Still Pale and Male

Notice anything missing from this picture?

This is the ad for the event that took place this week at the Newseum. It was a gathering of all the openly gay U.S. Ambassadors.

The ad says openly LGBT U.S. Ambassadors, but you might have noticed that is not what is pictured there.

Participating in the panel discussion, which was hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the Harvey Milk Foundation and GLIFAA (formerly Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies and now LGBT+ in Foreign Affairs) were Ambassador to Australia John Berry, Ambassador to the Dominican Republic James Brewster, Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford, Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Daniel Baer, Ambassador to Spain James Costos and Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius (the only career ambassador). They are gay men and they are all white. Not even one of the moderators was a lesbian or person of color, to say nothing of transgender. LBT was not present in that picture or on that stage.

None of the stories I have seen on the event (such as this one in the Washington Post and this one in the Washington Blade), which I am the first to admit is a wonderful thing and evidence of how far we have come, mentioned this absence. Which I take as evidence of how far we have to go.

Of course, it was definitely noticed in social media, where I was not the only one to notice that these representatives of the State Department are very pale and male.

And it isn't just the Ambassadors. When the Department recently appointed an LGBT envoy, which to its credit is a career FSO (as is only one of the out gay Ambassadors), it appointed another white man. I was told at the time that there just aren't any lesbians or people of color who rank highly enough to be considered. And that seems to be true. I can find no lesbian or out person of color who has made it to the ranks of Senior Foreign Service.

Of course, rank didn't stop the Department during Secretary Rice's tenure from appointing several men to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) who were only FS 02s in rank (for reference, FS 02 is the Foreign Service equivalent of a Lt. Colonel. Senior Foreign Service is the equivalent of a general. The highest ranking out lesbians that I know of in the Department are FS 01s, or Colonels, higher ranking than those men who were made DASes). And those men did not return to their mid-level positions afterward. In fact, two became Ambassadors, another an Assistant Secretary.

So really, the Department could appoint a career lesbian or out person of color if it really wanted to.

But we don't even need to go there. Because it could be argued, quite rightly, that an officer should have more experience before being named to such high positions.

But what about the political appointees? Five white men. Are you really telling me the Department could not find a single out lesbian or person of color for one of these positions? Anywhere? It stretches the bounds of credibility.

I hope that someone in the Department will take notice the optics of how jarringly white that picture is, and how inappropriate it is given we strive for diversity and for a State Department that looks like America. As one person on Facebook said, this looks like the Supreme Court of the 1960s.

I hope that the Secretary really meant when he said last year during his Pride remarks that " I’m working hard to ensure that by the end of my tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors in our ranks as well."

Because you might have noticed the next Presidential race has already started, 

So we don't have much time left.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

From left; U.S. Ambassador to Australia John Berry, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Daniel Baer, U.S. Ambassador to Spain James Costos, U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford and U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic James “Wally” Brewster. (Photo by Blake Bergen, courtesy of GLIFAA)

GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) recently met with the five current Ambassadors who are openly gay. The meeting was covered by the Washington Blade, so you can read about it here.

A friend forwarded me the piece and asked, "See anything wrong with this picture?"

I did immediately. Do you?

I'll give you a hint: I have complained about it before.

I am glad there are openly gay ambassadors. Truly I am.

But where is the diversity here?

Why is there not a single lesbian in the group? A single person of color? Hell, even a single career person (though I hear rumors that at least that couple change soon, though we will still not have a lesbian or person of color in the bunch)?

It is time.

Past time, really.

Where are the Lesbian Ambassadors?

Before today, there had only been three openly gay male Ambassadors, two of whom were political appointees.

Photo courtesy of Owen Hughes

The first, James Hormel, was appointed by President Clinton as Ambassador to Luxembourg just 16 years ago. He was followed by Michael Guest, a career officer appointed by President George W. Bush as Ambassador to Romania, and then David Huebner, appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to New Zealand.

Ambassador Huebner was the first to receive little opposition. The battle to confirm Ambassador Guest included Senate questions about whether the U.S. Government was paying to transport his partner's underwear. Ambassador Hormel was never able to be confirmed, and had to be appointed while the Senate was in recess.

As of yesterday, the number of openly gay ambassadors had more have more than doubled. The Senate confirmed former head of the Office of Personnel and management John Berry to serve as ambassador to Australia (the first out gay ambassador to a G-20 country), Rufus Gifford as ambassador to Denmark, James Costos as ambassador to Spain and Daniel Baer as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). A fifth, James “Wally” Brewster, has been nominated as ambassador the the Dominican Republic, but that nomination was not acted on last night. All five are political appointees.

This is all really good news.

But.

That is still just one openly gay career diplomat to seven political appointees.

There is an interesting article earlier this week in the Washington Post on why there have been so few openly gay ambassadors.

The article makes some really good points. Like that career officers tend to be appointed to ambassadorships in countries where they have a lot of regional experience. And if gay officers have served most of their time in Western Europe because that area has historically been more friendly to gays, they are likely out of luck. Because while 70% of ambassadorships go to career diplomats, nearly 100% of them in Western Europe go to political appointees.

Other issues the article addresses are the ease with which the Senate can put an appointee on hold and the reluctance on the part of Presidents to expend political capital to get someone through who is not a political ally. And then there is the issue of most ambassadors being expected to have a spouse to assist with representational events. Single, or at least apparently single, men make less attractive candidates.

Did you notice I said men?

The thing this article doesn't address, that no article I have seen addresses, and that these appointments don't address, is why has there never been an out lesbian ambassador? Career or political. There has never been a lesbian even nominated to be ambassador.

Why?

Clearly we are willing to address racism. We have had ambassadors of all races and colors. And one of the things I am really proud of this country for is sending a black ambassador to South Africa during apartheid. Because when we are at our best, we stand for equality. Our ambassadors represent our country and our values, not those of the country where they serve.

Likewise, we have taken on sexism. We have sent women ambassadors around the world, including to countries that actively repress half of their population.

And we have addressed homophobia. With this batch, we will even be sending a gay ambassador to a country where religious leaders have protested his appointment.

But addressing sexism and homophobia together, even without addressing racism?

That is apparently the bridge too far.