During a public meeting last week in San Francisco’s City Hall, San Francisco Women Against Rape staff and supporters claimed the organization was under siege for “connecting oppression and sexual violence.”
The July 23 meeting was called by the Commission on the Status of Women, to hear what the public had to say about SFWAR’s controversial volunteer application form. The application had asked volunteers to commit to “political education discussions” that have included “supporting Palestinian Liberation and taking a stance against Zionism.” The city Department on the Status of Women asked the group to remove the language, which it has since done.
The commission, composed of seven appointed members who serve as the policy arm of the city department that funds SFWAR, reaffirmed its commitment to the group and said the commission was not considering pulling any of its funding.
Belle Taylor-McGhee, the Department on the Status of Women’s executive director, said this week that follow-up meetings with staff at the rape crisis center would be held. “They’ve been very amenable about sitting down and talking with the department about what’s appropriate and what’s not,” said Taylor-McGhee, whose agency is providing SFWAR with $277,990 this year.
Some 50 people spoke during last week’s meeting, which lasted for three hours. About 100 people attended, the majority of whom were SFWAR supporters; several held signs of support and some hissed during statements made by those who were critical of the organization.
SFWAR members said they have been the target of hostility during the past two weeks, since the language on the volunteer form was publicized by the Bulletin. According to an SFWAR press release titled “Local Rape Crisis Center Under Attack for Connecting Oppression and Sexual Violence,” the group has received “numerous hate messages and death threats.”
“The environment at the meeting was extremely uncomfortable and felt very hostile,” Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said of the hearing. “We were hoping for some sort of acknowledgement that they had offended the Jewish community. Instead, I found them indignant, insistent and entrenched in what they have known for two years to be a divisive policy.”
Among SFWAR supporters were at least three Jews, a couple of whom spoke at a brief press conference SFWAR held before the meeting. Their words in support of SFWAR were passionate but didn’t promote the sense that Jews with divergent opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were part of the group.
While supporters didn’t explicitly say that their mission of ending oppression included “oppression of Palestinians,” it was implied in many statements.
“I am outraged by right-wing Jewish groups like the JCRC who say they represent the entire Jewish community,” said Mordecai Ettinger of San Francisco, a long-time SFWAR volunteer. “I stand behind SFWAR’s efforts to connect sexual violence with human rights.”
Other Jews speaking before the committee were deeply troubled that the organization felt it necessary to focus on Israel. “I’m so upset that an organization that is so important to women has chosen to take a stance against Israel,” said Rachel Wahba of San Rafael, an Egyptian Iraqi Jew, shortly before speaking publicly. “I support SFWAR, but I don’t support Israel hatred — what does that have to do with being raped?”
Commissioners asked questions about why Zionism was singled out as a form of oppression and also asked if the political advocacy education and rape crisis services were linked.
“There’s a distinction between services and political discussions,” said Shaily Matani, SFWAR’s director of advocacy programs and spokesperson. “We do not take political discussions into the hospital or on the crisis line.”
Asked in a follow-up telephone interview whether the group would help a Jewish rape victim who stated she was a Zionist, Matani replied affirmatively. “In terms of our political discussion, it’s pretty much in the realm of looking at the kinds of oppression and their interlinking with sexual violence. The relationship can be direct or indirect. This is at the very macro, theoretical level. That is why there is a distinct separation between political discussion and day-to-day services.”
Matani added: “We do not require that people in the organization subscribe to a political stance around [Palestine and Israel]. We do feel that until all forms of oppression are eliminated, sexual violence is not going to be eliminated. We are not anti-Jewish. We work to make our services accessible to all clients.”
But some women say they would not feel comfortable going to SFWAR. “Myself, my daughter, my granddaughter would not feel welcome,” said Wahba to the commission. “This is unacceptable.”
Jonathan Bernstein, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, feels further action is needed. “I think what we want to see happening is that if SFWAR is receiving government support, they should be very clear that they have a non-discriminatory policy in hiring, the way they provide their services and how they train volunteers. Given the comments that they’ve made, you’re left with the impression that it is not the case,” he said.
In a follow-up interview, Dorka Keehn, president of the commission, said the commission had taken appropriate steps. “[Nonprofits] are legally allowed to take a political stance and educate around it,” she said. “Hopefully the committees will get together and resolve the issue, but it is not a funding issue.”
Meanwhile, a program specialist with the state Office of Criminal Justice Planning, which provided SFWAR with $352,635 for the fiscal year ending June 30, inspected the rape center on Wednesday and was told that “they will do whatever it takes to resolve the issue,” said OCJP spokesman Tim Herrera.
Noting that the objectionable language had been removed, “at this point, we’re satisfied that the issue is being resolved,” he said. “As far as SFWAR’s relationship with the Jewish community, that’s something they’ll need to work on.”