Letter to the editor: Pittsburgh Marathon’s inclusion illusion | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pittsburgh Marathon’s inclusion illusion

The Pittsburgh Marathon brings great energy to the city, a feeling that everyone there — runner and spectator alike — is united in the common purpose of supporting each other through a difficult endeavor. This purpose transcends race, ethnicity, religion, gender, economics, and politics: Anyone who can run or who supports the runners is welcome and celebrated.

This universal unity, however, is a lie. P3R, the nonprofit that organizes the marathon, accepted a marquee sponsorship from the local franchise owners of Chick-fil-A for the Kids of Steel youth marathon. The Chick-fil-A Foundation donated more than $1.8 million to three groups with a history of anti-LGBTQ discrimination in 2017, according to recently released tax filings analyzed by ThinkProgress. This is in spite of having pledged to discontinue donations to discriminatory groups in 2012.

The franchise owners are not the same as the foundation, but one cannot be separated from the other. One wonders what P3R considers “acceptable” levels of prejudice against underrepresented populations when taking donations.

P3R, as a nonprofit that represents the City of Pittsburgh on the international stage, is sending a message to the LGBTQ community, particularly to LGBTQ youth, that the Pittsburgh Marathon and, by transitive property, Pittsburgh is for everyone but them.

In the future, I believe that Pittsburgh’s inclusiveness will be more than illusory, and it is certainly better than it has been in the past. As it stands right now though, it seems our unity is still mostly smoke and mirrors.

Erik Rueter

Franklin Park

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.