Leaving aside the question of whether Army Private First Class Bradley Manning should be a grand marshal of the San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade, Pride board President Lisa Williams's clumsy retraction of the honor late last Friday leaves more questions than answers. Manning, of course, is the gay soldier who leaked 700,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks and is facing a court-martial for his actions. Some consider him a traitor. Others consider him an anti-war hero and whistle-blower. What is not in dispute is that he confessed in open court in February to providing the documents and diplomatic files to WikiLeaks. He is facing 20 years in prison but could face much more because the military has charged him with aiding the enemy and multiple counts for violating federal statutes, including the Espionage Act. In short, he is accused of very serious crimes and likely will not see the outside of a prison cell for years.
Last week the Pride board announced that Manning would be a grand marshal, only to retract it two days later. The episode shows that the Pride board has some serious process failures that, according to Williams's statement, allowed a staff member to select a grand marshal, when in the past it's been the board that confirmed the final decisions.
When we received the list of community grand marshals last Wednesday at around 10 a.m. from the Pride office, Manning's name was on it. A subsequent call to Pride that morning revealed that he was the choice of the electoral college, which is composed of former community grand marshals. We don't know how many of these former marshals were contacted or how many voted. We know of at least 12 who did not receive the email with the nominees, and thus, did not vote. Judging from a quick survey of previous grand marshals going back to 2006, Pride seems to have a haphazard way of operating: some former grand marshals were notified, while others were not. That's a problem. If a group is to select a grand marshal, all eligible voters should be contacted and given an opportunity to participate. That did not happen.
Williams's statement said that Manning received fewer than 15 votes. She does not specify how many votes he received, nor does she indicate vote totals for the other candidates for grand marshal. According to a ballot of electoral college grand marshal nominations that we obtained, there were four candidates, including Bay Times co-publisher Betty Sullivan, who was also named a grand marshal. So does the electoral college get to select more than one grand marshal? That appears to be the case this year.
We tried to contact Williams to get her response, but she did not return our emailed questions. Her cellphone voicemail was full, not surprising given the public reaction of the past few days.
Manning has many supporters – gay and straight – in the liberal Bay Area. He also has a lot of detractors, especially among current and former LGBT military personnel. Some of them took to Facebook last Friday vehemently criticizing Manning's selection. It was a couple hours later that Williams issued her statement. A coincidence? We don't know.
We do know what the Pride board should do: reinstate Manning as a grand marshal. Once such an honor is bestowed, it should not be taken away. Williams and the Pride board might take some heat, but the situation can also be a teachable moment. Perhaps LGBT military leaders can present their contention that Manning violated military law and potentially placed the lives of military personnel and others in harm's way. It should be noted, too, that Manning, given his current circumstance, wouldn't actually attend the parade in person.
This episode must also be an opportunity for the Pride board to strengthen its nominating and voting processes. The whole electoral college voting system needs to be examined and fixed so that all former grand marshals are properly notified and can participate next year.
San Francisco Pride officials have talked for years about making Pride a more political event. By rescinding Manning's grand marshal status, the Pride board backed down from taking a political stand and showed it will buckle at the first hint of controversy. And that doesn't make sense, because as former Pride board President Joey Cain and others note in a letter to the editor this week, Pride has had controversial grand marshals, contingents, and speakers in the past. It's all part of what makes San Francisco Pride unique.