Monday, January 4, 2010

The American Psychological Association Refuses to Honor Boycott, Members of APA Call for Boycott of APA

Posted by on Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Remember Doug Manchester? He's the elderly conservative Catholic who owns the Manchester Hyatt Hotel in downtown San Diego. Manchester donated $125,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California because, as he said at the time, he's a conservative Catholic who believes that traditional marriages like his—one man and one woman, monogamous and married for life—had to be defended from gay and lesbian couples. It's doubtful that Prop 8 would've made it onto the ballot without Manchester's money: his cash, all of it collected from tourists visiting San Diego, was used by the Prop 8 campaign to pay signature gatherers and qualify the measure for the ballot. Activists called for a boycott of Manchester's hotel after Prop 8 passed and the boycott—which is still in effect—has cost the hotel millions.

The American Psychological Association took a pretty firm stance on the rights of same-sex couples back in 2004: "[The APA] shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples." So, um, why is the American Psychological Association having its 2010 annual meeting at Doug Manchester's hotel in San Diego? Take it away, Alice Dreger:

A letter from APA President Carol Goodheart indicates that it would cost the APA about a million dollars to reneg on its contract, made years earlier, with the Manchester Hyatt. Sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but that amount comes to only about 1.03% of the APA’s annual budget. This was pointed out to me by James Cantor, a psychologist at the University of Toronto and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, who is among those now calling for a reactive boycott of the APA’s meeting. Cantor writes, “That APA would trade its support of civil rights for a (max) 1.03% budgetary interest is unacceptable to me as an APA member.” Moreover, “The APA President wrote recently that $3.5 million in unanticipated funds had been acquired.” Yet the APA still won’t consider pulling out of the Manchester Hyatt? Concludes Cantor, “This isn't financial stewardship; this is civil rights having lost its place as an APA priority.”

As a consequence, those calling for a boycott of the APA’s meeting are hoping to convince at least 3,700 APA members who would otherwise attend the conference to skip it. (Usually about 14,000 attend.) The cost to the APA would come to about the million dollars they are claiming is at stake.

The APA has refused to make copies of its contract with the Manchester Hyatt available to its members—some members want to see if there's a standard “escape” clause in the contract that would allow the APA to back out—so no one really knows for sure if the APA is actually on the hook at all. And even if they are on the hook for that money...

That the APA would choose to put its members’ money in the pockets of Doug Manchester seems especially ironic given that psychological studies suggest sexual minorities’ mental health is negatively affected by discrimination.... It’s really hard to imagine the APA knowingly funneling its members’ dollars into the coffers of someone who supported legislation to roll back the civil rights of, say, African-Americans or Jews.

As a member of the American Historical Association (AHA), I’d be remiss if I did not mention that the AHA went through with its contract to use the Manchester Hyatt, but, as Cantor notes, the AHA “allocated $100,000, or $6.67/member, for educational campaigns regarding same-sex marriage. Had the 150,000-member APA also allocated $6.67 per member, it would have covered the costs of a worst-case Hyatt lawsuit.” Apparently, the APA has decided that civil rights for LBGT people comes at a cost, and that the cost is just too high at $6.67 per member. Talk is cheaper.

Getting back to Doug Manchester: how's his traditional marriage going? Uh... not so hot:

Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail.

 

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt from Denver 1
He was right - he was happily married until all those pre-Prop 8 gay marriages took place. The fact that they weren't thrown out meant his marriage was doomed. It's simple cause and effect.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM
2
Allowing gay marriage isn't the answer to life, the universe, and evertying, but it's close enough as to be a threat to psychologists and their future.
Posted by boatman on January 4, 2010 at 1:09 PM
3
*everything
Posted by boatman on January 4, 2010 at 1:10 PM
4
You know I have listened to Dan for years and read his column even longer but the more I read his blog the more it makes me happy to know the GLBT community is as much, if not more so, bigoted than the folk they hate.

What I get out of this post is once again the GLBT is trying to deprive somebody of their constitution right of free speech and to petition their government over something like marriage which last I checked wasn't in the Bill of Rights anywhere. Go go GLBT bigots.
Posted by J Random http://www.cryptome.org on January 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Julie in Eugene 5
Ugh. Do we really have to have the conversation about what freedom of speech means again? For real?

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". That is what the 1st amendment says about speech. Mr. Manchester is free to say whatever he wants about gay marriage, @4. The law/Congress isn't going to stop him. I am free to think whatever his says is stupid or hateful and to not spend my money at his hotel (and to encourage other like-minded people to not spend their money there as well). That in no way interferes with his right to say what he wants. Criminy.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Vince 6
Sounds like a traditional marriage to me. He also sounds like a lovely Catholic. I hope she fucks him over royally.
Posted by Vince on January 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM
kk in seattle 7
Thanks, Julie @5. It sure does get tiresome explaining the Constitution to so-called "Constitutionalists." I remember hearing someone from the Rutherford Institute on the radio claim that the policy of a San Francisco paper prohibiting the use of certain "politically incorrect" terms in its pages was "censorship." What a bunch of maroons.
Posted by kk in seattle on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 PM
8
Thanks, Julie (@5). The point here is that the APA is saying "we support LBGT rights" and then is turning around and asking their members to put their money in the pocket of Doug Manchester, so that he can turn around and work against what the APA has said it is for. That's just bad leadership.

And thanks, Dan, for broadcasting this to your sizable audience!
Posted by Alice Dreger http://www.alicedreger.com on January 4, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Loveschild 9
The more the APA gets involved in political issues like gay marriage the more credibility and standing within the medical field it looses. There needs to be a take over of the APA old guard that has brought it into the gutter in which it currently finds itself and more diverse opinions that balance out the fringe elements to keep it from endorsing political ideologies. Either that or take away the american from the psychological association, because more and more american people are seeing them in an unfavorable light.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on January 4, 2010 at 3:31 PM
emma's bee 10
@9: by this we infer that you are a member of the APA, LooseChild? If not, what specifically are your credentials to criticize the leadership of a scientific organization?
Posted by emma's bee on January 4, 2010 at 4:38 PM
11
Wonderful article. Especially the part about his marriage falling apart. When will people learn there is a price for hatred (regardless weather you use the bible as a weapon or not).
Posted by GayTalkRadio on January 4, 2010 at 4:42 PM
12
Loveschild might have a point if gay rights had no impact on mental health. But the psychological literature strongly suggests that discrimination and denial of rights harms the mental health of LBGT people. Thus it is a mental health issue. That doesn't mean it has to be one the organization takes up--plenty of mental health factors are not taken up by the APA--but the APA has chosen to claim it has taken it up as an issue of concern. So now their move looks hypocritical. In my post on Bioethics Forum, Given the mental health issues here, I likened this to the most prominent pulmonology association funneling its members' dollars to a tobacco pusher. Sure, you could do it, but it sure would make you look stupid.
Posted by Alice Dreger http://www.alicedreger.com on January 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM
stevema14420 13
I can't wait until the release the names of those who signed R71 last year. Time for more retribution. Even when we win there must be consequences for those who tried to take away our basic human rights.
Posted by stevema14420 http://www.aebn.net on January 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM
14
As a former student affiliate of this professional organization-
I have to say that I disagree with loveschild. Surely no one would think poorly of the APA's long overdue statement disapproving of the torture of human beings. The APA is a professional organization, which uses scientific research and the code of ethics which it endorses for all psychologists to make such public statements. Diversity is a value that this professional organization clearly holds in the ethics code. Valuing diversity means not discriminating against a group of people. As a member of the organization who has let her membership fall passed due, I agree with others here, this looks bad for the APA. Their original statement was warranted... and this action looks hypocritical.
Posted by Bethrs on January 4, 2010 at 5:59 PM
15
5.

Do we really have to have the conversation about what freedom of speech means again? For real?


Yes, Julie, we do. And we will. Again and again. And this is because most people don't have the critical thinking and reading skill of your average 6th grader. I'm not exaggerating. The public education system is in tatters, and it's reflected in comment boxes all over the country.
Posted by jade on January 4, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Dingo 16
Somebody needs to learn the difference between "lose," as in to misplace or not win, and "loose," as in not tight.
Posted by Dingo on January 4, 2010 at 8:19 PM
17
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of these types of hotels? I have to tell you, for LGBT supporting meeting planners, it is sometimes hard to figure out which hotels are supporters and which are not. Not that it lets the APA off the hook, but I would venture to guess that the program is planned by a professional meeting planner, who probably solicited for bids. And this hotel probably came up with the best price because they are probably at a stage where they will cut crazy rates for a conference this large.
It would be helpful if there was a list of pro LGBT hotels and those hotels we should boycott when planning meetings.
Posted by tracey s. on January 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM
this guy I know in Spokane 18
Um, @5 - you spelled "their" and "there" differently in different places. Please bring your spelling up to date, i.e. pick one spelling and use it at all times. Thanks.

And I may have to revise my theory that LC is a sock puppet for a group of sociology grad students working on a project. Looks like it might be a group of psychology students instead.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on January 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Knat 19
Well, we can't really pass judgment on them for trying to save money in such a poor economy. After all, for all we know, all their available funds might already be tied up, and for them to pay a lot more money to get out of this and plan a new location for this meeting might be financially straini--

Oh, they recently received more than three times the amount of money that they'd lose in a worst case scenario? Money that wasn't part of their original budget? So they could pay out the highest possible amount and still end about $2.5M up? Okay, yes, then that would make them look like a collective horse's ass, yes.
Posted by Knat on January 5, 2010 at 2:23 AM
20
@18 - the comments written by @5 - Julie used the correct spelling. You're the idiot. Their indicates possession - it was their money. There indicates a place - they refused to stay there because the place is owned by a bigoted ass.
Posted by Barbara on January 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM
this guy I know in Spokane 21
@20 - I was hoping that, on this forum, I wouldn't need to indicate that this was sarcasm. Sorry about that.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on January 5, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Add a comment