Report from NOW Convention

Contributed by Lorraine Sockaci

As a delegate to the recent National Organization for Women (NOW) national conference in Detroit, I would like to express some of my thoughts on what happened there. However, space limits me to a discussion of some of the disturbing things that occurred.

Whenever you have a huge gathering of feminists, it is always an exciting and exhilarating experience. This year's NOW conference was certainly less chaotic than the previous one in Philadelphia. However, this conference faced a much more serious national situation than the last conference. The first decade of NOW's existence saw tremendous headway with respect to women's rights and the consciousness of millions of people. NOW and the feminist movement as a whole is facing a backlash on the part of the federal, state and local governments. Ratification of the ERA is facing a crisis, as three more states are needed and time is running out. The Right to Choose is being chipped away by various city councils and state leg. islatures across the country. Government agencies are dragging their feet in enforcing anti-sex discrimination provisions and affirmative action programs (e.g. the disgraceful five year average for processing a complaing with the EEOC).

The Challenge facing NOW and the women's movement is defending women's present rights and extending them. And it follows that a discussion is in order on what kinds of strategies, tactics and actions are needed.

Many of the delegates and observers to theNOW conference hoped that extensive discussion would be held on planning strategies and activities. And there was quite a bit of discussion in many of the workshops, but unfortunately, when it came to the plenary sessions, discussion on the many resolutions was rather limited. I think everyone felt frustrated by the almost two hour debate on whether smoking should be permitted and the endless parliamentary snags.

One resolution that I supported never made it to the floor for discussion. Resolution "six" also known as "Defending Women's Rights in the Second Decade'' (which was published in the March issue of What She Wants) was initiated by two Philadelphia NOW members who are also members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). It received the endorsement of over sixty NOW members across the country who are not socialists and did not consider the resolution an "SWP resolution". Many of these women knew who initiated the resolution but could not have cared less since they were concerned with the actual merits of the resolution and not the political affiliations of the initiators.

During the conference the rumors and grapevine accusations of SWP "manipulation" and "domination" escalated. As a member of NOW and the SWP, I found the brusque hostility of many of the delegates quite alarming, especially when I would attempt to talk with them. Yet, none of the rumors surfaced for open discussion.

For example, resolution "66" on women of the oppressed nationalities was defeated without one person explaining why she was opposed to it and a much shorter, less specific resolution was passed instead. What had happened was that" 66" had been labeled by the grapevine as "SWP developed and promoted" and; hence, had to be rejected in favor of resolution "76". Both resolutions were initiated and passed by the minority women's caucus as a whole. Interestingly enough, NOW members belonging to the SWP supported both resolutions, but somehow, SWP support was used against resolution "66".

Socialist Workers Party members also support issues such as affirmative action, child care and the like. Should NOW and the rest of the feminist

page 6/What She Wants/June, 1977

movement reject or ignore these issues because they are agressively supported by socialist feminists? That is the logic of branding certain ideas or resolutions "socialist" and rejecting them as "tainted" without considering their merits.

FREE OUR SISTERS FREE

Women: A Journal of Liberation/cpf

Naturally, when resolution "66" was defeated, minority women expresed their dismay and disappointment. But this was not the only controversial resolution. There was disagreement and debate over some others. Unfortunately, the atmosphere was such that many delegates freaked out over any discussion and controversy. I don't feel that discussion and debate is something for the feminist movement to avoid, ignore, stifle or criticize. Handling discussion and debate in an open, democratic and sisterly fashion is the mark of a healthy and viable organization.

Near the end of the conference, when over half of the delegates had gone, a motion was passed stating "This conference protests attempts by the SWP to use NOW as a vehicle to place before the public the agenda of their organization and to exploit the feminist movement. We bitterly resent and will not tolerate any group's attempt to deflect us from pursuit of our feminist goals".

These charges of "domination" and "exploitation" are false and absurd. It is no big secret that out of 700 delegates to the conference 20 to 30 were members of the SWP. It would have been impossible for 20 to 30 delegates to determine the outcome of the voting unless a significant portion of the delegates could have been won over to support their ideas through discussion.

This extremely serious red-baiting resolution establishes a dangerous precedent in NOW and for the feminist movement. Many NOW members remember the outburst of red-baiting at the 1971 conference. At a later conference there was lesbian baiting and a campaign against the "lavendar menace". At the previous conference in Philadelphia, the divisions between majority and minority caucuses led to charges, counter-charges and name calling. All this has left a lot of personal scars and

organizational disruption which need not have happened. This is not just a problem for NOW, but divisions, name calling and "trashing" have torn apart other feminist organizations needlessly.

Only the enemies of our movement benefit from red-baiting and name calling. Motions such as the one passed at the recent NOW conference inhibit discussion, intimidate dissenters, divide the organization, create suspicion and set up an atmosphere of "internal house-cleaning".

The recent lawsuits against government spying agencies have made available to the public secret documents showing that the FBI was overjoyed when radicals in an organization were scapegoated and accused of "destroying the integrity of the or ganization" or "bringing in outside ideas". And they especially loved it when organizations branded certain ideas "suspect" and effectively squelched any dissent or discussion. This is not to say that all persons who resorted to red-baiting or name calling are FBI agents or "dupes" of the government Agent-baiting, just like red-baiting, has to be avoided. It can also tear apart an organization and weaken a movement.

Regardless of the motives behind red-baiting. it plays into the hands of the anti-feminist forces because it creates a situation where it becomes impossible to set aside differences of political affiliation to work together on issues crucial issues like the ERA and abortion rights.

This is the old divide and conquor strategy we are faced with. To cultivate a red-baiting atmosphere, agents would send anonymous letters casting suspicion on an organization or individual or their motives. Secret, so-called official, reports that slandered certain radical groups and contained "evidence" of alleged misdeeds were compiled and circulated by agents to discredit these organizations.

In February of this year, 1,377 pages of FBI files on the women's movement were released and many feminist and radical publications reported the event and quoted from the files. It is clear from these files that while some women worried about radical or socialists "dominating" the movement, the FBI feared that feminists of various political stripes would unite to work on certain issues. It is very eye-opening to read these files and to see what incredibly sexist and cynical attitudes these male FBI agents had. It is a credit to the feminist movement that these agents who are the real wreckers and splitters of movements were unable to isolate disrupt our movement. The June issue of MS magazine will be carrying a feature article on these FBI files.

At this time which is so critical for our movement we need to be organizing support for women's rights and seeking allies, not restricting the movement or questioning the authenticity of someone's feminism.

A compelling reason for feminists to reach out is the recent drop in public support for the ERA. A recent Harris Poll reports that 56 to 35 percent majority supports the ERA, a 9 point drop since October 1976. This decline in public support is espec ially alarming considering the log jam the ERA faces in state legislatures. The way to break this log jam is through sustained, enlarged, visible public pressure.

Now more than ever the women's movement needs to reject red-baiting and to learn lessons from history on that subject. We need to re-empha. size that the women's movement is open to all women regardless of their political affiliation or ideas, sexual preferences, life styles, religious backgrounds, etc. People who agree with this point of view may want to send letters of protest to NOW's national board.