Update on MemphisThis story (see also yesterday's FGB), which by rights should have been minor filler, has grown legs. I suspect it's because no one likes to see kids mistreated, and for us I think that's doubly true when it's gay kids at a very vulnerable age. From Eyewitness News in Memphis, quoting the board's statement:
It is the position of Memphis City Schools that the principal did act in an appropriate manner in order to correct a serious issue at the school and that Memphis City Schools has not subjected either of these students to discriminatory treatment.
Good As You has the full text. And please note the full dose of bullshit in the last sentence above: we must have very different ideas of what constitutes "discriminatory treatment," since one of the boys was excluded from a trip to New Orleans specifically because he's gay -- not because of any behaviors he engaged in, but simply because of who he is.
It seems to me that the principal, one Daphne Beasley, did nothing right. Timothy Kincaid has a point-by-point commentary on the board's response.
Beasley is accused of compiling a list of potential romantic couples and then using the list to harass and discriminate against two male students who were dating. When the students and their parents could not come to resolution with the principal the ACLU became involved.
Now one would think that a principal calling a parent to out a student - and then telling that parent that she would not allow homosexuality on her campus - would result in a serious questioning of the principal’s judgment. But rather than admit the glaring inappropriateness of her behavior, the board instead sought to defend Ms. Beasley.
The more I've learned of this story, the more bizarre Beasley's "solution" to the problem seems. Apparently, classes are held on the campus of the college partner in this program for top African American students in Memphis. (And let me point out that one of the boys involved had just made Dean's List.) There were complaints of "explicit sexual behavior" (not specified) by students while on the campus. Beasley's mode of attack was, first, to make a couple of all-school announcements that such behavior would not be tolerated (and no one paid any attention! Quelle surprise!), and then to compile a list of all students with romantic attachments and their partners. This last seems not only beside the point, but harebrained as well. (And let me also note that the boys affected by her prejudice -- that's the only thing I can call it -- had not engaged in any provocative behavior and had, in fact, been quite discreet.) It would seem to me much more profitable to attempt to identify the specific students involved in the incidents and take disciplinary action against them.
Read Kincaid's post -- he goes into detail on just how heads-up-their-butts the board's attorneys are. Look for a nice nasty lawsuit in Memphis. And here's John McKay, who is right on point.
Burn Out:
I feel a lot of sympathy with Joe Brummer, who left this post last week:
Eventually, I could see that nothing good or productive could come from the conversation there, so I ditched. Sadly, I find that to be the case with just about every anti-gay person I have ever had contact with especially Stacy Harp. Nothing good seems to come from talking with them. Aside from the understanding I gain of their thinking and where they are coming from, I see nothing good coming from direct conversation with people who are anti-gay.
I am growing to a point where I am happy to be with my partner, happy to hang with my dogs and just be. I am growing concerned about the direction this country is taking, but I am also getting older and tired. I see the bitterness and determination of people like Stacy Harp, Ken Hutcherson and the Peter LaBarbera’s of the world, to win against GLBT folks rather than win over GLBT folks. We as a country are more worried about who we have power over then who we have power with. These are some big mistakes if you take a look at what we are facing with food shortages and gas problems. Our population is heading for 9 billion and we don’t have the resources to feed all those people. You can guess where this will take us. (and they’re worried about who I sleep with?)
I reached that point long ago. It's fairly obvious that the Dobson Gang is not interested in dialogue or in any honest interchange. It's too easy to point out case after case in which Harp, Hutcherson, Dobson, LaBarbera, Barber, Wildmon and the whole crew will subvert facts to fit their agenda, will repeat lies again and again after they have been pointed out to them, will flail around for any excuse for their failures (usually because "hommaseksuals," who they claim are an insignificant number of people in this country, have nevertheless captured control of corporate board rooms, professional associations, and the halls of government. (Damn! I wish I'd known I had that kind of clout.)
One point: I realize it's a somewhat snarky throw-away, but the comment about "them" being worried about who Brummer -- or any of the rest of us -- sleeps with is, I think, painfully illustrative of the mindset here: it's one that denies not only our humanity, but their own (witness the Christianist position on birth control and family planning). People are not people in any real sense, any sense of being aware, independent beings with hopes, dreams, fears, and needs, but merely cattle who can talk, put here by Jehovah to breed more talking cattle, and anyone who doesn't fit that picture is no longer human even in that pathetic, shriveled world view.
Cheer up, Joe -- you've hit the first stage of enlightenment. You've realized that those you name and their cohorts are not interested in talking to you, and even less interested in listening to you. They're only interested in using you.
Coattails:
The other thing I ran across the other day that I didn't have time to react to here was this post by B. Daniel Blatt, writing as GayPatriotWest, at GayPatriot. Now, if you've been part of my tiny little audience for any length of time, you know that I don't hold Bruce Carroll in particularly high regard as a commentator, and, while I've had some fruitful interchanges with Blatt, they were not, at his insistence, for publication.
The title of this one alone should give you an idea of what's going on here: " Gay Conservative Voters don’t Need Gay-specific Appeals"
I'm not sure what that means, so, being the eternally inquisitive creature I am, I decided to see.
Blatt leads off with John Aravosis' discomfort with Hillary Clinton's inability to use the "g" word in public, and goes on to note that he's fine with candidates as long as they support gay issues and don't preach against us. I think that's probably the way most of us feel, whether we're to the right or left of center. (Although it seems to me that a candidate such as Blatt describes is acceptable, but one that actually works for gay rights and gay acceptance is desirable.)
So far, unremarkable. It's here that I start to have problems:
This all boils down to my basic political philosophy that it’s not the government’s role to address social issues. I believe that if the government just leaves us alone, private institutions will effect the changes we need. We see that already in the increasing number of companies adopting non-discrimination policies and offering benefits to same-sex partners.
First off, basic civil rights are hardly "social issues." (Update: Looking at that phrase again, I realize I have no idea what it means. What is a "social issue" in this context? Or any context? It looks to me like another one of those made-up catch-all phrases from the Christianist right that means what they want it to mean in any given situation. Can anyone offer enlightenment?) This seems to reflect the sort of historical blindness that affects so many commentators, not exclusively on the right, although it's a tendency that seems to be endemic there. (Maybe it's part of the "reality is what I say it is" outlook.) It's also buying right into the Dobson Gang's framing without ever questioning the basis. The protection of gays in the workplace, in housing, in access to the political system, and ultimately, I think, in their relationships, is a matter of basic constitutional law. There's a basic principle there that says that the law may not discriminate against a given group merely because of popular animus. This is hardly a "social issue."
I might also point out that the increasing number of companies offering benefits, etc., is the result of pressure applied by gays as a group, as are the statutes in various jurisdictions guaranteeing those rights I mentioned above. I defy anyone to show me an instance in which a corporate CEO (or anyone in municipal, county, or state government) just woke up one morning and said "Gee, we've been really unfair to gays. I think we need to fix that." Sure. Mmm-hmm. Happens all the time, particularly in a country in which you have well-funded, well-organized groups working for just the opposite. There's an historical momentum here that Blatt is ignoring, for reasons I'll leave it to him to explain.
He goes on:
My sense is that most gay Republicans doesn’t [sic] identify politically as gay. We see ourselves as citizens who happen to be gay. And therein, I think, lies the primary distinction between gay liberals and gay conservatives. They want politicians to appeal to them as a political group.
We don’t require such appeals, content when politicians address other issues, leaving us alone to live our lives as we see fit and trusting private institutions to meet our social needs.
Translation: We're happy to ride on others' coattails, particularly if we can look down our noses at them for getting their hands dirty.
(Sorry if that sounds snarky, but what other interpretation is there? And the comments on that post are ludicrous.)
(Another update: Looking at that statement again, it seems willfully obtuse. The point is, without the history of activism by gay groups working together to bring political pressure to bear on our various governments and those highly regarded "private institutions," Blatt and his cohort would not be free to live their lives as they see fit -- unless the see fit to creep around in the shadows in fear of exposure, arrest, and worse. Sorry -- that, to me, is not living. We have now amassed enough clout that politicians do cater to us as a group, because that's the only way in this country that you can be recognized politically. Another reason I'm so disappointed in HRC and the other national groups: they're squandering our capital.
And one more thought: Perhaps Blatt simply doesn't feel any sense of community with other gay men outside of his own little social circle. I see examples of that on a daily basis, although I don't understand it -- in my own work context, the gay men and lesbians tend to hang together, or at least make a point of acknowledging each other, although we don't have all that much in common except that identity. We get along with the others, it just seems more natural to hang with our own. Maybe it's my own mama tiger component: These people are mine, and don't you forget it.)
And, all that said, this strikes me as exceptionally shallow.
This has been another chapter in "Why I Don't Read GayPatriot."
No comments:
Post a Comment