TV & Radio
同性愛者向け広告やめます フォード、保守派不買圧力に屈す？ (産経 2005/12/08)
Ford to pull ads from publications that cater to gays
Automaker says it didn't cave in to conservative group
BY MICHAEL ELLIS and KORTNEY STRINGER
Detroit FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITERS
December 6, 2005
Ford Motor Co. said Monday that its Jaguar and Land Rover brands will stop advertising in magazines that cater to gay and lesbian people, but the automaker denied that it struck a secret deal with a conservative Christian group to pull its ads to avert a boycott.
Ford's denial came only hours after 17 gay and lesbian groups said they expect to meet with Ford this week to discuss a rumored confidential agreement between Ford and the 2-million-member American Family Association to halt advertising.
Ford said it has held discussions with the AFA, but the automaker's move to stop advertising the Jaguar and Land Rover brands in the publications was a business decision and unrelated to a threatened boycott. The Ford, Mercury and Lincoln brands don't advertise in gay and lesbian publications and don't plan to do so, said a Ford spokesman.
In June, Tupelo, Miss.-based AFA delayed until Dec. 1 a planned boycott of Ford products in order to give auto dealers time to persuade Ford to change the way it advertises and funds gay- and lesbian-related events.
"There's no confidential agreement with us and AFA," Ford spokesman Mike Moran said. "We haven't stopped advertising across the board, but we're trying to look at it from a business perspective."
A Ford memo sent to a Ford workers group called Gay Lesbian Or Bisexual Employees (GLOBE) said that Volvo has decided to advertise directly to the homosexual community, but other brands have decided against that avenue.
"We reserve the right to advertise our brands and products wherever we think it makes business sense," the memo said. "This is something we spoke very candidly about with the AFA."
Moran said Jaguar and Land Rover plan to streamline their advertising next year. "They have found the business conditions to be rather difficult and they are feeling pressure on their marketing budgets for 2006," he said.
The AFA called off the planned boycott last week when the 6-month moratorium expired. By early June, more than 110,000 people had signed a pledge not to buy Ford vehicles.
"They've heard our concerns. They have responded, we think in a very positive way," AFA Founder and Chairman Donald E. Wildmon said on the group's Web site. "Obviously there are some small matters of difference, as people will always have, but generally speaking we are pleased with the results."
The AFA's criticism of Ford went far beyond advertising. The group had accused Ford of "extensive promotion of homosexuality" on a Web site, www.BoycottFord.com, which has now been taken down.
Wildmon said that Ford "leads the way" in redefining family to include homosexual marriage, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups, sponsoring gay pride parades, and forcing managers to attend diversity training to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.
Earlier this year, Ford, General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG pledged $250,000 each to a new gay community center in Ferndale. Ford also donated up to $1,000 per vehicle to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation for each Jaguar or Land Rover bought by a member of the group. All three Detroit automakers recognize same-sex partners in benefits packages to employees.Moran said he was not aware of any changes in Ford's donations to gay groups.
Spencer Moore, spokesman for PlanetOut Inc., a San Francisco entertainment company that operates Web sites and publishes some of the nation's biggest magazines for the gay, lesbian and transgendered community, which operates Web sites such as Gay.com and the Advocate and Out magazines, said as of Monday afternoon Ford hadn't pulled its ads. Land Rover and Jaguar buy about 36 pages each year in the Advocate and Out magazines, Moore said.
Gay, lesbian and transgender organizations from across the country had a conference call Monday afternoon to come up with a plan to formally request more information from the Dearborn-based automaker, said Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation."We're hoping that Ford is not abandoning its principles in this matter ... and caving into the AFA," said Montgomery, whose group supports civil rights and antiviolence efforts. "They have great policies in place. They treat their gay and lesbian employees very well."
AFA couldn't be reached for comment Monday evening.
Jeff Stoltman, a Wayne State University marketing professor, said the move by Ford could backfire.
"They'd be well advised to create the impression this decision to shift advertising dollars is not linked," with the AFA.
Otherwise, Stoltman said, "If they were trying to avoid a boycott, they raise a strong possibility of a boycott from another direction."
Contact MICHAEL ELLIS at 313-222-8784 or email@example.com.
Ford Pulls Some Ads From Gay Press
Move Follows Boycott By a Religious Group
By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page D01
Ford Motor Co. said it will stop running ads for its Jaguar and Land Rover brands in the gay press, helping to avoid a confrontation with conservative Christians but setting up a fight with gays and lesbians.
The American Family Association, a conservative religious group, launched a boycott of Ford this year for extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples and giving "thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda," the group said in written statement. The group criticized Ford for supporting gay commitment ceremonies and gay pride parades.
Ford spokesman Mike Moran said the move to stop advertising Jaguars and Land Rovers in gay publications such as the Advocate was based on a decision to streamline marketing budgets. Moran would not say what other magazine categories might be affected, citing competitive reasons.
Volvo, another Ford-owned luxury brand, will continue to advertise in gay publications. Ford has not advertised its U.S. brands, which include Ford, Mercury and Lincoln, in gay publications and does not plan to start, Moran said. "We've made it clear that decisions on where Ford brands advertise are made for business reasons, not as a social statement one way or the other," he said.
Ford has focused on niche markets at various times -- for example, trying to reach black families though marketing at churches and by supporting gospel music.
Gay groups denounced Ford's decision as a capitulation to the religious right. "It looks pretty clear that they have bowed to the American Family Association's demands," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.
Ford is the latest company to be ensnared in the culture wars over homosexuality, religion and American culture. Microsoft Corp. became a target of religious groups this year for its support of a Washington state bill to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians. The company withdrew its support for the bill, saying it was not caving to pressure but wanted to avoid taking a stand on a politically sensitive issue. After protest by employees, Microsoft reinstated its support for the anti-discrimination bill.
Ford became a target of the American Family Association in May. The association was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of a United Methodist church in Mississippi at the time. It claims to be one of the largest pro-family organizations in the country with nearly 3 million supporters. The association owns 200 radio stations under the American Family Radio name, according to its Web site. In the past, the group has targeted Walt Disney Co. for extending benefits to gay couples and criticized the Fox television series "Boston Public" for sexually oriented story lines.
The prospect of a boycott from the American Family Association, which gathered 110,000 signatures on an anti-Ford petition, worried some Ford dealers in the South, such as Jerry Reynolds of Texas. Reynolds said he started getting calls from customers and realized that a boycott would hurt business, so he faxed a letter to the association. "I said I am a dealer and I am the one who is going to get the brunt of the boycott," he said.
Reynolds and five other dealers met with Wildmon during the minister's subsequent visit to Dallas. In the meeting, he said, Wildmon agreed to give the dealers time to work things out with Ford officials. Subsequently, Ford executives held discussions with the association, including a meeting last month at the AFA's headquarters in Tupelo, Miss. After the meeting, the association agreed to call off the Ford boycott, saying in a written statement that its concerns were being addressed by the company.
Neither Reynolds nor Ford executives would specify what was discussed. Representatives from the American Family Association also declined to comment.
Reynolds said no deal was made on advertising. "There was no agreement struck -- period," he said. The AFA, he said, seemed to appreciate the fact that the dealers and Ford would simply sit down and talk. "Everybody wants there to be something. But there wasn't. We just talked."
Ford's success in heading off a confrontation with the AFA appears to have pushed the company into a new fight. Solmonese, of the Human Rights Campaign, said he spoke yesterday with a top Ford executive in Washington but was not satisfied with the company's explanation.
"Ford Motor Co. has a big public relations mess on its hands that it needs to clean up in short order," Solmonese said. He said his group is galvanizing its 600,000 members to protest Ford's advertising decision with letters and e-mails.
"Ford has been a friend to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender consumers and employees in the past," the group said in an e-mailed "Action Alert." "E-mail Ford today -- ask them to reject the American Family Association's assertions . . . and reaffirm their support for fairness."
Late yesterday Ford noted in a written statement that it would not change its employment policies: "Ford's commitment to diversity as an employer and corporate citizen remains unchanged. Any suggestion to the contrary is just plain wrong."
Pentagon, law schools square off
Can universities accept federal funds, reject military recruiters?
From CNN's Bill Mears
Tuesday, December 6, 2005 Posted: 2112 GMT (0512 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court demonstrated deep skepticism Tuesday that universities should be allowed to turn away military recruiters and still accept federal funds.
The issue came to the court's attention with a free-speech dispute over the Pentagon's controversial policy barring openly gay personnel. Each side claims it is being discriminated against by the other.
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, several members of the bench said schools opposed to the military's policy could simply refuse the government's money. And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor added that there is nothing stopping schools from allowing recruiters while still making their objections known by posting disclaimers. (Watch law schools take on the military -- 3:20)
More than ideology is stake. The military said it has pressing needs for educated talent with highly specialized skills, such as translators, engineers and lawyers.
The Pentagon has suffered recent shortfalls in its recruiting goals, and officials worry military preparedness in time of war may be threatened. They say schools are free to bar the government from campus but should not continue receiving government money as a result.
Universities receive about $35 billion a year in federal funds, much of it for medical and scientific research. They argue their anti-discrimination policies are constitutionally protected and that academic freedom should not be compromised as a condition for accepting government benefits.
Both sides worry about potentially harmful and lasting effects from lack of funding for defense research programs, many of them based in academia.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared open to claims by the government that it wanted a "fair shot" at top students.
"We want to be extended the opportunity to recruit on the same level playing field," said Solicitor General Paul Clement.
He said if the law were overturned, schools could take their anti-discrimination policies further by refusing admission to veterans as a protest of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Justice Antonin Scalia added that recruitment is vital to the military's preparedness, "something specifically authorized by the Constitution."
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power "to raise and support Armies ... (and) to provide and maintain a Navy."
Nearly every law school and many universities have policies preventing employers who discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation from participating in career placement on campus.
The U.S. military bans open homosexual service members, following the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. That policy prevents officials from inquiring into whether a service member is gay or lesbian but allows the military to discharge homosexuals if any evidence emerges of their sexual orientation.
The military told schools it could not comply with the sexual orientation provision. Many schools responded by banning military recruiters, and Congress responded in 1994 by blocking federal funds from schools that did so.
The "Solomon Amendment," as the fund-blocking provision has become known, eventually prompted compromise among universities and the military. But the Bush administration took a hard-line stance shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, demanding access equal to that given other job recruiters.
A group of law schools sued, arguing a constitutional right "to be free from compelled endorsement of messages repugnant to them."
The government said it sought only equal treatment, but the schools countered that they were being asked to grant an exemption that other employers did not enjoy. A federal appeals court ruled for the schools, concluding "unconstitutional conditions" existed when the government restricted speech by threatening to withhold money.
The attorney for the law school faced tough questioning from the bench. Joshua Rosenkranz argued the military wants a privilege that does not extend to other employers, allowing it to bypass the school's anti-discrimination policy.
"The government takes the position that the law school is free to convey its (anti-discrimination) message to anyone who cares," O'Connor said. "What's wrong with that?"
Rosenkranz answered, "The ability to protest a forced message is never a cure for compelled speech."
"Nobody thinks the law school is speaking through the employers who come onto campus for recruitment," Roberts followed up. "Everybody knows those are the employers who are speaking."
Rosenkranz: "The law schools' message is, they believe it is immoral to abet discrimination."
O'Connor: "But they can say that to all" who want to hear that message.
Rosenkranz: "But when they say that, students don't believe the message."
Roberts: "The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money. What you're saying is, it's a message we believe in strongly, but not to the tune of a hundred million dollars."
Roberts repeated that theme several times, wondering whether this case was less about free speech and more about money. He later asked, "If you had a policy that denied employers that use tanks, would that pass muster?"
Rosenkranz: "For a religious institution, absolutely," saying some church-based schools may seek such a policy.
Roberts: "What about Yale Law School?" which was among the institutions opposing the military.
Rosenkranz: "Yes, it would apply."
Scalia: "Where did the issue of religion come from; I thought we were talking about freedom of speech?"
In addition to Roberts, O'Connor and Scalia, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer also appeared inclined to uphold the congressional law.
Justice David Souter was among those who seemed somewhat sympathetic to the universities' plight.
"The law schools are taking the position on First Amendment grounds, and that position is interfering with military recruiting, there's no question about it," he said.
Both Souter and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked probing questions of both sides.
Other research programs, including medical and scientific studies, could be at stake, because the law was amended to include withholding funds from the entire university even if the law school was the only one preventing recruiters.
Court Seems Supportive of Campus Recruiting
- By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
(12-06) 16:00 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to rule against colleges that want to limit military recruiting on campus to protest the Pentagon's policy on gays.
New Chief Justice John Roberts and other court members signaled support for a law that says schools that accept federal money also have to accommodate military recruiters. The justices seemed concerned about hindering a Defense Department need to fill its ranks when the nation is at war.
"There's the right in the Constitution to raise a military," Roberts said.
Law school campuses have become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
A group of law schools and professors had sued the Pentagon, claiming their free-speech rights are being violated because they are forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances. Many law schools forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
E. Joshua Rosenkranz, the lawyer for the schools, told justices: "There are two messages going on here and they are clashing. There is the military's message, which the schools are interpreting as `Uncle Sam does not want you,' and there is the school's message which is `we do not abet those who discriminate. That is immoral.'"
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said: "Your argument would allow schools to exclude anybody in a uniform from a cafeteria."
Justice Stephen Breyer said that many people disagree with government policies, but they are not allowed to get out of paying taxes or following laws because of that.
Outside court, about a half-dozen supporters of the law from Topeka, Kan., waved signs and yelled at reporters and passers-by in front of the court before the argument.
Dan Noble, 26, a gay Yale Law School student who camped out overnight to get a courtroom seat, said, "You feel discriminated against when some recruiters will interview your fellow students but won't interview you."
In an unusual move, immediately after the argument the Supreme Court released an audiotape to news organizations because of high interest in the case. Cameras are not allowed in court and recordings of the proceedings normally are not released until the end of the term.
A federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities, including their law and medical schools and other branches, give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.
Federal financial support of colleges tops $35 billion a year, and many college leaders say they could not forgo that money.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring and probably won't get to vote in the case, said colleges can post disclaimers on campus noting their objections to the military policy.
Rosenkranz said that when schools help military recruiters, like sending out recruiting e-mails on their behalf, then students think the schools endorse their messages — even with disclaimers.
Roberts fired back, "The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money. What you're saying is, `This is a message we believe in strongly, but we don't believe in it to the detriment of $100 million.'"
Dozens of groups filed briefs on both sides of the case, the first gay-rights related appeal since a contentious 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex.
The argument itself was lopsided, although a few justices seemed sympathetic to the opponents' basic argument.
Justice David H. Souter told the Bush administration lawyer, Paul Clement, "You are forcing them, in effect, to underwrite your speech ... you're forcing them into hypocrisy."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former women's rights attorney, told Clement, "The pitch that's being made is an equality pitch, that `we are teaching our students equality, the equal stature of all people.'"
Clement, the solicitor general, responded that the colleges, in trying to teach against discrimination are discriminating against the military.
The law "allows the military a fair shot at recruiting the best and the brightest for the military's critical and vital mission," he said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters Wednesday that "schools should make decisions for themselves — they're free institutions, and they can decide what they wish to do."
The court's ruling is expected to take several months.
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.
Associated Press reporter Elizabeth White contributed to this story.
On the Net:
Audio of the court argument:
Japan Today > pop vox December 6, 2005
Japan Today's Toshiya Fujii and Hiroyuki Nomura dropped into Komazawa Park to ask:
Should Japan legalize same-sex marriages?
The Financial Times
World / Asia-Pacific
Chinese and Japanese teens differ in aspirations
By Mariko Sanchanta in Tokyo
Published: December 6 2005 11:28 | Last updated: December 6 2005 11:28
A glaring discrepancy has emerged between the career ambitions of Chinese female teenagers and their Japanese counterparts, according to a survey published on Tuesday by a leading Japanese think tank.
The top five desired careers among Chinese female teens aged 16-19 include president or chief executive of a company, senior management or manager, or teacher. In comparison, the top-five list for Japanese teens include housewife, flight attendant and child-care worker.
“Against a backdrop of doubts about the future from a protracted recession, Japanese youths have a very strong desire for stability,” said the report, which was compiled by the Hakuhodo Institute of Life and Living. “In contrast, young Chinese want to move up in the world.”
The survey was conducted among 200 young men and women in Shanghai and the greater Tokyo area respectively this summer.
Prominent economists have noted that women are Japan’s most underutilised resource. A recent Goldman Sachs report said: “If Japanese female participation rates rose to levels currently seen in the US, this would add 2.6m people to the workforce, raising Japan’s trend GDP growth rate from 1.2 per cent to 1.5 per cent over the next two decades.”
Though there have been several high-profile female chief executive appointments in Japan this year, including Tomoyo Nonaka as the CEO of Sanyo, the consumer electronics group, and Fumiko Hayashi as the president of Daiei, one of Japan’s leading retailers, women are still largely absent from top management positions and boardrooms.
Japan is ranked 43 in gender empowerment according to the United Nations Development Programme, putting it behind Barbados and Croatia.
According to the UNDP, the percentage of total seats in parliament held by women is 20.2 per cent in China, compared with 9.3 per cent in Japan. Meanwhile, the ratio of estimated female to male earned income is 66 per cent in China, compared with 46 per cent in Japan.
Separately, the survey also noted Chinese teens thought that Japanese women made “good wives and mothers” and that Japanese were hard workers. Chinese teens said that they were concerned about problems such as wealth disparity and environmental problems.
社説：男女共同参画 “先進国最低”から脱出を (中日/東京 2005/12/07)