Good for the Media
Mar. 4th, 2005 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynSome weeks ago, an official from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) made a particularly dumb move. SAMHSA was providing substantial funding for a suicide prevention conference in Oregon. One of the panels was to be titled "Suicide Prevention Among Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Individuals". A SAMHSA official looking over the conference schedule contacted the organizers and threatened to withdraw funding if the words "Gay", "Lesbian", "Bisexual" and "Transgender" weren't removed from the panel name. The panel could be given -- but it dcouldn't be advertised as what it was. The organizers intended to comply, changing the name to something that would obscure the reason for offering the panel.
I could rant at length on how offensive and repellent the SAMHSA official's move was, but I don't think anyone in my readership needs help on this, so I'll skip it.*
The media got wind of the story, and soon a series of articles deriding this decision were popping up all over the place. The agency was deluged with protest emails. Congress members got involved.
In response to the outcry, the SAMHSA administrator issued a "clarification" in which he effectively recanted and reversed the lower-level decision that the name needed to be changed.
It would've been nice if it had taken less prodding, and come with an apology, too, but I guess that's too much to expect of a government agency.
* Yes, as a Libertarian, I could argue whether or not the government ought to be paying for conferences in the first place, and the fact that the money gives the gov't the leverage to pull these kinds of stunts is Exhibit A on "Why Government Funding Is Bad". But if my tax dollars are going to pay for this sort of thing, they sure shouldn't be paying for the doublespeak version thereof. Bah.
I could rant at length on how offensive and repellent the SAMHSA official's move was, but I don't think anyone in my readership needs help on this, so I'll skip it.*
The media got wind of the story, and soon a series of articles deriding this decision were popping up all over the place. The agency was deluged with protest emails. Congress members got involved.
In response to the outcry, the SAMHSA administrator issued a "clarification" in which he effectively recanted and reversed the lower-level decision that the name needed to be changed.
It would've been nice if it had taken less prodding, and come with an apology, too, but I guess that's too much to expect of a government agency.
* Yes, as a Libertarian, I could argue whether or not the government ought to be paying for conferences in the first place, and the fact that the money gives the gov't the leverage to pull these kinds of stunts is Exhibit A on "Why Government Funding Is Bad". But if my tax dollars are going to pay for this sort of thing, they sure shouldn't be paying for the doublespeak version thereof. Bah.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 08:44 pm (UTC)But in this instance, as I said in a thread above, I think it's more a matter of a mid-level administrator thinking that it would "look bad" for her to be seen funding anything that seemed remotely gay-friendly. The fact that she was focused on the title and not the content of the panel is what makes me think it was purely based on how she thought it'd look on her next review or on her resume.
Of course, the fact that someone could even think it would look bad to support this topic is pretty damning of the current political climate. I don't suppose it makes much difference whether it's a vast conspiracy of overzealous nuts, or just a bunch of sheeple bureacrats who think that they need to act like oversealous nuts in order to scrape by undetected. :/