Guest Blog by Joyce Francis
Beware! My account of General Assembly might be a downer! I volunteered to be a delegate to this year’s GA out of concern with declining democracy within the UUA, as documented in the new book Used to Be UU (referencing change within the UUA, not the authors) by Jay Kiskel and Frank Casper. I came away even more concerned and alienated, as I found identity politics overshadowing all other issues, including democracy.
The most disconcerting experience was the separation of participants by color and sexual or gender identity that took place during the five General Sessions. These were the business sessions similar to QUUF’s annual meetings where we were discussing and voting on such items as bylaw changes and new leaders. These were not caucus meetings of what we call affinity or action groups; these were meetings of all delegates to chart the future course of Unitarianism.
Because there were so many people on Zoom together, we were understandably asked to join chat rooms. There were open chat rooms named after trees, then there were two “identity-bounded” chat rooms reserved for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) attendees or LGBTQ+ attendees. Before each important vote, we were encouraged to discuss with our chat roommates for some minutes.
The clear message the GA organizers seemed to be sending to the “trees” was that those within these “identity-bounded” chat rooms were not interested in what we “tree people” might have to say and did not trust us to hear what they had to say. Is this separation an effective means of building community within what is supposed to be a non-doctrinal, liberal fellowship committed to seven clear principles?
Imagine if QUUF’s Board organized our next annual meeting in this way – inviting BIPOC members to separate into the Den, LGBTQ+ members into RE 2/3, and the rest of us into the Fellowship Hall to discuss our QUUF agenda business before we place our votes! Is this our future course?
During breaks, I took refuge with an “alternate GA” put on (also virtually) each day by the UU Multiracial Unity Action Council (www.UUMUAC.org), a group of UU ministers and members working for racial justice with what to me is a more inclusive and less guilt-based approach. Because of their previous criticism of the UUA’s particular anti-racism program, UUMUAC members are no longer welcome to offer programming at GA, thus they fielded their own “alternative GA,” which I found to be more positive and hopeful.
this feels like a really interesting and important discussion, and it makes me very worried that we are not able to communicate well enough to understand each other just by posting comments here on this blog.
i wonder if it would be possible to have a zoom meeting in which Joyce (and others who feel similarly) might be willing to present her/their concerns so that i/we could hear them clearly and get a chance to respond and have some kind of dialogue so that we can understand each other better.
Joyce, would you be willing? QUUF, is that possible?
Katy, I am most willing, and I hope the Board is working on something like you propose. Some time ago, the Board appointed my husband Nils to lead a Task Force to propose ways to widen communication at QUUF. They held two Conversation Cafes with a total of 16 people, but they do not yet have a next step. They are also struggling with coming to common ground and have not yet offered a proposal to the Board.
These blogs are all we have at the moment other than individual contact, and I’m happy to talk. With the Board on retreat soon, perhaps they will develop a plan to engage us more broadly.
In the meantime, I could suggest reading this testimonial from a young, biracial UU, as I think she captures our situation quite well. See https://bit.ly/TessaUUA2020
Thank you, Joyce!
I read that article and have read Kendi and totally agree that anyone can be racist. We imbibe it from the culture whether we want to or not… Kendi’s descriptions are very vivid in that regard.
If there is disagreement about that, why does it have to divide us?
Can you provide a link that would help me understand this that she refers to: “project of bringing anti-racism anti-oppression multiculturalism (ARAOMC) thinking to the whole UU community”? I’m not sure how this has played out. Maybe i haven’t been paying enough attention… Should i start with the Thandeka article Ron posted below? Anything else?
Katy, I much appreciate your interest. I believe what divides us is the belief that any criticism of the UUA’s anti-racism approach is un-UU, harmful, and even evil, and is thus to be banished from the General Assembly (e.g. UUMUAC and the 5th Principle Project), excommunicated from the UU Ministerial Association (Todd Eklof), and suppressed at ALPs (see my comment below from 8/30 at 9:02 AM).
Indeed, do read Thandeka’s lecture, for which she was largely banished from GA. She was once quite a headliner, but no more. She continues today to speak in support of the dissenters in her own blog and to offer an alternative. See https://revthandeka.org/cerberus-appendix-a.
The ARAOMC was the early UUA anti-racism project (see https://www.uua.org/ga/justice/anti-racism-oppression-multiculturalism), which has now been supplanted by the Commission on Institutional Change (COIC) and its report, Widening the Circle of Concern (see https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening).
Thank you Joyce for your wise comments.
Isn’t it interesting, that it seems to me like there were two different GA meetings after reading the above discussion. What is happening nationally and locally among UU’s was predicted by Thandeka (a black UU minister who has taught at Harvard divinity school) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thandeka_(minister)) back in 1997 in her address “Why Anti-Racism Will Fail” https://files.meadville.edu/files/resources/thandeka-why-anti-racism-will-fail-447.pdf
Every QUUF member should read or reread her paper. Now is the time! It was recently dismissed by a leading member of the QUUF Social Justice Committee as old fashioned, out of step and dated given our current racist reality in America. Funny, that another senior person in power also “poo pooed” it when I mentioned it as relevant to the discussion within the QUUF and that maybe we should invite her here to speak. Why is that? Maybe because she points out that the UUA’s approach to anti-racist work is based on guilt and shame. To answer Kathy Stevenson’s query: “I am so curious about why you feel the UUA’s approach to racial justice is guilt-based.” The simple answer is; because it is!
Thandeka explains that the “…anti- racism advocates at the UUA on a racial and cultural diversity task force…” have put a “…caricature in place that UU congregants are – like all whites – racists, the anti- racists then, through careful and protracted training, call upon these congregants to confess their racism. Thus the anti-racists have created what they describe – whites who have learned to think of themselves as racists.”
It seems like Thandeka is like a Nostradamus in visualizing the future of the UUA by its embrace of their new bible, (that they published) Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” in which whites are made to feel guilty for their “whiteness” and inherent racism. Thandeka goes on to connect this approach with the Christian doctrines of original sin, and then states “The anti-racist doctrine [of the UUA] is just such a recent example.” I would hope that a doctrine based on guilt, shame and divisiveness would fail. We do have a choice.
Will the UUA or the QUUF split? It could come down to the supporters of the “original sin” doctrine with all of its trappings of guilt and shame vs. those who support, as Joyce has suggested, “a more inclusive and less guilt-based approach.” Perhaps when ALP’s classes return we can have a class that examines the “identity politics” operating here.
This conversation is good, but it seems some of us are into a “bunker mentality” full of defensiveness, intolerance, criticism & anger. For too long, we have had to meet on Zoom, masked or outdoors in small & often distanced groups. A lot of the content of communication is lost in such situations. We really need a lot of face -to-face time to sort out these complex & emotional issues. We had that for just a little bit in the “conversation cafes.” They were held with the leaders of the two sides of this controversy who sat down live & in-person with each other. The results were really good from what I heard. Emails, blog posts, and such written methods seem to make things worse as time passes & some dig deeper into their bunkers. It’s turning in to a zero sum game which requires winners & losers.
When can we sit down with each other & get back to civility & kindness?
I have tried to join this conversation but it appears my comments are not appearing on the site. I will be sending my comments to all those engaged in this process via email. I will also send them to the board. thank you.
Ron—Please don’t jump to any conclusions. It always takes a while for blog comments to show up in the blog thread, including mine.
I’ve had that problem too. Often, clearing your computer’s cache makes it OK, especially if the computer is older..
Could someone clarify , once again, whether the actual general group discussion of the business at GA was “segregated” as implied in some comments, or whether those identity based groups were for caucusing? I would have no problem with the latter, so long as decisions and the main work of the GA were carried out as a single body.
Jean, the “identity-bounded” and “tree” chat groups were arranged during all the five GENERAL SESSIONS, where we discussing and voting on the overall business such as bylaw changes.
Jean, there were too many delegates for there to be one big Zoom chat room, so the administrators created several. The stated idea was that any delegate could move at will to any chat room; thus we could experience an approximation of one big, general discussion. In fact this did not happen. At least two of the chat rooms were open only to special subgroups. A member of either of those subgroups could join Joyce or me in one of the other rooms, but we could not join them. Thus significant parts of the “general” discussion were walled off. I.e., Joyce and I were segregated – told there were parts of the discussion we could not join. To me this is beyond unfortunate; it is unacceptable.
Reply,
Like Marilyn, I have been reading the blog and the responses to it and trying to decide what it was important for me to add to the discussion. I am grateful to you, Joyce, for bringing these divisive issues to the fore, and I am hopeful when I see so many of us are saying that “both sides” have very much in common, and we need to be able to talk with each other. I agree with this. I am also grateful for a chance to bring up the issues that have disturbed me.
Perhaps the biggest issue for me is the fact that two classes that I wanted to sign up for were rejected on the grounds that they were “controversial.” The first class was to discuss the issues in the book “Used to be UU,” and the second class would explore the pros and cons of identity politics and critical race theory. Both of these classes were not allowed because they covered controversial topics. I did not know why critical race theory was controversial at that time, and that was why I wished to take the class.
If classes on controversial topics are not allowed, how will we ever resolve the controversies?
I also had some objections to the way The 8th Principle was worded, and to the vagueness of its intent, but by the time I had figured out exactly what my objections were and sent in a couple of paragraphs to the Friday blog stating my concerns, I was told that it was too late, and that the blog had moved on to other topics. My major objection to the 8th principle was that I found it divisive, and I hoped to open up a dialogue about it, but that wasn’t allowed.
I was also looking forward to taking and giving more ALPs courses, but that avenue for learning seems to be disrupted at this time as well.
These experiences are very different from my previous experience with QUUF, where I have found openness to, and respect for, differing opinions. In my experience that is how we learn from each other.
Esther Conway
Esther— It appears you are misinformed. The blog stays live for comments for one week. This policy was put in place to keep people from posting on the wrong blogs (which happened repeatedly). There is no censorship.
Please rest assured that nobody prevented the ALPS Identify-Based class from happening. In fact, the majority of the ALPs committee voted in favor of it. As for the “Used to be UU Book offering, I know nothing about that.
In these times of physical separation it is especially important to double-check our facts.
It is indeed important to be clear about our facts. The ALPs committee did NOT consider a proposal for a class on USED TO BE UU.
On the ALPs Identity Politics class, when we ALPs members invited Kate and the Right Relations Covenant Team (RRCT) to discuss concerns about this approved class, we received this reply from the RRCT Chair:
“The few individuals opposed to the UU antiracism methods can have their “free speech” but I do not believe it is up to us at QUUF to give them a platform that is inconsistent with our Covenant, our values and our mission.”
It was this and other comments during that meeting that moved us to vote unanimously to call a sabbatical and request that the Board engage the community is a wider discussion of such questions as:
• How does a commitment to “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning (4th Principle) relate to ALPs programming?
• In light of the UUA Statement of Conscience accepted in June by QUUF, how does the Fellowship view other perspectives on that topic?
As a member of the ALPS committee and attendee at the meeting referenced by Joyce, I agree with her comments. I felt we could not proceed with the fall semester without a larger discussion and clarification of our role in offering ALPS classes to the congregation.
Thank you Marilyn, I appreciated your comments. Kathy, I’m glad that you and many at the convention had a very valuable experience. Still, it seemed dismissive that Joyce’s comments were characterized as a “few complaints”. If a chunk of representatives there are finding the need to go to an alternative conference, that indicates that there is a rift and not everyone was satisfied with the proceedings. It drives me to question how big is the umbrella. And I know we are reflecting these larger rifts locally. It’s concerning. There is so much work, time and energy just to keep QUUF going.
As a POC I appreciate places that allow me to be just with POC to unwind, relax and know I won’t have to explain over and over again e.g. harm because we all understand harm. Its tiring to have to explain something that may be thought of as different by the dominant group. I also enjoy times ALL together POC and whites learning and sharing live experiences. Both are nice breaks… I was one of the people who wrote to ALPS questioning the need for ONE class given by someone who’s not from the group he was discussing(the marginalized). My suggestion was not to cancel the class but add CAUTIONs that the intstructor and the content do not reflect the beliefs nor values of QUUF. The World Wide Web provides information(INaccurate information) unlimited. There’s information, opinions, books, teachings ad nauseum. Does QUUF really need to be apart of that pandora of misknowledge OR should we state strongly what we believe and help the world by being true to our values, and by being a beacon of analytical thinking? The ability to tell the difference between propaganda, opinions and facts. What I hold onto that gives me hope is that we, our congregation voted for the SOC. I’m proud of our UU values and how it grows to reflect our new learned knowledge. Growing is uncomfortable. Status quo is stagnating. Boring. Grow or stay the same? An easy choice for me.
Thank you Margaret for your insightful and honest response to this blog and the responses it has elicited. I have been reading along trying to decide what I would like to say. I will try to be brief but I have so many thoughts. Most important , I think, is the fact that we are talking at each other not with each other. We exchange facts in support of what we think the important issue is when increasingly it appears to me that while there is one fundamental issue there are two very different approaches to confronting this issue. I believe that we all know that racism or any discrimination against “the other” is wrong but remains a real and significant part of the American landscape. This we can agree on. What we are really disagreeing on is how to address this wrong. UUA has come up with a program based largely on elements of critical race theory, identity politics and an amalgam of anti-enlightenment concepts. Some of us enthusiastically accept this program especially its emphasis on self-education, helping us to see and understand the magnitude of our white supremacy from ubiquitous micro-aggressions to pervasive social and economic inequities and overt brutalities by fellow citizens and legal systems. By informing ourselves and essentially holding ourselves accountable we can make the difference so necessary to bring about the change we seek. For others of us, a lot of the rhetoric emanating from UUA doesn’t make much sense. Limiting what we can read, what we should or should not be discussing and essentially requiring us to sign on to a single action plan doesn’t seem to serve much purpose and is antithetical to the ethos that brought to and keeps us at QUUF. Without freedom of expression and freedom of thought, how are we to find our truths? I hope I am not misrepresenting either group. My suggestion, could we agree on the problem and broaden the tent of potential solutions and actions with active discussions via forum, classes, pulpit, wherever we meet , so we remain together in our search for truth.
Too ironic. Here we are a predominantly white group twisting our congregation around to address racial equity, only to have our delegate denied admittance to a chat room because she was white. And in general sessions. Not in affinity or social justice or regional or other more identity related small group discussions.
I miss the ALPs smorgasbord. I miss meeting in person. I miss learning from Kate. I miss a venue to opening our minds to the power of spirit and religious connectedness. I miss religious and spiritual discussions.
I fear death. I fear my loved ones dying. I fear for how my children will make it – where they will live and work. I fear for how we will cope with the massive population movements that will come in climate change. I fear that my next-door neighbors and I will have such different views and understandings of the world that we will not be able to decide any actions as a community. That scarcity in the middle class due to technology and concentrations of goods and services delivery will continue to devolve into racial and class wars. What about the loss of pensions generally. I have been privileged in so many ways over many white and people of color due to where and when I was born and the help that my parents gave to me.
Wow, so many worries. Be nice to have some rigorous programming to discuss and put it into perspective. And a nice umbrella organization that would allow committees to form and pursue the members callings, without having to limit the pursuits and inquiries of other members. And a community focus on ministering to each other that transcends our often inept and often disheartening attempts at world peace.
I think respect for the individual regardless of race or identity is important to model in the organization. I’m sad that it was not provided in the General Assembly.
Ooh – to be clear when I’m referring to often inept attempts at “world peace” please know I’m referring to my own history- eg sadness ending Vietnam war because of impact on the people even after March after March against the war. Now being retriggered by Afghan. Also so of my own personal attempts that didn’t turn out as I hoped. Sadder, wiser, less certain of an eventual hopeful outcome I’m afraid.
Margaret, I have those same fears and worries. It is good to be able to share them in our community. I believe strongly in QUUF as an umbrella organization that has a place for all of us. I am afraid the UUA made one mistake that has caused this mis-understanding. They didn’t differentiate well enough the difference between chat groups (named by trees), and caucus groups. Chat groups were open to all who wanted to discuss business before a vote. There was lively discussion, with plenty of BIPOC delegates. At the same time there were options for BIPOC to caucus amongst themselves. Not unlike our own QUUF delegates who often chose to text each other before a vote, to exchange our thoughts with people from our congregation. We chose to engage that way, as well as chat rooms. At GA there were plenty of other opportunities for white people to exchange with BIPOC people, in workshops, blogs, social times.
My experience at GA was full of individual respect for people of all race and identities and abilities, as Shawn wrote about in last week’s blog. GA is a 5 day intensive experience and I hope people won’t make judgments on a few complaints each of us may have. It is certainly not a perfect gathering, as the UUA is not a perfect organization. Yet, oh my, it brings together amazing people and QUUF is an excellent example of that.
As a queer UU and a delegate to GA this year, I chose to stay in the tree room I was assigned to and did not caucus with other queer people. In the past I have. And at QUUF, as well as other local venues, I often caucus with other queer people, or other low income people, or in some cases women who are survivors of sexual assault or share my life long battle with PTSD. I don’t need set caucuses locally because I know who these people are – I have my own networks. But in a large group – like GA – I don’t necessarily know how to reach out to people I share identities with and sometimes find it useful for the organization to offer me those opportunities. After the Pulse Night Club incident – I was at GA and spent significant time with queer UUs who had a much stronger personal connection with that tragedy, and were often triggered by their own brushes with violent hate.. I was grateful to the UUA for offering us that safe space to grieve and regain our balance.
In the Thich Knat Hahn retreats I have attended there are similar groups that meet. I don’t know if doing this split the membership and if it did how they resolved it. I thought another liberal religious group that faced these issues and how they dealt with them might be useful information/guidance for this discussion.
I agree with Kathy that “there’s a lot we can all agree on”. I really, really hope we can focus on that, and not where we differ. I hear fears of further division — it doesn’t have to be. And even if we do differ, it’s okay. Differ doesn’t = division.
And I am so sorry for the real pain and sadness that is felt, for you Joyce, and on all sides of this issue. The pain and fear is palpable — but again, it doesn’t have to be. I wish ALL of us could shift perspectives and consider other ways of understanding this. We are UUs and we all agree that racism is awful and marginalized communities have been horribly oppressed. We are working towards the same goal.
Perception and perspective make a difference. I don’t assume that those in BIPOC and LGBTQ+ chat rooms at GA, if asked, would say they are “not interested in”, or that they “did not trust” what “tree people” (majority culture) people had to say. This sounds like a “majority culture” assumption (fear). Their motivation to be in those rooms was likely different and varied, and I’d want to understand more (from them) about this.
Like Joyce, I find myself “bewildered” and “bothered” (distressed actually) but for different reasons. Why is giving those who have been oppressed and excluded for four hundred years and counting, a place, and a voice, and an opportunity, and respect, such a concern and a threat? Especially for UUs? I think it is wonderful that we are finally able to do this. After all these years….
Actually, if we were to do something along these lines at QUUF, I would support it. Many perceive our congregation as not diverse, but actually there are many hidden diversities, many who belong to different groups and are just not visible or willing to speak out, or beaten down in ways that most of us don’t understand. Perhaps “identity bounded” groups would help us hear these voices?
If we approach this not in fear, but as an opportunity to learn and connect, and be in community, with those different from us, and as excting and hope-giving — what do we have to lose? My plea — let’s focus on what we have in common, not the “downer”.
Thank you Frances for your clear & thoughtful statement of this very difficult divide within QUUF & the UUA. There are many ways to pursue our hopes for the common good if we can get past our fears & anger. It is striking how many parallels there are between the concerns we have in our congregation and the divide that has opened up in our nation. We, locally & in our nation, are in a “watershed moment” as the excellent Heather Cox Richardson notes in her 8/27 newsletter. Can we blend our hopes for the common good of all with our need for individualism? I think we can – but only if we can get past our fear & anger.
Thank you, Frances. As a person who would have been included in one of the “identity bounded” chat rooms I wholeheartedly agree with you.
When a person is attending an event as a member of a marginalized group it is vitally important to have the opportunity to connect with others who have lived your truth. Being able to discuss the issues presented at GA with others who share your experiences is a gift given to the BIPOC and LGBTQ+ delegates. Being the “other” at such an event can be daunting and overwhelming, even when the attendees are UUs. I doubt the “identity bounded” delegates were uninterested in the views of the majority, nor was it a matter of trust. Instead, many of them were relieved to enter a Zoom space where they could hear views of others like themselves, just like all of the other delegates. Interpreting these chat rooms as places where the marginalized escape the views of the mainstream delegates shifts the focus from them back onto the mainstream delegates, who, quite honestly have had the spotlight shining brightly on them their entire lives. Don’t worry, the views of the majority are always well known, by both the majority and the marginalized.
I sincerely hope we can learn to celebrate our differences and truly join together in beloved community. We all have much to give and to learn. Let’s focus on that.
Funny how giving marginalized communities a safe place to talk is viewed as “declining democracy” when if anything, the opposite is the case. Providing people of color or out-of-the-norm sexual identities a safe harbor helps give voice to the struggle for equity and equality against systems of oppression that is very much a part of their lived experience. It is a system of oppression that We among the privileged class cannot see or feel (much as the goldfish in the fish bowl who has no sense of the water that sustains it).
Actually, Gary, I believe the causality goes the other say. It is declining democracy within the UUA that has allowed its anti-racism approach to rise to the level of “doctrine” as dissenting voices are banished.
Let’s get a general QUUF online forum going where we all can express our convictions, listen to others, and learn together. A forum open to any and all QUUF members. Kathy, in that forum you and I and others could discuss the very complex issues surrounding the guilt aspect of certain approaches to identifying racism. Gary, in that forum I could explain why I am not happy about closed “safe places” in the context of a supposedly open business discussion. This blog post is not the place for those discussions, important as they are.
It would be very interesting to know why some feel guilt while others feel hope. But not if the forum you suggest is used to tear down a religion that many of us hold dear. Can we be civil and constructive? I think we can IF we avoid the fear & anger that usually precede destructive & bullying impulses. The other “pandemic” is our loss of civility & kindness, which may end up much more destructive than COVID19.
I am so curious about why you feel the UUA’s approach to racial justice is guilt-based. I have found it liberating in that there is deeper understanding of how systemic racism can be confronted and therefore move us closer to equity. Yes, it has caused me to look within, but as a UU, that’s what I want to be encouraged to do anyway! I agree with Brad that action is important, which is why I am writing postcards to People of Color in Virginia with information about how to access early voting. I believe there is a lot we all agree on!
Joyce, thank you. I sensed what you did. That’s why Stacey Abrams’ address was the best thing I heard at GA. She said, “Get up and get to work.” I can do that as an individual, but it’s much harder in a UU context as fragmentation continues.
Diane, FYI, I was assigned to a discussion or breakout room. I was informed that I could move to another, but NOT to certain ones, exactly as Joyce described.
Since I finished “Used to be a UU”, I have noted changes in QUUF, and I’ve been seriously concerned about the Fellowship. Is the fear of “harming” vulnerable members limiting free speech in the congregation. I want more open and free discussion. I didn’t join to be told that certain approaches and topics were off limits. This blog has been much appreciated.
Thank you for your comments, Joyce. Looking at QUUF from ‘way outside, it seems to be becoming more and more fragmented. One of the things I liked most about QUUF was the way it made it possible for me to get to know, at least slightly, through serving on committees and attending ALPS classes, people with whom I would never have been in contact otherwise. If we lose this, I don’t see much point to the organization at all.
I have been a UU since 1952 often involved in leadership roles over the years. I have participated in UUA positions regarding, among others, the peace movement, civil rights, abortion rights, women rights, and today am part of the antiracism collective here at QUUF. I have studied the report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change and through out these many issues have never, not even once, felt shamed or blamed. I feel proud and appreciative to be part of a religion that fights for the oppressed. I don’t have an explanation why I feel proud and you feel shamed and blamed and am sad for you that you do. If you feel proud to be part of UUMUAC, I am glad you have found safe harbor.
Dear Joyce, I have sensed encroaching “change” within the UUA and in the several UU congregations in which Ginny and I were members over the past half century, starting in 1960. I’ve tried at times to ignore what I was “feeling” and “thinking,” but now I see the culmination of a process. And once again I feel alienated from “organized religion.” The clues have often hit hard in articles in the UU World magazine. I would read, reread, and realize that I often did not agree with what I had read. We have been members in two congregations that went through what we seem to be experiencing. In both cases the congregation was so divided that they split. The most disappointing case was in Columbia, Maryland, when I was serving as the spokesman for the ministerial relations committee. Ultimately, the congregation split – a new congregation emerged, friends going in different directions. Some were angry, others very sad. The big dilemma was created by the departure of a much loved minister – sound familiar? Keep up the good work, my friend. Galen
Joyce….my first response to your clear and well written words was “yikes”. The separate groups system you described is troubling. The more inclusive and less guilt-based approach of the UUMUAC sounds more like UUs to me.
I would like to add a point of clarification- These chat rooms were not assigned. Attendees voluntarily joined the one(s) they wanted to. I think the GA organizers recognize that some people like to caucus at times and therefore offer this option.
It helps me to be reminded of the ‘me too ‘ movement and the importance of having the opportunity for women to meet together to discuss their common experiences. This can be emotionally supportive. Kudos to the church that provides a psychological safety net to marginalized people. There are other times and opportunities to gather together.
Having been a proud member of UU for around 57 years, I am blown away by your experience, Joyce! I, like you, would not have stood for any of the changes you experienced at GA. Now I am very very sad. My love and support of QUUF is in question, & my hope is that QUUF won’t stand for this either! Please let me know!