,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The signers of this letter to the board of #WomensMarch are making two points, one procedural, the other substantive. Their procedural claim is that Women's March, Inc. is not governed with an open, inclusive, decision-making process. vibrantlyviolet.net/2019/09/26/ope…
That is true, and has always been true. It has always been run by a board, first a tiny board, now a much larger board, a board that made in the past and continues to make decisions that alienate one group or another of would-be supporters. For example, the unilateral decision of
the previous board to tolerate support for Farakkhan among its leadership shattered the goodwill WM had created for itself among millions of women and men through the initial, historic 2017 march, and brought the organization very low and less relevant. But those who supported
the WM leadership did not seem, at the time, to have that much of a problem with the WM's governance structure - it's tiny board of close friends who made the decisions on their own. When many people argued that the millions of people who took to the streets in 2017 had given
this tiny group of women their mandate and that the leadership of WM should be answerable to them, this argument was made by those who had a problem with the substantive decisions of the WM leadership, not the people who agreed with them.
It is now that a new Board has made a decision they disagree with that these people are up in arms about the decision-making process that many others had decried as closed, undemocratic and authoritarian in the past. Which brings us to the substantive point: the authors of this
letter are explicit that they agree with the substantive decision of WM for two years to stick with leaders with ties to Farakkhan that destroyed the reputation of the organization. The signers of this letter believe that the organization OUGHT TO include in its leadership both
someone who has written the material Billoo has written AND someone who lauded Farakkhan as the greatest of all time. Their substantive position as to who is fit to lead a broad-based, national, women's rights organization - and where #Antisemitism fits into the question - may be
out of the mainstream, but they are up front about it and consistent. Their procedural position - as to how much they think the WM board ought to be answerable to others - on the other hand might be colored by when they think it is their substantive ox that is being gored.
Their letter has been made private and this statement was issued. vibrantlyviolet.net/2019/09/28/upd…
