It is important that colleges become LGBT friendly. College is a time for self-expression and discovery. While that is such a cliché, it is more true than false. Now, LGBT friendly is a student recruitment selling point. While I am glad that it is becoming an important issue for school administrations, it is only a reflection of student views. This is really suggestive of how times are changing. A recent survey claims that 70% of Millennials support (more or less) gay rights. Here is the link:
Upon that and other things in the survey, I am quick to wonder what is the reason for this really large generation gap. As well, I wonder how can we move the 70% from tolerant to friendly. When I mean friendly, I mean where there is no longer a need for a safe zone. Specifically, I think of Rhodes College. What at Rhodes can we add or eliminate to make our experiences and interactions more LGBT friendly? While I have some suggestions, what are some of yours?
Chris Cuomo believes that it is imperative to have laws and rules protecting the LGBT community. The initiatives that schools and governments make today will be important in the future. Therefore, some of the bills that we talked about in class are destructive to the progress that society has made. The progression is clear (refer to the link); however, it is our duty as Millennials to actively take part in the change.
Phong,
ReplyDeleteI agree that that it is each individual's duty to actively enact the change she wishes to see. I want to elaborate on what you mean by queer-friendly as distinguished from queer-tolerant and offer a few suggestions of my own and I am very interested to listen to your suggestions on how to impact Rhodes as well.
First, a culture that actively fights for the legitimacy of homosexuality and the dignity of LGBT folk distinguishes tolerance and friendliness.The "LGBT, Fine By Me" campaign demonstrates tolerance. While the intent is benevolent, the message implies that one's willingness to combat rampant homophobia remains limited to that individual's permissive acceptance of homosexuals. Another example of this kind of tolerance includes the "Born this Way" ideology, which suggests one should accept LGBT folk because they cannot help being otherwise -- as if being LGBT is something to be helped. Furthermore, as this ideology utilizes biology as a defense against reactionary moralism, it conceals homophobic oppression by reifying that the sex/gender/gender identity/sexual orientation binary is biologically constituted.
As you mention, supporting gay marriage and establishing Safe Zones -- while helpful -- are insufficient. ‘Live and let live’ does not effectively engage oppression. ‘I have no problem with gays’ or ‘I have gay friends and they are cool’ does not promote that homosexuality is as legitimate as heterosexuality. Being queer-friendly upholds the dignity of LGBT folk by replacing ‘I have no problem with your being gay’ to ‘there is no problem with being gay – the problem is heteronormativity.’
Second, to progress Rhodes campus from queer-tolerant to queer-friendly requires students to actively combat homophobia. As the administration cannot legislate hearts and minds, promoting a queer-friendly campus necessitates a cultural and social shift featuring peer-to-peer education and consciousness raising. Fighting microaggressions on an interpersonal level -- or calling people out for using homophobic slurs and explaining how using terms like ‘faggot’ establishes homosexuality with the derogatory and the lesser -- is a good first step. Furthermore, promoting consciousness requires pointing out heteronormativity (e.g., the recent Facebook page Rhodes Crushes conflict concerning how ‘Rhodes boys should step up to ask girls on dates’) when it appears. Extending outside of the interpersonal, perhaps guerrilla advertising, such as posting ‘Brunette Safe-Zone’ stickers, could also promote consciousness.
On the administrative level, Rhodes could require a Queer Theory, Feminist Theory, or Sociology course as a foundation credit to force students to encounter the idea.
Ian, I have been thinking the same thing in response to requiring such a course from an administrative level. I don't think that such a course would be considered for a foundation credit, but I think Search 1 and 2 really need to be restructured and include different material. I think Search 2 could very well be restructured near the end to include such topics. While I do not believe there would be ample time for a deep analysis, I think the simple act of deconstructing ideas freshman have on these topics while coming in to Rhodes would have extraordinary benefits. This awareness, so early on in these individual's careers at Rhodes, would create drastic changes in behavior down the line. Furthermore, the fact that everyone takes these classes at the same time would help mutually consolidate these ideas among each year's student body. Having a class like Search, where everyone takes the same class together so early into college, has truly powerful potential. Unfortunately and in reflection, I think Search in its current form is probably the most useless class I've taken at Rhodes. It could use some serious reform, and I think such an incorporation would be a good place to start. I'm aware that I've been using Search as all-encompassing when there is really a Life option as well. It might be a little bit more problematic to incorporate something like feminist theory into life but maybe it could be done.
ReplyDelete