To think sacking this volunteer to a U.S charity was a complete over reaction (Title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

[HermioneWeasley]

The MS society in America has dismissed a 90 year old woman who has volunteered for them for SIXTY YEARS because she raised a question about pronoun use in emails.

they have doubled down on this decision issuing the following statement

“Recently, a volunteer, Fran Itkoff, was asked to step away from her role because of statements that were viewed as not aligning with our policy of inclusion.”

how can the people running these organisations be so out of touch with how people feel about these issues? They’re insane and frankly
cruel.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13088453/ms-society-slammed-firing-elderly-volunteer-pronouns.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

Appalling. It looks like this is a US based charity for people with MS and therefore I'm wondering where the actions of this charity sits with US equality laws and compelled speech/pronouns/gender critical beliefs etc. I wonder whether if it was a UK charity whether it could be challenged..

well, they have lost my support, I don't support any organisation including pronouns with names like this.

The problem with articles like these is that there is a lack of context. We don't know exactly what was said or if it was a one off comment or one in a series of comments. I can also see there being less information coming out from the other side since they're bound by gdpr and may not be able to comment on exactly what was said or what happened.

So do you allow your volunteers to 'question' things then?

Exactly. The article doesn't give enough information. I don't think the fact that she is 90 is relevant though. Whether you volunteer or are in paid work you follow processes or leave.

If she simply asked because she didn't understand it it's obviously unfair to sack her but there might have been more to it than that.

It is possible (probable?) she said something that was seen as offensive. They, quite rightly, will not publish it as it would leave an elderly women very vulnerable to extremists.

At her age it is unlikely she has the knowledge of the issue to use the correct language to express her own, and valid, views (that it is a load of nonsense) politically correctly.

Ridiculous and very sad outcome for someone who has given so much for so long.

Define "question".

Asking perfectly reasonable questions about how best to supply their service, of course, but if it's a case of questioning fundamental aspects of how the organisation functions, who we supply the service to, or on what terms, then no, that's defined by the commissioners, and the purpose of the organisation isn't for volunteers to question. It's a tacit assumption that if you are offering voluntary time, it's because you appreciate, understand, and accept the goals and ethos of the organisation. If you want to question that, there are means and avenues to do so, but it's not expected or tolerated from volunteers.

We have an AGM where we can be scrutinised. We have a written, published constitution. Our contract terms are in public domain. We have a Board of Directors. There are plenty ways to query or question the organisation, but volunteers "challenging" how we ask them to volunteer is not a tenable situation. If they make it through our training, they are already past the point where they had the opportunity to bring these things up. Even making it through training is no guarantee they will actually be asked to contribute. If it becomes apparent that an individual holds views incompatible with the organisation they simply will not pass scrutineering and it's a case of "thank you for your time, but unfortunately...". Due to the nature of what we do, it would be completely inappropriate for us to permit volunteers we had any doubts about whatsoever to interact with our service users, and that includes "challenging" volunteers.

Seems ridiculous on the face of it, unless there is more that was said that hasn't been published. I have donated to the MS Society previously. I will be considering very carefully whether to donate to them again.

Why do people keep suggesting she must be 'challenging'? She's been volunteering there for 60 years. If she was so 'difficult' you'd think they'd have got rid of her long before now.

She questioned the use of stating pronouns, I think.

If it becomes apparent that an individual holds views incompatible with the organisation they simply will not pass scrutineering and it's a case of "thank you for your time, but unfortunately..."

But presumably an individual holding legally protected views wouldn't be holding views incompatible with the organisation? Because otherwise the organisation would be breaking the law.

I have worked with volunteers and it is often clear that they are volunteering rather than working for pay because for various reasons they find it very difficult to behave in ways which are compatible with paid employment. I get that. But this woman volunteered for decades, surely her compatibility with the organisation was long established.

Define "legally protected views".

Just because you have the right to hold certain views does not mean they are in any way protected by legislation.

My organisation is commissioned to supply a service to a specific demographic, it also presents to the service users in very specific terms. If you came to me offering voluntary service, and you made it known to me that you did not respect or acknowledge a certain aspect inherent to my service users, then I would have no option but to decline your offer of time.

First of all, I am under no obligation to "allow" anyone to volunteer with my organisation. It's entirely at my discretion, and if you don't fit my criterion, then I simply will not ask you for voluntary service. If, against my better judgement, I permit you to interact with my service users, then I have failed in a safeguarding sense because I have assured them in the organisation's constitution that they will only encounter volunteers who are sympathetic, and I can't honestly say I am convinced you can be if you have already told me you fundamentally do not recognise a characteristic of some of my service users.

Ultimately, a complaint would be scrutinised by my commissioners, and if upheld, could well mean the withdrawal of my funding, the closure of the service, and a complete loss of that service to vulnerable people. So no. I'm completely unwilling to take any chances with that, even though I respect your right to hold certain views. The law does not compel me to accept your voluntary time regardless.

How very inclusive of them. I guess gender trumps age as well as all the other protected characteristics when it comes to diversity.

I think this is in the US so being gender critical isn’t a protected belief there as far as I’m aware - and even under English/Welsh law, if she’s said something offensive that wouldn’t be protected as it would be a manifestation of the belief as opposed to the belief itself.

That's not to say I agree in any way with what’s happened but it’s a moral issue not a legal one.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX the use of pronouns in email signatures is not inherent to sufferers of multiple sclerosis.

@Crabble

the use of pronouns in email signatures is not inherent to sufferers of multiple sclerosis

I'm aware of that, and I haven't implied that it is. I'm merely pointing out that when it comes to voluntary positions, the organisation are perfectly entitled to reject you for pretty much any reason they see fit, and that includes holding certain views if they are considered fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the service.

I read the articles. So they asked a 90 year old lady who has given them so much, to add her pronouns to her email signature, the fact she can use tech is amazing.

They're disgusting and they will now lose a lot of donations. I know if I was a donor that I would cancel and donate elsewhere.

When I see pronouns in a signature I immediately think twat.

So if you worked for a rape crisis centre like the Edinburgh one, you wouldn't allow a gender critical person to work there due to their belief that a woman who's been sexually assaulted and doesn't want to be treated by a male should be allowed this?

@HermioneWeasley , might you consider editing your OP to make it clear this is MS US, not UK? As another poster has pointed out, it would be awful if the UK charity loses out because of something that has nothing to do with them?

What are ERCC's terms of contract?

This isn't a like-for-like comparator, so it's not particularly relevant how my organisations scrutinises or selects volunteers. Basically, it's the characteristic of my service users that is a Protected Characteristic, not the volunteer's personal view, so the law protects my service users, not my volunteers.

If you imagine a scenario whereby a Jewish person tried to bring an action against a Christian church because the church would not consider them for a position in the Clergy, it's more akin to that. I am allowed by law to be very discriminatory with regard to who I permit to come into contact with my service users, because it's the service users who have the relevant protected characteristic. Which views I hold myself are neither here nor there, and truly, neither is what I personally think of the volunteer's views, all that is relevant is that I am satisfied they do not post a safeguarding risk to my service users, and that they are in compliance with the assurances provided to the service users in our terms of contract and our constitution.

@Pootles34 i can’t edit I’m afraid

Well that’s got nothing to do with this case because her views are not fundamentally incompatible with the service the charity provides. So it may be a good point but it’s not a point relevant to the MS society and this volunteer.

I also am not sure if you mean legally a charity can cut a volunteer loose for any reason they see fit, and if in England - if so, your charity is bound by the Equality Act is it not?

It's not in England, or anywhere in this country. It's not a UK charity, so please don't withdraw support for MS UK on the strength of this ridiculous story from the US.

Because you haven't joined in the MN approved crowd for whom questioning pronouns automatically makes the person right and a justified martyr.
Simple.

When I see pronouns in a signature I immediately think twat

You and 99% of the rest of the world.

You can report your own post to Mumsnet and they can edit for you, I think.