2015 Young Americans for Liberty National Convention - too triggered by feminism

Friday, July 31st, 2015 marked the first ever day I attended a Young Americans for Liberty National Convention. Despite travel plans that delayed me by a couple of days and had me stranded in New York City for an entire night, I was able to make it to YALcon for the last two days. The year before, many of my Students For Liberty Campus Coordinator friends stayed in DC after the Campus Coordinator Retreat in order to attend the 2014 YALcon. I was excited to attend this year's to find out what all the fuss was about.

At the 2015 International Students For Liberty Conference, after months of courtship with YAL (I think calling it that is pretty fitting), one of my friends started up the Western Washington University YAL chapter. The club became officially recognized by the school during spring quarter, with me as the treasurer. During spring break (before we became recognized), I attended the YAL Utah State Convention in...Utah. More specifically, Salt Lake City. I had a good time, despite the Leadership Institute having a strong presence there - it being no secret that I have a huge grudge against them.

Despite the more conservative bent of YAL compared to organizations like SFL (which describes itself as being big-tent), I considered rising up the ranks in YAL in order to become a State Chair. I spend a lot of, if not too much, time on libertarianism and my political activism, and of what I have done, I have never actually been paid for my work...reimbursements and the meager ad revenue don't count. I would have liked to see some of my work compensated. However, despite my beliefs that libertarians should work within conservative groups (as well as with liberals and other libertarians), YAL lent itself to conservatives a little too much for my liking. There is also the misunderstanding from the public that libertarianism and conservatism are the same, which may also explain my contempt for fusionist organizations. (I found this neato article that explains a little bit how libertarianism and conservatism differ, from a conservative's perspective.) After attending the 2015 YALcon, I knew I would have to even further my limit my interactions with the organization.

It was my first morning at YALcon and by the time we had reached the second speaker, I seriously asked myself, "What have I gotten myself into?" This man was introduced by a YAL State Chair and Leadership Institute Regional Field Coordinator who said something along the lines of, "If he doesn't offend you, then he didn't do his job." During his first few minutes of speaking, he resorted to ageism, sexism, and other tenants of bigotry to attempt to make coherent points. Supposedly, according to himself and the introducer, listening to him provides valuable insights about life that you will never learn anywhere else. He provided a story about last year when a "young slim, blonde thing" got offended at something he said, and that it doesn't matter because she wasn't worth anything and had no importance.

I knew I had to get out of there. Being in the first row and center and within shot of the camera filming it, I wondered how to go about it. Finally, as if not giving a shit anymore, I gathered the things I would need and left. When I was walking out, I heard him say something about "offended twenty-somethings." Once I got out of the room, I realized I had forgotten my room key. I had planned to go to my room and charge my phone, which was dying, and I was delighting in using my phone because of how offended he gets when people are on their phones while he is speaking. I decided to try to see if my dorm room happened to be open by any chance. By some fluke, it was, so I charged my phone and did something a hundred more times more productive than being in his presence - I took a nap.

Now, I am not usually one who goes about trying to cause drama, creating gossip, and pitting people/organizations against each other (that's actually The Libertarian Republic's job), but sometimes I become so infuriated with an organization's dealings that I feel obligated to inform the public. I was at least glad that I wasn't the only attendee who was dismayed at YAL's decision to have him as a speaker, as I saw some social media outrage and noticed quite some more people than usual using his time to look at sponsoring organizations' tables, mingle, etc. If libertarians are wondering why it is difficult to appeal to more diverse demographics, this is it: by having bigoted conservative speakers appeal to fellow bigots and dismiss people's concerns under the guise that being offended is beneficial to furthering a cause, it undermines people's experiences and ensures that a movement will only eventually run out of steam. Get with the times, YAL - conservatism is dying out, thanks in part to its desperate tactics. I don't have any problems with conservatives in themselves as I was raised a conservative girl myself, but having to rely on shock factor and manipulation to try to capture the public's attention is pathetic at best. If this was the only incident to have happened with 2015 YALcon, I wouldn't have written about it. By venting about my frustrations, I got a heads-up from a couple of reliable sources concerning a juicy tidbit...

While Reason tabled there, they were also supposed to have a panel. It was approved, but a week before YALcon, it became unapproved. Why would that happen? It turns out the subject matter was too triggering for the organization. What was so risky a topic that YAL had to censor it? Feminism.

YAL be all like...

This was the description for the panel:

Libertarian Feminism in 2015: Carrying on the individualist feminist tradition

Join us for a discussion of libertarian feminism in the 21st century. We'll touch on the individualist feminist tradition and then explore issues of particular importance to libertarian feminists today; how libertarian feminism differs from modern, progressive feminism; and what the philosophy has to offer the larger libertarian movement.

According to YAL, they deemed this to be too "divisive" and controversial. They offered the panel the timeslot again only if they altered the description and event so that the word "feminism" was avoided, but Reason turned down that feeble attempt at compromise. If I was Reason, I would have said "sure" but then F-bombed the panel to create bad relations with YAL - it's not like YAL's professionalism created any stronger bonds.

If a feminist panel was too controversial for the convention, YAL could have provided trigger warnings in the program or had a safe space when attendees became too offended. Instead, they decided that ridding their convention of such a panel would best protect the "liberal campus survivors" from further trauma.

Before you can say, "But feminism and libertarianism don't go together," do some reading:

1972 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate and the Association of Libertarian Feminists founder Tonie Nathan was the first woman in the US to receive an electoral vote.

America's First Feminist Was a Radical Libertarian

What Does Libertarian Feminism Look Like?

Anyways, it doesn't matter if you don't believe the two go together or you don't identify as a feminist (you don't have to!), the fact that YAL couldn't even bear to have a libertarian feminist panel, claiming that it would be too divisive while having (at least) one atrocious conservative speaker is not only hypocritical, but espouses the mindset that certain educational information is harmful and needs to be erased.

At this point, the national organization seems to be of little difference from the oft-confused conservative, "illegal immigrant catching" Young Americans for Freedom. There's only a tad more cherry-picked political correctness differentiating YAL from YAF. Now we know what the "con" in YALcon stands for.

Gossip doesn't write itself.

 

Become a Patron!  

How Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians

Generally, I am not a fan of hyperbole, especially when used as a clickbait title to an online article. Even more-so when conservative media utilizes it to build a logically unsound argument about how liberals are destroying America. While I am skeptical of most media organizations, I tend to be even more skeptical about the stories the conservative media shares. From my observations (and own experience), the conservatives realize that they are losing ground with the US population, having to resort to covering deeply exaggerated stories or what should be a mundane topic meant to send their audience into an emotional downward spiral, hence creating loyal followers.

          

In the past few days, I noticed that my friend, James Holcomb, was upset about an incident that happened during the 25^th Annual Capital City Pride in Olympia, Washington. The first post I saw from him was a photo of a sign saying, “BANNED FROM PRIDE FOR BEING A GAY LIBERTARIAN.” 

“Thank you to all the supporters who stopped to talk to me on the street after getting banned from going into pride. Capital City Pride willing violated our booth contract because some individuals not associated with us decided to open carry (which is legal). We were discriminated against because we support the 2^nd amendment and it was assumed by the event coordinators that we were together with the open carry folks, which is not true. So now the LPWA and myself personally are banned from pride “for life”. Liberty requires tolerance.

After being unable to get any of the local media to cover his experiences at Pride, TheBlaze interviewed him. If an online magazine says “liberal” in a way that is meant to be derogatory, I do my best to avoid them. Many times has The Blaze said “liberal” in a derogatory manner. Hence, I do my best to avoid them. That doesn’t mean I completely shut them out, as there are a few articles here and there that legitimately catch my interest. Despite my general distaste for TheBlaze, the coverage of James’ Capital City Pride experience is well illustrated.

As detailed on TheBlaze and by talking with James, we know that the Libertarian Party of Washington State booked and paid for a table weeks before Capital City Pride. Despite wanting to have a speaker, they were not given permission. The LPWA has been able to table at Pride for four years in a row, with no issues. James asked the chairwoman, Anna Schlecht, if members could open carry because there had been a problem at Seattle Pride – not with the LPWA, but with a demo regarding a person named Sparkles. (Interestingly enough, there is no problem with open carry at Whatcom County Pride.) He wanted to be able to tell the rule to the volunteers, just in case – “knowing the nature of libertarians.” Upon asking, James and the LPWA were asked to never return.

Neither James nor the LPWA were involved with the open carry protestors. James stood at a corner alone for five hours, protesting with his sign by himself. He attracted attention – he was called “racist” several times, but he also had productive conversations with some strangers. According to him, some who were against the open carry group came to tell him off as well, but once they heard his story, felt bad for him.

In a bit of a tangent, I am bothered by how very few other people seem to be irked by the bi-shaming experienced by the member of the open carry group. Bi/pansexuals have enough to deal with, excluding the harassment from fellow queers and “allies.”

During James’ experience and since then, my Facebook newsfeed has been filled with anger towards what happened with him and the LPWA, as well as dismay of how the people at Pride are not tolerant of the 2^nd Amendment and open carry, and why they should be. I believe that that is a completely different story. Personally, I have no problem with people (responsibly) open carrying, but I can understand how an event organizer may be uncomfortable with allowing that when attendees may become irritated or feel unsafe. Let’s face it – those kinds of crowds are mostly liberals and leftists, who believe in no or limited firearm freedom. A lot of libertarians probably agree with the protestors from the open carry group (but hopefully not their tactics and rowdiness), but I am clarifying now that this is not what I am writing about. And again, the LPWA and open carry group are unaffiliated.

No one should be able to argue that Capital City Pride had the right to not allow open carriers at their event. As a private institution, it was within their rights to turn away open carriers. You can argue if it was the right thing to do, followed by many-a-debate about whether or not the 2^nd Amendment is obsolete. Even if there was not a mix-up between the LPWA and open carry organization, could Pride not allow an organization with certain views to table? Certainly. However, if this particular view was not in display (whether through pamphlets and other educational materials or by someone open carrying) and has no bigoted background, one should question the motivation of enforcing such rules.

When I asked James why he worded the sign the way he did, he responded with, “I’m not the right kind of gay.” The gay who is pro-open carry. The gay who is Libertarian.

The fact that the LPWA was even allowed to table at Capital City Pride shows for a fact that Pride did not openly discriminate towards Libertarians. James is not entirely sure if they would have been allowed to table if the mix-up had not happened. According to him, Schechter does not like the LPWA and would not allow them to have a speaker at the event (this was weeks before the open carry fiasco). In other words, they were keen on finding an excuse to give the LPWA the boot. It still comes to question why the LPWA was allowed to table in the first place if they perceived that they are hated so much. (Revenue?) Not every aspect of this story will ever truly be clear to us.

Capital City Pride discriminated against open carriers, which means they discriminated against Libertarians. They discriminated against conservatives. They discriminated against any other group that believes in open carry. But how is discriminating against a conservative open carry advocate different from a Libertarian open carry advocate? Historically, the Libertarian Party was the first major party to announce support for gay marriage, and include it in their platform. John Hospers, who was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian party (1972), was the first openly gay man to run for president. (He and the vice-presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, received an electoral vote, making Nathan the first female candidate in United States history to receive one.) Pride made the choice to do away with an ally that has been supporting gay marriage for longer than the two major political parties, as well as the gay man who is a member of the Libertarian Party, who believes in 2^nd Amendment rights. They kicked out an organization that is on their side and paid money weeks beforehand for their table because of their unwillingness to have open carriers at the event, ignoring the fact that they had probably made a mix-up with the LPWA and open carry group. The event organizers, whether you agree with their decisions or not, handled the dismissal immaturely and unprofessionally. If they realized a mix-up had been made, they were probably too hateful, stubborn, or feeble-minded to make amends.

Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians in a way that other private entities discriminate subtly (and sometimes under-the-law). If a business does not want to hire an older person, they will look for someone “not planning to retire.” And so on. James and the LPWA were not the “right kind of gay” – the kind that shares the same views on a variety of issues – and done away with. It is something libertarians, especially progressive libertarians, have to regularly deal with.

Whether or not you agree with the wording of James’ sign and that Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians, you have to admit that seeing his sign was quite the conversation starter…and that the event organizers for Capital City Pride are major assholes.