Daughters of the American Revolution Leader Issues Warning to Members Over Gender Resolution

The Texas Regent of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), Susan Johnston, has issued a warning to members regarding their discussions about a recent decision that rejected a resolution aimed at defining the term "woman" as "born female." This vote, which occurred during the DAR's 135th Continental Congress held in Washington, D.C., saw a significant majority, with 1,481 members opposing the resolution and 984 in favor. This outcome has highlighted a growing divide within the organization concerning issues of gender identity and membership criteria.

Daughters of the American Revolution Leader Issues Warning to Members Over Gender Resolution

Some members are advocating for a return to a women-only membership policy, while others are pushing for inclusivity that would allow transgender individuals to join. This internal conflict reflects broader societal debates about gender identity, women's rights, and the evolving definitions of gender within various organizations.

Background and Reactions

In an email obtained by The Federalist, Johnston cautioned members against discussing governance matters with the press, emphasizing that such actions could lead to disciplinary measures. She specifically stated, "Please note that giving interviews to the press on National Society governance matters is a serious violation of NSDAR policy." Johnston instructed members who are approached by journalists to refer any inquiries to the DAR’s President General, Ginnie Sebastian Storage, who is known for her support of transgender inclusion within the organization.

The vote on the resolution has ignited significant debate within the DAR, an organization that has historically focused on recognizing and celebrating women's contributions to American history. Following the vote, President General Storage expressed her commitment to inclusivity, stating, "To any member who has felt discouraged or unwelcome: you are, and remain, a valued Daughter." However, critics of the leadership's stance argue that this approach undermines the organization's original mission and values.

Johnston's email also referenced a legal opinion from Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor and former Biden appointee, which suggested that adopting the resolution could jeopardize the DAR's business license and tax-exempt status under D.C. law. Critics of Bagenstos's opinion, including members of the Daughters Advocating for Restoration, contend that the organization can legally restrict membership to women only. Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty, provided a memorandum asserting that the DAR's tax-exempt status would not be at risk if it maintained a women-only membership policy, thus challenging the concerns raised by Bagenstos.

Laura McDonald, founder of the Daughters Advocating for Restoration, criticized the DAR leadership for not allowing members to review alternative legal opinions during the Continental Congress. She pointed out that many members were unaware of the vote, as it was added to the agenda at the last minute, which limited participation. "Only about 3% of the membership were notified, and many members were confused and pre-occupied with Congress activities," McDonald stated, highlighting the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

The internal conflict has intensified as members like McDonald have reported difficulties in communicating with state leadership regarding their concerns. She described her attempts to reach out to the Texas State Regent, which were met with refusal for dialogue. "I was removed from the private DAR social media pages and only reinstated if I promised not to bring these issues up," she explained, illustrating the challenges faced by members who wish to voice their opinions.

Supporters of the current leadership argue that the push for inclusivity is essential for the organization's relevance in modern society. They believe that adapting to contemporary views on gender identity is necessary for the DAR to remain a vital and engaging organization. However, critics maintain that these changes threaten the core identity of the DAR and its historical mission, which has traditionally centered on women's achievements and contributions.

The ongoing debate within the DAR reflects broader societal tensions surrounding gender identity and women's rights, raising important questions about the future direction of the organization. As the DAR navigates these internal divisions, the implications of its decisions could resonate beyond its membership, influencing discussions on gender identity and organizational governance in similar heritage groups. The outcome of this conflict may set a precedent for how such organizations address issues of inclusivity and tradition moving forward, ultimately shaping their identities in a rapidly changing social landscape.