creating a governing structure

[Andrew Dick-Wei Wong]

With all due respect, I have to say that I do not agree with Chris
Beckwith at all.  I understand that some people may not like being
categorized according to their race, gender or sexual orientation, but
having elected members to represent the six proposed constituencies is the
best way to make sure that their voices will be heard.  This is especially
true if we consider the fact that until recently, there have been
relatively few studies on topics such as the linguistic construction of
masculinity and the relationship between language use and sexual
identities.  We may all be interested in and sensitive to issues involving
people of various ethnic, sexual and gender identities, but does it mean
that we can speak for them?  I seriously doubt it.

Just my two cents worth,


Andrew Wong

**************************************************************************
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Chris Beckwith wrote:

> The proposed structure sounds basically good.  Some suggestions:
>
> There is no mention of a Secretary ('Executive in Charge of Operations'?)
> who would actually do the day to day running of the organization's
> business.  I've been in two organizations where practically ALL the work
> has been done by a devoted but untitled secretary (no capital S); she was
> not a professional in either case, but still I didn't like it.  In one
> case, some of the other members felt as I did, and eventually the
> secretary was elected Secretary of the society, a position she holds to
> this day.  :-))
>
> It would be good to get a copy of the non-profit incorporation guidelines
> from the state in which the organization will be incorporated.  (Being a
> non-profit corporation is the only way to accept tax-deductible donations,
> which will be needed if we want to do much of anything other than host a
> conference periodically.)  I think that the structure outlined would fit
> within the guidelines in Indiana, but I don't have a copy of them here and
> am not sure.  They do not vary much from state to state because everyone
> has to follow the federal guidelines anyway.  Better to check now and make
> any necessary revisions before things get too far along and it has to be
> redone.  (At least, they should be checked before we vote on all this.)
>   							
> On the Advisory Council:  Categories 1, 2, and 6 of the Advisory Council
> 'special constituencies' make good sense.  No problem (though I wonder why
> the U.S., Canada, and UK are lumped together; what about Australia, then,
> for example?)  But I am really uncomfortable with the rest.  Please don't
> take the following comments the wrong way.  I know you have only the best
> of intentions.  But please let me share my feelings.
>
> I do not like to be categorized according to my race (mixed) and
> nationality, or my sex and gender (feels mixed sometimes too).  It
> ALWAYS feels to me like discrimination AGAINST me.  I can't tell you how
> much I dislike the expression 'members of color'.  Please, if it is
> possible to change anything about this proposal, please please please drop
> this.  The idea of singling men out as a special constituency seems to me
> like a kind of reverse discrimination too.  There have been many men
> who've written in and participated in the discussions; surely out of 12
> advisors at least one will be a man, but even if that is not always the
> case, I wonder if it should matter to anyone, least of all the men who
> have been interested in this organization.  So I strongly urge you to drop
> this one too.  Similarly, the idea that there should be a special
> constituency for people of various sexual & gender identities strikes me
> the same way.  We're all people, aren't we?   We're all interested in
> and sensitive to issues involving these categories.  So far we've done a
> great job of working together civilly and intelligently, for the most
> part, regardless of anyone's race, nationality, sex, gender, or whatever,
> haven't we?  Let's keep on doing it, and not MARK people like this.
> I know it is well-intended, but it doesn't feel good.  It feels awful.  It
> reminds me of the times I have been mistreated because of my race or
> nationality or sex or whatever.  I hope you will understand my feelings
> and not be offended by my comments.
>
> Chris
>
> > Advisory council.
>
> > Twelve elected members. Six slots would be reserved for the following
> > constituencies, and would have to be filled by a member of the group
> being
> > represented (e.g., a member from the US could not fill slot 6). Six
> other
> > slots would be open to any member of the organization.
> >
> > The proposed constituencies are:
> >
> > 1. Graduate and undergraduate students
> > 2. Scholars in nontraditional employment situations (e.g., working in
> > industry; independent scholars; part-time and adjunct faculty)
> > 3. Members of color
> > 4. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual members
> > 5. Men who are members of the organization
> > 6. Members outside the US, Canada, and the UK
>