I spent the past two weeks in the computer lab of Fellows hall at Denison. I had so much work to do that I didn't even have to think about how I would get home to the Northwest. I had $3 in my bank account, and no plane ticket. It was scary, but all the work I had due was all I could worry about.
On Tuesday night, I was furiously trying to get my translation portfolio finished before the Wednesday deadline at noon. A girl from my class, Saphyia, was sitting at the computer across from me working on the same project. Around 9:30 that night, she sent me a message over the network asking if I wanted to go out for a smoke. We went out on the front steps and talked for a bit. She asked me when I was going home. I gave her the same fearful smile I had given everyone else when they asked, and I told her I didn't think I was because I didn't have money to get a ticket home. Without hesitiating, she asked me, "Do you need money? I can lend it to you if you want. We can go inside and get you a ticket online right now. I'm going abroad, and I don't need any American money until senior year."
I didn't even know what to say; how many people would make such an offer? To someone she barely knew at that. She was the first angel that the Lord sent me last week.
I booked a flight out of Pittsburgh to save $50, and Kate said she would drive me to the airport whne she went home on Saturday. Angel number two. When I got to the airport, I checked the weather on my computer. With the worst snow storms in Oregon history, it was a toss up whether or not planes would be flying into Portland. I had been able to make just enough money by selling my books back to pay the $15 fee to check my bag; other than that, I had $5 in my pocket, which I used to eat before the flight, which ended up being one of the more miserable I had ever taken, but we got to San Francisco about forty-five minutes behind schedule. When we got off the plane, I couldn't find any information about my flight. San Francisco has three terminals that all operate completely independent of each other. My cell phone was broken, so I was having trouble keeping track of the time, not even knowing when my flight was supposed to leave.
When I finally found my way to the United terminal around 10pm, I discovered my flight was indeed cancelled. I went out to the check-in counter and talked to the agent. There was a 7:30am flight, which she put me on standby for. I got her to take me to security and convince them to let me into the terminal so I could sleep at the gate. I had no money, and no phone, so I couldn't call anyone at home to let them know where I was. I saw a Bank of America ATM, and decided to check the account that I don't use when I'm in Ohio. I had $3.90 on there, so there was the prospect of something to eat in the morning.
I set up camp at the gate, and laid out across four chairs. I had made the right decision that morning when I was debating bringing my pillow or leaving it at school, so at least I had that.
I woke up every hour or so, and I smelled like a barn. Before I knew it, passengers were filing in through security and joining me at the gate. The screen began displaying flight information around 6:30; I was 60th on the standby list. It wasn't looking good. But it didn't matter; they cancelled the flight around 7am. I had expected as much, so I was already in line when the flight was cancelled. The agent said she could confirm me on a flight to Seattle the next morning, and I decided that was better than nothing, which was the status of available seats to Portland through Wednesday night.
I went down to Burger King and got a whopper jr. for $3.60. All I could do was walked around as exhausted as I was. I needed money. Not knowing how or being willing to beg, I pulled out my notebook and made a sign:
"STRANDED, BROKE, & STARVING; WILL SELL iPOD FOR $40 $30 TO CALL HOME AND EAT"
I propped it up against my bag on the floor next to me, and waited. A few people glanced at it in passing, but people weren't interested. I packed up and walked around for a while again, looking for a more efficient spot with more traffic. I found one of the few chairs that faced out towards where people were walking, and sat down to read. After fifteen minutes or so, the woman sitting two chairs down started talking to me. "So why are you wanting to sell your ipod?" I told her my story, and she asked if she could see it. I told her it was a little scratched up, but it worked perfectly. Then she said "Don't sell your ipod; can I give you $10 to eat? Hopefully that will get you some snacks to hold you over until you leave tomorrow. Here, use my phone and call your family." So I called my mom; it was the only number I had by memory. When I hung up, the woman told me her name. Then Rhonda said, "They just told us to go to gate 86, but take this $5 more, just in case." I gave her a hug and told her she was an angel, and wished her merry Christmas as she left. Angel number three.
Not knowing how long I would be stuck, I put the $15 in my wallet and went as long as I could without eating. My mom called my sister-in-law, Grace, at my brother's in Portland, and told them the situation, so they paged my at the airport and left a message to call collect. After a few hours and a few collect calls, she suggested that I find a restaurant that would take a credit card number over the phone. I went to about 10 different ones, and they all said no. The mexican ladies working at the burrito bar seemed to be considering it, but by the time they finally figured out what I was asking, the manager said, "ooooooh, no. We cannot do that. But what would you like?" She pulled money out of her own pocket, and gave me a burrito and a coke. Angel number four.
While I was eating the burrito, I heard "Eric Elligott, please pick up the nearet white courtesy phone." Just as expected, I was instructed to call Grace collect again. I called, and she told me that her sister and her husband had called the Travelodge in San Francisco and got me a room for the night. Angel(s) number five.
After a day of wild goose chases around the airport, I got to the hotel around 5:30pm. As I finished checking in, the man behind the counter asked "and do you have any money for dinner?" I smiled and said no, and he pulled out an envelope with my name on it. Grace's sister had asked to charge extra to the room to get me cash back, but they couldn't do that; so the manager just left me $20 to eat. Angel number six. So I had a very peaceful night, and got to eat In-N-Out Burger for dinner, which I love, and haven't had since I was 15.
So the next morning, I got to the airport and stood in an hour long line. About 3/4 of the way to the front, I heard a lady announce that Seattle airport was closed... I started crying. I got to the front and they told me to go stand in another line, so about 45 minutes later, I got to talk to an agent. She said Seattle was going to be closed all day, so I told her to put me on the first open seat to Portland. Christmas. It wasn't til Thursday. Since I had nothing else to do, I asked her to put me on standby for the next Portland flight so I could get through security into the terminal.
So I went through and called Grace collect again. She told me that she had talked to my mom, who said Seattle was open again. I looked at the monitor, and sure enough, Flight 322 to Seattle, which I had been confirmed on, was listed as delayed. Not cancelled. I looked at the monitor at the Portland gate, and I was 68th on the standby list. So that wasn't gonna work. I went and stood in line at the Seattle gate for what seemed like eternity, only to find out from the agent that it was impossible to get back on the flight.
I went back to the Portland gate to ask what the chances were of getting on if a flight went out. I was second in line, but there was no one at the desk. It was already half an hour past departure time, but the flight wasn't cancelled yet.
There was a girl behind me talking on her cell phone, and I really couldn't help but hear her talking... "Yeah, I made friends with this guy...his meeting got cancelled, so he didn't need to go to Portland anymore... he gave me his boarding pass and said 'merry Christmas'...but oh my god, I could never use it... I probably could, but it's like illegal... it doesn't matter, cause my dad pulled some strings and got me on the flight anyway...it still says i'm on standby, but my dad promised I have a seat..."
So when she finally hung up, I turned and asked her if she still had the boarding pass. She gave it to me. I was thinking it might not be a good idea to use it, but I looked down at the seat assignment. It was 7E. Seeing as my number is 7, and my letter is E, I took it as a good sign. My luggage was going through with or without me, so it was worth a shot. Angel number 7.
I went and sat down, and an elderly woman who I had talked to a few times sat down by me, and made friends. She let me use her cell phone several times, and made me get on the plane in front of her because she was worried about me, but also confident the boarding pass would work. The only way it wouldn't would have been if he had cancelled his flight after he left. But I got on the plane!!
She let me use her cell phone again three times after we landed...and sat on the runway for 3 hours waiting for an open gate. Angel number 8.
It was quite the ordeal, but it ended, and I got home safely before Christmas, blessed by the kindness of so many strangers.
This will be my fifth sunrise from the Fellows computer lab in the past 10 academic days. There's no pressing deadline tomorrow, but I got off the a good start on my Education presentation for Tuesday. I think I'm coming up with some pretty interesting theory... I hope I can articulate it well.
Aside from the daunting academic trials ahead, everything seems to be running smooth. My court case has been continued until January 23rd, two days into the second semester. I'm meeting my attorney later this morning; praying that goes well.
I'm most likely failing Spanish, and today I realized I may also fail American literature...the syllabus says five or more absences will result in failure of the course...I think I'm somewhere around eight or nine. I've consistently gotten A's and a few B's on his assignments, so I'm hoping he didn't take attendance every day. Hmmm.
But I got an A on my Eskridge essay below, and an A on my book review I turned in on Wednesday... so adds up to 66% for my grade of the first essay which I never did.
I haven't returned my 2009 contract to Skylemar. It was due November 1st.
Right now, I'm extremely interested in a summer intership with the Religion department to do research on a topic of my choice. Whichever professor turned in my name as a candidate for the program was pretty right on in their assumption that I would be interested. I already have three seperate ideas for proposals. I think I'll write them all.
My theatre class runs its performance of The Gondoliers this weekend... the same day as our only water polo games all semester. They're in Cinci so I can't get down and back in time for the show call. Oh well. I must say, however, the costumes are ridiculous.
I guess I should get back to working on my project. Or at least watch some 30 Rock.
The Sedimentation of Antigay Discourse in Education
Schools are battlegrounds for the right. So much of their “cultural war” is waged over curricula, teachers’ roles, parental rights, censorship, and privatization. Queer youth are on the front lines of these battles, often in isolation and without organizational support. In the name of family and community moral standards, the right fights against any mention of homosexuality in schools, whether in books, sex education classes, counseling sessions, or through the presence of openly queer youth and teachers. This enforced silence leaves our schools riddled with homophobia and provides no opportunities for young people to learn truths about queer lives and to have open discussions of their own sexuality1
– Suzanne Pharr
In his historical breakdown of law and policy, “No Promo Homo: The Sedimentation of Antigay Discourse and The Channeling Effect of Judicial Review”, William Eskridge provides an extremely detailed analysis of the shift of antigay discourse as embodied by legal conclusions of cases handling LGBT issues. Pharr’s “cultural war” is waged in schools, but the battle is won and lost in the court with rhetorical showdowns. Opponents of LGBT rights have always come up with one argument or another to perpetuate the oppression of LGBT persons. The evolution of their rhetoric suggests a certain realization that they must have come to some time ago: The best way to oppress a given population is to operate in such a manner that obscures the visibility of that oppression. In fact, antigay activists debatably go farther than that, because the modern reality of their arguments, both implicitly and explicitly dictates that they themselves would be oppressed if they don’t prevent the advancement of LGBT rights. Barely a generation ago, the spotlight of the opposition’s argument was on the homosexual his or herself, blasting their morality, criminality, and sickness, physically or mentally. While these misconceptions of LGBT persons still exist in the practical sense, their validity has been greatly reduced in the public sphere, as institutions appear move further away from discriminatory ideology and practices. In compensation, the antigay rhetoric has evolved, building a sedimentation of discourse to assert their perceived rights to not associate with homosexuality.2 But their script is merely rearranged with politically correct wording; a less accusatory way to say the same old thing.
The no promo homo strategy of influencing policy to prevent any promotion of homosexuality operates beyond the legal system; law and policy trickle down from the top, thus no promo homo philosophy becomes structuralized into other spheres, particularly schools. When we hold up Eskridge’s triple sedimentation thesis against education policy, it becomes clear that schools have been the victim of this triple sedimentation. After applying his thesis to the history of education, I’ll move to explore the social and ethical implications of law as an institution permitting the No Promo Homo structure’s control of the courts.
The bottom layer is made up of three layers of moral and policy rhetoric. Social republican arguments sit on top of medical ones, which are built on natural law arguments.3 The foundation of this sedimentation of no promo homo rhetoric can be seen in the early shift from gendered institutions of education to coeducation. During the late eighteen hundreds, right as “the homosexual” was being born as a social identity, circumvention of homosexuality became the major ambition of moral reformers.4 Boarding schools were pinpointed as the epitome of evil because of the social consequences of sex isolation. William Alcott, a late nineteenth century doctor and teacher gave a medical argument, with a hint of natural law, that the young man “who is pursuing an unhappy course of solitary vice, threatened as we have seen by the severest penalties earth or heaven can impose” would experience “a loss of irregularity of his appetite; acute pains in his stomach…and constant vomiting…a weakness of the lungs…a dry cough, hoarse weak voice, and hurried or difficult breathing.”5 By mentioning the penalties of heaven, he demonstrates that the basis of his argument is in natural law. Vested interest in what he perceived to be “good over evil” is clearly present in his worldview because he argues on the grounds of immorality. He proceeded to slap another layer on, covering it with medical arguments. Jackie Blount argues that “the solitary vice” he mentions is code for homosexuality, which suggests Alcott’s lies were likely meant to scare boys away from sexual experiences with other boys.6 O.S Fowler’s argument that male boarding schools were evil “nuisances, propagating vice” is another example of a call to integrate schools in order to provide opportunities for heterosexuality to flourish.7
The integration of the sexes into coed institutions can be understood as a no promo homo shift. By concentrating a single gender, especially in a boarding environment, schools were fostering “ardent attachments’ between students.”8 Students developing physically and emotionally would engage in passionate, or even romantic relationships, whether the opposite gender was available or not. “It is evident that the first unfolding of a strong attachment in boyhood or girlhood must have a profound influence…”9 This understanding signifies their recognition of children’s propensity to engage in sexual exploration. After all, “boys will be boys,” and boys are socialized by their peers in school. At the beginning of the twentieth century, one’s environment was understood as a constructing influence on one’s sexual behavior. Though integration occurred over the course of several decades and at variable rates, arguments like Willard Waller’s assertion that the social structure of schools would need to shift if adolescents were to “divert these interests into other channels” served as what Eskridge would call an “Affirmative Argument.”10,11 Failure to adopt a new policy (or norm, in this instance) to inhibit homosexuality, which was thought more likely to occur without imposing policy, is no promo homo reasoning.12 With an awareness of same-sex behaviors occurring more frequently in such environments, continuing to run sex-segregated institutions would thus become a tacit promotion of homosexuality.
It must be noted that arguments for desegregation were not solely based on issues of sexuality. Blount offers three arguments that were made for sex desegregation: (1)“The time for coeducation had come…(2) [as] a way to bring equitable educational opportunities to girls…(3) finally, a few contented that coeducation would help children become properly heterosexual.”13 While the change is largely understood to have been a social advancement, a feminist victory that (potentially could have served as a distraction from antigay motives) we can pick through the sediment to find how natural law and medical arguments were the accepted discourse upon which advocates of desegregation stood. The understanding of homosexuality as a phase in youth that, if allowed to continue, would develop into physical and emotional dysfunction was a medical fallacy. That myth, intertwined with the natural law idea of one man and one woman being the only morally acceptable equation for sexual behavior catalyzed the shift to coeducation as a norm. This is the antigay rhetoric that forms the foundation of the triple sedimentation and constitutionalization of antigay discourse.
Around the middle of the twentieth century, antigay discourse can be seen shifting, thus shifting the social policing of sexuality. No longer would heterosexist advocators worry as much about homosexuality spreading among the children; the new objective was to stop homosexuality from spreading to the children—from their teachers. Administrators regarded homosexual male teachers as dangerous to the development of male students’ proper heterosexuality because as Waller, the eminent sociologist argued… ‘Nothing seems more certain than that homosexuality is contagious.’”14 This unfounded medical argument against homosexuality adds to the sedimentation of antigay discourse; if homosexuality was “certainly” contagious, they certainly moved to control it, creating hostile environments for homosexuality. Job screening began to include gender evaluations for normalcy on the assumption that homosexuals “recruit” youth.15 In the sixties, arguments for antigay teacher policy from the Florida legislature’s “John’s Committee” centered on the dangers of sexual deviants being in constant contact with youth, labeling homosexuality as “moral misconduct.”16 Head of the Miami vice at the time, John Sorenson affirmed the antigay discourse with this statement, which embodies all three parts of Eskridge’s bottom layer: “I think it’s just as much an abomination… I don’t want any sick person teaching my children.And they are mentally ill…and yet here they are teaching our children…and their philosophies and their morals spill over.”17 His statement begins with a natural law argument, by calling homosexual behavior “an abomination.” He transitions to a medical argument, calling homosexuals “sick” and“mentally ill.” Then, his medical argument of homosexuality being contagious is builds into a social republican argument: that allowing the education of children by gays and lesbians is to allow those teachers to impart their beliefs upon, and thus influence students through their moral “spill over”. Denying a parent’s right to prevent such an influence would be to endorse or promote homosexual conduct. These arguments were the prime reasoning behind massive purges of non-heterosexual mid-to-late twentieth century school workers for being identified as gay.18
Natural law and medical arguments used to be the norm in public discourse; they were the fundamental beliefs of LGBT opponents. Once upon a time, it was the norm to view homosexuality (or anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse) as an immoral abomination, an unnatural sin that needed to be prevented. In the sixties, California teacher Mark Morrison was fired and stripped of his teaching credentials after engaging in “immoral” sex with another man.19 Regaining his credentials back with the help of the ACLU was little consolation when the State Supreme Court ruled that even though his “homosexual character’ per se did not interfere with his ability to teach… that the school district justifiably could keep him away from impressionable children. Because the district deemed his sexual behaviors immoral and because these behaviors had become public knowledge, the Court argued that the school district’s decision was warranted.”20 The natural law argument was valid in the courtroom, and the court’s decision was one of social republican principles. The ruling reinforced the constitutionalizations of an employer’s and organization’s rights to not involve themselves with openly gay persons, suppressing the right of LGBT persons to identify themselves or their behaviors. Homosexual teachers were put at a sociopolitical and legal crossroads: fight the dark clouded constitutionalizations raining on their rights, thus committing social suicide, or be forced into tight closets of heterosexuality locked by the keys of the law.
Up the road and a few years later, Peggy Burton was fired for being a lesbian on the same grounds of immorality. After an ACLU supported lawsuit, the Court decided that even though the Oregon “statute vests in the school board the power to dismiss teachers for immorality… the statute does not define immorality…the statute is vague because it fails to give fair warning of what conduct is prohibited and because it permits erratic and prejudiced exercises of authority.”21 The natural law argument was unsuccessful here, not because it was obsolete, but on the grounds that Burton’s behavior wasn’t expressly prohibited. The decision was not concluded on her right to be a lesbian, but on the pretext that the statute fell short of giving the school the right to fire her.22
Through cultural shifts towards a respect for diversity, argumentation of natural law, medical, and social republican philosophies have been rendered politically incorrect. I’d argue that political correctness can be determined as any sophisticated discourse that steers clear of the explicitly discriminatory language, that would be more likely to be met with heavy criticism and now carries the potential disaster of social or political backfire. But as Eskridge’s triple sedimentation thesis demonstrates, the rhetoric hasn’t disappeared, but sits as the foundation and forefather of the sugar coated, sweet sounding no promo homo arguments:
The sedimentation of antigay discourse has a connection with the sedimentation of American governance. The bottom layers – natural law and nonlegal arguments – are much more likely to be out in the open…where the audience is most homogenously traditionalist. The top layers – social republican, constitutional rights, and No Promo Homo arguments – are more likely to dominate when the audience is diverse and includes many moderates.23
The evolution of antigay rhetoric can be seen as the writing of a team’s playbook. The opponent (LGBT advocates) takes advantage of the same old play (argument) run by the antigay team, because they learn how to defend against it (counter argument). The antigay team is forced to explore new plays. They won’t, however, scrap the old ones in favor of an all new style of play; they will keep them in the book, constructing updated offenses built upon their fundamental strengths, while reserving the right to return to their classic strategies. What’s more, they will shift their strategy based on their given audience: If the stands are full of alumni, they run the classics, because they’ll appreciate the style, while a more diverse crowd desires to see the game played with the modern intensity that is likelier to win the game. The writing of this “playbook” begins at the bottom layer of the sedimentation thesis, and the most effective antigay team is one that has built the second and third layers: to take advantage of the rules, play an intense, sportsmanlike-seeming game, with an awareness that the best offense is a good defense.
The second layer of sedimentation, constitutionalization, comes as a product of the first: the antigay arguments that are accepted by the court or by vote (or a board of education in the case of schools) begat policy, thus legalizing, or constitutionalizing antigay discourse.24 If cases that heard arguments portraying homosexuals as pedophiles were to pass, they would be ordaining homosexuals with a legal status of pedophiles. Max Rafferty, one of the prominent voices for California’s Proposition 6 - a vote to purge all known homosexuals from education positions - argued heavily on assumptions of “the long standing view from the nineteen-forties and fifties that homosexuals supposedly could be identified by cross-gender behaviors and characteristics. To Rafferty, gender and sexual orientation marched in parallel. Homosexuals, however…blurred and crossed the lines” of acceptable behavior when perceived to be displaying abnormal gender tendencies or behaviors.25 Accepting this stereotyping argument would be to give those individuals who embody any gender non-conformity a legal identity, which even discriminates against heterosexuals who might have too “gay” of a haircut.
When Anita Bryant wrote to millions of Americans and asked, “Will you help me stop the militant homosexuals?” she was citing the recruitment myth as an argument that education positions should be exclusively for heterosexuals.26 Whether or not this type of argument was explicitly used in a court, antigay arguments founded in the myths of recruitment or pedophilia result in the placement of these abhorrent identities upon mass numbers of people who had no history of - or inclination to - recruiting children into their group or to sexually abuse them. Briggs went as far as to state that “One-third of San Francisco teachers are homosexuals. I assume that most of them are seducing young boys in toilets.”27 If the 1978 California Proposition 6 would have passed to bar identifiable homosexuals from teaching, the voice of the people would have constituitionalized these myths, reinforcing them as legal and social assumptions, thus identities. The defeat of Proposition 6 to sustain LGBT liberties symbolizes the shift in discourse from constitutionalization to the top layer of sedimentation: no promo homo arguments, which account for the fact that discourse must evolve with social decorum; rhetoric has to adjust to remain politically correct, and the result is a newer style of argument that approaches with the same goal and motive, but takes the focus to a distracting aspect of the issue.
On November 4th, 2008, a regressive voice rang out at the polls: Proposition 8 passed to remove the right of LGBT partners to marry as a result of aggressive no promo homo ad campaigns, setting schools in the spotlight:
“Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, schools began teaching second graders that boys can marry boys. The courts ruled (Parker v. Hurley) that parents had no right to object…public schools instruct kids about marriage; teaching children about gay marriage will happen here unless we pass Proposition 8. Yes on 8.28
The antigay discourse of the ad strikes with a gentler affirmative argument under the no promo homo models:
1. If the state fails to adopt new policy z disapproving of homosexuality or penalizing “homosexuals,” it might be viewed as endorsing and promoting homosexuality or homosexual conduct. 2. The state ought to endorse and promote good lives…3. Homosexuality and homosexual conduct are not as good as heterosexuality and heterosexual conduct.29
The third part of the logical structure of no promo argument holds that homosexuality is “not as good” as heterosexuality, and this belief is their reason for fighting. But the belief of heterosexuality being superior to homosexuality is an abstract opinion, improvable, irrelevant, and cannot be born from anything but misconception. All arguments are fueled by morality, and morality is consistently and uniformly a reflection of religious precepts. A moral position is not a right; you merely have the right to hold that moral position.Not even the antigay discourse of today can escape the base layer: by passing Proposition 8, we actively and blindly reinforce the most basic of constitutionalizations: Straight is Good and Gay is Evil. The notion of endorsing or promoting homosexuality is a rhetorical illusion; the fundamental reality of antigay action is that it is meant to oppress homosexuals, refusing them any ascent from a minority status. Society is holding homosexuality’s head underwater; the heterosexual worries that if the homosexual is let up, he’ll be breathing the heterosexual’s air. No promo homo arguments are the methods that the heterosexual uses, often in success, to convince people that allowing the homosexual to breathe would harm him himself in some way—any way—and the mere potential of being harmed is a slight in its own. The antigay rhetoric is so convoluted by the triple sedimentation of no promo homo arguments, that we disregard and contradict facts, truths, and basic ethics to perpetuate a sterile curriculum which produces another intentionally misinformed generation, which could potentially bring on an even more absurd antigay rhetoric.
I’m inclined to agree wholly with Eskridge as he argues the application of the theory of legal realism, suggesting that “law is part of a larger social-political process and not just the mechanical application of rules to facts. Indeed, not only does law change in response to shifts in social power and values, but it also helps shape social power and norms by prefiguring preferences, prejudices, and interests.”30 Queer legal status and public schooling are inseparably interrelated, as their proceedings both influence the other. This is rings especially true as our society institutionally expands its right to oppress. To win the prohibition of same-sex marriage in a battle fought in the already damaged school sphere is not only unethical, but quite ironic. Just because gays can’t marry, doesn’t mean that the children will not learn about the issue, in the classroom, or at the swing set. They will learn it regardless, making the Proposition 8 ad nothing more than symbolic, because the potential terror of children learning about LGBT issues cannot be and is not prevented by outlawing LGBT marriage. It’s wholly irrefutable that all educators need to teach children LGBT issues from a young age; as Americans, we have the fundamental right to education. To intentionally deny, withhold, and manipulate information that is proven to be beneficial to children is in direct and essential contradiction to the very purpose of education.
By institutionalizing antigay discourse, we prop the door open for oppression. The sad and disgusting reality is that no promo homo is a large, complex structure of interwoven fallacies, and its complexity, obscurity, and totality, ironically ensure its survival. It’s now clear that schools are the ultimate battleground of LGBT issues, and whenever the final shot is fired, it will be in the hallways, until which time students will remain the victims of discriminatory education.
Few, if any children, are LGBT before they are a student. The child understands they are supposed to be heterosexual, but perhaps one day, a doubt crosses the child’s mind. The child learns what they can gather from the world around them, and assess the ways they do and do not “fit in.” As nonsensical as their antigay reasoning is, perhaps antigay activists could be convinced that more children would choose to be normative, if only they understood both single and other-sex relationships as options from a young age? I’m sure they could manipulate research to reflect their cause. What more could we expect than the absurdity of their rhetoric evolving into another layer? Perhaps they’ll make that assumption to arrive at the argument to “Promo ‘Promo Homo’ FoNoMo Homo”. Whichever direction antigay rhetoric is moving, it will always be false and a detriment to all people, no matter how eloquently they speak on their quest to oppress.
"I'm just utterly amazed with how life works... doesn't work; the way time brings change...the pure mystery of the actual future, when it's totally impossible to foresee. After all, I didn't have the slightest idea of where I would be right now just two weeks ago. Where will I be a month from now? A year? On this Thanksgiving--anniversary of many things--all there is to be thankful for is life"
That was a different time. Now I'm sort of amused at how time changes the meaning of words; and words change the meaning of that time.
A month from that meditation, I was in Cottage Grove... A year later, suburban Columbus, with a completely different family. But both were incredibly loving families that helped me about in so many ways. Looking at the writing, I can recall the feeling; I won't call it a fear, but it was almost a burden of dependence.
Freshman year, the class theme--the point to ponder while you take the first step in creating yourself-- was simply Dissonance and Harmony. I'll admit it--I had to look up dissonance before I started my 1 page essay about how dissonance and harmony had been present in my life. I gathered it to be the opposite of harmony, obviously, but up until that particular point, I'd never put the word through cognition. Some drew pictures, sent sculptures, or said fuck it altogether. Of course, I wrote. I forced the metaphor of singing in Shades, just to get it done, but I ended up capturing the interpersonal dissonance of the Hannah Jenkins power shift pretty well. I had always looked to harmony in everything. To me, dissonance existed solely in the band and the chorus, as crafted by Dave Barduhn. I guess it would be reasonable to say that the blinders keeping my eyes on harmony, was the reality that my life was characterized by dissonance in more ways than not. Now, looking at what dissonance has become to me, I have to resist drawing upon some cliche purpose of the class theme. Dissonance has been everything here. And lessons in overcoming it have been plentiful, frequently painful, but looking at today, invaluable.
There have been two, three, maybe four times here at Denison when poverty had got its hands of futility around my neck. Being on the Gulf of Mexico with $3.00 for the three days left of someone else's spring vacation, and a situation much like the one I'm in today were really hard to get through. Today is worse than any of those times. I'm facing a week alone on a college campus, and I'm already bothered by the quiet though many people are still here. Tonight, as I was shoving bagels, soup crackers, a few oranges and some little bags of potato chips into my bag, I contemplated the predicament of today against the ones before. Today's paycheck was lower than I'd hoped for; $28 for the next two weeks. But I'm not so bothered by it as I am amused at what this week will end up like. A year ago, I would be in a mess of tears right now. Now, I can't really recall when the last time I really cried was. A few tears of sheer happiness in September is all that comes to mind. Now, even though I can't believe I've made it so far into so much shit without a total meltdown, though everything that could go wrong has, to cry about it would be the response of a person that no longer exists. It's not that I can't cry, or won't if I need to...but I'm stronger. I'm not afraid.
Sometimes I really wonder how much I learn from my past...I know I disregard more of it than I should. But seeing how much I have learned since that past is a pretty good consolation.
I finally buckled down and wrote one of the education papers. It took three all-nighters this week, but I think the final product is good, even if a week late. I think that was the most time and thinking I've ever had to put into a paper, so I hope the quality reflects in that.
I'll throw it on here.
One more thing... I never imagined that my body would betray me so early in life! I thought you had until at least 30 or so before your actions actually took their toll on your body. But after watching three sunrises through the computer lab window in one week...I've still got it.
Is it just me, or is time accelerating? Once upon a time, I thought my birthday had been skipped because the year seemed so long; now the years are blowing by with little regard to one's need to breathe. Night after day, dream after dream fades into forgotten ambition, to fly planes, see the world, and maybe change it.
The more I learn, the more I realize that we're all a replaceable part of a global machine that was built by men who knew how to control its parts, and thus its function. With the blitz of knowledge offered to me here at Denison in Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Education, History, and Language, my world view was shattered. Questions I've battered myself for years trying to understand have been answered.
Who am I? It's kind of a silly question, but I spent my fair share obsessing over it. Questions of identity are tricky, because we all fall into the illusion that we have some sort of choice or freedom in our identity. But what aspect of it do we control? I spent years trying to manipulate (or at least understand) my own. But that power wasn't mine. Our identity is formed by our surroundings. Identity is the aggregate of the way you are perceived by others. And that's not fair. But that's "reality."
I've always had an elevated sense of direction. When I'm at the wheel, passengers in the car are dumbfounded by my ability to get from point A to point B in ways they'd never imagined. If there is no point B, we still have a good trip getting wherever we're going. But now I'm at a crossroads of a different sort... the past 20 years were point A. What is point B? Is it home? Is it graduation?
I'm at risk of failing two classes this semester, and I can only justify the grade in one of them. In the other, a sense of helplessness and hopelessness has killed my drive to achieve. Gay and Lesbian issues in Education seemed like a fairly logical course to take... but only under the pretense of one of those forgotten dreams. Now I can't seem to find the motivation to "analyze the shifting status of LGBTQ school workers in the United States, from the late nineteenth century to the present."
The way Education as an institution has worked against non-heterosexual persons for the past century or two is revolting. But the even more revolting cyclical nature of children being forced into a corrupt system, only to emerge from it as a corrupt product, yields one of two types of people: Those who fall into the gap, or those who work against it. Both are valuable to society, because they create and fall into a perpetual state of conflict. This is true of any sociocultural issue, but in Gay and Lesbian issues, our sense of purpose is convoluted by personal convictions that are formed in fallacy because of the binary of "for or against," the need to stand on one side of the conflict.
Every sexuality-focused course I've taken has started with the same philosophical analyzation of homosexuality: What is it? How is it defined? What makes (cause and/or qualifications) one homosexual? Here's the academicly correct answers, respectively: Anything other than heterosexuality; It can't be; We don't know.
But. We all draw on our experiences, our convictions in opinion, to answer these questions the way someone else convinces us is correct. My experiences and my education has led me to profoundly different conclusions than the academic pretense of "politcally correct" discourse allows. I can answer all of those questions in confidence. Yes, even what "causes" homosexuality. But sitting at a table with fourteen GLBTQ activists complicates my ability to stand up and argue that sexual minorities were created, and that sexuality is not an inherent or even fundemental aspect of anyone's identity. It's just another way to polarize the people, and the resulting social war hasn't even come to head. Just as it was becoming clear that we couldn't opress African Americans much longer, we took a behavior found across both time and cultural, and transformed it into an opressable identity. Now my classmates and I sit around the table saying "our civil rights have come so far, but we're not quite there. But we're making progress!" But, honestly, how can we sit there and call this progress? It's only now that we're amending our constitutions to outlaw gay marriage... have we really tricked ourselves into thinking that we're making progress while our liberties are shrinking right in front of our eyes? Kind of echoes in the issues of national security, doesn't it... sure, take away more of my freedom, as long as it's for my own good.
So now I'm torn... While I understand that the history of a subject or issue is essential to progressing in it, this one seems particularly futile in that the academic momentum of queer studies is moving further away from its truth. Is it betraying my potential and my abilities to be productive?
The question of "Who am I" is dead and gone. Now it's "What the fuck am I doing? And why?"
