LGBT Literature is a Readers and Book Lovers series dedicated to discussing books that have made an impact on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. From fiction to contemporary nonfiction to history and everything in between, any book that touches on LGBT themes is welcome in this series. LGBT Literature posts on the last Sunday of every month at 7:30 PM EST. If you are interested in writing for the series, please send a kosmail to Chrislove.
I really hate it when important events get left out of recorded history.
This doesn't happen as much since the Internet/telecommunications revolution of the past 20 years. But it is still crucial to return to events that happened in our lifetimes and make corrections to the historical record before it is too late. This is my attempt to do that.
This issue has been bugging me for about 30 years: What exactly do you do when you were there for something of significance and you can't bear it being forgotten? Well, what I think you do is to research the facts and put it out there to see what other people think.
Before I tell you what happened, readers may want to Google “Harvey Milk Biography” if you want to confirm for yourself that the events recounted from Milk's 300-plus days in office as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are very sketchy, even making it look like he didn't do much. Yet, there is an official record of votes taken and resolutions passed by the Board. The Clerk of Records in San Francisco City Hall is a great source, but few scholars have taken a serious look at those original documents.
We have to start with the first meeting of a newly elected Board of Supervisors and the swearing-in of all 11 members, the first ones to be elected from single-member districts and all elected in the same city election in November 1977. It's interesting to go back and take a look at the press coverage of what took place on that day, Monday, January 10, 1978. Some of it is dripping with biased attitudes of that time period and predictions of calamity that are unbelievably ironic in light of what has happened since. What follows are a few graphs from the New York Times, which reported on it at great length (if I could link to the entire article I would; it's a great read of history in the making):
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 11 — The San Francisco Board of Supervisors that met Monday for the first time is the most diverse and unpredictable governing body that anyone here can recall seeing or hearing about anywhere in the country.
A switch from at-large to district elections last year brought five new members to the 11-person local legislature and retained six independent incumbents.
“You’re going to see a lot of 6 to 5 votes and a lot of strange alliances,” said Quentin Kopp, a re-elected incumbent.
One of the new members is Harvey Milk, an avowed homosexual who walked to City Hall with hundreds of supporters and told the city establishment, “I want to introduce my lover,” after other supervisors had introduced wives, husbands and blood relatives.
The election of Mr. Milk, a former New Yorker and a former Navy officer, is perceived to be a clear indication of growing political strength of the homosexual community here. His first legislative act was to introduce a bill that would bar discrimination against homosexuals.
And the new supervisors also include the first black woman elected to that post, Ella Hill Hutch; the first Chinese-American, Gordon Lau; the first unwed mother and feminest, Carol Ruth Silver; and the first former fireman, Dan White, who was also a local policeman.
San Franciscans have always boasted of the diverse cultures flourishing here, from the well-known groups such as Chinese and Italians to Samoans and Basques.
But these boasts have been tempered in recent years as minority groups, liberal activists and homosexuals formed what their opponents call a machine, to challenge the established power centers of business and finance and upper-middle-class families. This coalition is credited with electing the current administration and winning passage of the district elections. (written by Les Ledbetter)
The next source I'd like to quote is the SF Bay Guardian (issue date January 31, 1978). Again, I wish I could quote the entire article (links to original articles of this vintage don’t seem to be available on the internet); it is fascinating:
The flavor of the first month of San Francisco’s new district-elected Board of Supervisors is perhaps best illustrated by several exchanges on the floor of the Board during the final minutes of the Jan. 30 meeting.
Harvey Milk, the Board’s first up-front gay member, who was elected from District 5 (Castro/Noe Valley/Haight), stood up to suggest that the Board pass a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to ask South Africa to withdraw its consulate from San Francisco in view of that country’s racist apartheid policies. Milk’s resolution was greeted by loud cheers from the spectators, most of whom were awaiting the public hearing of a Board committee on their 1978-’79 wage package. Board President Dianne Feinstein (from District 2, which includes the posh Pacific Heights neighborhood) appeared somewhat flustered by Milk’s tone, which seemed more suited to a rally of radical politicos than to the formal and ornate Board chambers, quickly gaveled the gathering to order and dispatched Milk’s resolution to the appropriate Board committee for review.
Shortly after Milk’s South African resolution, Sup. Carol Ruth Silver, an unwed mother as well as the representative of District 6 (Mission), stood up to introduce a resolution urging San Franciscans to boycott the Mardi Gras in New Orleans because the state of Louisiana had refused to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Silver’s ERA resolution got the same vociferous response from the crowd of city workers and the same refer-it-to-a-committee response from Feinstein. (written by Robert Levering)
San Francisco, in the first month of its new Board, was—I believe—the first American city to take up the issue of South Africa's apartheid system. Before Harvey's assassination, he spearheaded and helped maneuver three pieces of legislation on that topic through the Board to a successful conclusion (all mention of which is left out of all the historical accounts of his life and his epic accomplishments).
When Harvey decided to introduce the first of these resolutions on January 30, 1978, he prepared fact sheets and several articles about South Africa to photocopy and distribute to his colleagues on the Board. He called me to ask for my help with that educational effort since he knew I was very involved in South Africa political work and activism.
He had already decided that the first part of his strategy would be the resolution to expel the South African Consulate from the city, and that he would follow that with two more: to ban the sale of South African gold coins (Krugerrands) within the city and to withdraw all city investments in banks or corporations that did business with South Africa. He thought this project would take about 10 months, so he wanted to start with basic background education for his colleagues.
The Bay Guardian article above contains a sub-head quote: “In the past, whenever the Board considered resolutions dear to left-liberal hearts, the proposals came from outsiders. Now the impetus comes from the ranks of the Supervisors.” That was key to what happened next.
The normal way to handle issues deemed by the Board President to be extraneous business was to make a referral to the Board's State and National Affairs Committee, where it would be allowed to die. No hearings needed to be held on these types of issues if the Committee chair decided to simply ignore them, which is what happened at the March 3 committee meeting.
Harvey had to come to terms with how this could torpedo his South Africa strategy, and he investigated what he could do about it, since he had not been appointed to that Committee, chaired by Supervisor Bob Gonzales. Harvey considered Gonzales to be a relative light-weight on the Board, who might be capable of stalling for a long time. Committee meetings would simply get canceled for lack of a quorum. So Harvey basically decided, “Fuck it, I'll go around them.” He must have discussed this with other Board members, trying to win them over.
Meanwhile, Dianne Feinstein debated what to do, knowing that Milk was ready to introduce the two additional resolutions related to South Africa. After she realized Milk would not be thwarted by a lack of committee cooperation, Feinstein decided to try working with Milk. She became a co-sponsor of the Divestment Resolution and it was introduced at the Board meeting of March 6, 1978. Original co-sponsors were Hutch, Feinstein, Milk and Silver.
Thus, Harvey must have gotten some tacit approval to do what he did at the next meeting of the State and National Affairs Committee on April 14, 1978. Again, Gonzales didn't show and neither did any member assigned to that committee, but Harvey had carefully read the Board's rules and found that any Supervisor, even a non-member of the Committee, could preside over a committee hearing. Which is what he did. He took testimony on the topic (unrecorded/citizens testifying included this diary writer) and rounded up an additional Board member who arrived late, thereby establishing a quorum. Then, they slightly amended the resolution, in order to change “the South African Consulate” to “the Republic of South Africa's Consulate” and they provided the two votes necessary to advance his resolution out of committee with a positive recommendation, to the next meeting of the full Board on April 24, subsequently delayed to May 1.
The full resolution read:
REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO CLOSE THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA’S CONSULATE IN SAN FRANCISCO
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has long upheld equal rights and opportunities for anyone regardless of race; and
WHEREAS, The racial policies of the Republic of South Africa are a violation of the rights of many of its citizens; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors requests the State Department to close the Republic of South Africa’s consulate in San Francisco.
During the Board meeting of May 1, 1978, the final vote was held: 6 Ayes (Gonzales, Hutch, Lau, Milk, Molinari, and Silver) to 3 Noes (Dolson, Feinstein, and White) to 2 members absent or not voting (Kopp and Ronald Pelosi).
On May 3, 1978, the weekly newspaper SF Progress published an article titled “SF Board Goes International”:
San Francisco supervisors Monday voted 6 to 3 to ask the U.S. State Department to close the Republic of South Africa’s consulate in San Francisco.
Nearly half of San Francisco’s population is composed of minorities, Sup. Harvey Milk noted. If any of these persons were to visit South Africa, they would be treated as second class citizens, he said in reference to the white supremacy policy of the leaders of predominately black South Africa.
Sup. Dan White, who voted against closing the consulate, said City officials should not get involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Once City legislators ask that the South African consulate be closed, it only makes sense that they ask that the British consulate be closed because of its activities in Northern Ireland, that the Russian consulate be closed because of certain internal matters in that country, and so forth, he observed.
That same day, the SF Chronicle also delivered its opinion in an Editorial on the topic:
Those six Supervisors who on Monday decided that the City and County of San Francisco should set policy for the State Department left us somewhat baffled. They successfully voted out a resolution to ask the department to close the San Francisco consulate of the Republic of South Africa because of that nation’s racial policies.
Putting aside the curious philosophy that if we disagree with a person, or a nation’s policies, that problem can be solved by ending communications, there is the comment of Board President Dianne Feinstein, voting against the resolution, that she thought the supervisors had been elected to take care of the problems of San Francisco. We and President Feinstein are obviously remiss, therefore, in not knowing that the City’s problems have been solved, and the board can now concern itself with matters Secretary [of State] Vance has overlooked.
Probably as a result of that view, Mayor George Moscone chose not to add his signature to the Consulate resolution. At the Board meeting on May 15, it became effective without signature. The rest of that Board meeting was blown up by the presentation of an official memorandum from the San Francisco Treasurer's office, specifically the Republican City Treasurer, Thomas C. Scanlon. He said he had received an Opinion which he had personally requested from the City Attorney. Mr. Scanlon claimed, “The conclusion of the Opinion states unequivocally that the [Divestment] Resolution has no binding effect on the Treasurer.” He also related his “concern” about the “immediate withdrawal” language in the resolution. He attached the full Opinion written by Thomas A. Toomey Jr., Chief Deputy City Attorney.
Harvey still had to make sure that his first resolution was sent to the U.S. State Department. Harvey subsequently had some dialogue with the State Department (his archives held by the San Francisco Public Library contain one of those “while you were out” notes concerning a missed phone call from a State Department representative). The government of South Africa was duly informed that their San Francisco Consulate would have to be closed, which they decided to do without much fuss. They tried to move to the city of Los Angeles, but Harvey tipped off their City Council, and they too voted on a resolution saying the Consulate was not welcome in their city either. South Africa was only able to locate their West Coast Consulate in Beverly Hills, a separate municipality.
This should be recognized as one of Harvey Milk's significant achievements, especially during his first 100 days in office. He spearheaded this effort in order to gain allies for progressive legislation and campaigns that would follow later that year and beyond. He knew it would not bring down the apartheid system in South Africa, but he thought it would support the resistance. He believed his legislation would serve to delegitimize the South African regime. This action by San Francisco, a world-renowned city, garnered significant coverage in South Africa’s press and media.
Yet no mention of South Africa appears on Milk’s Wikipedia page or his “official biography” by the Harvey Milk Foundation, which has an international focus. It certainly isn't what Randy Shilts deemed fit to print in what is still the major (if not the only) book-length biography. All of the sources that I have cited were available to him as he wrote The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. But I digress.
The Divestment Resolution languished for about a month after the poorly-executed, yet effective intervention of the City Treasurer, one of the few Republican city officials. Then the co-sponsors prevailed upon Quentin Kopp in his capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee to do a re-write of the language. His “Second Amendment of the Whole” was introduced on June 5, 1978. It left intact most of the “Whereas clauses,” but shifted its directive to the following tame formulation:
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco urges that no future investments be made by the City and County of San Francisco in banks and corporations in the Republic of South Africa; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, That copies of the resolution be transmitted to the Mayor with the request that he transmit such resolution to all appropriate branches of government of the City and County of San Francisco.
It passed the Board by a vote of 9 Ayes (Feinstein, Gonzales, Hutch, Kopp, Lau, Milk, Molinari, Pelosi, and Silver) against 2 Noes (Dolson and White). Harvey was so proud of how broad that winning coalition was. It had been accepted by the Resolution's sponsors that this was a non-binding attempt to influence policy. In order to accomplish more, the Board of Supervisors would have to hammer out an Ordinance that would govern investments made by the City and County of San Francisco. They set about doing that, but it would take longer than initially expected. Harvey was able to instigate this effort, but he didn't live to see its completion. Treasurer Scanlon continued to complain about people making an issue out of South Africa, saying that other groups would try to similarly influence the City's financial investments in the future if this divestment concept was accepted and applied to Apartheid South Africa. He lost that debate, and Harvey Milk eventually won it, having gained a great many collaborators and supporters along the path he was paving.
Harvey's third South Africa resolution having to do with banning Krugerrand gold coin sales obviously fell under the shadow of the Divestment debate described above. The Board could not figure out a way to limit or stop advertising about the availability of the coins for sale, nor could they place a total ban on such sales.
Supervisor Silver still gave strong backing to the work initiated by Harvey. Her resolution was introduced on July 31, 1978 under sponsorship of Silver and Milk. It was referred to a now more cooperative State and National Affairs Committee, where it underwent some re-writes, until October 6, 1978. At that committee meeting, a few additional amendments were made and it was sent to the Board without recommendation. Then it was passed by the Board on October 16, 1978, by a vote of 6 Ayes (Gonzales, Hutch, Lau, Milk, Pelosi, and Silver), 2 Noes (Dolson and White), and 3 members absent or not voting (Feinstein, Kopp, and Molinari).
By that date Harvey was consumed with activities surrounding the statewide ballot proposition known as the Briggs Initiative and the grassroots campaign against it.
Proposition 6, the Briggs Initiative, would go down to a resounding defeat by California voters on November 7, 1978, losing by more than a million votes statewide. In San Francisco, 75 percent of voters rejected the notion of a making discrimination mandatory in order to fire LGBT teachers and school workers. Harvey had predicted that Briggs (California gubernatorial candidate in 1978) would fail to get 50 percent of San Francisco voters, but Harvey was pleasantly surprised that not even 25 percent of his fellow San Francisco residents would back Prop 6—what he called “a plan to force the state to discriminate against my people.”
Now we know that one of the final votes that Dan White took before submitting his resignation to the Board on November 10, 1978, was this one in support of South African apartheid. White's resignation set into motion a chain of events ending in tragedy on November 27, 1978.
And now we know that one of Harvey Milk's final votes cast in the Board of Supervisors was one against systemic and widely enforced discrimination on the basis of race in South Africa. He wanted all of his colleagues to express their solidarity with the South African resistance, at the same time as he was traveling throughout California confronting John Briggs, in effect asking his fellow citizens to voice their solidarity with LGBT resistance to this new type of enforced discrimination found in Proposition 6.
Conclusions:
1. As a book lover, I want to read more books about “the life and times of Harvey Milk.” Randy Shilts wrote the seminal biography, but he consciously decided to limit his narrative. He wanted to portray Harvey as a local leader, absorbed by the issues of his local community, the Castro.
2. Harvey Milk also was a proud internationalist. He understood there were LGBT people suffering under many inter-connected forms of oppression in almost all parts of the world. His view of how to end that oppression was based in caring about LGBT people and other oppressed peoples worldwide.
3. Harvey believed above all else in coalition building. He began as soon as he took the oath of office for his too-short stint on the Board of Supervisors to build winning coalitions of Board members and the communities they represented. That was one of his passions.
4. The events described above did actually take place, and they are well documented. I’ve taken the trouble to offer a lot of detail, including sources. Yet nowadays, if it’s nowhere to be found on the Internet, then it never happened. That would be a further tragedy if it were allowed to become permanent.
5. In our era we are responsible for filling out the historical record from “the time before the Internet existed.” With Wikipedia, for example, we can add to Harvey’s biography and enlarge the understanding of his life’s work for future generations to share.
6. In the period from the June 1976 Soweto Massacre that extended for about a year of intense civil conflict and death in South Africa, to the 1990 release of Nelson Mandela from 27 years of imprisonment, South Africa was one of the defining issues of the progressive movement in the United States. San Francisco was one of the first places in the country where representative governments took up the cause of freedom and played a role in solidarity with the worldwide resistance to apartheid. Locally-based organizations, primarily supporting the Divestment movement, were able to effectively push their objectives throughout the 1980s and contribute to the cause. Harvey Milk should be recognized as one of the original stalwarts in that effort. Eventually, all the efforts led to the U.S. government imposing sanctions on South Africa, a major victory for the progressive movement of that time. Our movement propelled Congress to act and overcome the odious opposition of President Ronald Reagan.
7. The Struggle Continues.
Readers & Book Lovers Series Schedule:
