience. You made a choice
that was right for you, and you should not have to hide.
25. Keep in touch with your provider. Over forty percent of American women
will have an abortion at some time in their lives. You are a powerful force.
If you want other women to have the same good care you had, write or call your
provider on occasion and ask how you can stay involved.
Pass It On and Keep It Going
26. Share this list with friends and brainstorm new ideas! Please write to
NAF and tell us of your efforts. If one of the suggestions on this list pays
off, let us know. If you're inspired to create a new project, tell us about
it!
Abortion is safe and legal in America. We must work to make sure it remains
accessible and that women who seek abortions and the professionals who
provide them are not harassed, intimidated or terrorized. You can make a
difference, and you must. Get started!

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Environment and Population

Patriotic Games:
Anti-Environment, Anti-Choice Groups Make Their Moves

Zero Population Growth

Washington, D.C.

This article discusses the Right's involvement in working to weaken

environmental protection.

Population advocates are well served by an understanding of their formidable

opponents, namely the anti-choice and anti-environmental "user" groups
(deceptively termed the "Wise Use" movement by its participants).
Both these groups perpetuate effective misinformation campaigns: Users pit
jobs vs. the environment; anti-choice extremists preach a "family values"
agenda that promotes sexual ignorance over education. The tactics and
moralistic language used by the anti-choice and anti-environmental groups are
remarkably similar, and have become all too familiar to many population
advocates. Such groups play a significant rule in shaping political debate,
and have proven themselves effective opponents to both reproductive choice and
a health environment.
Preaching Spontaneous Abundance
The anti-choice and anti-environmental movements are similar in that they both
espouse a pro-growth doctrine and a faith in the limitless abundance of
natural resources. Anti-choice leaders take the biblical mandate to "be
fruitful and multiply" literally -- promoting an anti-abortion, anticontraception and anti-sex education agenda. In a similar vein, the antienvironmentalists believe that humankind's mission is to dominate and "subdue
the earth." Their political agenda includes opening the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge for all exploration, clear-cutting old growth forests, gutting
the Endangered Species Act and opening 10 million acres of designated
wilderness to development. As Ron Arnold, one of the most outspoken leaders of
the User movement, explained, "We want you to be able to exploit the
environment for private gain, absolutely. And we want people to understand
that is a noble goal."
"It's a holy war between fundamentally different religions," proclaims Charles
Cushman of the National Inholders Association, an anti-environmental
organization, "The preservationists [environmentalists] are . . . worshipping
trees and animals and sacrificing people . . ." A similar viewpoint is
expressed by Judie Brown, anti-choice leader and president of the American
Life League: "[Environmentalists] are more concerned with saving animal life
such as whales, seals, snail darters, owls and hawks. They are equally
concerned about controlling the numbers of human beings who live on the earth
because they view human beings, another animal form, as a threat to the
animals they claim are 'endangered species.'"
Anti-environment and anti-abortion extremists also portray environmental and
pro-choice advocates as the new political threat. It's as if they are looking
for a substitute for the Cold War. As former Secretary of the Interior Stewart
Udall aptly puts it, "the color green has become red" in the eyes of the far
Right.

Allusions to a "socialist plot" to control people and destroy the economy are
found throughout anti-environment and anti-choice rhetoric. "The phony
environmental crisis is a socialist plot to create so much bureaucratic
control of business in the name of saving the environment that it will cost
billions of dollars and thousands of lost jobs during the next ten years,"
writes Fundamentalist Reverend Tim LaHaye, former board member of the Moral
Majority. The anti-choice organization, Human Life International warns that ".
. . the birthrate is below reproduction, and the industrial power of the
nation will certainly decline . . a direct result of Planned Parenthood's
work."
Know Thy Enemy
Combining skilled rhetoric and a subtle distortion of the facts, the antichoice and User movements have successfully employed similar tactics to stymie
pro-choice and environmental initiatives. With the help of two sympathetic
presidential administrations, anti-choice and anti-environmental ideologues
have infiltrated the courts and federal agencies -- wielding tremendous
influence over policies relating to reproductive health and the environment.
In particular, both camps have effectively used the judicial system to advance
their agendas and undermine precedents that protect reproductive rights and
the quality of the environment.
In two symbolic decisions handed down this June, Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, the U. S. Supreme Court confirmed every population advocate's deepest
fear -- that we can't rely on the highest Court to protect our fundamental
rights to individual reproductive choice and a healthy environment.
Both cases have sent a confusing and insidious message. While on the surface
the decisions appeared to uphold the right to choose and the right to protect
the environment, by the same stroke the Court undermined the principles that
enable us to exercise these very rights, thereby diminishing their
constitutional protection. In Casey, the Court severely weakened Roe v. Wade,
the precedent establishing a constitutional right to choose abortion, by
allowing states to restrict access to abortion services. In the Lucas case,
the Court set a disturbing new precedent which calls into question the ability
of state and federal government to enforce environmental regulations when they
impact upon private property owners.
As a result, the Court catapulted reproductive rights and environmental issues
squarely into the political debate and shifted the battleground from the
judicial to the legislative arena. The anti-choice lobby has effectively
impeded the progress of pro-choice legislation by "littering" pro-choice bills
with anti-choice amendments such as mandatory parental involvement for minors
seeking abortion and mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion. Likewise,
anti-environmentalist are gearing up to load the federal Endangered Species
Act with debilitating amendments as the reauthorization process begins.
To rally support for their legislative agendas, both camps have taken a unique
approach to grassroots activism. Many of the User organizations are, in
reality, merely frustrated corporate interests. Compulsory activism in which
mining and timber industries fund and coordinate "grassroots demonstrations"
of workers to protest un-employed by Users. Anti-choice leaders use mandatory
"school trips", sponsored by private religious institutions to fill their
ranks at political rallies. Through this technique, these movements attempt to
falsely project the appearance of broad voluntary support for their political
agendas.
The "Vision Thing"
Difficult economic times have helped to fuel increasing fears about the
future. Anti-environment and anti-choice leaders have effectively used this
fear to energize their crusades.
The vision of the future promulgated by the Users is one in which a healthy
environment can only mean lost jobs and lost profits. Anti-choice groups
contend that women must not "deny their feminine nature" and should leave the
workforce to return to the job of procreation as their fundamental mission.
Such a vision ignores the economic necessity of women having to work outside
the home to support their families as well as the economic and social impact
of forcing women to have unwanted children. In addition, the long-term costs
of a polluted and degraded environment are dismissed at a time when an
increasing member of economists and political leaders recognize the connection
between environmental health and economic well-being.
The challenge facing the pro-choice and environmental communities is to regain
control of the debate and promote a new vision of the future.

A variety of polls show that Americans are committed to preserving freedom of

choice and protecting the environment. A poll conducted by the League of
Conservation Voters found that 69 percent of Americans choose environmental
protection over the economy. A recent Associated Press poll found that 60
percent of Americans support a woman's right to choose abortion.
As the nation struggles for solutions to escalating social, economic and
environmental problems, many voters have expressed a desire for change.
Unfortunately, while wide-spread support for choice and the environment
clearly exists, the public has found itself mired in the elaborate rhetoric
surrounding these issues. u

Healing Creation:
A New Theology for a Small Planet
Zero Population Growth
Washington, D.C.

Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living
thing that moves upon the earth.
Genesis, 1:28

Since God spoke those words to Adam and Eve, the human race has multiplied
from an allegorical two to an actual 5.4 billion, and has so dominated nature
that an estimated one to three species are rendered extinct every day.
Is this what God intended? Many theologians think not. In fact, the magnitude
of global environmental damage is prompting religious leaders throughout the
world to question how they can inspire restoration.
Some, like Timothy Weiskel of the Harvard Divinity School, believe religious
leaders have a crucial responsibility to help humankind assume a more humble
role within the whole of creation. Says Weiskel: "The time has come for
contemporary theologians to re-state some simple truths; we did not create the
world; we cannot control it. Instead, we must learn in full humility to live
with all other creatures within the world's limits."
Population from the Pulpit
It may be surprising to learn that so many of the current efforts by the
religious community include curbing population growth as a primary concern.
For example, approximately 80 individual churches and temples from 27 states
are currently active in the newly-formed Ministry for Population Concerns. The
Ministry states as it goal building "a strong faith-based movement for change
in our country's population policies." It encourages member congregations to
support appropriate Congressional action and circulates population-related
sermons.
National church bodies are also addressing the population issue. The American
Baptist Church's Policy Statement on Ecology stops short of directly
advocating population stabilization or individual fertility control. But both
the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s and the United Methodist's environmental
policy statements call for measures to stabilize world and U. S. population.
In addition, many religious leaders are collaborating with others, outside of
the faith community. For example, close to 300 religious leaders have endorsed
an appeal which calls for a joint science-religion commitment on the
environment. Drafted by Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan during the 1990 meeting
of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders, the appeal calls
upon spiritual leaders to advocate, among other things, the need for "a
voluntary halt to world population growthwithout which many of the other
approaches to preserve the environment will be nullified.'
Also in 1990, in preparation for the World Council of Churches annual meeting
held this past February, theologians and church leaders joined scientists and
economists in issuing a statement that blamed human actions of "mastery and
dominion" for overwhelming the planet's life-support systems. The Statement
calls upon churches to recast as necessary all hymns, doctrines, confessions
and liturgies "to ensure that they reflect new theological and ethical insight
into human responsibilities for the care and preservation of creation",
including "the stewardship of human fertility."
Other religious coalitions are currently preparing for the 1992 U.N.

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). One goal of UNCED is the

issuance of an Earth Charter; a basic statement of principles on humankind's
relationship with nature, including guidelines for sustainable and equitable
development. Some religious coalitions have already drafted Earth Charters for
consideration by the governmental and non-governmental leaders attending
UNCED.
The International Coordinating Committee for Religion and the Earth (ICCRE),
composed of 50 representatives from all of North America's major faiths, is
one of those coalitions. Following their first recommendation of
redistributing ownership and control of the Earth's resources, ICCRE
identified the need to "stabilize the world's population."
Similarly, the Working Group on Ethics, Development and the Environment of the
U. S. Citizen's Network on UNCED included in its proposed Earth Charter that
"International organizations and member states should make concerted efforts
to slow the dramatic growth in world population by encouraging fair standards
of living for all and making family planning services available to all on a
strictly voluntary basis." The Working Group is made up of members from the
North American Coalition on Religious and Ecology, the Consortium on Religion
and Ecology International and other religious leaders.
"Pro-Life" Predicament
Not all religious leaders, however, are so willing to address overpopulation.
Many Christian fundamentalists continue to espouse the "Be fruitful and
multiply" ethic. And others, like Pope John Paul II, conspicuously deflect the
population issue.
For instance, according to a spokesperson at the United States Catholic
Conference, the Vatican emphasized that humankind has a moral responsibility
to alleviate global problems like hunger and poverty through resource
distribution. In addition, the Vatican now cautions couples that responsible
parenthood entails being able to provide for the children's well-being.
Nonetheless, the Vatican has in no way altered the Church's long-standing view
of contraception: Fertility is to be controlled outside of marriage through
abstinence, and within marriage through natural family planning.
The Pope's position, which ignores the simple biological fact that natural
family planning is not fool-proof, is the cause of much consternation. As Dr.
Robert Goodland from the World Bank said in his challenge to the Vatican: "Is
there a hierarchy between starvation, unwanted children, abandoned babies and
infanticide (mortal sins) at one end, versus prevention such as by
contraception (venial sins) at the other?
And what about the women who consider terminating an unintended pregnancy? The
Roman Catholic Church holds that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception
and thus is vehemently opposed to abortion.
Other religious sects are not so adamant, Judaism, for example, maintains that
full personhood occurs at birth. Consequently, the United Synagogue of America
states that "under special circumstances, Judaism chooses and requires
abortion as an act which affirms and protects the life, well-being and health
of the mother." And the Presbyterian Church (USA), like several other
Protestant faith communities, has "long affirmed women's ability to make
responsible decisions, whether the choice be to abort or to carry the
pregnancy to term."
Nonetheless, "pro-lifers" use the Bible to argue that personhood begins at the
moment of conception and consequently that abortion is murder and must be
outlawed. But as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR) points
out, that position is theological belief, not biological fact, and the moment
of personhood as been disputed by theologians for centuries. RCAR, comprised
of 35 national Protestant, Jewish and other denominations and faith groups,
asserts that reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion, is
intrinsically tied to religious liberty: "We oppose any attempts to place into
secular law one theory of when life begins."
Further, Dr. Paul D. Simmons, a professor of Christian ethics and the author
of Personhood, the Bible & the Abortion Debate, argues that, taken in complete
context, the biblical portrait of a person is one of a "complex, many-sided
creature with god-like abilities and the moral responsibility to make
choices"a definition which he says does not fit the fetus until, at best, the
second half of gestation.
Instead, Simmons stresses, it is the woman who fits the biblical definition of
personhood. He maintains that abortion is a "god-like" decision, which should
be made by a woman "reflecting on her own well-being, the genetic health of
the fetus and the survival of the human race."

Many people of faith now recognize that survival of the human race rests,
ironically, on its very ability to limit both its numbers and its polluting,
consuming ways. As Reverend Peter Moore-Kochlacs said in a recent sermon at
the Culver-Palms (California) United Methodist Church: "A number of Americans
question aborting a fetus, yet many miss the equally grave problem that
through our continued population explosion we are killing entire species of
other plant and animal life. There is nothing pro-life about this
predicament"

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.

Readings on the Religious Right

A Selected Reading List

for Studying the History & Politics
of the American Political Right

Chip Berlet
Political Research Associates
Cambridge, Massachusetts

KEY READINGS ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

"The Political Activity of the Religious Right in the 1990's: A Critical
Analysis," by Rabbi Lori Forman. (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1994).
A thoughtful and cautious introductory pamphlet by Rabbi Forman who suggests
consulting the following works by critics, advocates, and observers of the
religious right:
The Coors Connection: How Coors Family Philanthropy Undermines Democratic
Pluralism. Bellant, Russ (Boston, MA: South End Press/Political Research
Associates Series, 1991).
The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious
Devotion. Carter, Stephen L. (New York: Basic Books, 1993).
Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Hunter, James Davison (New York:
Basic Books, 1991).
Fundamentalisms and Society: Vol. 1. Marty, Martin E., and R. Scott Appleby,
eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1993).
Fundamentalisms Observed: Vol. 2. Marty, Martin E., and R. Scott Appleby, eds.
(Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1993).
Natural Adversaries or Possible Allies? American Jews and the New Christian
Right. Cohen, Naomi. (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1993).
The New Millennium. Robertson, Pat. (Irving, Texas: Word Publishing, 1990).
Old Nazis, the New Right and the Reagan Administration: The Role of Domestic
Fascist Networks in the Republican Party and Their Effect on U.S. Cold War
Policies. Bellant, Russ. (Boston, MA: South End Press/Political Research
Associates Series, 1991).
Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right. Liensch,
Michael. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993).
Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Diamond, Sara (Boston,
MA: South End Press, 1989).
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Marsden, George M. (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1991.)
Other Useful Critiques of the Religious Right
Books:
Fundamentalisms and the State: Vol. 3. Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
Heaven on Earth? The Social and Political Agendas of Dominion Theology.
Barron, Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervon, 1992).
Jesus Doesn't Live Here Anymore: From Fundamentalist to Freedom Writer.
Porteous, Skipp (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1991).
The New Religious Right: Piety, Patriotism and Politics. Capps, Walter H.
(Columbia: U. of South Carolina Press, 1990).
The Old Christian Right. Ribuffo, Leo P. (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1983).
To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism. Himmelstein, Jerome
L. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1990.)
KEY GENERAL NEWSLETTERS CRITIQUING THE RIGHT:

Culture Watch. The Data Center.

Freedom Writer. Institute for First Amendment Studies.
Group Research Report. Group Research.
The Public Eye. Political Research Associates.
Right Wing Watch. People for the American Way.
BROAD BACKGROUND ON DEMOCRACY & PLURALISM
Books & Reports:
A Scapegoat in the New Wilderness: The Origins and Rise of AntiSemitism in
America. Jaher, Frederick Cople. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1994).
America's Original Sin: A Study Guide on White Racism. (Booklet) Sojourners.
(Washington, D.C.: Sojourners Resource Center, 1993).
Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics.
Johnson, George (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983).
Debating PC: The Controversy over Political Correctness on College Campuses,
Berman, Paul, ed. (New York: Laurel/Dell, 1992).
The Emergence of David Duke and the Politics of Race. Rose, Douglas D., ed.
(Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press, 1992.)
Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview. Smedley, Audrey.
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993).
To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the "Political Correctness"
Debates in Higher Education. (New York: National Council for Research on
Women, 1993). (212) 274-0730.
Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era, Hoeveler, J.
David (Madison: U. of Wisconsin Press, 1991).
Articles:
"The American Neo-Nazi Movement Today" a special report by Elinor
Langer in The Nation, July 16/23 1990.
"Backlash?" by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., in The New Yorker, May 17, 1993, pp.
42-44.
"Black Conservatives" (Parts One and Two), by Deborah Toler, in The Public
Eye, September 1993 and December 1993.
"Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars," by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. in The New
York Times, (Op-Ed) July 20, 1992.
"Burgeoning Conservative Think Tanks," a special issue of Responsive
Philanthropy newsletter, Spring 1991, National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy. (202) 387-9177.
"The Politics of Frustration," by Kevin Phillips, in The New York Times
Magazine, April 12, 1992, pp. 38-42.
"Rightwing Attacks on Corporate Giving," a special issue of Responsive
Philanthropy newsletter, Winter 1990, National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy. (202) 387-9177.
"Watch on the Right: Change in Strategy" (column), by Sara Diamond, in The
Humanist, January/February 1994, pp. 34-36.
"What is Anti-Semitism Now?: An Open Letter to William F. Buckley," by Norman
Podhoretz, in Commentary, January 1992.
REFERENCE SHELF
A New Rite: Conservative Catholic Organizations and Their Allies. Askin,
Steve. (Washington, D.C.: Catholics for Free Choice, 1994) (202) 986-6093.
The Activists Almanac: The Concerned Citizen's Guide to the Leading Advocacy
Organizations in America. Walls, David (New York: Fireside/Simon & Schuster
1993).
Challenging the Christian Right: The Activists Handbook. Clarkson, Frederick,
and Skipp Porteous. (Great Barrington, MA: Institute for First Amendment
Studies, 1993) (413) 274-3786.
Extremism on the Right: A Handbook. Anti Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1988).
Fight the Right. Gregory, Sarah Crary, and Scot Nakagawa, eds. (Washington,
DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1993).
Guide to Public Policy Experts: 1993-1994. Atwood, Thomas C., ed. (Washington,
DC: Heritage Foundation, 1993).
UCP's Guide to Uncovering the Right on Campus. Cowan, Rich and Dalya Massachi.
(Boston: University Conversion Project, 1994) (617) 354-9363.
The Right Guide. Wilcox, Derk, Joshua Schackman & Penelope Naas. (Ann Arbor:
Economics America, 1993).
When Hate Groups Come to Town: A Handbook of Effective Community Responses.
Center for Democratic Renewal. (Atlanta, GA: Center for Democratic Renewal,
1992). (404) 221-0025.
Topical Section
The Religious Right
Critiquing the Religious Right:
Newsletters:
Church and State. Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Freedom Writer. Institute for First Amendment Studies.
The Fundamentalism Project Newsletter. The Fundamentalism Project.
The Public Eye. Political Research Associates.
Right Wing Watch. People for the American Way.
Voice of Reason. Americans for Religious Liberty.
Books & Reports:

The Covert Crusade: The Christian Right and Politics in the West. (Report).
(Portland, OR: Western States Center/Coalition for Human Dignity, 1993)
Available from the Western States Center. (503) 228-8866
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, by John M. Swomley. Available from
Americans for Religious Liberty.
Rolling Back Civil Rights: The Oregon Citizens' Alliance at Religious War.
Gardiner, S.L. (Portland, OR: Coalition for Human Dignity, 1992.) Available
from the Coalition for Human Dignity. (503) 227-5033.
Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach, by Albert J. Menendez.
Available from Americans for Religious Liberty.
Articles:
"Bible Belt Blowhard," by Bill Dedman, in Mother Jones, Nov. Dec. 1992.
"Cardinal Mindszenty: Heroic anti-Communist or anti-Semite or Both?" by Chip
Berlet in The St. Louis Journalism Review, April 1988.
"The Christian Coalition: On the Road to Victory?" by Fred Clarkson, in Church
& State, Jan. 1992.
"Christian Coalition Steps Boldly into Politics," by Michael Isikoff, in
Washington Post, Sept. 10, 1992.
Christian Reconstructionism: Religious Right Extremism Gains Influence. (Parts
One and Two), by Fred Clarkson, in The Public Eye, March 1994 and June 1994.
"Christian Right's New Political Push," by Don Lattin, in San Francisco
Chronicle, May 12, 1992.
"Confessions of a Religious Defender," a book review by Jean Hardisty of
Stephen L. Carter's The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics
Trivialize Religious Devotion, in The Public Eye, December 1993.
"Covering the Culture War," a special section with articles by James Davison
Hunter, Laurence I. Barrett, and Joe Conason, in Columbia Journalism Review,
July/August 1993.
"Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism," special issue with articles by Chip
Berlet, Allen Lesser, Albert J. Menendez, Fred Pelka, & Jeffrey Victor, in The
Humanist, September/October 1992.
"Crusade for Public Office in 2nd Stage," by Barry Horstman, in Los Angeles
Times, March 22, 1992.
"Faith and Election: The Christian Right in Congressional Campaigns 19781988," by John C. Green, James L. Guth, and Kevin Hill, in The Journal of
Politics (University of Texas Press), Vol. 55, No. 1, February 1993, pp. 8091.
"Four Articles on the Religious Right," by Suzanne Pharr, from Transformation
(1992-1993). Women's Project. (501) 372-5113.
"HardCOR," by Fred Clarkson, in Church and State, Jan. 1991.
"Inside the Covert Coalition," by Fred Clarkson, in Church & State, Nov. 1992.
"The Making of a Christian Police State," by Fred Clarkson, in The Freedom
Writer, Sept./Oct. 1991.
"Opposition Research." A collection of recent columns on the religious and
secular right by Sara Diamond, author of Spiritual Warfare. Available as a set
from Political Research Associates. (617) 661-9313.
"Reel Hate: A new video tries to drive a wedge between blacks and gays," by
Liz Galst, in The Boston Phoenix, Supplement, October 1993.
"Religious Right Rediscovered " by Russ Bellant in Christian Social Action,
Dec. 1992.
"The Religious Right's Quiet Revival," by Joe Conason, in The Nation, April
27, 1992.
"SWAT Teams for Jesus," by Skipp Porteus, in Penthouse, Sept. 1991.
"Traditional Values, Racism and Christian Theocracy: The Right- wing Revolt
Against the Modern Age," by Margaret Quigley and Chip Berlet in The Public
Eye, December 1992.
"When Right Goes Wrong: Word of God network wants to `save the world'" by Russ
Bellant in National Catholic Reporter, Nov. 18, 1988.
"The World According to Pat Robertson," by Skipp Porteous, in Reform Judaism,
Spring 1993.
Promoting the Religious Right
A Christian Manifesto. Schaeffer, Francis A. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books,
1981).
The ACLU and America's Freedoms: The ACLU is Defending or Destroying Our
Freedoms? Rowe, Dr. Ed (Washington D.C.: Church League of America, 1984).
Against the Tide: How to Raise Sexually Pure Kids in an "Anything-Goes" World.
LaHaye, Tim and Beverly LaHaye. (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1993).
A Time for Candor: Mainline Churches and Radical Social Witness. Institute on
Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Religion and Democracy,
1983).
Book Burning. Thomas, Cal (Westchester, IL: Good News Publishers/Crossway
Books, 1983).
Children at Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids. Dobson, Dr.
James, and Gary L. Bauer. (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990).
Communism, Hypnotism and the Beatles: Noebel, David A. (Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Christian Crusade Publications, 1965).
Cultural Conservatism: Theory and Practice. Lind, William S. and Marshner,
William H., eds. (Washington: Free Congress Foundation, 1991).
Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda. The Institute for

Cultural Conservatism. (Washington: Free Congress Research and Education

Foundation, 1987).
Dare to Discipline. Dobson, Dr. James. (Wheaton, IL: Living Books/Tynedale
House Publishers, 1987).
Forewarned. A Christian Primer to the Political Arena. The War on God, Family,
and Country. Who's Waging it? Why? What Can, You Do About It? Lacy, Dr.
Sterling (Texarkana, Texas: Dayspring Productions, 1988).
The New World Order: It Will Change the Way You Live. Robertson, Pat (Dallas:
Word Publishing, 1991).
The Stealing of America. Whitehead, John W. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books,
1983).
The Turning Tide: The Fall of Liberalism and the Rise of Common Sense.
Robertson, Pat (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993).
Understanding the Times: The Story of the Biblical Christian, Marxist/Leninist
and Secular Humanist Worldviews. Noebel, David A. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit
Ministries Press, 1992).
Valley of Decision: A Christian Primer to the Political Arena. The War on God,
Family, and Country. Who's Waging it? Why? What Can You Do About It? Lacy, Dr.
Sterling (Texarkana, Texas: Dayspring Productions, 1988).
Modern Education
Defending Modern Education
Attacks on the Freedom to Learn. Available from People for the American Way.
Hate in the Ivory Tower: A Survey of Intolerance on College Campuses and
Academia's Response. Available from People for the American Way.
Religion, Education and the First Amendment: The Appeal to
History, by R. Freeman Butts. Available from People for the American Way.
Values, Pluralism, and Public Education: A National Conference. Available from
People for the American Way.
The Witch Hunt Against `Secular Humanism,' by David Bollier. Available from
People for the American Way.
Attacking Modern Education
Back to Basics: The Traditionalist Movement that is Sweeping Grassroots
America. Pines, Burton Yale (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1982).
Blackboard Power: NEA Threat to America. Drake, Dr. Gordon V. (Box 977, Tulsa,
OK 74102: Christian Crusade Publications, 1968).
Change Agents in the Schools: Destroy Your Children, Betray Your Country.
Morris, Barbara M. (Upland, California: The Barbara M. Morris Report, 1979).
Child Abuse in the Classroom. Schlafly, Phyllis, Editor (Alton, IL: Pere
Marquette Press, 1984).
The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy
and Impoverished the Souls, of Today's Students. Bloom, Allan (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1987).
Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. D'Souza, Dinesh.
(NY: Free Press, 1991).
NEA: Propaganda Front of the Radical Left. Reed, Sally D. (Washington, D.C.:
National Council for Better Education, 1984).
N.E.A. Trojan Horse in American Education. Blumenfeld, Samuel L. (Boise,
Idaho: The Paradigm Company, 1984).
Poisoned Ivy. Hart, Benjamin (New York: Stein and Day, 1984).
School Based Clinics: And Other Critical Issues in Public Education.
Mosbacker, Barrett L., Editor (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987).
Secular Humanism and the Schools: The Issue Whose Time has Come. McGraw,
Onalee (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 1976).
Why Are You Losing Your Children?. Morris, Barbara M. (Upland, California: The
Barbara Morris Report, 1976; Revised).
Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the Case for
Character Education. Kilpatrick, William. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).
Withstanding Humanism's Challenge to Families: Anatomy of a White House
Conference. Thomson, Rosemary (Morton, IL: Traditional Publications, 1981).
Nativist & Populist Right
Critiques of the Nativist & Populist Right
American Nativism 1830-1860. Leonard, Ira M. and Parmet, Robert D. (New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1971).
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Hofstadter, Richard (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1963).
Cross-currents. Forster, Arnold and Epstein, Benjamin R. (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1956).
Danger on the Right. Forster, Arnold and Epstein, Benjamin R. (New York:
Random House, 1964).
Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of "English Only." Crawford,
James. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992)
The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. Hofstadter, Richard
(New York, Toronto: Random House, 1952, 1967).
The Party of Fear: From Nativist Movements to the New Right in American
History. Bennett, David H. (New York, NY: Vintage Books [Random House], 1990).
The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790- 1977. Lipset,
Seymour Martin and Raab, Earl (Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 1978).
The Radical Right: Report on the John Birch Society and Its Allies. Epstein,

Benjamin R. and Forester, Arnold (New York: Vintage Books/Random House, 1967).
The Radical Right: The New American Right Expanded and Updated. Bell, Daniel
(New York: Books for Libraries/Arno Press, 1979). Originally published in 1963
as The Radical Right.
Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925. Higham, John
(New York, New Jersey: Atheneum, 1963, 1975).
Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin & the Great Depression.
Brinkley, Alan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982).
You Can't Do That: A survey of the forces attempting, in the name of
patriotism, to make a desert of the Bill of Rights. Seldes, George (New York:
Modern Age Books, 1938 [available as a De Capo reprint, ISBN 0-306-70201-0]).
By the Ultra-conservative & Nativist Right
A Choice Not an Echo: The Inside Story of How American Presidents Are Chosen.
Schlafly, Phyllis (Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1964).
The Coercive Utopians: Their Hidden Agenda: (and) GovernmentFunded Activism:
Hiding Behind the Public, Interest. Metzger, H. Peter, Ph.D. (Colorado
Springs, CO: Public Service Company of Colorado, 1979 and 198). Pamphlet.
The Death of a Nation. Stormer, John A. (Florissant, MO: Liberty Bell Press,
1968).
The Gravediggers. Schlafly, Phyllis and Ward, Chester (Alton, IL: Pere
Marquette Press, 1964).
Growing Up God's Way: A guide for getting children ready for school and life.
Stormer, John A. (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1984).
The Insiders. McManus, John F. (Belmont, MA: The John Birch Society, 1983).
The Invisible Government. Smoot, Dan (Boston and Los Angeles: Western Islands,
1962).
None Dare Call It Treason. Stormer, John A. (Florissant,
Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964).
The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American
Decline. Perloff, James (Boston and Los Angeles: Western Islands, 1988).
Totalist Networks
Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise. Butterfield, Steve. (Boston: South End
Press, 1985).
Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party. Berlet,
Chip. (Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1987).
Combatting Cult Mind Control. Hassan, Steven. (Rochester, VT: Park Street
Press, 1988)
Gifts of Deceit: Sun Myung Moon, Tongsun Park and the Korean Scandal.
Boettcher, Robert. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980).
Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. King, Dennis. (New York, New
York: Doubleday, 1989).
Not For Sale: The Rev. Sun Myung Moon And One American's Freedom. Racer, David
G. (St. Paul, MN: Tiny Press, 1989).
The Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt, Hannah. (New York: Harvest Books,
1951).
Gender, Sexuality & Sexual Preference
Newsletters:
Activist Alert. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
The Body Politic. [(607) 648-2760].
GLAAD Bulletin. Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination. NARAL News.
National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League.
The Pro Choice Report. National Center for the Pro-Choice Majority.
Right Wing Watch. People for the American Way.
Siecus Report. SIECUS.
The Public Eye. Political Research Associates.
SEXUALITY EDUCATION
For Comprehensive Sexuality Education
Community Action Kit: An information pack to support comprehensive sexuality
education. Available from SIECUS.
SIECUS Fact Sheets: "Siecus Fact Sheet #1: Condom Availability Programs."
1992. 4pp. "Siecus Fact Sheet #2: The National Coalition to Support Sexuality
Education." 1992. 2pp. "Siecus Fact Sheet #3: Sexuality Education and the
Schools: Issues and Answers." 1992. 2pp. "Siecus Fact Sheet #4: The Far-Right
and Fear-Based Abstinence-Only Programs." 1992. 3pp. Available from SIECUS.
Against Comprehensive Sexuality Education
Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. Grant, George. (Brentwood,
TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988).
Sex Versus Civilization. Pendell, Dr. Elmer (Los Angeles, CA: Noontide Press,
1967).
ABORTION RIGHTS
General & Pro-Choice
Books:
Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Luker, Kristin (Berkeley, CA and
London: University of California Press, 1984).
The Enemies of Choice: The Right to Life Movement and Its Threat to Abortion.
Murton, Andrew H. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1981).
The Right to Lifers: Who They Are, How They Operate and How They Get Their
Money. Paige, Connie (New York: Summit Books, 1983).
Other Resources:

R.E.A.L. Life (flyer series). Reality-based Education & Learning for Life.
Available from Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Who Decides? A Reproductive Rights Issues Manual. Who Decides? A State By
State Review of Abortion Rights. Available from NARAL.
Conservative & Anti-Abortion
Aborting America. Nathanson, Dr. Bernard N. and Ostling, Richard N. (New York:
Pinnacle Books, 1979).
The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution. Brennan, William (St. Louis:
Landmark Press, 1983).
Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion. Scheidler, Joseph M. (Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1985).
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
General & Pro-Feminist
A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann
(New York: William Morrow and Company, 1986).
Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Faludi, Susan (New York:
Crown, 1991).
Feminism and the New Right: Conflict Over the American Family. Conover, Pamela
Johnston and Gray, Virginia (New York: Praeger Special Studies, 1983).
Nostalgia on the Right: Historical Roots of the Idealized Family. Revised
edition. Theriot, Nancy. (Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1990
[originally Chicago, IL: Midwest Research, 1983]).
Talking Back: Thinking Feminist; Thinking Black. Hooks, Bell
(Boston: South End Press, 1989).
The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Coontz,
Stephanie (New York: Basic Books, 1992)
Women and Children First: Poverty in the American Dream. Stallard, Karin;
Ehrenreich, Barbara; and Sklar, Holly (Boston: South End Press, 1983).
Women of the New Right. Klatch, Rebecca E. (Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press, 1987).
Conservative & Anti-Feminist
The Failure of Feminism. Davidson, Nicholas (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books,
1988).
The Family, Feminism and the Theraputic State. McGraw, Onalee (Washington, DC:
Heritage Foundation, 1980).
The Inevitability of Patriarchy. Goldberg, Steven (New York: William Morrow &
Company, Inc., 1974).
The New Traditional Woman. Marshner, Connaught (Washington, D.C.: Free
Congress Research and Education Foundation, 1982).
The Power of the Positive Woman. Schlafly, Phyllis (New Rochelle, NY:
Arlington House, 1977).
Sweetheart of the Silent Majority: The Biography of Phyllis Schlafly.
Felsenthal, Carol (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1981).
GAY RIGHTS & AIDS
(The issues are inextricably linked in much right-wing literature, and are
listed together here for that reason alone.)
General & Supportive of Gay Rights
Books:
AIDS in the Mind of America: The Social, Political and Psychological Impact of
a New Epidemic. Altman, Dennis (New York: Anchor Press, Doubleday, 1986).
And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic. Shilts, Randy
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987).
Hostile Climate: A State by State Report on Anti-Gay Activity. People for the
American Way (Booklet). (Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way,
November 1993).
Quarantines and Death: The Far Right's Homophobic Agenda. Segrest, Mab &
Zeskind, Leonard (Atlanta, GA: Center for Democratic Renewal, 1989).
Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men. Hunter, Nan D., Sherryl E. Michaelson, &
Thomas B. Stoddard. (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1992).
Sex and Germs: The Politics of AIDS. Patton, Cindy (Boston,MA: South End
Press, 1985).
Articles:
"Constructing Homophobia: Colorado's Right-Wing Attack on Homosexuals," by
Jean Hardisty in The Public Eye, March 1993.
"Marketing the Religious Right's Anti-Gay Agenda," by Chip Berlet, in
CovertAction Quarterly, Spring 1993.
"Reel Hate: A new video tries to drive a wedge between blacks and gays," by
Liz Galst, in The Boston Phoenix, Supplement, October 1993.
Against Gay Rights
Gay is Not Good. DuMas, Frank (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979).
Gays, AIDS and You. Rueda, Enrique T. and Schwartz, Michael (Old Greenwich,
CT: Devin Adair Company, 1987).
The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy. Rueda, Enrique (Old
Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair Company, 1982).
Homosexual Politics: Road to Ruin for America. Rowe, Dr. Edward (Washington,
D.C.: Church League of America, 1984).
The Unhappy Gays. LaHaye, Timothy (Wheaton, Il: Tyndale House Publishers,
1978).
What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality. LaHaye, Timothy (Wheaton, IL:

Tyndale House Publishers, 1978).

Censorship & Intellectual Freedom
Newsletters:
ACP Newsletter. American Civil Liberties Union: Arts Censorship Project.
Censorship News. National Coalition Against Censorship.
Culture Watch. The Data Center.
Index on Censorship. [London: (071) 329-6434]
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. American Library Association: Intellectual
Freedom Committee
Books:
Culture Wars: Documents from the Recent Controversies in the Arts. Bolton,
Richard, ed. (New York: New Press, 1992).
The Sex Panic: Women, Censorship and "Pornography." (A conference report).
(New York: National Coalition Against Censorship, 1993).
Sex, Sin and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars. Heins, Marjorie.
(New York, NY: The New Press, 1993).
The Environment
About The Anti-Environmentalist Right
Books:
God, Land, and Politics: The Wise Use and Christian Right Connection in 1992
Oregon Politics. (Report). Available from the Western States Center. (503)
228-8866
The Scent of Opportunity: A Survey of the Wise Use/Property Rights Movement in
New England. (Report). Burke, William K.
(Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1992).
Articles:
Anti-Environmental Propaganda: Special Theme Issue. With articles by Johan
Carlisle, William Kevin Burke, Stephen Leiper, Dean Kuipers, Joe Lyford, Jr.,
Bill Walker, Mark Dowie, and Michael Miley. Includes resource list. Propaganda
Review, Spring 1994. (415) 386-4902.
"Corporate Fronts: Inside the Anti-Environmental Movement," by
Chip Berlet and William K. Burke in Greenpeace, Jan./Feb./Mar. 1992.
"Greenscam," by Ted Williams, in Harrowsmith Country Life, May/June 1992.
"Hunting the `Green Menace,'" by Chip Berlet in The Humanist, July/August
1991, pp. 24-31.
"Land-Use Advocates Make Gains," by Daniel B. Wood in Christian Science
Monitor, October 3, 1991.
"Meet the Anti-Greens," by Margaret L. Knox in the Progressive, October 1991.
"Under Green Guise, Multi-use Groups Work Against Environment," by Fred
Baumgarten in Audubon Activist, November 1991.
"Wise Guise," by Dan Baum in Sierra, May/June 1991.
"The `Wise Use' Movement: Lying About the Land," in Western States Center
Newsletter, Summer 1992, (No. 7), p. 7.
By The Anti-Environmentalist Right
Ecology Wars: Environmentalism As If People Mattered. Arnold, Ron. (Bellevue,
WA: The Free Enterprise Press, 1987).
Trashing the Economy: How Runaway Environmentalism is Wrecking America.
Arnold, Ron and Alan Gottlieb. (Bellevue, WA: Free Enterprise Press-Dist.
Merril Press, 1993)
The Wise Use Agenda: The Citizen's Policy Guide to Environmental Resource
Issues. A Task Force Report to Bush Administration by the Wise Use Movement.
Gottlieb, Alan M., ed. (Bellevue, WA: Merril Press, 1989).
Race and Ethnicity
Newsletters:
ADC Times. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
ADL On The Frontline. Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith. CAAAV Voice.
Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence.
Crisis. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The Forum. Center for the Applied Study of Ethnoviolence. Monitor. Center for
Democratic Renewal.
Outlook. Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund.
The Public Eye. Political Research Associates.
Race File. Applied Research Center.
Right Wing Watch. People for the American Way.
Liberal & Progressive Discussions of Racial and Ethnic Bias
America in the Era of Limits: Migrants, Nativists, and the Future of U.S.Mexican Relations. Cornelius, Wayne A. (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, 1982).
Anti-Filipino Movements in California: A History, Bibliography, and Study
Guide. DeWitt, Howard A. (San Francisco, Calif.: R & E Research Associates,
1976).
Bakke and the Politics of Equality: Friends and Foes in the Classroom of
Litigation. O'Neill, Timothy J. (Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press, 1985).
Black Lives, White Lives: Three Decades of Race Relations in America. Blauner,
Bob. (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1989).
Bridges and Boundaries: African Americans and American Jews. Salzman, Jack,
with Adina Back and Gretchen Sullivan Sorin (Eds.). (New York: Geroge

Braziller/The Jewish Museum, 1992).

The Chinese Exclusion: Racism Toward Asians in California and the West, 18501949. Wong, Brian, ed. (Los Angeles, Calif.: Glendale Press, 1991.
Class, Race, and the Civil Rights Movement. Bloom, Jack M. (Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana University Press, 1987).
Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. van Dijk, T.
Adrianus. (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1987).
Death at an Early Age: The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro
Children in the, Boston Public Schools. Kozol, Jonathan. (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1967).
Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Bullard, Robert D.
(Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990).
Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy. Katz, Phyllis A., and Dalmas A.
Taylor, eds. (NY: Plenum Press, 1988).
Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America, 1882-1943. Asian
American History and Culture Series. (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press, 1991).
Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American
Indian. Rogin, Michael Paul. (NY: Random House, 1976).
The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America. Wade, Wyn Craig. (NY: Simon &
Schuster, 1987).
Indians Are Us? Culture and Genocide in Native North America. Churchill, Ward.
(Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994).
Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th Century America. Takaki, Ronald. (NY:
Oxford University Press, 1990).
Keeper of the Concentration Camps: Dillon S. Myer and [anti- Japanese]
American Racism. Drinnon, Richard. (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California
Press, 1987).
The Measure of Our Success: A Letter to My Children and Yours. Edelman, Marian
Wright. (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1992).
The Political Economy of Race and Class. Dymski, Gray. (NY: Union for Radical
Political Economics, 1986.
Power and Prejudice: The Politics and Diplomacy of Racial Discrimination.
Lauren, Paul G. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1988).
Prophetic Tought in Postmodern Times. (Volume One: Beyond Eurocentrism and
Multiculturalism). West, Cornel. (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1993).
Prophetic Reflections: Notes on Race and Power in America.
(Volume Two: Beyond Eurocentrism and Multiculturalism). West, Cornel. (Monroe,
Maine: Common Courage Press, 1993).
Race. Terkel, Studs. (NY: Pantheon, 1992).
Race and the Decline of Class in American Politics. Huckfeldt, Robert, and
Carol W. Kohfeld. (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989).
Race and Media: The Enduring Life of the Moynihan Report. Ginsburg, Carl. (New
York, NY: Institute for Media Analysis, 1989).
Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of Prejudice and Discrimination.
Simpson, George E., and J. M. Yinger. (NY: Plenum Press, 1985).
Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study. Rothenburg, Paul S. (NY: St. Martin's
Press, 1988).
Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat. Sakai, J. (Chicago:
Morningstar Press, 1983).
Striking Back at Bigotry: Remedies Under Federal and State Law for Violence
Motivated by Racial, Religious and Ethnic Prejudice. (Baltimore, MD: Center
for the Applied Study of Ethnoviolence [formerly the National Institute
Against Prejudice and Violence], 1986/Supplement 1988). (410) 706-5170.
Tree of Hate: Propaganda and Prejudices Affecting United States Relations With
the Hispanic World. Powell, Philip W. (NY: Basic Books, 1971).
Yours in Struggle: Three Feminist Perspectives on Anti-Semitism and Racism.
Bulkin, Elly, Minnie Pratt, and Barbara Smith. (NY: Long Haul Press, 1984).
Conservative Discussions of Racial and Ethnic Bias
The Balancing Act: Quota Hiring in Higher Education. Roche, George Charles.
(LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1974).
Black Education: Myths and Tragedies. Sowell, Thomas. (New York: David McKay
Co., 1972).
The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. Steele, Shelby.
(New York: St. Martins, 1990).
Counting By Race: Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber.
Eastland, Terry and Bennett, William. (New York: Basic Books, 1979).
Ethnic America: A History. Sowell, Thomas. (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980. Murray, Charles. (New York:
Basic Books, 1984).
Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby. Carter, Stephen Lisle (NY: Basic
Books, 1991).
Scapegoating of Jews & Holocaust Denial
The Holocaust
The Abandonment of the Jews. Wyman, David S. (New York: Pantheon, 1984).
The Destruction of the European Jews. Hilberg, Raoul. (New York: Holmes and
Meier, 1985).
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Arendt, Hannah. (New

York: Penguin Books, 1963).

From Weimar to Auschwitz. Mommsen, Hans. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press,
1991).
The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945. Levin, Nora. (New
York: Schocken Books, 1973).
Quiet Heroes: True Stories of the Rescue of Jews by Christians in Nazioccupied, Holland. Stein, Andre. (Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1988).
When Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy. Morse, Arthur D.
(Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1983).
Fighting Scapegoating of Jews & Holocaust Denial
Antisemitism in the Contemporary World. Curtis, Michael. (Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, 1986).
Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust. Vidal-Naquet,
Peirre. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
A Trust Betrayed: The Keegstra Affair. Bercuson, David and Wertheimer,
Douglas. (Toronto & New York: Doubleday & Co., 1985).
Antisemitic Propaganda: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Guide.
Singerman, Robert. (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1982).
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Lipstadt,
Deborah. (New York: Free Press, 1993).
Essential Papers on Jewish-Christian Relations in the United States: Imagery
and Reality, by Naomi W. Cohen, editor. (NY: New York University Press, 1990).
Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior. Stern Strom,
Margot and Parsons, William S. (Watertown, MA: Intentional Educations, Inc.,
1982).
Farrakhan and Jews in the 1990's. (Booklet). Kenneth S. Stern. (New York:
American Jewish Committee. 1994).
Farrakhan's Reign of Historical Error: The Truth Behind the Secret
Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Brackman, Harold. (Los Angeles: Simon
Wiesenthal Center, 1992).
Hitler's Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust "Revisionism."
Anti-Defamation League. (New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith,
1993).
Holocaust and Human Behavior: Annotated Bibliography. Drew, Margaret (ed.).
(New York: Walker & Company, 1988).
Holocaust: Reinventing the Big Lie. Anti-Defamation League. (New York: AntiDefamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1989).
Human Relations Materials for the Schools. Anti-Defamation
League. (New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1989).
Simon Wiesenthal Center Catalog. (Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1994).
(213) 553-9036.
The Tenacity of Prejudice: Anti-Semitism in Contemporary America. Selznick,
Gertrude & Steinberg, Stephen. (New York/London: Harper & Rowe, 1969).
Holocaust Denial & "Historical Revisionism"
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Butz, Arthur. (Torrance, CA: Institute for
Historical Review, 1977).
No Time for Silence: Pleas for a Just Peace Over Four Decades. App, Austin J.
(Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1987).
The Six Million Reconsidered: Is the `Nazi Holocaust' Story a Zionist
Propaganda Plot? Grimstad, William N., ed. (United Kingdom: Historical Review
Press/Noontide Press, 1977).
Scapegoating of Jews
For Fear of the Jews. Rittenhouse, Stan. (Vienna, VA: The Exhorters, 1982).
Hear O Israel. Brooks, Pat. (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1981).
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. No Author Listed [historic forgery]. (Los
Angeles, CA: Christian Nationalist Crusade: n.d.).
The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: Volume One. Nation of Islam,
Historical Research Department. (Chicago, IL: Nation of Islam, 1991).
The Score: An Autobiography Exposing the Forces that Remain Studiously,
Concealed and Masked. Stanko, Rudy (Butch). (Gering, NE: League of Rights,
1986).
The Ugly Truth About ADL. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review.
(Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992).
Authoritarianism, Xenophobia, Fascism & Nazism
Newsletters:
ADL On The Frontline. Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith. Monitor. Center
for Democratic Renewal.
The Public Eye. Political Research Associates.
Searchlight. [London: (071) 284-4040].
Authoritarianism, Fascism & Nazism Through WWII
The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the 20th Century.
Simpson, Christopher. (New York: Grove Press, 1993)
The Politics of the Body in Weimar Germany: Women's Reproductive Rights and
Duties. Usborne, Cornelie. (Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1992)
Readings on Fascism and National Socialism. Department of Philosophy,
University of Colorado, ed. (Chicago, IL: Swallow Press, Inc., 1952).
Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany.
Fritzsche, Peter. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Sawdust Caesar: The Untold History of Mussolini and Fascism. Seldes, George.

(New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1935).

Sexual Politics in the Third Reich: The Persecution of the Homosexuals During
the Holocaust: A Bibliography and Introductory Essay. Porter, Jack Nusan.
(Montreal, Quebec: Concordia University, 1991).
Shattering the German Night: The Story of the White Rose. Dumbach, Annette E.
and Newborn, Judd. (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1986)
Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, National Socialism.
Nolte, Ernst. (Originally published Munich: R. Piper & Co., 1963: New York:
Signet, New American Library, 1969: Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).
Weimar and the Rise of Hitler. Nichols, A. J. (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1979),
Authoritarianism, Fascism, & Nazism After WWII
The Belarus Secret: The Nazi Connection in America. Loftus, John. (New York:
Paragon Press, 1982).
Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effect on the Cold War.
Simpson, Christopher. (New York: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1988).
Fascism in the Contemporary World: Ideology, Evolution, Resurgence. Joes,
James (Boulder: Westview, 1978).
Inside the League: The Shocking Expose of How Terrorists, Nazis and Latin
American, Death Squads Have Infiltrated the World Anti- Communist League.
Anderson, Scott and Anderson, Jon Lee. (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company,
1986).
The Paperclip Conspiracy: The Hunt for the Nazi Scientists. Bower, Tom.
(Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1987).
Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project
Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. Hunt, Linda. (NY: St. Martins, 1991).
Wanted: The Search for Nazis in America. Bloom, Howard. (New York: Fawcett
Crest Books, 1977).
Critiques of Modern Racialist Nationalism
Bitter Harvest: Gordon Kahl and the Posse Comitatus, Murder in the Heartland.
Corcoran, James. (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).
Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the
Rise of a New White Culture. Ridgeway, James. (New York, NY: Thunder's Mouth
Press, 1990).
God, Guts and Guns. Finch, Phillip (New York: Seaview/Putnam, 1983).
Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan. Chalmers,
David M. (New York and London: New Viewpoints, 1976).
The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy and Culture. Mintz,
Frank P. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1985).
Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neofascist Overtures to
Progressives and Why They Must Be Rejected. Berlet, Chip. (Revised).
(Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1994).
Terror in the Night: The Klan's Campaign Against the Jews. Nelson, Jack. (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1993)
United They Hate: White Supremacist Groups in America. Kronenwetter, Michael.
(New York: Walker and Company, 1992). (Youth oriented).
Classics of Racialism, Xenophobia, & Fascism
The Dispossessed Majority. Robertson, Wilmot. (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard
Allen Publisher, 1972).
Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics. Yockey, Francis Parker
(Ulick Varange). (Costa Mesa, CA: Noontide Press, 1962).
Mein Kampf. Hitler, Adolf. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971; first
published Verlag Frz. Eher Nachf, G.M.B.H., 1927).
Race and Reason: A Yankee View. Putnam, Carleton. (Washington, D.C.: Public
Affairs Press, 1961).
The Rising Tide of Color (Against White World-Supremacy). Stoddard, Lothrop.
(Orig. pub. 1920) (Brighton, England: Historical Rev. Press 1981).
Extracted from a series of more extensive bibliographies available from
Political Research
Associates. Call for a free list of resources. (617) 661-9313. Computer users
with modems can download this and other PRA bibliographies by calling The
Public Eye BBS, (617) 272-5815, settings (8,N,1).
A number of the groups listed elsewhere in this guide have a variety of
pamphlets, reports, flyers, and videotapes available for educational purposes.
As these resources change frequently, many are not listed here. If you are
interested in a particular topic, be sure to contact these groups and ask for
a current list of resources available by mail.

How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your
Community
Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force
Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All
other rights reserved.