Transcription
Hello, Ian Palmquist. We're back for episode two, our second part in our conversation with Ian Palmquist. Uh, you remember from the first episode that Ian Palmquist is, uh, he was the youngest, um, executive director in the history of the statewide movement. Uh, led the organization, uh, uh, Equality in North Carolina, that, uh, helped usher in the first, um, LGBTQI plus, the full, uh, sexuality and gender identity victory in the South, uh, for, uh, that for our communities. Um, is one of the people who initiated and started the Equality Federation. But we're gonna start today's episode with a review and Ian's thoughts on Heated Rivalry. Ian, the floor is yours.
>> So, I'm only four episodes in out of the six, but, um, thoroughly, thoroughly enjoying it. It is, um, it is so steamy. Uh, but it is also really, really sweet. Um, which I think people didn't necessarily expect, expect from all the hype.
Well, all our viewers or listeners, whoever ends up listening to this, will be thinking that five and six. So now, so you watched, you're through four.
>> I'm through four. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, five and six are to come.
>> Yes.
>> You've not yet been. Okay. I'm not going to say anything.
>> I, I know where we're headed.
>> Okay. Good. All right. Well, we want, we, well, we're gonna have to have another, we're gonna have to have part three because this is very important material. This is content.
>> Yes.
>> Um, well, that's, that's wonderful. Well, it is and it is steamy and sweet. I think that's a, that's a great way to characterize this show. Um, so I've got a, you know, a never-ending list of questions. So, you know, can I ask, can I start with a, a basic question? And I ask this usually of all my friends. Um, and it's, and you, we've been friends for over 20 years. So, you know, what would you say is the motivating principle for you in LGBTQ work? Is it, what, what's the motivating principle of, of the work that you've done?
>> I think the, um, that's a really tough question in some ways. Um, I, I think that what has really motivated me is making sure that the promise of the LGBTQ movement of equality and justice for all people, um, really reaches everyone, um, whether that is someone in a rural part of a southern state, um, whether that's, um, people of color, whether that's trans folks, um, who haven't necessarily always been at the forefront of the mainstream professional movement's priorities. Um, and for me, I think that's been a throughline in my work is trying to make sure that, um, that I personally do better, um, as, you know, a white gay man in this work, um, and that, um, that we collectively do better at reaching all of those communities.
>> I think that is the, a throughline of the work. And when you, you know, I did that little quick intro and that is it. It's about getting more to more people as fast as humanly possible. Um, because it's, you've got this very fascinating position. I often refer to you as like the most successful southern gentleman in the history of the LGBTQ movement. Like, you're such a nice person, but you get [ __ ] done in a way that other people don't. Do you think that there, that you're st, that the, there's a link between, I mean, even when we read this last week, right, with your the way you were talking about high school is where does that come from the style, the your approach to, um, it's to winning?
>> You know, I think, um, some of it goes back to being a quiet, shy kid. Um, and, uh, you know, conflict is not my preferred format. Um, it's something I have to push myself, um, to, uh, to be in conflict, which is kind of ironic for this sort of work. Um, but I think, uh, you know, I really deeply want to, uh, connect with people and give people a chance to do better. Um, there are some folks that are never going to come across to our side and I fully recognize that. Um, but I really saw in my work in North Carolina, um, that there were a lot of basically good-hearted people who, um, who were not with us yet, um, you know, including some Republican legislators, um, at the time, um, who I think we could reach, um, and in this like polarized environment today, that almost sounds crazy, uh, but, uh, but I, I think our movement has been most successful when we've tried to meet people where they are, um, and bring them along.
>> Very quick story. When I was doing marriage in Vermont, the right-wing was there and they had this thing in the state house and I just, I don't know what possessed me. I had an Ian Palmquist moment and I just was really nice to the guy. He just, he didn't rub me the wrong way. I disagreed with him. I supported marriage. He didn't support marriage, but we just got along. And six months later, we were running a gender identity based after school program that, that the Associated Press covered in a story, um, called Gendertopia. And they called him and said, you know, what do you think about, you know, Chris Pepin's Gendertopia program? And he, in his response to the Associated Press that they printed was, I don't know, but Chris has always been really nice to me. And do you think there's a thing there? Like, do you think that the battle, you know, this, that style and substance are being lost, that we're sort of maybe all, you know, hard-nosed mechanics at the moment in less stylized humanity?
>> I think it's a tough question. Um, and it's a really hard moment because people in our community and more vulnerable people in our community are being demonized in just a really, uh, disgusting way. And that's, that's been true throughout our movement, but it feels just so potent right now. Um, so I don't want to be naive and say we just need to, you know, love our enemies and, um, uh, always assume best intentions and all of those things. Um, I, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Um, but I do think that there are opportunities for us to connect with people and I think the folks that are really driving our opposition, um, we're mostly not going to reach. Um, but there are other good-hearted people. Um, and, you know, I think about, um, some of the work that, uh, has happened over the last number of years, like at Equality Utah, where they built bridges with the Mormon church. And there's some things that, like the Mormon church is never going to agree with us on. Um, you know, I don't think they're coming around on marriage equality anytime super soon. Um, but they have come a long way in, um, agreeing that discrimination is wrong. Um, and I think there are more people out there like that beyond the Mormon church, um, that we can reach, um, who are not our most likely suspects for folks who are going to be on our side. Um, and when, um, you know, people like, uh, Brandy Balkan and Troy Williams at Equality Utah, um, go in with real, um, curiosity and openness, um, there's, uh, there's possibilities that we can, we can actually make progress on, um, even when it's tough like right now.
Do you have a thought on this moment around trans issues? So if we went even deeper into the point that you're making, right, that this time is so hard, you know, and we see what's happening with states and the Supreme Court just this week had their big, um, debate around trans in sport, which is obviously got huge ripple effects across the country. Is there, you know, if I just sat back and said, Ian, what do you think? What do you think?
>> You know, there are people out there who think that, uh, who want to blame the movement or the trans community for the backlash that we're experiencing right now. And I think that's completely unfair. Um, I think, uh, trans people rightly are demanding to be treated fairly and equally in all aspects of their lives. And, and I think the movement is right to fight for those, um, those rights and opportunities. Um, where I think we went wrong is, um, you know, after marriage, it was pretty obvious that trans rights were the next battleground. Um, and there was a lot of cultural progress that happened. Um, but I think our LGBTQ movement as a whole, um, kind of took a victory lap and didn't do the deep investment in changing hearts and minds, um, that had worked so effectively on marriage. And I think there's some difficulties. I think, uh, uh, trans rights and trans experience is harder for the average American to understand, um, than marriage equality, which is something that, you know, marriage is really personal to, to most people. Um, they have kind of an intense personal understanding of why someone might want to get married. Um, so I think there's some differences. Um, but I don't think as a movement we stepped up, um, and laid the foundation for the battles that we've been fighting over the last few years. And I think there's really a scramble now to try and do that work in a more hostile climate than we faced, um, you know, coming off of Obergefell.
>> This is where we left off in our last, in part one. And I, at, at that part, I was sort of also noting that, that it's a little bit of revisionist history in my opinion to give us all such a hard time about this because I remember working on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and in the early 2000s, right? So 25 years ago now, right? So the, you know, there was a conversation full of, we brought all the, you know, leaders in the trans movement. I worked at GenderPAC back in 2000 with Ricky Wilkens and Gina Ree. You know, you and I, we've all been doing the work, but the way that the strategy for engagement was different. The, you know, there were 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 was a different time. And I think sometimes we compare like 2026 to 2002. And, you know, and I remember being in, in meetings and, and the trans leaders in the community would say, "Whatever you do, don't bring it up." Like, "Don't, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Let's let, but trans rights are not in, it's not good, but it's in a different kind of precarious position than gays in the military is specifically. And let's, let's not cross the streams on that and make it worse."
>> Yeah. And I think there was an interesting period there where, um, gender identity was so unfamiliar that it could almost be slipped in alongside sexual orientation without a lot of controversy. The controversy was still around gay and lesbian people. Um, and, um, I know there were some states that were, um, kind of hiding gender identity in definitions of sexual orientations or definitions of sex, um, as a way to get protections without, um, getting a lot of attention on the issue. And the cat's out of the bag now, right?
>> Everybody knows what we're talking about. Um, and in some ways that's a, a good thing. Um, you know, I think the increased level of familiarity with trans people is, um, hugely significant and, and huge progress, um, even as we're facing this backlash.
>> Totally.
>> I totally agree with you. Um, uh, you know, there was a, a time when, uh, there was still a real question about trans-inclusion in the LGBT movement. Um, and it was not always clear to everyone that uniting forces was the best strategy for either of us.
>> Um, it's interesting.
>> I personally think it is.
>> I, and I personally think it is. You know, for me, it's one of my great regrets that I didn't push harder, that I didn't. But we, but again, you know, I think it did a disservice because there was a working theory, at least in DC, that there were things that Obama could do, uh, particularly during the Obama administration, right? Not a whole lot's going to get done during the Bush administration, but during the start of the Obama administration that if we just kind of were not quiet, but there are things that could be done that didn't need to be broadcast and we could make huge strides that would have a media effect on people. You know, was sort of the, the conversation, we were at such a low point in terms of services and resources and crisis that, that if you didn't need to have the public debate, which would then make that worse, but you could accomplish stuff that seemed like an equation that was reasonable. And I think it was reasonable, but, but that doesn't mean that there's not a dialectic that, that doing it and it being reasonable also meant that it, there would be continued struggle in tension moving forward.
>> Right. It definitely, um, doing kind of the, um, under the radar work has a cost. Um, done the, you know, in leadership theory, we talk about adaptive work of really bringing the entire community along on an issue. Um, sneaking things through in city council meetings, um, or rulemaking processes, um, is kind of sexy in a way as an advocate, um, because you can get some things done really quickly, um, but it's not always a durable win.
>> You know, that just reminded me of another Ian Palmquist moment, which is Ian's, uh, I don't, for those listening, um, I always refer to Ian Palmquist as Ian Palmquist. That's been 20 years now. Um, so Ian Palmquist, you've got a master's in public administration from Harvard from the Kennedy School. Do you, what, what did you learn from that experience?
>> Um, that experience, um, was really phenomenal. Um, you know, I got to, um, work with some amazing professors and I got to be a part of a community of students who've, um, as a mid-career professional, of students who've already been doing really interesting work in nonprofit and government, um, all around the world. Um, and I think a, a big learning for me there was really, um, learning some frameworks and learning some language to describe some of the things that I learned as an advocate. Um, really having a way of thinking about how we do systems change, um, how we bring entire communities along, um, and how we solve problems when, uh, the people in charge can't fix it by themselves. It really takes the whole community changing, um, or in, you know, some cases, the entire country changing, um, to make the progress that we want to make. Um, and it gave me, um, a way of thinking about how I approached the work, um, and how I coached other people, um, across the country in doing their work, um, to, uh, to really think about how you do that adaptive work of bringing communities along.
>> It seems like that's an extraordinary program that also brings together cohorts and that are like lifelong friends and allies. Is that, it seems like the part of the program is, you know, capacity building for, for you individually as well. Is that fair?
>> Oh yeah, absolutely. Um, and, uh, uh, I've developed some incredible friendships. Um, people I stay in touch with regularly. Um, I've been involved in a group called Adaptive Leadership Network, which is a, a group of people who are trying to practice leadership across the world, um, to make the world a better place in myriad different ways from nonprofit to government to corporations. Um, and, uh, getting to be a part of that community, especially as someone who, you know, spent my career kind of bunkered down in North Carolina in a very particular, you know, local context, um, getting to have that exposure to folks who are, uh, working for change across the world was really phenomenal.
>> That's so cool. I've not done that and that's so cool. Um, so I wanted to ask, um, and we said this when we were starting the planning for this podcast, the, um, what are the three, Oh, uh, what did we win that we should have lost? What did we win that we should have lost? And what did we lose that we should have won? Do you, do you have any thoughts on, you know, as you look back and it could be statewide, it could have been, it could be Raleigh, it could be or it could be North Carolina, it could be federally or in one of the states that you, um, were organizing with. Is there, is there a, let's start with, uh, a loss that we should have won and then we can do the opposite.
>> That's a hard question. A loss that we should have won. Um, you know, and I wasn't, uh, involved nationally in this moment, so I don't know every detail of how hard it was, um, but the fact that we didn't get employment protections through during the early years of the Obama administration when we had a Democratic Congress, um, I think is a real shame. Um, and there are reasons why that didn't happen, um, certainly, um, but when we've had those windows, we just have not been able to get across the finish line at the federal level in Congress.
>> I mean, there's a lot of people who would say that, you know, my work on Don't Ask, Don't Tell was one of the reasons that there was a high, there was a list, uh, during that time. It was hate crimes and, uh, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Don't Ask, Don't Tell went second instead of third and that is that flipped the script. And so what do you say to people because in that argument they would say, well, there's only so much you can do, Ian, right? You can't do and, uh, and do, uh, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What do you say to to people who say it's a funnel and you've got to fit your equality in proportionally?
>> Oh, it's so frustrating. Um, and I think that argument, um, we heard from elected officials over the years, over and over again. I know, um, when I was in North Carolina in the early 2000s, we thought we were close to employment protections for state employees as an incremental step. Um, and then the marriage equality movement hit. Um, and suddenly, uh, not moving a constitutional amendment on marriage was the one thing that our community could get. Um, and Democratic leadership was very clear that, um, we should be really grateful for this one thing that we're getting, which was just not doing any more harm, um, not even advancing anything positive at the time. Um, you know, I think it's immensely frustrating and I think, uh, I think we've started to see that shift in places where, uh, when we have had Democratic control, um, in state and, um, and in Democratic administrations, um, that there's been a willingness to do more, um, but we haven't gotten there at the federal level in Congress.
Can I pause here for a moment? Just you reminded me that, um, we've known each other too long. You reminded me that, um, that that we lost all the state constitutional amendments in 2004, right? And the, on the, I think we lost Missouri just before it, but then we lost what was eight or nine on election night 2004.
>> And might have been more than that. Might have been, I think there were 11 in total. But the, um, but the question I'm going to, I'm got two questions. The first is how do you think we, because even as difficult as today is, I feel like losing that many state constitutional amendments in one day, just in one day was a very low moment for the movement. And I'm interested in, in how you think we rebounded over the years that followed there to get from there forward.
>> Yeah, I mean, uh, it was a devastating moment. Um, and I remember, um, really clearly, just jumping back a little bit, uh, when the Goodridge decision came down in Massachusetts, um, for marriage equality. Um, I happened to be at a gathering, the first gathering of southern state equality organizations getting together, um, just as the South. Um, and I remember, you know, folks checking email on their break and getting this incredible news that Massachusetts had made this decision. And there was this moment of joy followed by, you know, oh [ __ ] basically, um, like realizing that what we were in for in the South over the next number of years was going to be incredibly difficult, um, because the backlash was going to be so strong, and it was that strong. Um, you know, uh, Evan Wolfson and Freedom to Marry talk a lot about losing forward, um, which I think is a really important con, important and frustrating concept to keep in mind, right? Um, really thinking about how do we lose battles that are unwinnable, um, but lose them in a way that moves the, moves us forward. Um, and I think we've done better and worse at that at times, as a movement. Um, I know, uh, when I was fending off the constitutional amendment here in North Carolina for a number of years, um, and we were able to block it because we still had Democratic control. Um, you know, the arguments that legislators were using were really wishy-washy things like this is unnecessary because same-sex marriage is already not recognized in North Carolina law. Right? This was not a compelling embrace of the gay community, right? Um, and I think we probably could have done more in those years to move the conversation, um, on marriage, even as we were, um, you know, facing a loss whenever this did eventually get to the ballot, um, as it did in, um, 2011.
Were you, when we were in, uh, I think we were in Austin at, uh, it's got to be one of the Federation summer meetings because it was right after Missouri had lost so badly, um, what was it, 80, 79% or whatever that, I mean, we weren't prepared for that level of loss. So it's before November, it's '04, Austin.
>> And that, and, and I think it's Missouri, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was right, um, and we were all at dinner and I think you're there, but I'm, that's one of the questions is, were you there? Because this is where Harry Knox leaned forward to all the executive directors and I think he was ED of Equality Georgia at the time and Annie goes, "Just remember, boys, we're all here because we like to suck [ __ ] and you know, that reminds me of the, of Evan Wolfson's, right, losing forward. Like, just remember, boys, like, we're, we're going to lose, but we're all here because we like to suck [ __ ]. Like, let's, let's keep, let's not lose the force for the, for the [ __ ]."
>> I remember you telling me this story, but I don't think I was at that dinner.
>> Yeah.
>> I missed out. I missed out. Um, yeah, that was that 2004 year was really, um, pivotal in a bunch of ways. Um, and I think you remember, uh, we had this, this feeling. I mean, jumping back a little bit, I remember 2003, we were at, um, the Federation summer meeting in Utah. Um,
>> This is a famous, this is a famous, famous meeting and moment you're about to talk about. I just want to prepare everyone. Okay, go for it. It was like a beautiful summer day and we escaped our conference room and about, I don't know, 30 or 40 of us at the time was the full extent of those gatherings. Um, and we were sitting out on a lawn, um, at the University of Utah where we were having this conference, um, and having this conversation and recognizing the momentum around marriage that was coming and recognizing that these constitutional amendments were going to be coming. Um, and it was a moment that I think precipitated the Federation stepping up in a new way. Um, really recognizing that, uh, the battle was going to be at the state level, as it so often has been over the years. Um, and that we needed more than this, at the time, really informal, loose network, you know, basically unstaffed network of people, um, who got together once or twice a year, um, to share, share best practices and commiserate and, um,
>> Support group. We needed more than a support group.
>> Yeah, exactly. Um, and I think it was coming out of that conversation that, um, the Federation board started thinking about becoming a real organization, hiring staff, um, and, and really going out and trying to be a force in the movement.
>> Do you remember the meeting that, uh, before we walked out on the grass? So 40, that's about right. Behind that, by just by 40 minutes. So HRC, I won't say who, but the national field director of HRC comes in and they were, and it was the national groups that were presenting. It was the LA, I think this is the catalyst of the Equality Federation, that the nationals came in and presented to us about marriage and where things were in the world. Canada had just done, uh, marriage in one of the provinces or across the country, whatever was going on, and HRC presented and said, uh, it was marriage was coming from Canada and it was all going to be fine. And Ken Baker, bless his heart, the late Ken Baker from Equality Alabama, raises his hand and says, "Uh, what about Alabama? Like, if people get married, people from Alabama go to Canada and come back, what does reciprocity mean?" And the nationals all said to us, it's all going to be fine. And Ken goes, it's not going to be fine in Alabama. And do you, do you remember this meeting? Am I speaking out of turn?
>> Uh, I, I don't remember that exactly, but, um, but I do remember, um, a couple things that I think get lost in the narrative from that moment. And, um, and that is that there's, there's a narrative now that HRC and the national organizations foisted the marriage equality fight onto an unwilling community. Um, and the reality is that the movement, in a lot of ways, was dragged kicking and screaming into the marriage fight. Um, you know, HRC wanted to be working on employment non-discrimination and thought marriage was going to slow that down. Um, which it may have. I mean, let's be honest. Um, the, the movement really was responding to these lawsuits that were coming up largely from the grassroots. Um, you know, first in Hawaii,
>> That's right. Massachusetts.
>> Um, Vermont with civil unions. Um, and, uh, I never saw another issue that ignited the community in the way marriage did. Um, even in the South, even in a state where it was not the fight I was going to pick for North Carolina at that time. Um, as, as the fight emerged, um, the community there was just a groundswell of activity and support, um, that was unlike anything I've seen on other issues, you know, in my time working on the movement.
>> And if I, if I just complete now, we got to find a story that you do remember because now I sound like a, I'm inventing history.
>> I love your stories too. The, okay, so San Francisco, the San Francisco Equality Federation board meeting, you and I are there. Um, lots of things happened. Do you want to mention a few of them that, that you, that mattered to you?
>> Sure. Um, Chris and I are staying as roommates in this incredibly dumpy Travelodge on Market Street in San Francisco across from the LGBT Center where having,
>> I think we could have gotten the room by the hour if we'd wanted to.
>> Right. It, it may have been the first time that the Federation board actually did a retreat and gathered in person outside of the, the conference every year. Um, and we were really coming together to say, what do we do in this moment? Um, and, um, certainly you and I were not alone in this, but, uh, we were real agitators for the need for the Federation to step up, um, for the need to hire staff. Um, and I think unintentionally, we sort of played good cop, bad cop in those meetings where I was very conciliatory and bringing people along and Chris is dramatically walking out at certain points.
>> How many times did I storm out?
>> At least twice.
>> At least twice. I think the second time you stormed out in the process of apologizing for storming out the first time.
>> Sounds like me.
>> Yeah. Um, but really, um, really in that moment, that group saying, we have got to do more. Um, uh, that we can't wait for the other national organizations to be there for the fight in the states. Um, and that the states were where the fight was going to be. Um, and it was a wild time to be having these conversations because we were in San Francisco, um, days into the Gavin Newsom marriages when Gavin Newsom started issuing marriage licenses at San Francisco City Hall without any court decision or, um, sort of legal stamp of approval to begin doing that. Um, and in fact, we took a break during the meeting, um, uh, and Naen Smith, um, married her longtime partner, um, with, with the Federation board there as witnesses on the steps in San Francisco City Hall, which was just a, a beautiful, beautiful moment, um, and, uh, a chaotic moment, um, where there was so much hope and so much uncertainty at the same time. The, um, that was a wild meeting. That was such a wild meeting.
I will say in my,
>> Oh, go ahead. Just in my defense, uh, the, um, because I, it was, I was a little unhinged at that meeting, but there was a story I, and I, you know, this story and you may not remember this part of the story, but I had started PEP the first time the day before I flew to San Francisco and that version of, I mean, it was basically, I mean, I'm not going to make a joke and say it was a, but it was pretty close to like the two, the early 2000s version of PEP was, which for people who don't know is post-exposure. I, I'd had a post-exposure issue and, um, had just started PEP in like the early 2000s. PEP was a trip and a half. I was sick as a dog, um, on that trip. And I mean, I don't think it stopped me from hooking up in our room, but the, but the point was just that like those were like part of the things like, are you on the new PEP? Like, and what does it do and how does it make you? Um, so the combination of like being on PEP, being in a room with you, dealing with marriage, Gavin Newsom doing the thing, Naen getting married, like it was a really, uh, a bubble of a queer moment.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Um, and, and, you know, the upshot of it was, um, that the board did decide, um, to move forward, um, with, um, hiring Tony Bratis first as a contractor, um, with doing a marriage summit and bringing together all of the states to develop plans for how they were going to approach marriage in their states. Um, and then ultimately going into the summer meeting that year, um, changing the name to Equality Federation and becoming a staffed organization and getting the, the full support of the members to do that.
>> And do you remember in this meeting, sorry, I'm, I keep doing this. So there's this moment where Naen Smith catalyzes and really leads to this idea. We're gonna have a marriage summit and, and, and I'm going to push for it and me and Dan Fermansky and I think Diana Mason are going to be the three that we say it's like a DC, Virginia, Maryland thing and I'll host whatever in DC. But, but the reason I thought that was was Naen sort of stops the room. We're talking about how we need more and, you know, we've got to act and Naen goes, "We keep talking about slices of pie, like slices of pizza, like, and we need to build a bigger pie. We just need a bigger pie." And for me, that was transformative that it was,
>> Oh, she's right. We're all fighting over the crumbs and the nationals and the states and marriage and ENDA and all these different things are going on. We need a bigger pie. And do you, I don't know if you recall that, that I'm sure she told that story before, but, but like for me, that was the moment.
>> Right. Um, and I think we were in such a scarcity mindset with these tiny state organizations. The nationals were not huge at the time either, and they seemed big to us. Um, but when you think about this, the scope of the country and the movement, um, we were so underresourced. Um, and, you know, that's one of many times where I think Naen drops some wisdom at a pivotal moment, um, that, uh, you know, in some ways she's the, the kind of sage of the Equality Federation over the years, um, uh, as the longest serving executive director of the state, um, LGBT organization, just leaving at the beginning of this year, actually.
>> And you two were co-chairs for a long time, weren't you?
>> Uh, I came on as co-chair right after Naen stepped down.
>> Okay.
>> Um, and then when we do, when we hire Tony, are you on the committee? Are you, or are you the, you're the co-chair then? And I'm, I chair the hiring committee.
>> Right. Um, so we come out of, um, the, the summer meeting in Austin, still in 2004, um, with a mandate from our members to become an organization and hire an executive director. Um, and our next meeting, uh, is at Creating Change, literally days after we lost in however many, 10 plus states around the country, um, lost constitutional amendment battles. Um, and I've told this story so many times, but, uh, all of the funders of the movement, the five largest foundation funders, demand a meeting with the Equality Federation board of directors and tell us that the movement doesn't need another organization. We're in this scarcity mindset yet again. Um, and we have the folks with the resources telling us that there's scarcity and that, that we're not needed. Um, and I always remember that board just coming together, um, still going ahead with interviewing our finalists the next day, um, and offering Tony Bratis a job two days later, um, unanimously, um, because the state equality movement, the state leaders who were on that board at the time knew that those losses in 2004 were just the beginning and that we needed a bigger pie. We needed bigger state equality organizations to fight the fights that were coming.
>> I remember that now. I'd forgotten, um, we were in, whatever, whatever the room was, and they did. They said, "Yeah, we don't need another national organization." And then in response to that, we hired Tony and started a new national organization. I mean, it's this, and it's not, and it, and I understood their point. I mean, but it was, it was so interesting the, the length of time where the states just said, statewide stuff is different. It's coming to the states. It's also coming through the states and we can't do what we need to do if we don't do this.
>> Right.
>> Like the expertise is there, it's on the ground. And there used to be, do you want to mention the, just because I think from their point of view, there was this other operating, like the social change model that you're sort of talking about from your experience and from Harvard and other places where they used to parachute. So the nationals would parachute in, you know, 10 or 12 people into a state three weeks before a referendum. I think Seattle comes to mind or, you know, or what Washington or whatever it was was one of them. I just remember Rowy's story about this and it was, you know, when they came in and then they left and so it just left and it, it didn't necessarily make it worse, but it didn't make it any better.
>> Right. So many of the campaigns that happened in those earlier years, um, were not done with an eye towards building long-term power. Um, it was very much, uh, and I think the state groups were part of the problem on, on this too, in some cases. Um, but fighting the fight that was right in front of us. Um, but not, uh, not doing the work to move the needle on our issues in a comprehensive long-term way and not doing the work, um, to build lasting volunteer power, um, that could move the movement forward. Um, and, you know, in fairness to the nationals, they didn't have a lot of capacity. There wasn't capacity for them to leave people on the ground everywhere. Um, but a consequence of that was, um, communities were often left, um, torn apart after losing campaigns, um, with no infrastructure there to support them and take them on to the next fight.
Can we pause here for a moment and reflect on McKenzie Scott's $45 million donation to the Trevor Project this week? Do you have any thoughts about that? Like, as I mean, first of all, it's fantastic, but we're sort of, you know, we're talking about these historical elements, the nationals which at this time are so small, the states which are even smaller, and the donor group and the scarcity you mindset and that, and this week we're talking about McKenzie Scott's $45 million Trevor Project. How do you, what do you think about that?
>> I mean, I think it's a huge sign of progress, how much things have changed. Um, you know, I used to joke all the time that Equality North Carolina was like mostly smoke and mirrors. Um, you know, it was eventually four or five or six staff people at a time. Um, but we had an outsized presence in kind of the public narrative about LGBTQ issues that were happening in the states and other progressive organizations would be kind of shocked that, um, we were as small as we were. Um, and I think that was true across the movement for so many years where, um, we were fighting these incredibly visible fights, um, you know, these fights that were, you know, at the forefront of the American consciousness at different moments, um, and, and we were so small. Um, you know, I, I got started in this really young, as you said, um, it didn't take me that long to have relationships with the major players, um, of the movement at that time, um, because there just were not that many of us when you got right down to it.
>> Well, that's an interesting perspective as well that, you know, we talk about the nationals or the states or whatever, but the fact was there was only 12 of us anyway. So, or, you know, what I mean? And I'm, it's a joke, but like, and there weren't really lines and we were all at the same events and we all knew each other and it was a very different community group where just institutionally we were all connected much more closely than you would be 20 years later.
>> Yeah, it's interesting. I think the movement has gotten better at working together over the years in some ways. Um, but there was a time when it was so small that you, you really did feel like, um, it would be very easy to just pick up the phone and reach out to someone, um, at a national organization as a state organization or, or whatever.
>> Well, and if I can end, I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm not looking to cut the conversation off, but we're almost at an hour. So, I'll just, but I might just say that I think this was one of the, you know, one of the reasons it sort of connects our point around you being, and I don't want to, I'm not trying to paint this as, uh, you being a particularly nice person because you're one of the most hard-nosed, get [ __ ] done winners in the history of the movement. You don't start in high school. You don't take over as executive director. You don't win in the South. You don't lead the national movement, um, without, uh, being able to operate in those environments. But I think the part of being able to operate in those environments and across different levels, right, from high school to federal, uh, to the White House is, um, your, I, is, is part of this story of the social dynamic of the people you want in the room. And you want people who bring positive energy and people who are looking for ways to bring people together, ways to navigate problems, ways to get over hurdles. People who don't honestly storm out of the room in the middle of their apology, uh, for storming out of the room, like, and that, I think that might have held me back in some ways. I think that still served its purpose. But I think you were, I mean, we were bookends for a, for a hot second of a, and you, you know, I, and I think nobody else could have done what you did. I mean, at the, all the way in, in you having you there as a statewide expert at the national level. This transition from, from your work at the state level to your work at Equality Federation at nationally and coordinating the states and coordinating that relationship is so special and important. I'm not, I think it's, you know, what do they, you know, only Nixon could go to China, only Ian could go to DC, like,
>> I don't know about that, but I really appreciate it.
>> I think it's true. I mean, I can't think of another, I mean, the fact is also, and we haven't talked about this, and maybe we do this in part three, but the burnout rate at the state level, like, if you look at the trajectory of the work that you've done, or, and I think of Naen, right, and I think of, but there's not many, like, there's, you can't, you know, if we go over this period of 20 years, the burnout rate was so high. Do you want to speak about that as we close?
>> Sure. Um, yeah, I, I think, uh, I, I used to joke with you. I think that, you know, we, we showed up, I showed up in, um, 1999 at my first Federation gathering. Um, you were there in 2003. Um, very quickly, uh, even as young people, we were, uh, in leadership roles, um, in part because so many people turned over so quickly and we stuck around for a little while, um, and it was a real problem for the movement that, um, that leadership was turning over. Um, I know, uh, when Equality Federation did their first new executive director boot camp in 2011, the average state had only been in their job for 18 months.
>> Wow.
>> And, uh, and I know that now it's up to almost five years. Um, which is a huge, huge transition. Um, it's still tough. It's a still hard job and it still burns people out. Um, but there's a level of support there, um, that's really different than that, that time when often people were a staff of one or two, right? Sometimes these people were really the only person full-time in their state doing LGBTQ work. Um, which is both incredibly empowering and really, really isolating.
And, and as I just, uh, close this out here, I'll just note that so when we started these conversations, uh, you know, I didn't necessarily have a master plan, but, but, but you're going to be listening to these, the listeners on the Shark Bites and Gay Rights podcast is part of our continuing look. This is the Gay Rights part. We haven't talked about that. We might have talked about some sharks, but not the fish. And, um, in, in the Gay Rights podcast, and I'm interested to see the feedback that, that people have. But, but I want to thank you, Ian Palmquist, for your time today. What a really spectacular part two. Um, I would love to try to get you back for part three. Um, we still haven't talked about the, um, the three wins or the, the wins that we had that we thought we would lose. So that'll be, um, something for people to stand by for. Ian, do you have any last words you want to say?
>> No, Chris, it's just such a joy to get to talk with you. Um, so thanks for sharing some of these memories.
>> Oh, wonderful. Well, um, thank you, Ian Palmquist. Always the gentleman. Uh, thanks everyone. Have a good day.
>> All right. Take care. One second.