Media Coverage

Excellent coverage by Feministe
Excerpt: “You can’t hear much more on the video than “this is what democracy looks like,” but that’s precisely the point of the disruption. Decisions about the future of this city shouldn’t be by a Trilateral Commission or a Bilderbergers forum, and we’’ve already seen what happens when bankers, and bankers on the other side of the revolving door, get carte blanche to decide how to shore up the economy their banks. The protest was organized by Right to the City, a national coalition of community organizing projects. Here in New York, that includes CAAAV (Organizing Asian Communities), FIERCE, Community Voices Heard, FUREE, JFREJ, Mothers on the Move and quite a few other local grassroots projects that you should know about. I know that one group, Picture the Homeless, has been trying for months to get a meeting with Bloomberg to get him to hear the voices of homeless people who are affected by the city’s policies. He refuses to meet with them. That’’s why disruption becomes necessary.

This is what democracy really should look like: grassroots movements of LGBTQ youth of color, women who’’ve had to deal with welfare, mothers trying to save the communities of the South Bronx, progressive people of faith, women of color working for low-income families, Latin@ immigrant communities, Asian women against violence, the list goes on and on. I’’m proud to see this kind of action bringing together so many different movements.” [Read the whole post and watch video]

ABC News

Newsday

New York Times

On March 5th, Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP) will team up with fellow Astraea grantee partner, the Audre Lorde Project, to present a joint benefit show, The Get Down. SRLP works to works to guarantee that all people are free to self-determine their gender identity and expression, regardless of income or race, and without facing harassment, discrimination, or violence. After recent legal victories for gender self-determination and protections for youth, SRLP has launched a new monthly legal clinic in the Bronx.

Law and Disorder

By Lauren O’Neill-Butler for ArtForum.com

New York, NY—SINK OR SWIM. Since art nonprofits (and downtown art nonprofits in particular) have dealt with those looming conditions for ages, it felt only natural that last Tuesday night, during several events feting such institutions, conversations about community would trump those about the economic downturn. White Columns celebrated its prestigious history with the opening of “40 Years/40 Projects,” and the Sylvia Rivera Law Project held its fourth annual “Small Works for Big Change” auction at the Leslie/Lohman Gay Art Foundation. The latter, a benefit that is supported by donations and volunteers, raises funds for free legal services for low-income transgender and intersex people. Pressed to catch the 7:30 PM SRLP fashion show, and hoping to make a pit stop at the Swiss Institute for Marlo Pascual’s opening, time and space seemed to collapse as I rode a wave of giddy, infectious cheer, post–season of giving, pre-–Obama inauguration.

First up was White Columns, where ever-gracious curator Amie Scally pointed out a few highlights–––a 1970 New York Times review by Peter Schjeldahl, Lovett/Codagnone’s 1995 video Samurai Love, and the newspaper exhibition catalogue from the 2004 “Gloria” show. Did it come as a surprise to see the august critic and artists meandering around the galleries? Not really. Maybe it was all the ephemera going to my head, but already the art world seemed a little smaller, more tightly knit—1970s redux. Salvaged from basement archives, the show includes a 1988 checklist from Cady Noland’s exhibition, with works priced at two and four hundred dollars. Amid chatter about those now-bargain-basement prices, director Matthew Higgs elaborated on the archive’s poor condition, as we gazed fondly at the three remaining documents from Kim Gordon’s 1981 show and discussed the potential for a panel featuring all of the White Columns directors—a disparate clan, to be sure. Clocking the time—–nearly 7 PM—–on Felix Gonzalez-Torres’s Perfect Lovers, I squeezed through the by-then-bustling crowd and caught a taxi to SoHo.

At the Swiss Institute, wistful new works by fresh-faced Pascual were reminiscent of her show last year at White Columns––everything comes full circle. The hallways were crowded and the elevator packed, but the large main gallery, featuring a mammoth steel sculpture by Pierre Vadi and Christian Dupraz, was relatively empty, perhaps because no one wanted to step on the frail, barely there glass rings on the floor (although by the looks of it, several already had). During a few quick New Year catch-ups, I tried to persuade friends to tag along to the final destination of the night––it was, after all, a good cause. “I don’t like art that has an obligation,” one asserted. “You killed Proposition 8!” I heard someone retort. And off we went.

En route to the benefit, as we navigated the nearly barren streets, my mind wandered back to the early ’70s again. (Last year, the auction was at Sara Meltzer Gallery, and the year before at Orchard; its flight to SoHo seemed perfectly timed.) This quasi-nostalgia was in full effect once I arrived at Leslie/Lohman, where a few hundred participants were having the loudest art party I’’d ever seen. Tacked above the entrance desk, a large handmade sign—the sort familiar to protests and DIY celebrations––welcomed visitors to the auction, while T-shirts and posters for sale at prices from two to ten dollars suggested that no one would leave empty-handed.

“How bad do you want it?” someone screamed above the blaring hip-hop as I made my way toward the stage, shouldering through the sea of radical––and radically different––people. I tried to find out what “it” was––the art, the clothes, the drinks, or something more lubricious––but the show was just ending. Or at least, I thought it was, since the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were prancing around all night, selling raffle tickets for a two-hour “Kink Session.” Playing name-that-tune with some friends, I caught up with a few of the benefit’s organizers (full disclosure: I helped out over the summer) and checked the works lining the walls, taking second glances at Isabelle Woodley’s and Lisa Ross’s contributions. “I’m just relieved my work was bid on!” exclaimed another artist in the show, while one more told me he was just as relieved there were no bids yet. “Saving the best for last,” he said as I nodded, lip-synching to Madonna’s “Lucky Star.” It seemed hardly any time had passed before MC Jennifer Miller was screaming over the music for everyone to bid. On command, the pages appeared to fill up. During those fleeting moments, in the midst of joyful and jostling bodies, downtown seemed immune to the downturn.

As seen on ArtForum.com

The Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice has been named the “#1 Top Gay Charity” by Qweerty.com. The rankings were based largely on ratings by CharityNavigator.org, where Astraea has the highest rating–—4-stars—–for organizational efficiency, organizational capacity, and overall financial health. As a public foundation with a global reach, last year Astraea awarded more than $2.2 million to 198 organizations and 21 individuals in 120 cities and 47 countries around the world.

Read the post here: Qweerty.com

Over 100 people filled Astraea’s paper-snowflake bedecked offices last Thursday, December 4th. Pockets of conversation and laughter sprang up as donor and grantee partners, staff, board, and new friends came together to celebrate. Whether you were able to be with us in person that evening or not, we thank you—–you are an important part of Astraea and Justice in the Making the world over.

Press release as posted on: http://www.srlp.org/namechangevictory

Read Newsday.com’s account http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–court-namechange1126nov26,0,3360898.story

The New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, held that a transgender petitioner cannot be denied a name change simply because she seeks to adopt a feminine name in the place of a traditionally masculine name.

Elisabeth Golden, a 57-year-old transgender woman, initially filed her name change petition with the Supreme Court in Broome County in October 2007. Ms. Golden has been using the name Elisabeth in her personal life since 2004, and in her professional life since 2006; she wanted a legal name that reflected her female gender identity. Her petition was heard by the Hon. Jeffrey Tait of the Supreme Court, who initially suggested that Ms. Golden supplement her petition with affidavits from physicians or therapists. After Ms. Golden refused to provide such affidavits, believing them to be private, Justice Tait denied her petition, stating that “the proposed change of name from a male to a female name is fraught with possible confusion…” Upon reviewing the decision, the Appellate Division, Third Department ordered Ms. Golden’s petition to be granted.

Writing on the behalf of a unanimous panel of five justices, Presiding Justice Anthony Cardona stated that the petitioner had the right to change her name “under common law… at will so long as there is no fraud, misrepresentation or interference with the rights of others,” The decision goes on to hold that any potential confusion arising from a transgender name change “is not, standing alone, a basis to deny a petition…” and points out that any name change, regardless of gender, has a reasonable and ordinary potential for confusion.In overturning the Supreme Court decision, the Third Department also rejected Justice Tait’s suggestion that the submission of medical or psychological affidavits were necessary to supplement Ms. Golden’s petition.

Franklin Romeo, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project attorney who represented Ms. Golden, echoed Justice Cardona’s ruling: “This decision confirms what SRLP has long argued is the law of New York: judges cannot deny a person’s petition to change their name simply because they seek to adopt a feminine name rather than a masculine name, or vice versa. Nor can they request medical evidence regarding a petitioner’s gender that is irrelevant to a name change proceeding. This is an important victory for transgender people throughout New York State.”

Ms. Golden’s petition was the first opportunity for any of the Appellate Division courts in New York to address the issue of transgender name changes. It is now binding in the Third Department (which covers most of western New York other than New York City and Long Island), and is expected to be highly persuasive across the state.

Though Ms. Golden was ecstatic when learning of her victory, she also found the entire situation bittersweet. “It is somewhat comforting to know that our rights as citizens can still be protected, but sad that it has to go this far.” She went on to say that she hoped that the ruling in her case “furthers the lives of transgender folks and helps prevent others from going through this.”

Many transgender people seek legal name changes in order to accurately reflect their gender identity and the gender they live as. By exercising their legal right to change their names, transgender people can surmount potential barriers in workplaces, education, and many other institutions that require a legal name on file.

Although many trans people do seek medical treatment and/or psychiatric counseling as part of a gender transition, not all do, especially since access to health care is far from universal. Furthermore, many trans people begin the process of transitioning socially and legally before starting medical treatment.

The Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP) is a non profit legal organization dedicated to serving low income transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming people of color. SRLP works to guarantee that all people are free to self-determine their gender identity and expression, regardless of income or race, and without facing harassment, discrimination, or violence.

Press release as posted on: http://www.srlp.org/namechangevictory

The Margot Karle Scholarship is available to women who are attending a City University of New York (CUNY) school as undergraduate full-time students.

Click here to apply for this scholarship.

Putting the Movement First

By Katherine Acey as seen in Grassroots Fundraising Journal

I have been a fundraiser for nearly three decades, but I fancy myself an activist, organizer, political thinker, manager, leader of sorts — they all have become inseparable identities for me. There have been times when, called a fundraiser to my face, I’’ve even cringed, felt a jab to the heart. Why? I didn’’t want to be seen only as a fundraiser. I wanted to be seen as a political being doing work to change the world in some small, significant way. I, like many others, had unconsciously associated this very important political act–fundraising–as devoid of politics, lacking substance, not the real work the side dish.

Me, a one-dimensional, technical functionary? Never. But I got through that phase. I know that fundraising is an important and essential part of my goal to actively seek social change in the world and a redistribution of resources, including cash.

At the last Raising Change Conference, Sonya Garcia-Ulibarri said, ““You do not have to sacrifice your politics to fundraise. You have to fundraise in order to live out your politics.’’” Embracing that simple principle takes work, demands intentional practice for the individual and for any social change organization or group. It means undoing deeply entrenched attitudes that separate our work into differently valued compartments, which serves to undermine the social change we so passionately pursue.

How can we begin to make some small shifts in how we think about and structure our work so that fundraising is cast as a key component rather than an appendage of our social change work? We may have to experience some personal discomfort, deal front-on with contradictions, as we do in all aspects of our political work.

There are small, incremental ways that we can shift the cultures of our organizations and even the functions of our various positions — volunteer or paid staff — so that the various functions that go on in our organizations — fundraising, program work, organizing — inform and support each other. We have to get over our feelings about not liking/wanting/knowing how to ask for money and that asking is only for the bold and gifted few.

Everyone — from the bookkeeper to the office manager to the organizer and the person who has the title of fundraiser — can and should be raising money. This applies to groups with no staff, too. It is not only about the fundraising committee bringing in the dough.

I am not suggesting that everyone do everything the same or spend the same amount of time doing the core functions, including fundraising. That’s not efficient or effective. What I am suggesting is what Sonya instructed: “We have to fundraise in order live out our politics,” and that we make space within organizations and our prescribed roles to see it and live it as an act of organizing and engagement.

A light bulb went off at the Astraea Foundation, where I work, this past year when we decided that our grants programs should collaborate with grantee and donor and communication projects to inform and support the fundraising efforts. This may seem obvious, but there’s a subtle, important shift of emphasis in that statement. More often than not the dominant thinking is that fundraising supports the program. In reality both things are true.

We need to pause and think about what stops us from shifting our thinking and how we structure our work. No time, too much pressure to do too much, and so on, are no longer, if they ever were, sufficient reasons. Together we can help each other see some different ways forward.

One example at Astraea is our annual house party fundraiser. Everyone on staff does something to make it happen, and everyone asks friends, colleagues, and current Astraea members for a gift, whether they can attend or not. People feel good about working as a team and seeing the results in terms of dollars and people supporting the organization.

When we make a thoughtful and intentional decision to see fundraising as integral to our work it can and does bring results. The more people we have asking for money — gifts of all sizes — the better chance we having of reaching more people. If we reach more people, we will get more money. Most of us, as generous and political as we are, don’t give unless asked.

Imagine the results if we behaved as if fundraising was an integral part of our organizing, that donors and constituents were one — ready to be mobilized at any moment. I would trade any one big gift from an individual or a foundation (and I like big gifts) for smaller gifts from hundreds of people.

We face inherent dilemmas and contradictions when we talk about fundraising for social change and building a social justice feminist movement. One major contradiction for nonprofits (and public foundations like Astraea that fundraise for their budget) is that we are simultaneously trying to build a movement as we build institutions. While many of us may feel that we are building the institution to build the movement, there are hard realities that we have to resolve. We believe that the institution is just a vehicle to achieve a greater good, and we know we are in constant peril of its taking on a life of its own. In doing all we need to keep those doors open, the mission and the vision to support movement building can sometimes disappear from focus.

How many of us have had felt we had to distinguish our groups by saying we are the first, we are the only, we are the biggest, we do it the best, as opposed to admitting that we would like to be out of business in ten years and here’s our plan to do that? How many of us realize that we can’t move ahead without these five or ten other groups moving with us?

The way nonprofits are structured, including public foundations of which Astraea is a part, is that we work mostly alone, perhaps occasionally sharing information, networking, or occasionally working on a project together. There are not many organizations whose primary goal is to collaborate and of those that do collaborate, few have a well-thought-out strategy for it, including fundraising. Can we break out of this old model? It’s a direct hindrance to movement building, which is all about collaboration and collective process.

Just as we’re at a moment of possibility for political change, let’s keep our hearts and minds open to change within ourselves, our organizations, our movements. Let’s each of us resist the “Yes, but” when a new idea comes up that feels hard and instead figure out how to make it possible and who needs to be at the table. Let us use the power we have in order to get all the power and money that is needed to transform — not merely make minor adjustments — to our world.

KATHERINE ACEY IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASTRAEA LESBIAN FOUNDATION FOR JUSTICE.