October 27, 2011
Yes, it promotes an all-inclusive community
By Chris Delacruz '13 Opinion Writer
With the arrival of October — national “Coming Out” month — came a great idea on behalf of the Director of the Days-Massolo Cultural Education Center, Amit Taneja: an “Out and Ally” list to support the LGBTQ community on Hamilton’s campus. Yet, with the cheers of support for the list came cries of dissatisfaction, and even disagreement with the publishing of this list. While the reasons for not publishing the list vary among different people, the list itself was an incredible idea, and its benefits far outweigh its potential disadvantages. What makes this so list important is that LGBTQ issues are the biggest social issue of our era, as that community has faced constant persecution in schools, churches and other public spheres. This thought brings me to my first point as to why this list was necessary.
The history of the LGBTQ community has been filled with constant discrimination from a different array of people who do not support gay marriage, or even being gay. This social persecution can be especially heavy, as being gay is considered to be taboo in American society, even with the progress that has been made over the years. In light of this progress, homosexuality is scarcely supported or acknowledged in American media. Until recent years, one would rarely see or hear gay characters in movies or TV shows. Again, progress is being made (Glee and Modern Family, for example), but how often do you get to see the gay character as the main character? How many gay celebrities, athletes or politicians can you name off the top of your head?
Even with exceptions in the media like Brokeback Mountain (2005), gay sexuality is not depicted explicitly. With this absence of full support for the LGBTQ community, when and where can one be gay and still hope to attain acceptance?
Torian Pope ’14 said, “Being masculine and gay can be a very difficult way of living. You can feel extremely insecure about yourself because everybody believes and treats you like a stereotypical heterosexual male which influences you to live a lie. I want to show others struggling with their sexuality that it’s ok to be masculine and gay. You just have to remember that you’re not the only one out there.”
Beyond this point, this “Out and Ally” list is important to Hamilton’s campus. Let’s be real: How open are we really to social issues like race, gender and sexual orientation? How many people do you see going to the Black and Latino Student Union who are not Black or Latino? Or to the Womyn’s Center who are not women? Or the Asian Cultural Society who are not Asian? Or to the Muslim Student Association who are not Muslim? Or to the Rainbow Alliance who are not gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual or questioning? How many people go an entire weekend without hearing comments that are biased towards people of a certain community?
When Nancy Thompson sent out an email about the sukkah being slashed, she used words like “devastated” and “malicious,” and mentioned an ongoing investigation by the NYS police. Yet when the prayer room of the Muslim Student Association got trashed last fall, there was only a bias report and no such NYS police investigation. Ask yourselves why. On Hamilton’s campus, the majority of the population is heterosexual and white. In light of that fact, we need this list, along with events and organizations that spark discussion on this campus — in order to fully represent other communities as much as we do the heterosexual white male community.
As Taneja said, “I am humbled, and feel incredibly supported to know that close to 350 people participated in this endeavor! More importantly, I am grateful for the thoughtful and engaged dialogue that the lists have generated on campus.”
I agree, and I hope to see a more open dialogue and events on our campus that signify progress towards acceptance.
No, sexuality should remain a private matter
By Jeremy Adelman '13 Opinion Writer
The Spectator’s decision to publish the Days-Massolo Cultural Education Center’s list of out homosexuals and their allies last month was regrettable, if not unforeseeable; for all its talk of diversity, Hamilton has a distinct lack of persons willing to stand athwart history, yelling “Nay.” But even for self-professed liberals, the concept of compiling an “out” list is jarring and contradictory; for a Weltanshauung based on private freedom, the public declaration of sexual preferences is hypocritical; sex and sexuality are by their nature private choices not fit for media publication.
To begin, as minority groups go, homosexuals face their share of malicious systemic bigotry. There persist nefarious stereotypes and demeaning humor, but this bigotry is at least proportional to that endured by every single other subset of the population—even WASP males bare the unflattering caricature of Homer Simpson. Indeed, the prejudice heaped upon various other groups compares closely to that faced by homosexuals. A leading candidate for the Republican nomination promised to exclude American Muslims from his cabinet in deference to the ballooning Islamaphobia of the far right, while the growing anti-Semitism of the far-left “Occupy Wall Street” crowd eerily channels the tirades of Father Coughlin. Meanwhile, Hispanics bare the brunt of an upsurge in xenophobia, and Mormons watch their religion mocked on Broadway and in the cinema. But do not expect The Spectator to publish a list of Hamilton’s Muslims, Jews, Hispanics or Mormons anytime soon, even after the recent hate incident directed towards the Jewish community over fall break. This, of course, is for good reason; tolerance stems from efforts to include, not fracture the community into minority facets.
Secondly, publishing a list of Hamilton’s homosexual community is inherently contradictory vis-à-vis the underlying argument for homosexual equality — namely, the right to privacy. The entire liberalization of this country’s anti-sodomy laws is predicated on the idea that what occurs in one’s bedroom is one’s own private business; publishing pushes this into public sphere. Simply put, if one believes one’s sexual choices to be a private matter, then the publication of an “out list” is, at best, inconsistent and, at worst, outright harmful, for it lends credence to the common misconception by denizens of the traditionalist right that homosexuals are “forcing” their preferences on society. Let what happens in the bedroom stay in the bedroom, please, for it matters hardly a modicum for either professional or personal relationships whether someone prefers man, woman, both or neither, in the same manner that a person’s religion and ethnicity are largely meaningless vis-à-vis their character and aptitudes. If we as a community covet a society where differences are indeed irrelevant, why do we start by dividing ourselves along sexual lines? Furthermore, given the private nature of sex and sexuality, The Spectator should always be wary when broaching the subject—despite continued efforts to ameliorate the stigmatism placed on homosexuality, there sadly still exists a nontrivial amount of bigotry, and I feel any list of this nature will inevitably place undo pressure on students who are either still questioning their sexual orientation or still fear the consequences of coming out.
This does not mean that homosexuals and other members of the LGBT community should remain in the closet; pride in oneself, particularly in the face of difficulty, can only be viewed as a virtue. However, the newspaper is simply an inappropriate place for a “coming out” to occur, particularly given the private nature of sex and sexuality in human society. However, what is done is done—I only hope that there will come a day where the entire argument is mooted by the recognition that homosexuals represent just another patch in the American quilt.