My grandfather used to quote the old axiom: Give me a lever, and I'll move the world.
What he meant was that the right tool makes the task possible.
We have many tools at our disposal as we react to the taking away of our marriage rights in California. National protests. Lawsuits. A new ballot amendment. Lobbying legislators. Wearing the White Knot.
But there's one popular tool that's more of a blunt instrument than a lever: boycotts on businesses because their CEO or other employees gave personal money to Yes on 8.
There are good boycotts and bad ones. This is the bad kind.
I know it's tempting. We're very angry and very hurt. We want to lash out. And so when we hear that Cinemark's CEO donated $9,999 to Yes on 8, or that a manager of the West Hollywood restaurant El Coyote donated to Yes on 8, or that a business is owned by a Mormon, then we want to strike out. We boycott.
Last weekend, for example, people protested Cinemark theaters across the country, in addition to the unofficial boycott.
But this is not the solution, for an important reason: it sets an unfortunate precedent.
A boycott is good when a company is bad. When it harasses its LGBT employees; fires them for being gay; will not promote them; sells anti-gay products or services (say an anti-gay t-shirt).
A boycott is bad when a company is being targeted because of the personal donations of someone in the company - especially when the company itself is pro-gay or gay neutral, as Cinemark is (it has high ranking, open gays in its leadership, it supports LGBT film festivals, it's running Milk). Or, for example, Marriott - which, yes, is owned by a Mormon family, but which also scored 100 in the 2009 HRC Corporate Equality Index.
Why is it a bad boycott? First, because it makes no sense. It's as if we are punishing an entire family because one member let loose a racial slur. And unfair, overzealous actions like this tend to lead to backlashes.
Second, because it is likely to fail. Boycotts are tough to sustain (look at the way Baptists tried to boycott Disney); and when they wind up having no significant impact, it makes the group boycotting seem less powerful.
Third - and most importantly - this sort of boycott is bad even if it succeeds. It's bad because companies are very reactive to losing business, especially in hard economic times. And corporations do a lot to protect themselves. I fear that the result of these sorts boycotts - if they are successful - will be for companies to add a "no personal political or campaign donations" clause to their employment contracts.
Journalism organizations already often do this, so that reporters do not seem to have a conflict of interest with stories they report. You could see a company deciding, "Well, if an employee goes rogue and supports some political cause other people disagree with, we may lose business. So might as well tell employees that they can't make political donations of any kind."
That might sound terrific - until we think about it for a minute. The last thing we want is for a giant group of corporations to start limiting personal donations to causes. Many of us contribute to LGBT advocacy organizations. It would cripple our causes if we were unable to keep financial supporting Lambda Legal and NGLTF because our jobs told us we could not.
And do we really want companies to fire employees whose personal donations raise the ire of the community? What happens when a company is based in Florida, say, and its learned that it's CEO gave money to support civil unions; should a protest of anti-gay Floridians mean that the CEO is let go?
Instead, let us remember that people are not businesses. Businesses change practices due to attacks on the wallet; people change their minds through attacks on the heart.
Punishing Cinemark or Marriott or El Coyote for the foolish personal choices of a few leaders is unlikely to change (already pretty gay-friendly) corporate policies. We must build rapport with those leaders instead; we must talk with them; we must introduce them to gay people and explain from our hearts why their positions are wrong. And we must save boycotts for the companies that actually deserve them.
Boycotting is a blunt instrument. Let's not smash through our own interests accidentally. Instead, let's use a lever. And move the world.
23 Comments for “Boycotts that Backfire”
posted by horus on
i disagree. i will not be eating at el coyote or seeing films at cinemark, and i have not stepped foot inside a marriott since i found out they are mormon owned(30 years ago). i’m sorry if that seems counterproductive to you. if gay people choose to work for an company that is run by people who feel i am not entitled to marry whom i wish,that’s their decision and they can live with their choices. it simply is too irritating to give my money to people who systematically, and surreptitiously lied to voters.
posted by Eva Young on
Well argued and well reasoned article. I hope this persuades some people. I also have been troubled by these sorts of boycotts.
posted by Paul on
Sorry. Stonewall 2 is in motion and we need to send a clear message to people who will attack our equality in the future. There will be consequences. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to make change.
posted by Frank on
You couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve boycotted companies to further the interests of their gay employees. No it’s time for those gay employees to return my support. I am a cancer patient and the job market is the worst I’ve ever seen. If I lose my job, I should have the right to have my partner cover me under his insurance. Prop 8, as a constitutional amendment threatens the statutes under which companies are compelled to offer domestic partner benefits.
If the CEO or sole proprietor of a company donate to Yes On 8, I will boycott and continue to do so. I will not enrich those who endanger my life.
posted by homer on
Let’s just sit quietly at the back of the bus, hoping they don’t kick us off.
Sorry, I’m not interested in second class citizenship any more. The fact that these boycotts are scaring religious fundamentalists shows they are working.
posted by Michael McNamara on
Whether or not the boycotts are “productive” is not as important to me as my making own conscience choices. And right now my choice is to shed my old “be nice so these people who hate me MIGHT not always treat me as a second class citzen” attitude. The real power of a boycott is my own empowerment.
posted by charlie on
companies with pro-gay policies have them for various reasons. the primary goal is to attract and maintain the best employees they can. our sexual orientation is merely tolerated. the mormons ran an ugly campaign playing on the worst stereotypes to pass prop 8. they must be held accountable. if cinemark, el coyote and marriott truly care about their gay and lesbian customers let’s see them stand up to their church, donate to gay marriage groups. history is replete with church members standing up to hierarchy to change church policy. slavery comes to mind.
posted by Allan on
Boycotts are only bad when they fail to influence the actions of the corporations (and its officers).
You have projected pessimistic and harmful outcomes from these actions, which are really nothing more than educated consumers electing to spend their dollars with corporations whose actions and actions of their officers better align with the values of the consumer.
If the top brass at major corporations think twice in the future before funding a campaign that seeks to strip rights away from American citizens, I can live with that.
Sorry you can’t.
posted by Michael M. on
I largely agree with you on the futility of boycotts.
But I disagree on personal political action. There is a difference between any old employee and the CEO. The CEO is the leader, the public face, the person who sets the vision, tone, and values of the company. So it’s crucial that this person provides good moral leadership for the company – and denying rights to its employees and citizens is NOT the right kind of moral leadership.
The right for all employees to engage in political action and speech should be protected. But the shareholders and Board members should retain the right to prohibit the CEO from personal action that will negatively impact the image of the company.
What would you do with a segregationist as CEO? Or a Holocaust denier?
CEOs are different, and they should be treated accordingly.
posted by kindness on
Au contaire,
Anyone, especially those that feel they are unfairly being oppressed, have a moral right to spend their own money as they see fit.
Nothing you’ve written changes that right.
posted by Ed B. on
Do you lack knowledge of our history? Or are you ignoring it?
We boycotted Florida Orange Juice. The spokesperson’s contract was not renewed and she has now sunk into oblivion where she belongs.
A member of the Coors family donated to anti-Gay causes and we boycotted. Coors took notice and began donating to Gay organizations and sponsoring Gay Pride celebrations.
A couple of flight attendants made anti-Gay comments on a flight returning from the March on Washington. We boycotted. Ultimately American Airlines required sensitivity training for all employees and began sponsoring Gay events.
And we boycotted Disney before the Baptists did. The boycott was called because 2 men were ejected from the park for dancing together. They were not even touching, just facing each other while moving to the music at a concert. The result? Disney now sponsors “Gay Days”.
Boycotts are an effective and necessary tool to gain the rights we are being denied!
posted by charlie on
it seems most people here are not buying your argument. this is our 3rd awakening-stonewall and AIDS were the others. the anger is palpable. Lambda Legal and especially HRCF seem out of step in this debate. the energy is being fueled by the younger generations and i applaud this. i look forward to more demonstrations and rallies. feels right.
posted by Drew on
Lovely. Another pundit telling us how not to behave, what not to do, but offering no solutions. It’s the bankruptcy of ideas from the top all over again. Our community seems as rudderless as the GOP post-November 4th.
posted by Mark in Colorado on
Apologists like yourself Ms. Vanasco are no longer part of the solution. You willfully ignore the larger issue at hand. This is nothing like a corporation abusing its employees. It is about the taking of constitutional rights from a group of citizens. Shame on you for being more than happy to give your hard earned money to someone who profits from it and uses it to take your rights away. Its not about political or religious convictions, thoughts or speech. Its about actions. Why are so many people, like yourself, so incapable of understanding the difference. You and other apologists like you have become and are no longer relevant.
posted by Jeff_Stading on
I disagree to an extent. Boycotting a restaurant because a number of servers donated to the pro-Prop 8 campaign is absurd. That being said, boycotting a corporation because they have high level executives who gave significant support to Prop. 8 is entirely reasonable. Examining the matter from an entirely pragmatic perspective, boycotting these companies (and telling them why you are not going to their theaters or places of business) will put pressure on the businesses to fire those who seek to entrench hate and intolerance in our society.
It’s absurd that one would advocate extending tolerance and acceptance to those who deny it to others. They live by the sword, they can die by it.
posted by Jeff on
For those opossed to boycotts, I have just one word: Coors. It worked and Mariott is more then a fair target
posted by thoughtcounts Z on
Jennifer, I think you make a great point, and I’m sorry that most of the comments here are so negative. It’s clear to me that you aren’t advocating “sitting quietly at the back of the bus.” If a boycott is unlikely to produce your desired outcome (or is likely to produce the opposite extreme), you shouldn’t boycott.
This post doesn’t say anything about people’s right to spend their own money how they want. It makes a good case, though, that if you’re spending/not spending your money with these certain intentions in mind, you’re unlikely to get the results you want.
@Michael M.: I wouldn’t be happy about a segregationist CEO, or one who doesn’t believe the Holocaust ever happened. Far from it. But what do you think about a racist or anti-Semitic CEO who does not express that opinion to her employees, or enforce compliance with it in any way? The CEO and the company are distinct. The CEO may profit from the company, but if their racism/anti-Semitism/homophobia is not a part of the company, you are not endorsing discrimination by patronizing their company.
posted by craig on
You couldn’t more wrong Jennifer. We must stand up against bigotry with everything we’ve got. Anywhere. Anytime. We have been silent and polite and understanding too long. The time is now to be loud about this. If someone donated to Yes on 8 then where they earn a living is as fair a target as when the christians target a soap company they don’t like or when Phelps brings his hate to a parents funeral for their child killed in Iraq. The christianists are decidedly not nice in their tactics and gays need to stop being bullied. It is time to peacefully but forcibly answer them and take the upper hand in this fight. Equal rights now. No more apologists from the gay side of the aisle!
posted by Natalie on
“The CEO and the company are distinct. The CEO may profit from the company, but if their racism/anti-Semitism/homophobia is not a part of the company, you are not endorsing discrimination by patronizing their company.”
The CEO’s of these businesses were NOT silently anti-gay. They put their money where their beliefs were – in some cases considerable amounts of money. This led directly to the travesty of stripping a minority of its constitutional rights. Now that we know this fact should we make it easier for them to sponsor hate in the future by contributing more of OUR money to these businesses?
I can tell you I won’t. The boycotts occurring right now are not against people who believe differently from us but against those who use their financial clout to cripple our civil rights. They are a justified and rational response to the situation at hand. Satisfaction with the status quo will not bring change – only more of the status quo.
posted by dalea on
The reason for doing a boycott is that we have had success with boycotts. Coors, Disney, Cracker Barrell, department stores, liquor companies. One great tactic from the Cracker Barrell action was the puke-in. Projectile vomiting is a great theatrical means of getting a message across in a restaurant. Probably would work in theaters also.
Marriot, we should skip. None of the family members or top executives donated to Prop 8. Need to reward our friends.
posted by Set on
“”no personal political or campaign donations” clause to their employment contracts.” – except that would be illegal and unconstitutional
posted by dalea on
Notice that Jennifer has vanished from this discussion. Love the way ‘our betters’ come out to lecture the great unwashed, and then are heard from no more. Note that she has not provided one whit of history of what she fears actually happening. Since the reverse is our experience, this really is a dumb essay.
posted by Dennis on
Where mormons are concerned, everyone seems to have forgotten one significant fact: they tithe. Whether the family who own Marriott donated specifically to Prop 8 or not is irrelevant. If they tithe 10% of Marriott income to the mormon church, they’ve contributed directly to our repression, even if they don’t agree with it. The same goes for any person who belongs to a church that facilitated passage of Prop 8: giving the strength of your name and number alone to homophobic religious institutions, even though you might support equal rights for gay people, is tacit approval of that institution’s homophobia. Likewise the CEOs and other corporate executives who derive their income from certain businsses; the business itself might be neutral or even supportive of our equality, but income from that business is being used against us. It would be absurd for us to patronize that business and contribute to our own repression. No–I fully support social and economic boycotts as powerful weapons. If nothing else, such actions, conducted loudly and publicly, make strong statements. And I agree with those who have complained that such fossilized gay institutions as the HRC, in this situation, are holding us back. I’m 53 and sick to death of being “advised” by gay “advocates” not to be too uppity or anger too many straight people who might be allies if I promise not to scare them. ENOUGH! We have to give back as good–or bad–as we get.