Anthony Rapp testified in federal court about an “incredibly frightening” encounter, in which Kevin Spacey allegedly climbed on top of him when he was a teen.
Rapp, who is suing Spacey for $40 million in a civil trial over alleged sexual misconduct, described to the court on Friday (7 October) how he first became acquainted with Spacey as a teenager on the New York City theatre scene.
He testified that Spacey invited him to a party at the actor’s loft in 1986 when Rapp was 14 and the disgraced actor was 26.
Rapp, now 50, told jurors he decided to go because he was “honoured” to “join a colleague at a gathering” and was eager to show some independence from his mum.
The Star Trek: Discovery actor described feeling uncomfortable because he didn’t know the other guests, so he decided to go into a bedroom to watch TV. Rapp told jurors that Spacey later appeared in the doorway, seemingly intoxicated, and approached him.
“It felt very wrong,” Rapp said. “I didn’t want him to do it, and I had no reason that made any sense of why he would do it. I felt like a deer in headlights.”
Rapp testified that he was able to “wiggle” his way out from under Spacey and hide in a bathroom. Rapp recalled later running to the front door of the loft when Spacey stopped the teen and asked him: “Are you sure you want to leave?”
After the alleged encounter, Rapp said he contemplated how he would “recover from this incredibly upsetting and frightening experience” during his long walk home.
“I was this 14-year-old child, and I had no desire to have any kind of this experience in my life,” he said. “It was incredibly frightening and very alarming and totally antithetical to anything else that I had ever experienced.”
Anthony Rapp alleged he had an “alarming” encounter with Kevin Spacey at the older actor’s home in 1986. Spacey has denied the allegations against him. (Getty)
Kevin Spacey, now 63, has denied Rapp’s claims. His lawyer Jennifer Kelley claimed Rapp invented the incident as she said it resembled a scene in Precious Sons, a play that Rapp starred in at the time.
Kevin Spacey initially apologised on social media to Rapp for what he said “would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behaviour” but said he “honestly” didn’t “remember the encounter”. He has since denied the allegations.
Rapp is one of several individuals who have come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against Spacey in recent years.
Rapp is expected to continue his testimony and then face cross-examination from Kevin Spacey’s lawyers when the civil trial resumes on Tuesday (11 October).
The drag show at a Tennessee pride festival will go on Saturday — but not in the way organizers had planned it.
After weeks of criticism, online threats from far-right groups and a legal complaint, the Jackson Pride Committee and the city of Jackson, which sits about 70 miles northeast of Memphis in Madison County, reached a compromise with state Republican representatives and community members who had complained about the pride festival’s drag show.
The annual pride festival was supposed to be held in the city’s public Conger Park, as it was in 2019 and 2021, but now it will be held indoors at the nearby Civic Center.
The drag performance was going to be an event open to all, but at 7 p.m. on Saturday, Jackson Pride organizers will have to clear out the Civic Center and then check IDs of those who want to re-enter to ensure drag show attendees are 18 or older.
Darin Hollingsworth, a Jackson Pride Committee member, said organizers were “horribly disappointed,” because they know local LGBTQ youths would have felt supported at the drag performance.
“We’re devastated, because we know that young people in their teens who are queer or questioning or supportive would love to see this, and parents could have brought them,” Hollingsworth said. “But we will be in contempt if we even allow parents to bring in their child, so we won’t.”
Hollingsworth said the pride event had been in the works for a year, and Jackson Pride had advertised it repeatedly. The event began to face backlash after a Sept. 17 Facebook post from Republican state Rep. Chris Todd.
“I continue to hear from Madison Countians APPALLED at the possibility of a drag queen show in Conger Park,” Todd said. “I share your shock and sentiment. If Mayor Conger or City officials have approved (allowed) this event, then they are clearly ignoring the law. I intend to see that the law is upheld!”
Todd also quoted a state law that bars “adult cabarets” from being within 1,000 feet of public parks, residences or places of worship.
Jackson Mayor Scott Conger held a meeting at City Hall on Sept. 26 that included Todd, Republican state Rep. Ed Jackson, attorneys for the state, members of the Jackson Pride Committee, officials from local churches, among other interested parties.
During the meeting, Todd said he had heard from concerned community members who didn’t want to see “this trash” in the community, according to a recording of the meeting shared with NBC News by the Jackson Pride Committee.
But Darren Lykes, chair of the committee, said that he spoke with all of the drag performers and told them it would be a family-friendly event. He added that there had been drag performers in the park at the past two festivals. “Where was your outrage then?” he asked Todd.
“Well, I didn’t know about it,” Todd responded.
A member of Englewood Baptist Church also compared hosting the drag show in the park to people wearing blackface in a public place.
After the meeting, Hollingsworth said he became aware of threats in the form of online comments that mentioned both the anti-LGBTQ Westboro Baptist Church and the Proud Boys, a white nationalist group.
As a result, the Jackson Pride Committee decided to move the festival, including the drag show, into the Civic Center and to increase security measures by, among other things, having a metal detector. But changing the location didn’t satisfy Todd and some community members.
On Tuesday, state Reps. Todd and Jackson, along with 12 members of First United Methodist Church, filed a legal complaint against the city of Jackson in the Chancery Court for Madison County, claiming that holding the drag show in the Civic Center would violate state law.
“Plaintiffs who worship at First United Methodist Church will suffer imminent and irreparable injury if this injunction is not granted as an adult cabaret will be featured within 1,000 feet of their house of worship,” the complaint states. “Plaintiffs have a high probability of success on the merits, injury to the Plaintiffs will be substantial, while the injury to the Defendant is minimal as this Complaint does not seek to cancel the Jackson Pride event, but rather prevent the drag show from occurring, and the public interest will be best served by granting this injunction.”
The court scheduled a hearing on the complaint for Friday morning, but the Jackson Pride Committee decided to pursue a compromise under the legal counsel of the ACLU of Tennessee and city attorney Lewis Cobb. Under the agreement, Jackson Pride will have attendees exit the Civic Center at 7 p.m. and will check the IDs of everyone who goes back in for the drag show to ensure they are at least 18. Todd and the other complainants will also drop their lawsuit.
Some members of First United Methodist Church disagreed with the legal complaint. Adam Pulliam, a member of the church who didn’t join the complaint, said most members weren’t even made aware of it until it was filed and made public.
“I have been part of online discussion for four days with members, and there is general outrage,” he said in an email to NBC News. “This act is not a good representation of the feelings of many members of the church.”
Stella Yarbrough, the legal director for the ACLU of Tennessee, said the agreement will still allow Jackson Pride “to create a welcoming event that celebrates the diversity and expression of all community members.”
Cobb said that Jackson Pride would likely have won its case to hold the drag show outdoors without the age restriction had it decided to pursue litigation on First Amendment grounds, but it may have forced it to cancel or delay the event. He said he and Conger “were sort of caught between two competing interests and tried to see if we couldn’t get a resolution without having to have litigation.”
But while the ACLU of Tennessee framed the outcome as a compromise, Todd, in a statement posted to Facebook on Friday, claimed victory, saying the event is now being “properly restricted.”
“By taking the issue to court, we have succeeded in having the city and the group agree to several restrictions after challenging city leaders to answer questions about why they would allow our children to be exposed to this kind of outrageous adult performance,” he said. “By agreeing to the restrictions, they have effectively acknowledged that what they were promoting was way out of line.”
CORRECTION (Oct. 8, 2022, 3:44 p.m.): A previous version of this article misstated the name of the church whose member compared hosting the drag festival in the park to wearing blackface in public. It was a member of Englewood Baptist Church, not First United Methodist Church.
Once shunned as a political pariah for her extremist rhetoric, the Georgia congresswoman who spent her first term in the House stripped of institutional power by Democrats is being celebrated by Republicans and welcomed into the GOP fold. If Republicans win the House majority in the November election, Greene is poised to become an influential player shaping the GOP agenda, an agitator with clout.
This is the outlook for the Republican Party in the Trump era, the normalizing of once fringe figures into the highest ranks of political power. It’s a sign of the GOP’s rightward drift that Greene’s association with extremists and nationalists, violent rhetoric and remarks about Jewish people have found a home in elected office. Her proximity to Trump makes her a force that cannot be ignored by what’s left of her mainstream GOP colleagues.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a case that could determine the future of LGBTQ rights nationwide.
The case involves Lorie Smith, a Christian woman in Colorado who makes wedding announcement websites. Smith wanted to post a message on her professional website stating that she wouldn’t make websites for same-sex marriages because it would be against her faith.
ADVERTISING
When she found out that such a notice would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws, she preemptively sued her state’s government, saying that the laws violated her First Amendment right to free speech. Her lawsuit sought to block enforcement of the law.
A district court ruled against Smith in 2019 saying that she lacked legal standing to oppose the law because the state hadn’t actually investigated her, and so she hadn’t been harmed by it – factors usually required in order for a person to claim legal standing to oppose a law.
She appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it also ruled against her in a 2-1 ruling, stating that such laws are “essential” to maintaining “democratic ideals.”
Smith’s case sounds very similar to the 2018 Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which involved a cake shop owner who refused to make a cake for a same-sex marriage because it violated his rights to free speech and religious freedom. Both Smith and the cake shop owner sued over the same law and both are legally represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian and anti-LGBTQ legal group. But Smith’s case differs in two key ways.
First, no same-sex couples actually asked Smith to design their website. So, the Supreme Court could agree with the district court’s decision that she lacks legal standing to challenge the law.
Second, the Supreme Court only agreed to hear Smith’s free speech argument. That means the court’s final ruling won’t necessarily decide whether it’s legal for people to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds.
Rather, the central question in Smith’s case — according to her supporters — is whether states can use public accommodation and non-discrimination laws to compel business owners to create speech that they personally disagree with, such as a website that promotes a same-sex marriage when its creator would never promote such an event otherwise.
However, LGBTQ advocates say that the effects of this case will go far beyond free-speech, and could hollow out LGBTQ protections by essentially allowing any employee to deny service to LGBTQ people or those whose identities they disagree with.
Some amicus briefs filed to the court said that its nine justices should decide whether the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive forms of speech, like creative works.
However, it might be difficult for the court to decide which works are “uniquely expressive” arts. After all, some might argue that medicine, teaching, or serving are all “arts,” potentially leaving the door open for medical providers, educators, and customer service workers to all discriminate against LGBTQ people.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, told The Los Angeles Blade, “This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law.”
“And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you,” she added.
“It’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake,” Pizer said.
In its Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, the court ruled narrowly in favor of the cakeshop, saying that it hadn’t gotten a fair and impartial hearing in lower decisions and dodging the larger question about whether it should be legal to discriminate based on speech or religious grounds.
Considering the Supreme Court’s current 6-to-3 conservative majority, and its willingness last year to overturn the 40-year old right to an abortion, the court could declare a right to discriminate, effectively setting the fight for LGBTQ rights back several decades and ushering in a new generation of people willing to deny services to anyone they find morally objectionable.
Almost a decade after a Black gay man was beaten so severely that he lost sight in one eye, a judge has awarded him $4.5 million for the pain and suffering caused.
“It’s been nine years,” the victim, Taj Patterson, told The New York Daily News. “A lot of back and forth. A lot of legal scenarios I didn’t understand. It was a long process.”
ADVERTISING
In 2013, Patterson was walking in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, when he was attacked by a dozen men who were part of an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood watch group.
The men accused Patterson of vandalizing cars, even though they had not filed a police report and police found the claim of vandalism to be unfounded.
The men beat Patterson while saying, “Stay down, fa***t, stay the fuck down.” He was left blind in one eye.
As Patterson told it to McClatchy News, the neighborhood watch group had received reports that a Black person had been vandalizing cars, and “I guess they took it upon themselves to apprehend the first Black person they saw.”
“I was a 22-year-old kid going out for a friend’s birthday,” Patterson said. “I didn’t think my life would change so drastically so quickly.”
Several months later, five men were indicted. Charges were dismissed against two of them, and two of them pleaded guilty and got community service. One of their cases, that of Mayer Herskovic, went to trial in 2017, but the case fell apart when several eyewitnesses recanted their testimony.
The judge did end up convicting Herskovic, but the appeals court ultimately threw it out.
Patterson then filed a lawsuit against the NYPD and the city of New York for allegedly giving his attackers preferential treatment.
And now, he is finally receiving some justice. Judge Miriam Sunshine awarded Patterson $3 million for past pain and suffering and $1.5 million for future pain and suffering.
“There is no numerical value you can place on someone’s eyesight or their limbs or their body in general,” Patterson said, adding that he “was violated in a very major way.”
“With that said, I’m glad that it’s all over after almost a decade.”
In 1970, Sandy Schuster, mother of four, and Madeline Isaacson, mother of two, met at a Pentecostal church in Seattle. They fell in love and subsequently left their husbands to live together with their kids. The church forced them out, and in 1972, their husbands sued for full custody of the children.
They nearly won.
Determined to support Schuster and Isaacson, Seattle activists founded the Lesbian Mothers’ National Defense Fund (LMNDF). It became one of the first U.S. organizations to offer support and legal advice to lesbians grappling with child custody issues. Thanks to LMNDF’s work, Schuster and Isaacson retained custody of their kids.
My own mother wasn’t so lucky.
She came out in 1979 and fled our abusive father’s posh suburban house with my younger siblings and me. We moved into her new girlfriend’s duplex in a scrappy Southern California beach town. Mom had no job, no checking account, and no clue that she might lose custody of her kids. She knew nothing of LMNDF, so when my outraged father sued for full child custody, he won.
We grew up plagued by depression, baffled over why we couldn’t live with our beloved mother—former leader of my sister’s and my Brownie troop and hostess of the best kids’ birthday parties in town. I knew no other adolescents with lesbian mothers. I thought my siblings and I were the only ones until I discovered Abigail Garner’s 2004 book Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell it Like It Is.
Only then did I begin to realize just how many lesbian mothers and their children had been forcibly separated in the Dark Ages of the 1970s and early 1980s. When documentarians Jody Laine, Shan Ottey, and Shad Reinstein found an essay I’d written for The Advocateabout my mother’s experience and contacted me to appear in their film Mom’s Apple Pie: The Heart of the Lesbian Mothers’ Custody Movement, I jumped at the chance.
Melissa Hart (right) and her siblings in a photo taken by their mother
At last, here were the stories that had eluded me as a teen and young adult—stories similar to my mother’s and mine. It’s impossible to estimate just how many mothers came out and lost custody of their children during this era; stigma and shame kept parents and kids from telling the truth about how legal systems had ripped their families apart. But happily, some of these families remained together.
According to statistics cited in Mom’s Apple Pie, the Seattle-based Lesbian Mothers’ National Defense Fund provided assistance to over 400 lesbian mothers between 1974 and 1980. Other organizations followed suit—two San Francisco lawyers founded The Lesbian Rights Project in 1977, and two years later, urban gay dads who had been previously married to women launched the Gay Fathers Coalition. The former project became today’s National Center for Lesbian Rights, while the latter became the Family Equality Council—both of which serve queer parents across the country.
Most helpful to me was COLAGE, formerly known as Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, affiliated with the Family Equality Council. Here, I found peers who spoke to our shared experiences of growing up with queer parents. Some, like me, remained in the closet about our moms and dads throughout middle and high school because of the repercussions of fraught custody battles. Others, enviable for their confidence and savvy, grew up out and proud, marching in parades alongside their parents.
Thanks to the efforts of these organizations and others, newly-out parents in 2022 seldom lose full custody of their kids, and many children grow up with a strong sense of in-person and online community among others with queer parents. My own daughter came out last year—a revelation worthy of celebrating both for her own powerful sense of self and for the vast network of support systems around her.
I remember Sandy Schuster and Madeline Isaacson and the queer parent activists of the 1970s with reverence. And I remember my own mother, gone since 2019, with admiration. She honored her identity and fought my father and a homophobic legal system alone, determined to be a kind and compassionate guiding force for my siblings and me her whole life.
She succeeded.
Melissa Hart is the author, most recently, of Daisy Woodworm Changes the World and Better with Books: 500 Diverse Books to Ignite Empathy and Encourage Self-Acceptance in Tweens and Teens. Learn more at www.melissahart.com.
The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term Monday, which is shaping to be historical.
Notably, associate justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will have heard her first arguments as the court’s first Black woman. But this term comes as the court has its lowest approval rating ever, with Gallup reporting a historically low approval rate of 40 percent in the wake of last term’s Dobbs decision which overturnedRoe vs. Wade and took with it decades of precedent with the stripping of reproductive rights from Americans.
This term will bring major controversies over affirmative action, voting, religion, free speech, and gay rights. The court will decide whether LGBTQ+ people are protected from discrimination in business or whether a business owner can refuse to serve a group of people based on religious beliefs. If this sounds familiar, it is.
And the court’s conservative supermajority of six judges is positioned to tower over the court.
In 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, a battleground of the culture wars returns: Do businesses have the right to refuse customer services based on their religious beliefs?
As the justices consider the line between someone’s religious beliefs and state laws protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination, they will examine whether a Colorado designer can refuse to design a website for same-sex couples’ weddings.
The Colorado anti-discrimination law at issue, in this case, is the same one that was brought Masterpiece Cakeshop before the court in 2018 when the justices ruled in favor of baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake the wedding cake of a gay couple. However, they did not resolve the larger question of when businesses may use religious objections to refuse service. Instead, the justices only decided that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed bias against his religious views in ruling against Phillips.
The new case is that of Lorie Smith, who owns a website design firm that claims to serve queer customers but intends to limit its wedding-related services to celebrations of straight couples’ unions. According to her, providing those services to LGBTQ+ couples violates her right to free speech.
A disagreement arose among the justices in the majority over whether the logic of Dobbs should lead to reconsideration of other landmark decisions, including the one establishing a constitutional right to marriage equality. As a reliably anti-LGBTQ+ justice on the high court, Clarence Thomas stood out by pursuing, among other things, marriage equality in his concurring opinion in Dobbs.
The new case does not directly address that question, but it might provide hints about the court’s commitment to LGBTQ+ rights and how quickly it aims to move to the hard right with rulings potentially meant to strip Americans of further rights.
New York City’s eviction court – the venue of a landmark same-sex relationship decision long before Obergefell v Hodges – is now the source of a legal opinion that comes down clearly on the side of polyamorous unions.
The decision came in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, decided by New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan, concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.
The case revolves around three individuals. Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill lived together in a New York City apartment. Anderson held the lease, but was married to another man, Robert Romano, who lived at another address. After Anderson died, the building’s owner contended O’Neill had no right to renew the lease since he was just a “roommate” of Anderson’s and not “a non-traditional family member.”
The court concluded that there needed to be a hearing about whether Anderson, Romano and O’Neill were in a polyamorous relationship.
Before gay marriage was legalized in any state, Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co. was decided in 1989 and made the New York State Court of Appeals the first American appellate court to recognize that a two-person, same-sex relationship is entitled to legal recognition.
“Braschi is widely regarded as a catalyst for the legal challenges and changes that ensued,” Bacdayan wrote in her opinion. “By the end of 2014, gay marriage was legal in 35 states through either legislation or state court action. Obergefell v Hodges (2015), the seminal Supreme Court decision that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right was also heralded as groundbreaking.”
“However,” wrote Bacdayan, “Braschi and its progeny and Obergefell limit their holdings to two-person relationships.” This case, Bacdayan wrote, “presents the distinct and complex issue of significant multi-person relationships.”
The judge cited legislation enacted since the advent of federally recognized same sex unions. “In February 2020, the Utah legislature passed a so-called Bigamy Bill, decriminalizing the offense by downgrading it from a felony to a misdemeanor. In June [2020], Somerville, Massachusetts, passed an ordinance allowing groups of three or more people who ‘consider themselves to be a family’ to be recognized as domestic partners. The neighboring town of Cambridge followed suit, passing a broader ordinance recognizing multi-partner relationships. The law has proceeded even more rapidly in recognizing that it is possible for a child to have more than two legal parents.”
“Why then,” posited the judge, “except for the very real possibility of implicit majoritarian animus, is the limitation of two persons inserted into the definition of a family-like relationship for the purposes of receiving the same protections from eviction accorded to legally formalized or blood relationships? Is ‘two’ a ‘code word’ for monogamy? Why does a person have to be committed to one other person in only certain prescribed ways in order to enjoy stability in housing after the departure of a loved one?”
The attorney for the property owner characterized defendant O’Neill’s affidavit, claiming himself as a non-traditional family member, as a “fairytale.”
The case returns to court after further investigation of the three individuals’ relationship.
Last Thursday activists, residents and students protested Columbia University’s aggressive expansion into Harlem in Manhattan, New York outside the university steps. The neighborhood is integral to the Black, Latinx, and LGBTQ culture we honor today. The protest, organized by The United Front Against Displacement (UFAD), a tenant organization fighting gentrification throughout US cities, criticized the university’s partnership with the city to continue the privatization of the New York Housing Authority (NYCHA) and the national war on housing in general.
NYC’s reality is common among the country’s 50 largest cities, which the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development’s latest Annual Homeless Assessment Report states, make up more than half of all people experiencing sheltered homelessness in 2021.
Housing prices and rent increases disproportionately affect BIPOC and LGBTQ people as they’re four times more likely to be in public housing. Housing access is related to deliberate policy choices and underfunding that’s persisted for decades, but has worsened since the Great Recession.
The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you.
UFAD protesters didn’t deliberately go into who is affected by homelessness, but they did set a list of demands for those partially responsible. Compliance with these demands, in particular inflation-matched pay for university employees, is a small step toward restoring these “gross injustices”, said the UFAD in an Instagram post.
Ryan Costello, UFAD organizer Lana Leonard
Ryan Costello, an organizer for UFAD, says that Harlem apartments are filled with asbestos, human feces, and broken elevators. Columbia University brags about how much money they’ve made, while they, along with NYCHA, neglect public housing, says Costello. The university raked in nearly $25 billion in net assets in 2021, exceding 2020’s profits by about 15%, despite a global pandemic and rising poverty rates.
“In the long term, my hope really is that we can do something collectively to amend this whole system of injustice. We have a whole series of injustice all together because the elite who are running this country—whether it be Republican or Democrat—have an agenda that is pretty similar in the sense of enriching the few at the expense of the many perpetuating various systems of oppression,” Costello said to LGBTQ Nation.
Nevertheless, Harlem reminds America of what resilience against adversity, homelessness, and injustice looks like. The 70s and 80s gave rise to the Ballroom scene as a new world for homeless trans and queer children to thrive in. The shared homes of royal house mothers and fathers informed culture, joy, and quality of life for all people despite the illegality of balls, drag, and living openly as an LGBTQ person in general.
Today, LGBTQ youth is estimated to be 40% of NYC’s homeless youth. For West Harlem City Councilwoman Kristin Richardson Jordan, an out lesbian, the housing crisis in Harlem threatens the safety of LGBTQ youth seeking homeless shelters as well as hundreds of multi-generational Black and Brown families that have lived in Harlem for decades.
“Developers are entering our community with no accountability for the existing surrounding areas or their socioeconomic impact,” the socialist democrat told LGBTQ Nation.
She adds that developers are doing the bare minimum of affordable units based on Area Median Income (AMI). AMI affects communities throughout the country by skewing the reality of income for most families once high incomes are integrated into the median income adjustment.
For example, when assessed, Harlem’s AMI is $93,400 per year. However, a majority of Harlem families actually make about $37,000 to $57,000, says Jordan. New Jersey uses a similar system. Yet, the state is one of the most expensive states to rent in.
Regardless, those that have maintained their homes in Harlem plan to keep them.
Activists protest outside Columbia University over the school’s planned expansion into Harlem Lana Leonard
Veronica Hickman, a multi-generational West Harlem resident and UFAD organizer, sat on the university steps looking out onto the protest. She said she needed to rest after singing “We Shall Overcome” to protesters. She comes when she can because Costello comes out for Harlem.
“I feel like he’s supporting us, and you know what, if the money isn’t supporting you, you need to do your part. Even if it’s just showing up and doing a song or something, you know, that’s what I need to do,” she said.
The Harlem gentrification project is almost 20 years old. Renzo Piano, a famous Italian architect, announced his plans to former Columbia University President Lee Bollinger in 2003 to “revitalize” West Harlem with what is called The Manhattanville Project: a 17-acre expansion of the university’s business school overlooking the Hudson River. The ivy-league school owned 65% of the neighborhood at this time.
But Columbia University is one of many corporations buying American neighborhoods today. Thirty-three percent of all homes in America were purchased by investors by 2022, according to John Burns Real Estate Consulting. This leaves BIPOC and LGBTQ communities to compete against investors with a wage gap ranging 10-70% lower than the average non-LGBTQ worker, reported the Human Rights Campaign earlier this year.
Moving forward, Councilwoman Jordan has hope for Harlem and the wider world.
“I want to see the upcoming generation that has been raised here, like myself, given fair opportunities to obtain property and invest in the community they have grown up in,” said Jordan. “I aim to use my time in office to advocate for our neighbors; standing up for all the constituents in my district who have consistently been left behind by people who only seek to fill their pockets.”
A group of Proud Boys, fascists, and anti-LGBTQ+ protestors attempted to disrupt a Drag bingo fundraiser in a tense altercation.
A group of people reportedly affiliated with various far-right groups, including the Proud Boys, protested at the First Christian Church in Katy, Texas on Saturday (24 September), as a sponsored family drag bingo charity event was taking place.
The sold-out show aimed to raise money for LGBTQ+ nonprofit Transparent Closet, which aims to provide clothing for “trans and exploring teens, youth, and young adults” but was quickly overwhelmed by anti-LGBTQ+ protestors.
The protests were reportedly planned by self-described “Christian fascist”Kelly Neidert, who was working with a group dubbed “Protect Texas Kids” according to Axios on Friday (23 September).
It further reported that anti-fascist counter-protestors had planned to blockade the neo-Nazi disruptors, who were reportedly wearing Nazi regalia and far-right paraphernalia.
Anti-fascists blared music from the trailer of the upcoming Little Mermaid film, which has been attacked by racists and far-right pundits for casting Black actor Halle Bailey as Ariel.
Authorities from the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Harris County Sheriff’s Department responded to the rising tensions by attempting to separate the two groups.
A video from journalist Jay R. Jordan shows a brief altercation in which the two groups spray what appears to be pepper spray at each other while armed police attempt to keep them separated on either side of the road where the church is located.
Further pictures revealed the disgusting signs brought by the Proud Boys, with one claiming that “LGBT is Talmud Jew s**t” while another reads “homosexuality is an abomination to mankind.”
This isn’t the first time that the First Christian Church has experienced homophobic harassment. As an LGBTQ-inclusive space, the organisation has seen three separate incidents of theft and vandalism charges in 2022 alone.
Its Facebook page is filled with cruel and homophobic messages insulting its members, with one saying it is “another false church leading people to hell instead of heaven.”
“This congregation has always been a place where what they value most about the teachings of Christianity is an openness and willingness for all people and the idea that Jesus came to love all,” reverend Heather Tolleson said to the Houston Chronicle. “We’re a representation of that love.”
When asked about the threat of anti-LGBTQ+ protestors prior to the event’s proceedings, she said: “Our first and foremost line of concern is everyone’s safety. All we want is for a safe and peaceful night to happen.
“We value diversity, and we know not everyone agrees with us,” Tolleson continued. “With that at heart, we have done what we needed to do to take care of and provide a safe environment.”
Harris County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Thomas Gilliland said that “it really is sad to see this kind of thing happening in Katy.
“Katy is such a diverse and welcoming community, and there are a lot of churches here. To know that this is happening to one of them is upsetting.”
