Matt Solomon /
OutRight Action International /
NYC /
As my work at OutRight reaches the end of its penultimate month, the lived experience of an NGO operating in NGO-land has become much more clear. Much of the attention given to our department in the past months has been because of the amount of money OutRight has taken in from donors because of our Pride campaign. Our framing, outreach, staff work output, is all geared towards whatever will maximize the most donor dollars. This has left me feeling conflicted for a number of reasons.
The most obvious is the danger that so-called “donor darlings” have on humanitarian aid and assistance. Too many organizations are so constrained by their donor support and relationships that they are inactive on some issues. One of the most pertinent issues this relates to is the Israeli apartheid regime. To take a stance on the human rights issues in Palestine would be to alienate potential donors. Interestingly enough, in all conversations about pinkwashing, Israel does not get mentioned, even though they are the largest proponent of the practice.
Adversely, if there ever was an NGO that could ethically benefit from donors, it would be OutRight. The reason why is that a large portion of their resources is redirected back to local civil society organizations. This is why I decided to work with them in the first place. They actively raise the capacity and agency of local LGBTIQ organizations, rather than assuming that they know what is best for the global Queer order. However, this doesn’t make them perfect. There is the obvious question of selection bias, the conditions that are placed on aid, and the legitimacy that executives get instead of local civil society partners. I am not in a position to have the internal information necessary to actually comment on any of these elements, I can only offer conjecture.
Since my last blog, our executive director was selected by President Biden to become the State Department’s special envoy to advance the rights of LGBTIQ persons. Undoubtedly, she is more than qualified for the role. Yet, it still begs the question of why an organization that centers its message around international voices outside of the U.S. gives so much power and influence to a U.S. citizen.