An acquaintance of mine recently introduced me to the concept of the “Non-Profit Industrial Complex.” There is a book of essays on the subject from Incite! The Women Of Color Against Violence entitled it The Revolution Will Not Be Funded – the book came after the Incite!-organized conference of the same name.
They describe the book and the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIS) in this way: “In this landmark collection, over 25 activists and scholars describe and discuss the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC) – a system of relationships between the state, the owning classes, foundations and social service and social justice organizations that results in the surveillance, control, derailment and everyday management of political movements.”
In a nutshell, the concept of the NPIC is this: in an attempt to have a greater impact on society, many movements form into non-profits. With reference to the Internal Revenue Service, this allows these non-profits to function as tax-free organizations. Section 501(c) of the U.S. IRS code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)) provides the types of nonprofit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes. Many service-related organizations are formed as 501(c)3 organizations; many political organizations are formed as 502(c)4’s. There are actually 28 different models (or types) of non-profits allowed for in the 501(c) section of the code.
There is competition among non-profits for the limited pool of resources from a limited pool of donors and volunteers. Suzanne Pharr, author, founder of the Women’s Project in Arkansas in 1981, co-founder of Southerners on New Ground in 1984 and a former director of the Highlander Center 1999-2004, stated this about non-profits (from Incite’s The Non-Profit & The Autonomous Grassroots):
“I’ve seen the loss of political force and movement building,” says Pharr, reflecting on the over-saturation of non-profit models within today’s New Left struggles. The most troubling aspect of these losses, she says, is that they were not so much based on sharp differences on key political issues, but rather “the dreadful competition among organizations for little pots of money.”
Eric Tang, an assistant professor and associate director of the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for American Studies wrote this in his opening paragraph to that same article:
“Once upon a time, being labeled an affiliate of the state was a nasty indictment in radical movements. Today some of the movement’s best and brightest openly and proudly claim membership in organizations whose link to the state – either through direct public funding or mere tax-reporting – are unambiguous and well-documented. I am speaking of the impressive number of radical-minded grassroots groups that, while continuing to sincerely abide by the ethos of ‘our movement,’ have assumed the form of a Non-Profit (NP) entity.”
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community has its own LGBT Non-Profit Industrial Complex.
In the LGBT struggles for freedom, equality and justice, what LGBT NP’s have arguably done well is educate and lobby large employers and legislators on LGBT issues. Business employers have changed policies in response to education and lobbying. In some states, such as California, education and lobbying by the LGBT NPIC have resulted in changes to civil rights laws.
But we often see failure when the LGBT NPIC is used alone to create legislative change. Federal legislation, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) didn’t happen when only the LGBT NPIC education and lobbying models were used alone.
In the last legislative cycle, DADT was repealed after rabble rousing from GetEQUAL. Three trips to the White House Fence by as many as 13 activists at a time put pressure on Congress and the White House to actually accomplish the repeal of the law. Without the LGBT NPICs education and lobbying efforts, repeal of DADT wouldn’t have occurred; without the rabble rousing of GetEQUAL, the repeal of DADT wouldn’t have occurred. The LGBT community needed both to see progress towards ordinary equality.
If we in the LGBT community are looking for the LGBT non-profits alone to do all the work for us toward our civil rights, if we look toward checkbook activism alone to result in ordinary equality for us all, then we will be in a constant state of disappointment. If we depend on rabble-rousing alone to obtain ordinary equality for us all, then again we will be in a constant state of disappointment.
Rabble-rousers aren’t usually loved. They’re often referred to as self-aggrandizing and impediments toward obtaining civil rights. I would suggest that we in the LGBT community don’t begrudge our rabble-rousers. Even the United States itself wouldn’t exist without rabble-rousers.
