Neither side has the monopoly on racist a**holes, obviously.

Oh, PP-Idaho. You big racist jerks.

A longtime anti-abortion activist and conservative lobbyist - Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer - called Kersey's response in July reprehensible and said she should have been fired.

Ladies and gentlemen, hell has frozen over, because I agree with a pro-forced-birther.

I do suspect that I know what was going on with Kersey though--note the "nervous laughter" and her repeated attempts to spin the guy's comments so that they were positive rather than racist. I suspect that what was going on was a mentality of "I'm not supposed to be rude to donors because they have the money--I'm just going to pretend that this isn't happening." An all-too-common response on the part of white people when confronted with overt racism.

My initial response is something along the lines of "well, neither side has a monopoly on racist a**holes." But, I want to give the PP woman the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they edited it to make it sound/look like she was agreeing with the entrapment dude?

I'm grasping at straws, aren't I?

:picks up jaw from floor:

Wow. What I am most appalled about is the fact that this was a SET-UP!!

What was the employee supposed to say? "We don't accept donations from racists!?" They need the money! She was trying to be polite but she was obviously uncomfortable. I probably would have reacted the same way - shocked, but eager to complete the transaction.

Like these anti-choice fuckers GIVE A SHIT about black babies! The only time they even think about black babies is when they are useful as a rhetorical tool against organizations like PP. I am enraged!!

Uh, "the Advocate" = worst name for pro-life magazine EVAR. (I first read the post I was like wtf, why are gays hating on PP??)

But @ SarahMC, ("What was the employee supposed to say? 'We don't accept donations from racists!?'") actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what she was supposed to say. I mean, if it was some college intern or volunteer taking the call I'd just be like "whoops, racism, shame on you and that kind of sucks for PP as an org" but that was the VP OF DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING. That's like, a really serious problem.

What was the employee supposed to say? "We don't accept donations from racists!?"
-----------

Uhm, yes, that's exactly what she was supposed to say. And this wasn't just accepting money from racists but rather accepting money to be used for racist purposes (remember: "the less black kids out there the better.")

This kind of rhetoric is totally reprehensible. And since when has "doing it for the money" been a reasonable justification for racism??

I'm with EG. For the first time I agree with the anti-choicers: fire her.

EG - I agree with you.

And honestly...PP...the whole fucking "black genocide" bullshit has been going on for a while now, why on earth would their staff that deals with the public (PR, marketing, communications, receptionists, etc) NOT have a little bit of training and information about how to deal with such nonsense?

Before sending hate mail to the poor woman who is now at the center of this unfortunate anti-choice hate-driven cyclone... take a minute to experience being her.

When you work at PP, or other choice organizations you are told about these kinds of calls. I just got what I think was one awhile back, trying to force me to make an election endorsement on behalf of a 501(c)3 organization.

IT SUCKS! Your heart starts beating a mile a minute as you try to harken back to that five-minute training session about what to do when you get "one of those calls."

Perhaps she was frantically trying to flag someone down for help; or furiously taking notes because she remembered that part of the training, and in the process FORGOT the most important part: listen to the question behind the question.

How many people have said, "uh-huh. yeah. uh-huh." into a phone while trying to do something else?

Give PP of Idaho a break. Everyone here knows that PP is about as non-racist as you can get, and that this is the product of some of the most evil anti-choice activism to date.

As someone who works for a charity, in the same job (I work in-house, not in a call centre), I can understand how this happened. I definatly agree that the person should be fired, but I honestly would have made the same mistake earlier today if someone rang up and wanted to make a "racist donation".

Since it has never happened to me, I never would have thought about it to be honest. But my initial reflex is to pander to the donor and just get the money for the charity, after all, we're not racists.

But looking now, I see that it is a massivly wrong thing to do. But the mentality of such a job is the customer is always right. And there are so many situations that pop up you can never train callers for. So again, I disagree with taking the donation, but I understand how it happened.

andrew, i agree.

i believe kersey took the wrong approach, and as a someone with presumably more experience in the field than say, a college student intern, i hold her to a higher standard. but i see how she screwed up and make a bad judgment call--i don't think that alone makes her a horrible person or even a racist. just someone who didn't speak up and challenge hatred and bigotry when it reared its ugly head.

I feel really awful for Autumn, and Planned Parenthood, and any women for whom accessing abortion services may be just that much more difficult because of this.

But the money would not have gone towards eliminating black babies. It would have gone towards the very important work PP does for women of all races. I'm sorry, I just don't see why we can't accept donations from racists who don't understand our mission. Boohoo on the racists.

Or should I say, anti-choicers pretending to be racists in a sick game of "gotcha!"

What does this even prove, anti-choicers?

Actually, I'm going to donate to PP Idaho, simply on the basis that this was a set up. It would be one thing if this was an "accident" but since someone was trying to make PP's image and, in their view idealy donations to PP suffer, Donating would be the best responce. After all they did claim full responsibility.

Donate to PP Idaho here..

https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000

(please work little link!)

This is terrible. I'm glad they have issued an apology and taken responsibility.

Just as we expect politicians to refuse donations from known bigots, 'our' non-profits should likewise refuse to be funded, even in part, by known bigots.

Even if you don't care about racism for some weird reason, the bad pr alone should be enough to make everyone stay far, far away.

As someone who works in PR, I can cut Autumn some slack, because I've been on phone calls like that, where you're like, "I can't believe he just said that, but he's the client/donor/whatever, so must... surpress... rage," but I'm still thinking she didn't need to say "Understandable" in response to "The less black babies, the better".

Sorry thats "in their view, ideally, donations to PP suffer" curse you dyslexia!

I also am horrified that this was a setup, and I'm so sad that the vice president of development and marketing made this mistake, which ultimately just gives ALL clinics that provide STI testing, contraceptive services and abortion services to women the image of having a secret agenda to abort minority pregnancies. AND I'm sure this will be "leaked" to the NAACP and other minority groups, which will just discourage miniority women from going to these clinics for the services they need. So awful.

I do think Autumn Kersey needs to be fired. She could have nicely but firmly said "We can't accept donations contingent on being used to abort pregnancies based on race." That's not rude, it's just fact. What a colossal error in judgement on her part.

I volunteer for a 501c3 organization too, and we are VERY careful about things like this. All it takes is one misstep to lose your non-profit status.

Pretend that a story broke where a nefarious group of pro-choicers tricked an anti-choicer into accepting a donation that would go only toward "saving the lives" of unborn white "babies". We'd all be livid and outraged at the obvious racism -- and rightfully so.

The ends don't justify the means, and while I definitely understand how awkward this call must have been to take, it's just not okay to pretend to be a racist until someone writes you a check (because when a donor asks that their donation be earmarked for a specific purpose, yes, organizations have to account for it in that way).

PP is such a wonderful organization that is under such close watch by people intent on its demise. Because of that that it's important that it's beyond reproach in these matters. It makes me sad (and not just a little angry) that this happened.

If you specifically want your donation to go to PP of Idaho, you are probably better off calling them directly.

The main PP donations page allows you to direct your donations to a local PP affiliate, but it will base that designation on the adress you use when you make the donation.

So you'd want your money to go to PP of Idaho, but you use your Michigan address -- the money goes to PP of Michigan.

P.S. Love the language in the YouTube video.

"About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions."

Actually, in my home town, PP stands at the counter in drug stores and takes the credit card information of any woman they see buying a pregnancy test, then holds potential identity theft as blackmail to convince them to get an abortion.

/sarcasm

Seriously, I'm sick of a lot of things about anti-choice campaigns, not the least of which is the "compassionate", "This woman is not evil, rather, clearly lacks the mental capacity to fight the overbearing demon doctors" approach.

If the issue were truly that these people felt abortion was always the wrong choice, they'd feel more comfortable sharing their information and opinions with women instead of launching tactics based solely on fear, revulsion, and hatred. Why do anti-choicers spend more time trying to change the opinions of men than of women?

I understand the desire to defend this young woman because she works for an organization that we hold dear but this is unaccepatble. The "donor" is being very specific about his donation, even going as far to want to put it in his son's name because his son will "benefit" from the money going specifically to an African-American woman's abortion. Not to mention that directly after he says, "the less black kids out there the better," even though she laughs it off (? it didn't say "nervous laughter) she says UNDERSTANDABLE. What. The. Fuck. That pissed me off more than anything else in this transcript. It's "understandable" that this man wants to fund abortions of black kids so his "children" won't have competition? I've worked reception and telemarketing and know you're supposed to follow a script but after a suggestion like she could have put the caller on hold and asked some one what she should do if she wasn't sure. As much as it is needed, money cannot trump commen sense or decency.

I'm sorry that PP in Idaho is catching hell for the idiocy of one of their employees but that still doesn't excuse her behavior.

Hey, UltraMagnus. I agree with you completely--just a note to say that I found the "nervous laughter" quotation in the linked transcript.

UltraMagnus, you may have had different training than me but...

I work doing calling and doing fundraising (not for PP though) and in regards to using the "understandable" response, that was one of the first things that they taught us in training. We were taught that when a donor says something that you don't agree with or starts going off and ranting or you're unsure of how to respond to whatever they said, you respond with "That's understandable" and then to try to continue the call on a better foot. My supervisor was pretty clear about it NOT meaning that you agree with the donor and that it is 100% a diffusion tactic (all of you can argue whether this is morally right or not, I'm just saying, it's what we're taught). It's part of training and it's something that I personally fall back on all the time, it's even ended up being a part of my normal everyday conversations. It's absolutely a conditioned response and it is the first thing that I was taught to go to when dealing with a difficult donor.

Not that I don't think that this entire situation is really effed up and wrong. It's just that, right there, looking at what she did, that is EXACTLY what I was taught to do in training.

I have to wonder how many PPs across the country have been called with this tactic before the anti-choicers found one who'd screw up in their response. I really can't believe this was their first attempt.

Okay, I know this is probably a stupid question, but does Planned Parenthood allow gifts to be earmarked for women of a specific race?

Before reading that transcript, I would have assumed that the answer is an unqualified no (earmarks based on financial need, certainly, but not based on race). The transcript, however, suggests that such an earmark is possible, and this is before the caller starts making overtly racist remarks. Planned Parenthood of Idaho's official response doesn't correct this part of what Kersey said.

So what's the deal? Are race-based earmarks possible?

What's wrong with taking donations from racists?

The less money racists have, the better.

I agree with SarahMC and newslang -- this sounds like a by-the-book customer service rep response. I feel sorry that PP and Kersey's name were dragged through the mud because the latter said something she was likely trained to say.

When I was in college, I worked for a few semesters as a caller for our school's fundraising efforts. I once called a house looking for the husband, and when the wife answered and realized who I represented (a Catholic college) she started questioning me on what the preists there were going to do to stop gay marriage. I had no idea whatsoever as to what to say, so I handed it off to my boss, who just kept promising to read his Bible. Another time, I got a 45 minute lecture on how the college screwed up somebody's transcript, meaning he couldn't find work for 1.5 years. He demanded I personally talk to the dean about something that happened 35 years ago. How the hell do you answer that? What is there to say?

Today I work at with a wide variety of customers in a different field, and I have still managed to have some what-the-hell moments. There is a fine line someone has to walk when they work with people. Remember, no one wants to get yelled at by their boss, and no one wants to offend a customer.

I wonder how many people who are calling for her to be fired have ever had a job like that before. I think she should issue a public apology and then switch jobs, but stay at PP. Firing her will only show the anti-choicers that they can get inside PP and destroy it, one person at a time.

PP of Idaho's mistake can be forgiven as we've all made mistakes on the phone or in the heat of the moment, but PP of Golden Gate in San Francisco cannot be forgiven for their latest commercial. View this heterosexist, racist, and unbelievably stereotypical commercial at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6lBe47fhQ

They even say on their website that this commercial "Emphasizes the Importance of Pregnancy Prevention & Safer Sex" but as a queer woman of color living in San Francisco, it has turned me off to ever donating or helping Planned Parenthood here ever again.

What's wrong with taking donations from racists?

The less money racists have, the better.

Um, when it makes your organization look like they support eugenics?

As for following the script, here's a story from when my sibling and I worked in telemarketing:

My sibling does a cold call to a woman and they did their little speil from the company script and the woman, who was distraught, replied:

Woman: Look, I can't deal with this right now, my mother just died.

My sibling, having been trained to keep going, like everyone here has been pointing out, read the next line in the script which was:

Sibling: That's great, ma'am, let me tell you about....

And continued until the woman burst into tears and hung up. I relay this because there comes a time when as a human being you've got go off script and make the right decision. What if this had been a legit donation and the caller had publisized what he'd done? How would the PP respond to having actually taken money for such a request?

I realize this woman made a mistake, but, as crystalee pointed out earlier, had the shoe been on the other foot and this had been an anti-choicer we'd all be livid about it and we wouldn't be cutting the them any slack.

They caught the PP with their pants down, it sucks because they did but I wish PP Idaho the best through this and am happy they are taking responsibility.

And thanks for the clarification, EG.

If it were me, I'd personally want to take the money, then go "Haha! We didn't actually use it the way you wanted!"

But of course that's not ethical in any way. I'd just say that we can't use it for that purpose, but urge him to donate anyway.

I have given this some more thought, and now that I've cooled down I want to clarify that I *don't* really think it's OK to pretend you'll use a racist's money to fund abortions for women of a particular race. Sigh...
I am just so disgusted that the anti-choicers did something so underhanded, immature and desperate to "prove" that PP is something it's not.

"I am just so disgusted that the anti-choicers did something so underhanded, immature and desperate to "prove" that PP is something it's not."

Yeah... And like someone else said, they probably called a bunch of offices, trying to get someone to slip up.

I'm sorry, I just don't see why we can't accept donations from racists who don't understand our mission. Boohoo on the racists.

Or should I say, anti-choicers pretending to be racists in a sick game of "gotcha!"

What does this even prove, anti-choicers?"

@SarahMC: Agreed.

It's like the debate over gay marriage and assholes who refuse to let gays "marry" but after that, they turn off. Give gays civil unions--let the assholes have their semantics and give couples the same legal rights as heteros. If I have to choose between the war of words and the war of actual RIGHTS, I'll take the latter.

I would have done the same thing and thought "Okay, asshole, say what you will, just give me the check."

And yes I agree with others who said it--the big fucking irony is that anti-choicers are NOT working or thinking of issues that could help poor people or minorities who could benefit from family planning/natal care services (and a better fucking safety net, and stuff that these same shitheads refuse to pay for).

This story makes me so fucking angry because it's part of the doublespeak mindset of those running the country--use words and dumb tricks to accuse your opponents of being destructive all to hoodwink the audience of the reality--THEY'RE the ones fucking things (screwing over kids/families; "working Americans"; those in the military; etc. etc. etc.)

Jesus Christ as if birth control and family planning aren't in enough danger...Fuck.

Faux pas or not, this is a non-issue. Regardless of what the donor intended an organization can do whatever it wants with the donations. The way I see it, this could be re-spun as "Prolife organization donates money for abortions." This could be further spun based on race. The fact that this was in Idaho of all places means that regardless of the donor's intent this money would go towards white abortions since Idaho is white as whitebread. So why are there no headlines about a pro-life organization helping to abort white babies, if that's the gotcha game that they want to play?

Faux pas or not, this is a non-issue. Regardless of what the donor intended an organization can do whatever it wants with the donations (unless there is a specific contract). The way I see it, this could be re-spun as "Prolife organization donates money for abortions." This could be further spun based on race. The fact that this was in Idaho of all places means that regardless of the donor's intent this money would go towards white abortions since Idaho is white as whitebread. So why are there no headlines about a pro-life organization helping to abort white babies, if that's the gotcha game that they want to play?

Do these folks who are oh-so-concerned about black babies pay any mind to the fact that African Americans have an abysmal infant mortality rate in the US?

*crickets*

They don't SarahMC and we know they acutally believe otherwise (birth derth anyone? Or whatever the fuck they're calling it) and they've always fucking used racial genocide as a tactic against abortion rights. What frustrates me is that there are a lot of people in the black community who believe their bullshit and this won't fucking help at all even if they had tried to "spin" it into a positive. All it takes (took) was that damn recorded phone call.

When I get my paycheck I'll make a donation to the Idaho PP. I honestly feel really bad for all involved.

ok, I just read read the full transcript (which I should have done before commenting). Even if the fund can be specifically earmarked (though based on what I know of fundraising, I'm not entirely sure this is true without a more specific contract), this is pro-life money for abortions. Except that this person undoubtedly hung up rather than donate. So it's fraud. Either way it's still a non-issue. WOC are in especially desperate need for reproductive services, and if this person wants to help give a marginalized woman what she already wants, who cares about the motive? That could potentially be a deciding factor in helping her other child/children in succeeding since the majority of women who have abortions have children and/or go on to have children.

See...here's the thing...I listened to it, and I think that what really tripped me up wasn't even the black, so much, as the repeated use of the word "babies." But I guess on a donation call you're not going to go into how an abortion doesn't abort a "baby" it aborts an embryo or fetus.

The optimist in me says, "Goody, we can have a broader discussion about poverty, the reasons behind why people choose abortion, and the huge gains we have to make in terms of racial equality and poverty," but fuck, man, it's election season, we already saw what that god damned asshat said to Sen. Obama about Farakahan, so yeah...doubt that will happen.

RileyStclair, if someone says something racist and bigoted, and your white and involved in a conversation with them, and don't say anything...your a racist. your supporting racism.
no ifs or buts about it.

and to all you who are trying to scrape up some way to defend this woman or the PP that is continuing to keep her as a representative...what the f***?

While I think what she ended up saying was horrible, I can understand how this could happen and I don't think she should be fired. I have been in the position of going from low paying receptionist job to low paying receptionist job. When you are in those types of positions for years, you are so demoralized on so many levels. I was treated like the dumb girl in the office, my job was on the chopping board constantly because lower paid positions are often run on fear, the work itself is demoralizing even without the way coworkers and customers alike treat you. I personally learned at all costs to keep my mouth shut or I would lose my job. Racist, sexist, homophobic comments were flung around my workplaces by higher paid employees like badges of courage, and I could say nothing being the lowest paid, female, and young. I am not necessarily saying that PP demoralizes its receptionists, but she may have been in this line of work for a number of years and learned the ropes of silently taking it. In such a case, I don't think I would have really had the agency to speak out about this customer if I did not agree with the disgusting request. You learn to take it from other customers or it will cost your low paying job, just grin and take it from yet another.

Marissa, this woman wasn't a receptionist. She was VP of Development and Marketing. VP of an organization that is regularly defamed as racist. She's an executive. The buck stops with her.

I really can not believe the apologists for PP Idaho on this blog. Kersey's use of "understandable" is almost understandable, given the mechanical nature of lots of telefundraising, but the idea that she's "excited" about the potential donation after she's had a second to process and regroup? Wrong, wrong, WRONG. This is so disappointing.

feminist myrmidon: The ad that you linked to is kind of weird; I've been seeing it around lately too. What specifically do you object to in terms of content? I'm trying to put my finger on the pulse of why I don't really like it.

Actually...I shouldn't have said that, because the "black" did trip me up. But I guess that in conjunction with "babies." If someone really wanted to help WOC they would've said as much but he kept saying "black babies." I feel so bad for the woman who went along with this and for PP, but I also feel angry and I don't know why. And I agree with the person who said earlier that if one of "us" went undercover and taped one of "them" taking moeny to specifically save white fetuses, we'd be LIVID.

However: we do have the truth on our side, and the truth is that pro-choice has the facts and pro-life has anectdotes about M. Sanger and eugenics. So much good stuff on RH Reality Check and Feministe about the anti-choice movement's link TO THIS DAY to racists, and they haven't even been trapped or coerced into it.

Oh, oops, my bad. I really should read the article first. Yeah, fire her.

Guys - the thing I heard the woman said she was an administrative assistant. I think that maybe that is where confusion lies?

i really dont understand why anyone is making any excuses for the woman who went along with this...her exact words were "im excited". thats NOT okay.

i think we really need to come to terms with the fact that just because someone works at planned parenthood and works for reproductive justice does not mean that they are immune to committing injustice in other ways. in fact, the "mainstream" feminist movement has a history of racism (hellooo the entire suffrage movement...or how about the mass forced sterilization in puerto rico) and we are by NO means beyond that point.

so im fucking pissed about this and it makes me incredibly sad that there is so much blatant racism in our world. and i wont hold back any of my anger just because one of the people involved is an employee of planned parenthood.

If you've read the transcript, did you notice how the caller led her on by starting out with it being about their fund for disadvantaged women? Funny how "helping women who can't afford an abortion" morphs into "kill black babies."

Kersey should have been quicker to pick up on the setup. Once the caller mentioned "the less black kids out there the better" that should have been her cue to end the call. But the caller had her hooked pretty thoroughly starting with the "women in need" fund angle. The script is plainly designed to lead the listener down that particular primrose path.

This is an utterly reprehensible act by the Advocate. It is nothing less than fabricating evidence.

I haven't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out. The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a dedicated eugenisist. She freely and openly advocated sterilization for many people she considered unworthy='not white'. As a black woman, I have already been skeptical of that organization....not a surprise....

I'm not sure anyone has pointed this out before but, if you thought PP was racist and targeting black babies, why would you target IDAHO Planned Parenthood?? Because there are so many blacks in Idaho. IDAHO Planned Parenthood is targeting black babies. Really. LOL.

Regardless of what the donor intended an organization can do whatever it wants with the donations.

Wrong.

If it were me, I'd personally want to take the money, then go "Haha! We didn't actually use it the way you wanted!"

But of course that's not ethical in any way.

It's actually illegal. I'll have my Masters in NonProfit Management this summer, and it was hammered into our heads repeatedly throughout my coursework: donor intent is sacred. We hit this over and over again during my nonprofit law classes. If you cannot or will not use donations the way a donor intends them to be used, you legally cannot accept the money. If at any time after money has been accepted it becomes impossible to use the money in the way the donor originally intended, you must give it back or prove that their intent was broad enough to include something else your organization does.

So, no. You can't take a donation and do whatever you want with it. Doing so invites a whole lot of nasty litigation and potentially the loss of your tax status and/or dissolution of your organization depending on the severity of the financial transgression.

@Qi,I meant the whole PP organization, not just Idaho. If I understood the news article correctly, the pro-lifers targeted PP organizations in seven states. I would be interested in the results of the other six states...

The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a dedicated eugenisist. She freely and openly advocated sterilization for many people she considered unworthy='not white'. As a black woman, I have already been skeptical of that organization....not a surprise....

See, this is exactly why the fucking VP of marketing and development should be especially attuned to this issue, and PP needs to fire and publicly repudiate this woman. It's not only about the immorality of being racist; it's about the image of the entire organization.

the fact that you yourself have pointed out that Idaho is very white, should emphasize even more how reprehensible, Ms. Kersey's response was...

kenyatticee,

I know but, I doubt there was anything controversial because the Advocate would have released the recordings. Which seven states? The article mentions only Idaho and Ohio. Those are states where minorities are underrepresented, so it seems strange if they are interested in racism to try and call them.

The Advocate is clearly not interested in racism, they just want to generate an embarassing story for PP using their forward-leading script.

Oh, man, this sucks. As an Idaho woman I have to say that the conservatives who dominate the state are doing ALL THEY CAN to restrict reproductive rights. They will find any means possible to embarass or denigrate PP. The nearest PP to me is five hours away. When I tried to get birth control at a dr, he told me he isn't encouraged to give it to unmarried women. I had to convince him I wouldn't be having sex. This is just to convince you that Idaho is a wasteland when it comes to reproductive rights. PP here could really use some help.

I haven't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out. The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a dedicated eugenisist. She freely and openly advocated sterilization for many people she considered unworthy='not white'. As a black woman, I have already been skeptical of that organization....not a surprise...."

I can admit I'm wrong about this--if she's an admin. assistant she should have anticipated a "set-up" type thing.

That said I'm sick of the notion that you support "eugenics" if you believe in family planning, which should be taken for what it is--while what you say about Sanger is true in this day and age anyone, of any race, could benefit from resources that allow them to enjoy sex without that necessarily resulting in a child that don't want/can't provide minimum financial or emotional stability of. Simple as that.

There has to be a middle ground between "it's society's fault for the expense of raising a child" and "if children are born poor, they and their parents are on their own, period," thus eliminating government responsibility to address generational poverty/working-poverty.

Government, mainstream society, etc. can not (and should not) be blamed when men and women, who understand that unprotected sex = pregnancy or STI risk
(who have SOME access to condoms, if not IUDs or the Pill) nevertheless refuse to use them and could give a shit about their capacity as or desire to raise a child to the child THEY brought into the world (not the government; not de facto segregation, if race is the topic at stake; not anyone but the parents themselves).

I realize there is a blur between the environment one grows up in and the choices they make among limited options, but again, I don't think individuals are completely absolved of responsibility for their own lives and should remain as such, until we close the educational gap, the socioeconomic gap, etc. etc.

That and at this point the whole notion of anyone trying to limit another race's population is drowned out by the fact that this world has plenty of children (and parents, but especially children) who are effectively parentless or have parents neutralized by an environment where population/citizens needs FAR, FAR outpaces the willingness of a legitimate, sustainable government to help its people; sustainable agriculture/food sources, sustainable economic/social infrastructure; etc. etc.

Maybe people are necessarily advocates of eugenics, but that doesn't mean it's neutral when someone who is living hand to mouth by THEMSELVES (without a financial dependent), or has limited employable skills, or is hanging on by the skein of their teeth in an environment that would be toxic for a PET (let alone a kid),etc. etc.--when, despite all of these troubling conditions, people knowingly bring children into the world and blame it on society's foot-dragging (that's problematic too, but again--people should take responsibility for their fertility and individual life choices on SOME level, just as society should concurrently work at addressing the educational gap, shitty adoption/parental counseling/foster care policy, drug rehabilitation for addicts who may have sexual/child abuse in their histories, etc. etc. etc....tall orders monetarily and in terms of policy trial-and-error, even those policymakers actually give a damn about the issue.)

The very worst part of this for me, and I work at the local University, is how quickly and neatly this has taken women out of the debate on choice. I spent all day yesterday talking about this (disclosure - I work at the local university, the one that provided the education to Kersey) and what I kept hearing was "babies being aborted based on the color of their skin; that's a damn nightmare." Yeah, it would be, if that were the reason. But what woman ever made the decision to terminate based on the fetus's skin tone? That's laughable. Women make that decision for a variety of reasons, and I have yet to hear of a Black woman deciding not to continue a pregnancy because the kid was Black. A donor's intent may be based on hideous racism, sure. But the mother who walks in the door is making an uncoerced decision. If we are to support women in their decisions, let's not keep framing the argument based on what the donor's intent was. Whatever his intent was, mom's decision is her own. I'm really struggling with that Gonzalez-decision kind of thought, that "abortion inherently hurts women by allowing them to murder, or commit genocide" or whatever.

And I also agree that PP should have had some kind of policy in place. This was a pretty egregious example. But given that PP is a dirty word here (the other one is ACLU), and that funding is almost always hanging on a thread, I can see why she would have tried to salvage the donation. (Not condoning that; it should still have been handled very differently, even if she was caught off guard.)
Because checking out someone's politics is a whole 'nother mess too. Do we accept donations if this person isn't racist but is completely homophobic? As much as I want to believe all the money comes from people who are across-the-board non-assholes, I wonder if that's realistic.

Worst of all, for me, is the fact that the students that come out of the University where I work are not being educated in how to talk about race and recognize that when the conversation goes sideways like that they have a responsibility to respond appropriately. Instead, in White Idaho, there's this idea that talking about race is something to shy away from, that it's impolite or whatever, which perpetuates the problem. Instead of getting real about the conversation, people here get ultra-polite, which means many missed opportunities.

Interesting how the discussion has turned to organizational policy ethics and what education should be offering people. Back here the folks are still stuck on "abortion is murder" and debating that.

I don't know what Kersey's thought process was, and maybe she was truly flummoxed by the call, but she needs to be held accountable and fired. It sucks to be punished for making a mistake, if it was indeed a mistake, but that is the consequence of some mistakes. Planned Parenthood can't just apologize and "take responsibility." They need to apologize and actually DO something, which is fire Kersey and immediately refresh their fund raisers on the policies for dealing with suspicious callers.

Also, I am interested by the point someone made that this CAN'T be the first call these people made. I bet you they had 100 people turn them down before they got her. Can we hear THOSE tapes, please, The Advocate?

"An all-too-common response on the part of white people when confronted with overt racism."

because only whites are racists, right? wow. Nobody else is confronted with racism and responds that way. That seems like a really weird and racist statement to me.

You know, I've been reading the comments here and on Jezebel and I've noted two things:

1. A lot of people, despite the fact that in the article it explicitly says Kersey holds a high-level position, frame their apologizing for her on the basis that she was a receptionist or some sort of oppressed, lower-level employee. I think that says interesting things about some pretty deeply embedded notions of gender even amongst feminists.

2. I shouldn't be shocked, but I actually am, that people are so actively apologizing for and glossing over Kersey's handling of the situation.

Kersey, and all of us, are responsible for how we deal with the world and she played into the worst of liberal white privilege. Sorry, but she did. She allowed someone to explicitly say they wanted to decrease the number of black people in the US, agreed with it, and fully intended to take the donation. Whether or not she perceives herself as racist, that action was racist and only highlights what white people can allow to happen in their midst.

It's racist. Defenses of her are racist. Stop defending PP long enough to own up to it. The anti-choicers are fucked up, but so is the defense of the woman in this situation.

This is truly sad. I don't necessarily agree with the tactics employed by the entrappers, but it does expose an ugly side to PP.

I am a nonprofit program director, and play a role in development. It may not make you the big bucks, but when you are an organization standing on your principles, they are of key importance. Even in a shocking situation, they ought not to be pushed aside - otherwise, what is the point?

A development director is the salesperson of an organization. They should represent their product honestly, even if it loses the sale.

Ms. Kersey made a terrible mistake in her willingness to misrepresent her organization by allowing a "donor" a sense of their racist agenda being fulfilled. How do we know this isn't happening all over?

Because of the actions of one idiot, every other Planned Parenthood employee in this country is going to be viewed as a racist. Thanks a lot, Idaho!

I shouldn't be shocked, but I actually am, that people are so actively apologizing for and glossing over Kersey's handling of the situation.

I don't think that people are trying to gloss it over. I think that we are rightly deeply skeptical about taking deceptive anti-choicers at face value. These are people that have mock funerals for aborted fetuses, for Christ's sakes! They have demanded that women's medical records be released to them. They trick people into coming into their religious "clinics" for "ultrasounds" performed by nonmedical professionals. I'm not saying that the woman who took the call shouldn't have called the person out on their racism and, upon a thorough investigation, be terminated if the call is just as it sounded. But I would not put it past these idiots to call around forever, edit words and statements together, etc.

There is a lot being left out of these tapes. Again, I am probably biased because I am currently working for PP Idaho, but Autumn is about as far from racist as you can get. According to her, this is not the sequential order of the conversation...either on the tape or on the transcript

It is also worth noting that the Statesman broke the story on the very day some anti-choice legislation was being debated in the Idaho House Health and Welfare committee, even though this event took place in July.

They lie to teens and adults alike about sex ed, contraception, the long-term effects of abortion (see also: breast cancer). They do it ON PURPOSE. They're not blissfully ignorant. So it is not beyond all reason that people are a bit skeptical of this video. It has obviously been visually edited. Do you really think the audio portion was not also?

@BabyPop

Yeah...see, if people were saying "I don't believe Kersey said that. I think the anti-choicers altered what she said. You know they do that." -- I could get behind that. It's a reasonable question.

That's not what the vast majority of comments have said. The comments have said things like

--"What was the employee supposed to say? 'We don't accept donations from racists!?'"

--"I definatly agree that the person should be fired, but I honestly would have made the same mistake earlier today if someone rang up and wanted to make a "racist donation"."

--"i see how she screwed up and make a bad judgment call--i don't think that alone makes her a horrible person or even a racist. just someone who didn't speak up and challenge hatred and bigotry when it reared its ugly head."

--"I work doing calling and doing fundraising (not for PP though) and in regards to using the "understandable" response, that was one of the first things that they taught us in training."

I could go on quoting from the comments above. I don't want to be an ass, but I believe this is a situation where we really need to check ourselves.

I think we all need to recognize that there's a thin but meaningful line between racism and simple practically. For example, in informing pregnant women about some of the drawbacks of adoption, Planned Parenthood's national web site has noted that "there is no guarantee that homes will be found for all children waiting to be adopted . . . [t]his is especially true for children of color and children with disabilities." Certainly a woman pregnant with a fetus of color would want to consider this information in deciding whether or not bring a child into the world. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a donor specifying that he wants to fund the termination of a fetus that might end as an unadoptable child due to its membership in a race that Planned Parenthood has rightly recognized a statistically less desirable to adoptive parents.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a donor specifying that he wants to fund the termination of a fetus that might end as an unadoptable child due to its membership in a race that Planned Parenthood has rightly recognized a statistically less desirable to adoptive parents.

That's pretty disgusting. Just... ugh, are you serious? Of course there's something wrong with that. And beyond just being racist, it's also not okay for a donor to suggest that's how they want their money used, b/c PP legally couldn't accept the money for that use in the first place.

Yep. Eugenics. Totally practical, not at all racist.

/sarcasm

"She allowed someone to explicitly say they wanted to decrease the number of black people in the US, agreed with it, and fully intended to take the donation."

Yeah. This is where she got totally off-kilter. She had a big opportunity to stand up and tell off a racist and didn't. This in and of itself is horrifying.

But where I get hung up is that there's all this talk about what the donor wanted, but the MOM doesn't want to carry this baby to term. Does that then mean that she's complicit in genocide? Because that's where the spin on this starts to head.

I don't know if I'm willing to head down that path.

Jenna, the pregnant woman in question typically doesn't abort because the baby is black.

That's pretty disgusting. Just... ugh, are you serious? Of course there's something wrong with that.

Like Planned Parenthood, I'm just being realistic. If a woman carrying a fetus of color wants to abort because she knows that it's "especially true" that her child might not be adopted because of its race, who are we to question her decision to spare it such a sad fate? That humanitarian consideration is precisely what led to the national Planned Parenthood to include the caveat in its discussion of adoption. It doesn't suddenly become racism simply because a well-meaning donor shares the organization's worldview and wants to assist the mother in declining to bear a child that will be warehoused in an orphanage.

Yeah, I know...but scarily enough, most of the local controversy has revolved around that very idea. Which tells me that the woman has been taken right out of the equation.

In Idaho, folks like to pretend fetuses float in mid-air. What is this woman of whom the feminists keep speaking?

Let me get this straight.

Someone, who is not herself a racist at all, was duped by someone using a slick script, someone who also is probably not a racist at all, but was pretending to be one in order to trump up a spurious charge against her organization, which itself is not racist at all ... and she therefore should be fired for promoting racism.

Just so we're all clear on this.

The defense of this woman & her actions is over the top. This mistake is being compounded here. This thread justifies the criticisms of mainstream feminism by people of color.

The defense here sounds too much like: a racist feminist? That's unpossible!

I too can see the possibility that a good person made an uncharacteric mistake. But that's not really the only way to look at. What she said was offensive & many people won't be as quick to assume it's meaningless. Many people won't be as quick to assume that the most important thing here is to deal with the anti-choicers rather than the racist actions by PP.

So, she might have made an out-of-character mistake. Well, this is the sort of mistake that you learn from at a different job.

And sure, this shouldn't be used to justify unfair statements about PP. But minimizing the racism of the employee is minimizing the issues of people of color to support feminism in general. There couldn't be a more clear example of this sort of thing.

Some of you sound so sympathetic towards this woman. What if she'd said something offensive about something you cared about?

Ratcity:

Cosigned.

Ratcity:

Cosigned.

"What if she'd said something offensive about something you cared about?"

She did. And I am not trying to minimize that, not one bit.

I just think it's also racist to agree with the idea that Black women who choose to end a pregnancy are committing genocide, because it implies that women lack the capacity to make that decision and thus must somehow be protected from themselves. That mess is already being written into law, so I hate to see it perpetuated.

I have used this over and over again this week to talk about why White students who don't think that they need to learn anything about racial theory because "it doesn't have anything to do worth me" are dangerously ignorant.

I just think it's also racist to agree with the idea that Black women who choose to end a pregnancy are committing genocide...

But you're the only one here who even brought that up. Nobody else has said that black women were contributing to genocide if they choose to have an abortion.

The Advocate is taking the position that providing a service which is taken advantage of disproportionately by blacks amounts to genocide against blacks on the part of Planned Parenthood.
Given that those abortions cannot happen without the active participation of the women who are having the procedure, that implicates the black women as accessories to, if not direct agents of, that genocide.

People who are leaning so heavily on the racist aspects of this situation are implicitly agreeing with this utterly bogus argument.

"But you're the only one here who even brought that up. Nobody else has said that black women were contributing to genocide if they choose to have an abortion."

Sorry, I should have explained better. What I meant was, this is where the conversation has turned here in Idaho. Case in point: one of the local news affiliates called up one of the officers of the Black Student Alliance at the university, gave her what was probably a highly slanted explanation, and then asked her to comment. Her reply regarding the donation was "Taking it when it's going towards aborting a black baby because the color of their skin, that's horrible."

And of course, that plays right into a sacred racist myth - that if you can find one person who is Black or Chicano or whatever group you're talking about who agrees with your position, then you can use that person to represent an entire group. (Never mind, of course, that misrepresenting the original facts to someone is manipulative and disrespectful.) So there's been a great many White people here who have suddenly felt vindicated; "Hey, there's a Black woman on TV who said this, so turns out I am right after all!"

It's sick, and sad. I certainly wouldn't lose sleep if someone lost their job; but this has exposed institutional and systematic racism in a whole new way. And I want to know how to start dealing with that, too.

People who are leaning so heavily on the racist aspects of this situation are implicitly agreeing with this utterly bogus argument.

Personally, the reason that I'm "leaning so heavily on the racist aspects of this situation", is because that woman was complacent to the donor's racist agenda. As a Black woman, I don't have the privilege of nonchalance when race comes into the equation; my color doesn't wash off.

The woman stuck her foot in mouth. Now, she needs to answer for it.

And of course, that plays right into a sacred racist myth - that if you can find one person who is Black or Chicano or whatever group you're talking about who agrees with your position, then you can use that person to represent an entire group. (Never mind, of course, that misrepresenting the original facts to someone is manipulative and disrespectful.)

I get what you're saying, but bottom line: There was some racist shit going on on both sides. Yes, it sucks that this is being used as a banner for anti-choicers, but PP of Idaho and the woman who took the call need to answer for what happened, and it's really sickening how so many people are just brushing that aside.

"As a Black woman, I don't have the privilege of nonchalance when race comes into the equation; my color doesn't wash off."

It isn't nonchalance. It's recognizing that somebody is pulling a dirty tactic worthy of one of Karl Rove's wet dreams.

The LA Advocate is not an anti-racism group. It is an anti-abortion group that is engaging in race-baiting as a red herring to their own agenda. Why aren't you up in arms over their racist misconduct?

They aren't in it for the benefit of Blacks. They did this to try and shut down Planned Parenthood, period. The end result of that will be less reproductive choice for Black women. That'll really help the Black cause, won't it?

By way of contrast, if Planned Parenthood accepted this (fake)donation for their disadvantaged minority fund, what would be the end result? More reproductive choice for Black women. (Not genocide of Black babies, unless you buy the proposition that the Black women are committing it.)

You're so worried that some nutcase (in this case a fraudulent one) is going to get away with thinking that he's doing something horrible, when in reality he is helping the people he claims to hate. What better punishment than to have his own funds work against him?

By contrast, if you throw Kersey out on her ear, you may be hurting your own cause. Which of those is the worse outcome for you? Particularly in this case, where the theoretical nutcase in question is a blatant straw-man? The LA Advocate isn't on your side. You are being manipulated into hurting your own cause, and you're swallowing it, hook, line and sinker.

It isn't nonchalance. It's a big fat middle finger and a "Nice try, assholes," to The LA Advocate.

Malaika - I agree with you. Avast - I see where you're coming from, but I honestly don't get the "If you throw Kersey out on her ear, you may be hurting your own cause."

Anti-choicers did (and do) use race-baiting as a red herring, and the PP rep was complacent in that. "We" should be above that (*if* the exchange was posted unedited - I have my doubts) and she should be held accountable and even terminated if the account did go down as posted (I have my doubts for obvious reasons.)

And, Jenna, ugh...yes the "A black woman on TV who said this, so turns out I am right after all!" is awful. Christ on a crutch, I see/hear this day in and day out by local folks on the newspaper web site to justify everything from victim-blaming to arguing that African-Americans are inherently more criminal. Repulsive.

"The woman stuck her foot in mouth. Now, she needs to answer for it."

Sure. She needs to be accountable, since there's also a looooong history of White people being able to cry "But I didn't mean it! It wasn't intentional!", ignoring that the outcome has negatively impacted the lives of other women. If she's going to be let go, though, let it be for the right reason - for not educating herself about racial oppression enough to handle that call differently - not because abortion = genocide. I recognize that she comes from an environment where as a member of the dominant culture she's been allowed (and encouraged, arguably) to ignore race as an issue, but at some point people need to take the responsibility to educate themselves. And if PP has some kind of policy on that, they needed to be absolutely clear on that to staff. I suspect maybe that didn't happen here.

Which of course leads me to what I've been pondering on all week; how do you try to educate people who don't think that being educated is important? At work I spend a great deal of time trying to explain the mechanisms of privilege and oppression and students are not at all receptive; even the faculty and administrators often tell me I'm being "too sensitive", that the intentions were good, blah blah blah. If no other good comes out of this, it's at least given me an example of how my own University is doing its students no favors by failing to talk about race and gender in meaningful ways.

I recently started giving to Planned Parenthood again, after a nearly eight year hiatus during which I wandered over to the pro-life side in a fit of evangelical zeal.

My students in my women's studies course are almost entirely young women of color. I know that many utilize PP services here in our community -- and they use services provided to them by other women of color, who utterly dominate the staff and leadership of PP Pasadena.

Not using PP because of past racism (the idiot donation-taker in Idaho notwithstanding) is like not buying a Jetta in 2008 because Volkswagen cooperated with the Nazis seventy years ago.

The LA Advocate is not an anti-racism group. It is an anti-abortion group that is engaging in race-baiting as a red herring to their own agenda. Why aren't you up in arms over their racist misconduct?

Fuck you ever so much for assuming I had no idea what The Advocate was. Oh and thanks for telling me what I should and shouldn't be concerned with. Lawdy, Lawdy! What wouldn't I do without without the nice white lady telling me how to think?

Also, my quote:

There was some racist shit going on on both sides.

Of course it was race-baiting, and she was the one who fell for it. She should've taken the higher ground and she didn't. Period. In the process, she showed her true colors, and you're beginning to do the same.

If she's going to be let go, though, let it be for the right reason - for not educating herself about racial oppression enough to handle that call differently - not because abortion = genocide.

I agree, totally.

this thread has got me seriously considering discontinuing this blog.

especially the last few comments meant to freaking give some patronizing education to the black women.

i have never before seen so clearly the racism in contemporary mainstream feminism, maybe as this issue is nicely contrasting what people apparently see as different 'causes', feminsm and race.

when push comes to shove, a bunch of you are trying to excuse or protect that woman rather than just admitting that a woman working for a planned parenthood is a racist, and that planned parenthood is protecting her. is it so hard to say?

saying it doesn't give the adovcate any power. and the duplicitious nature of the advocate doesn't erase the racism of the woman from pp.

if your working towards relieving oppression in some areas and supporting or ignoring it in others, your not doing anything but trying to climb the ladder.

and i'll finish by quoting the first comment on here...neither side has the monopoly on racist assholes, obviously.

"Fuck you ever so much for assuming I had no idea what The Advocate was."

Of course you know what the Advocate is. However, when making an argument, I have to show my train of thought, or people start making attacks based on what I left out, and we go off on even more ridiculous tangents chasing them. Attacking me for being excessively complete is counterproductive. Witness this paragraph.

I'm not prepared to say whether Kersey is a racist or not, based on the evidence I have to hand within this thread and its links. I deeply distrust ANY embarassing statement trumpeted by the opponent of a group, when the statement was generated within an interaction instigated by that opponent with the express purpose of extracting just such a thing. Show me some evidence that doesn't involve outright deception and manipulation.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, because obviously this has opened up a whole 'nother can of worms...it may be a new holiday, Can of Worms Day.

First, I agree with heathersf and Malaika924. There is some serious bobbing and weaving around the issue at hand, which was that when White folks fail to confront racism (and it really doesn't matter whether that's intentional or not) they are perpetuating it. Which is at heart where this debate seems to be getting hung up.

The default stance, if you grow up in a racist culture like Mainstream USA, is racism. If you are a White person, to be a racist in this culture doesn't require that you do or learn anything. You do not have to be walking around in a white sheet to be a racist. You can absolutely have the best intentions, and still be behaving in ways that further racism. The messages are all laid out for you in the media, in the history, in structural inequality - you can pick it up in the air you breathe. You can get them by osmosis. Was what she did racist? Sure. But no more so than every other White person who doesn’t bother to educate herself or himself and thus acts in a jackass fashion, not knowing any better.

The task that White folks are charged with, then, is to recognize the way that oppression works and stand up against it. NOT being a racist requires action and education. And if people ignore that responsibility, or minimize that to maintain feminist solidarity, then we get this whole knotty mess at PPI. Which is messed up anyway, given that it’s being used to cement into the local culture old tired notions about taking power over one’s reproduction away from certain groups of women. Which is scary, because there is some terrifying historical precedent for that.

And don’t get me wrong, I love PPI. I’ve used their services. Hell, I found out I was pregnant there. Unlike the Pasadena one that Hugo mentioned, though, the leadership here tends to be mostly white. Just because I support their mission does it mean I should be quiet when there’s an issue like this? Or do I say something, if this is an organization I want to continue to serve women in Idaho, especially considering that they serve a decent percentage of women of color here, too? True feminist solidarity for me does not demand my silence or my complicity – it demands that organizations and people are flexible enough not to get defensive when they screw up.

Avast, you sound like the MRA's who won't accept something is sexist until someone says "I fucking hate women." And even then, they say, oh, he was just joking. He was trapped into saying that. He had just broken up with his uppity bitch girlfriend.

All white people are racist. That includes me. I've said it before, and I'll say it this time, too: If you are raised in a racist society, you will retain some racism, however insidious, and this woman had the right buttons pressed for it to come out. She screwed up. And when you screwed up that badly, you don't get to keep your job. If I said something like that at work, I would be fired. It's the same way for sexism. If you are raised in a sexist society, you retain sexism; it is a part of you. You have to work hard to get rid of it. To educate yourself. And to stay vigilant. These are things she did not do.

This thread has, by and large, been shameful.

@Jenna

That was beautifully laid out. Thank you.

Wow, I just finished reading all the comments posted and let me say that I am so grateful that this discussion is going on. I've been making comments and taking notes of several interesting points as I read. Some I agree with whole heartedly, some I don't and some I have to think about further to decide if I do or not. The point is that this is the type of discussion we should be having. Someone mentioned discontining this blog because of the negetive comments but this is in essence what happens when it get uncomfortable or messy. We should recognize that this necessary in order to gain comeptancy in this type of discussion.

I see the exchanges between Malaika and Avast and I see them as a natural part of learning to comunicate with one another. The given is that a)you are going to offend someone and b)you might be offended too, but you shouldn't let that stop you. This is exactly the types of discussions we should all be having in order to learn how to talk about intersecting oppressions.

Now we just need to extended these discussions to the water cooler, the office, the classroom and anywhere else there is discourse.

"Avast, you sound like the MRA's who won't accept something is sexist until someone says "I fucking hate women." And even then, they say, oh, he was just joking. He was trapped into saying that. He had just broken up with his uppity bitch girlfriend."

Frankly, if he had just broken up with his girlfriend (I'm not even going to touch your use of "uppity"), I probably would cut him some freaking slack. Provided that he behaved in a sane way the rest of the time, under those specific circumstances "I fucking hate women" is emotionally-charged shorthand for "I fucking hate what just happened, I'm in a lot of pain right now, and don't even talk to me about relationships." Imagine a woman who is in the throes of a painful divorce. Would you rake her over the coals for daring to say in the middle of a bad mood, "I fucking hate men," or would you understand that what she really means by that is "I fucking hate divorce and I fucking hate my soon-to-be-ex-husband,"

Now, if this hypothetical man kept saying that sort of thing for more than about a week, I'd probably tell him, "Dude, get a therapist." If this hypothetical man were known for making statements like this without a provocation of a similar order as a breakup, then, yeah, he's a misogynist turd, and I wouldn't have anything to do with him in the first place. (Yes, I have run into men like this third case. They are assholes.)

Can you see the difference?

Avast, I notice that kissmypineapple and Jenna condemn racist acts, whereas you keep reframing it as condemnation or defense of a person (Kersey or your hypothetical MRA).

As someone already mentioned, well-meaning people are capable of racist and sexist behavior. As several other people mentioned, it is completely appropriate to hold people accountable for their racist or sexist behaviors, even if — nay, escpecially if — they consider themselves to be egalitarians.

Drat. My "prieview" is busted. Sorries for the typo.

I denounce racist acts. I also recognize extenuating circumstances. This incident was no Don Imus with his "nappy headed hos." This was someone dishonest running rings around an unsuspecting person to get her to say something embarassing.

The nature of the specific act in this case is that Kersey was manipulated into a position where she should have terminated the call when the person on the other end of the line started acting nuts, and she didn't. I think it is a stretch to claim that is evidence that she actually believes that there should be fewer black people born, or that black people should be given lesser rights, or that black people are inferior, or whatever; that she secretly believed this all along, thanks to being raised white, and her facade slipped for that instant.

If we want to focus a few words in isolation ("understandable", "excited"), we should also look at other words ("hesitation"). The presence of that word tells me that she was aware something was seriously wrong, and was scrambling to regain control of the situation. It is entirely possible that she was thinking "Jeez, how do I handle this creep, we need full documentation of the call." and wanted to keep him babbling while she got his info and a trace on the line. I really, really want the whole transcript, which we are never going to see, short of a police raid on LA Advocate headquarters to seize their source tapes. I am firmly convinced that we don't have the whole tape, let alone the whole story. (Sorry, heathersf, "c'mon, just admit it, is it so hard to say?" does not constitute a compelling argument. I'm kind of difficult that way. It's probably why I get put on juries so often when I get called up.)

We are supposed to conclude that Autumn Kersey is a racist, and fire her on the pretext of racism, based on evidence provided by the LA Advocate, whose entire motivation in this situation is to produce that very appearance. Naturally, I distrust them entirely. We need to look at the whole picture. I think a balanced approach would be to take a look at her performance record over time, and also look at the policies and training in place at that time. If her service record does not bear out a profile of racism, then it would be appropriate to provide training to handle these kind of tricks, rather than to dismiss her outright. If she is sincere in it being a mistake, you can bet large sums she will be damned careful in her responses in the future.

Certainly it would be a good idea for Planned Parenthood to reevaluate their programs, remove all references to race or minority status from them, and retrain all public-facing staff. It should be sufficient for "Women in need" to be based solely on the financial state of the client in question, at the time the request is made. Certainly adopting that formulation would prevent exactly this sort of misrepresantation-based attack in the future.

I denounce racist acts.

Except this one.

I also recognize extenuating circumstances.

Except in the context of a racist act.

This incident was no Don Imus with his "nappy headed hos."

So, there are degrees of assholery, now?

The nature of the specific act in this case is that Kersey was manipulated into a position where she should have terminated the call when the person on the other end of the line started acting nuts, and she didn't. I think it is a stretch to claim that is evidence that she actually believes that there should be fewer black people born, or that black people should be given lesser rights, or that black people are inferior, or whatever; that she secretly believed this all along, thanks to being raised white, and her facade slipped for that instant.

Racism is not - for lack of a better term - that black-and-white. Racism is not only cross-burnings, lynchings, and water-cannons. Racism is a huge institution built upon little blocks of ignorance and hatred that needs to be dismantled brick by brick. What happened here was one of those bricks.

We need to look at the whole picture.

But you're not looking at the whole picture. The whole picture not only includes her service record; it also includes the effect of her racist comment on black women and how PP of Idaho will be received because of it.

Granted, I don't know if Autumn Kersey is an outright racist, a closet racist, or just an ignorant white woman. But the fact does remain that her actions at the time were racist - whether she intended them to be or not - and disciplinary action needs to be taken.

Error:

"Except in the context..." should read "Especially in the context..."

avast-
you misquoted me, but that's ok.
the part where i suggest people just get honest and admit that this woman was racist isn't an argument, its the only response that has any integrity...

the argument (or evidence for madam jury chair) is presented quite clearly in the call.
man, the racism was evident as soon as he starts talking about affirmative action and wanting to have less black kids out there. that would have been a good point for her to end the call.

you have demonstrated glaringly simplistic ideas about racism, and a great willingness to excuse it.

that middle finger your throwing up to the advocate is also a sign to all those allied against racism, in all its subtle, insidious forms, that you don't take it seriously.

This was someone dishonest running rings around an unsuspecting person to get her to say something embarassing.

The only way this woman could have fallen for it, however, was if she didn't mind saying something racist. That doesn't mean that she has secretly wanted there to be fewer black babies all along. It means that she didn't have a problem expressing agreement with an obviously racist statement, whether or not she really agreed with it, because she didn't think that the obviously racist statement was so outrageous as to merit a swift rejection and denunciation. And that's racist.

Come on, "unsuspecting"? Like, what, white people have to be given a pre-emptive heads-up in order for them to remember that saying that there are too many black babies in the world is racist and wrong?

Honestly, I don't give a fuck if she's secretly been harboring racist thoughts her whole life, or hates black babies, or just slipped up in the heat of the moment. (Actually, I do care if she hates black babies, because that really makes her a foul person, but in the context of what PP's response should be, I don't.) I don't care about her purity of heart or otherwise. The fact is that, acting as a public face of Planned Parenthood, an organization that has had to work to shed the stigma of Sanger's eugencism and an organization that has often been regarded with suspicion by black communities, she vocally agreed that the world would be better off with fewer black people in it. End of story. Whether she felt terrible about it right afterward, whether it reflects her innermost thoughts, that doesn't matter.

When an organization is publicly embarrassed in this manner, in order to even begin regaining the trust the wronged group, the organization has to demonstrate that it is taking the problem seriously and distancing itself from the employee who did the foul thing. In this case, PP has to fire Kersey. She did something racist in PP's name; not only does she deserve to take the heat for that, but PP's integrity and good name as an organization depend on her taking the heat for that.

Do you really expect black women to say "Oh, we understand, you were just manipulated, heck, anybody could be talked into admitting that we shouldn't be having kids"? PP-Idaho needs to do some serious make-up work, and it wouldn't hurt for the national organization to issue a no-holds-barred condemnation.

^5 malaika924, you've said everything that I have been thinking and you have said it much better than I could have. Thank you.....

I've spent the last I don't know how many posts complaining about one specific set of objections to one specific incident, and that translates to a "great willingness to excuse [racism]"? Wait a minute. I thought racism was this enormous edifice, constructed brick by brick. I've been objecting to the twisted nature of one specific brick. That's a "great willingness to excuse"? You haven't shown your work.

As far as being simplistic about racism, consider the following. LA Advocate's attack strategy can be summed up like this: "I'm going to pretend very publicly to be your worst PR nightmare, and when you are insufficiently quick to denounce me, your own supporters will tear you to shreds." I happened to notice how this little gem of cynicism worked, and called it what it is, a very dirty trick. You, on the other hand, are doing exactly as the LA Advocate intended, certainly to Kersey and arguably to the organization. Congratulations on falling for Advocate's ploy. And yet I'm the simple one.

Oh well, at least we have come to consensus on one thing: Kersey's individual mindset is irrelevant in doling out punishment. You've said yourself you don't care about her purity of heart or otherwise. So there's little point in determining whether she was trying to trace the phone line or what. I may as well drop that line of reasoning, since it won't matter one whit to the verdict whether it's true or not. What is important is not her actual racism or lack thereof, but the appearance of racism that her comments provoke. Just so we're all agreed now, it's appearance over substance. (How very just.) Someone has to pay for that embarassing appearance. C'est la guerre.

You haven't shown your work.

I and everyone else who have disagreed with you have been trying to drill a little knowledge into your head - even going so far as making a few concessions towards your point - but if you don't want to open your eyes, then that's not our problem; it's yours. And you're the one who has to live with it. Sleep well.

As far as being simplistic about racism, consider the following...

Translation: "...blah, blah... look over here and see what the Advocate is doing...racism from PP? What, me worry?"

And yet I'm the simple one.

Now, you're getting it.

Oh well, at least we have come to consensus on one thing: Kersey's individual mindset is irrelevant in doling out punishment. You've said yourself you don't care about her purity of heart or otherwise. So there's little point in determining whether she was trying to trace the phone line or what.

Reach a little higher! That straw is just out of your grasp!

What is important is not her actual racism or lack thereof, but the appearance of racism that her comments provoke. Just so we're all agreed now, it's appearance over substance. (How very just.)

Intent is a moot point. Even in instances of sexism, it's a moot point. Example: The "Problem. Solved!" tee-shirt. The intent was a humor, but the actuality was the complacency for violence against women. Ms. Kersey's intent was to raise money for a good cause, but the actuality was complacency against racism.

In other words: If you don't want to be called a racist, DON'T SAY RACIST SHIT.

In other words: If you don't want to be called a racist, DON'T SAY RACIST SHIT.

Exactly. EXACTLY. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this. Just as a man making a sexist comment doesn't get to decide whether or not his comment was "really" sexist or if offended women are just being "unreasonable," a white person who makes a racist comment doesn't get to decide whether or not her comment was "really" racist. Is not saying racist shit really too high of a standard to hold people to?

The intent of the privileged person DOES. NOT. MATTER. If a guy on the street means "shake that ass, baby" as a compliment, I do not care. It is sexual harrassment.

LA Advocate's attack strategy can be summed up like this: "I'm going to pretend very publicly to be your worst PR nightmare, and when you are insufficiently quick to denounce me, your own supporters will tear you to shreds."

Ah, no. If only. In fact, it is "when you utterly fail to denounce me."

Also...trace the call? What is this, Law and Order? PP doesn't have the facilities to trace calls. And, what, they're gonna call the cops and say "Please, put a trace on this line," and the cops will ask why, and they'll say "There's a guy on here saying racist things"? Being a racist isn't a crime, and no cop is gonna trace a call to find out who the racist is. PP doesn't have the resources to trace a call, and why would they bother, anyway? Why would you need to trace calls, when you could say "Sir, we do not accept racist donations" and hang the fuck up?

Racist or not, the donor was factually correct: the less people there are of ANY COLOR, the better.

I'm coming real late to this party, but was hesitant to respond because of how vilified the PP employees are in this thread.

I know one of the people affected by this prank. When this came out, she was physically ill byt he implications- for PP, for herself, and for the cause of choice. She INSISTS that the audio HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH. The audio has been PURPOSEFULLY edited to make the PP employees sound like racists assholes.
"OMG!" you must be thinking. "I thought that this was serious journalism!"
Well, guess what? IT'S NOT. The assholes deliberately led the employees into the call with promises of giving money to "those who can't afford teh choice" and then the LAST THING they said was the "so there are less black babies" thing. Then they took the audio- taken without permission or without the knowledge of the employees- and edited it to make the employees sound like racists.

She was devastated, just utterly decimated, when it came out. She was sick with worry about how this would look to the outside, and even to other feminists. She is NOT racist, not even one little bit.

And I'm sorry, but if YOU are going to believe some right-wing pro-"life" assholes over our OWN FUCKING PP PEOPLE, then you are just naive.

Of course, there is no way to prove that digital audio has been tampered with. And the transcripts are taken from this edited audio, so there's no proof there. But I believe what my friend has said on this. She is a courageous full-time PP employee. She is an artist and a great person. She in no way shape or form is racist, not even a little bit.

Think about who you are vilifying before you post, people.

It makes me think really bad things about the Feministing peeps, and I don't want to, because this has been a really good forum for feminism and activism. But don't believe what these shmucks are peddling. It's not true, it's all just designed to do what you all just did- break our lines by villifying our own people. Don't play into it.

I know her too; and I still can see the rationale behind why people are angry. It's not personal - I do like her. But that seems immaterial to the issue at hand.

But something you said here struck me - "She is NOT racist, not even one little bit." I've got to take issue with that, because as it's been pointed out here time and again, racism is an inherent part of the culture. To some extent, all White people carry those messages inside themselves. And yes, that's hard to admit. But if you're going to make a full commitment to ending oppression, confronting that is imperative. It makes no difference whether or not she's a great person - the point is that this has caused damage. Intent doesn't always outweigh outcome.

Also, I'm having a hard time understanding why pointing out a need for increased education around race is so painful. I'm not trying to vilify anyone; but the fact remains that White women need to be accountable when they screw up, inadvertently or not.

This is the most ridiculous "controversy" ever. Of COURSE they should humor this person, take the money and and put it on whatever PP needs to fund. Idiot money is just as green as kind, liberal money.

I feel terrible for the person who answered the phone-- they were just doing their job: be nice, get money. Unfortunately they weren't trained to deal with PR stunts.