Slate takes note that Elmhurst College outside of Chicago “has begun asking potential students about their sexual orientation in a move the school says is aimed at increasing campus diversity.”
Here’s the question on the application for those students hoping to attend Elmhurst College in the fall of 2012: “Would you consider yourself to be a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community?” The three multiple-choice answers: “Yes,” “No” and “Prefer Not to Answer.”
Which begs the question, is it possible to be gay or lesbian without considering yourself “a member of the LGBT community”? In fact, it is possible, and not just among “closet cases.” Elmhurst is not asking “Are you gay or lesbian (or bisexual or transgender), but a far more politically correct question with collectivistic assumptions (we are all inherently part of the group borg that subsumes our individuality). Even those who socialize with other gay people may not accept the designation of an “LGBT community,” fraught as that phrase is with so many political implications.
Going further, the college’s thinking seems premised on the belief that if you’re gay but don’t view yourself as part of “the LGBT community” then you don’t count toward diversity. That would make sense if your actual goal is not a diversity of individuals but a mix of progressive-thinkers and activists representing strands of the progressive rainbow, who can mutually congratulate one another on being, you know, progressives.
More. This reminds me of the old Jack Burns and Avery Schreiber routine where Burns, as a talkative taxicab passenger, asks cabbie Schreiber if he’s “of the Hebrew persuasion,” and Schreiber responds, testily, “I’m a Jew!” Burns replies, “You said it, not me,” as if the word itself was offensive. Maybe something similar is going on here: it seems less “offensive” to say “LGBT community” than “gay.”
33 Comments for “Part of ‘The Community’?”
posted by Houndentenor on
What a stupid question! There is no single “lbgt” community. There is some need for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered to form a coalition for political purposes, those are separate, sometimes overlapping communities. There’s not even one single lesbian community. There are quite a few. And then of course not everyone socializes in the same way or with the same frequency with other people of similar characteristics or interests. This sounds like a very lame attempt on someone’s part to do good (celebrating the diversity of the human experience is a good idea especially in an academic setting) without much thought or experience.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Elmhurst is a United Church of Christ college. Most likely, the “LGBT community” phrasing is nothing more than UCC-speak. Don’t over think this …
posted by BobN on
This strikes me as another case of under-thinking to fill pixel quotas.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This strikes me as another case of under-thinking to fill pixel quotas.
Maybe so, but it is certainly a more plausible explanation than half of the convoluted (and to my mind, implausible) explanations posited in this discussion. If the church’s websites and statements are any indication, the UCC often thinks and speaks in terms of “communities”, faith-based and otherwise. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.
posted by Jorge on
Too bad discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation doesn’t have a strong protections under federal law as on the basis of race, else this wouldn’t be very legit. You know those two affirmative action cases in the 2000s? Schools can do this in the interests of promoting diversity. Well, isn’t the whole point of that to expose students to people who aren’t white in an environment (college) that is less diverse (or at least more white) than the US on average?
Does anyone seriously think the college environment is less gay than most? It certainly is NOT less “LGBT community.” But I don’t know Elmhurst College. Maybe they want to get enough gay students to actually get an LGBT club. Which is, perhaps, their right and prerogative. But don’t they have more important things to spend their time and money on than trying to stack the deck in favor of gays?
posted by William on
Where I went to college was all fairly relaxed about who was gay, such that there was not necessarily any need to group off. Elmhurst seem behind in championing a community, rather than true integration. Can they not work on the assumption that 5-10% of applicants are LGBT (fair enough for them to use the acronym, if they want to consider trans people). They could also provide resources to help those who need them without assuming that gay or trans people generally are in need of special consideration, protection or funding.
posted by Tim on
You raise an interesting point. There are all sorts of potential exceptions here — the heterosexual ally who wants to consider him/herself part of our “community”; those of a predominantly homosexual orientation who do not choose to identify as gay or lesbian ; etc. I agree with you that the “community” business is an attempt to soften, dilute and otherwise render more acceptable the presence of LGBT students.
I get what Elmhurst is up to. Federal law doesn’t allow employers to ask about sexual orientation or keep track of the numbers, but without numbers it’s hard to know how diverse your population really is. The LGBT group at my former employer (a Fortune 50 corporation) struggled for 10 years trying to get corporate HR to ask a question very much like this one. In that context, we felt it important to demonstrate the size of our population. I wonder if we are moving beyond that now — and just throwing open the doors of welcome without trying to count heads?
posted by Matt on
There are probably a fair number of incoming students who are wrestling with their sexuality and can acknowledge that they are attracted to people of the same-sex, but who don’t want to commit specifically to “being gay.” I’m openly gay, but remember taking years to make the jump from acknowledging the attraction to self-identifying as gay (let alone coming out publicly).
posted by Matt on
Sorry – i should have gotten to my point. Those students who can acknowledge their attraction might say Yes to the question as posed by the college, but wouldn’t say Yes to a question asking “Are you gay?”
I think, in a weird way, this question is phrased to make it easier to get Yes responses (not for the sake of getting many Yeses, but to accurately gauge the size of the population).
posted by pgbach on
Stephen,
You are going off the deep end. Please take the weekend off and return to sanity.
posted by avee on
pgbach,
If you haven’t noticed, there is an interesting conversation about the points made in the post taking place here. Since you have nothing to contribute, maybe you shouldn’t comment. Give it some thought.
posted by Wilberforce on
Don’t fret about the criticism. You are right. This is a moronic non issue. It’s another excuse to spit hatred at the left. I especially like how they micro analyze the supposed meaning of this question, giving it endlessly sinister intent.
Amd Miller carefully leaves out who he’s talking about: The UCC, one of the greatest allies the LGBT community have.
It’s another example of right wing strategy, as explained in internal documents of the last thirty years: attack, attack, attack, lie, slime the victim’s character, twist meaning, lie, slander, name call, spit hatred at every full stop.
The hicks have been fooled by this attack. But, in general, the strategy is has become very tiresome.
posted by avee on
About what I’d expect from you, Wilburforce. All you do is come here and insult the blogger as if he were the embodiment of the evil right wing. Want to know what a knee-jerk partisan ideologue looks like, take a gander in the mirror.
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks for the name calling and non-argument.
I come here because the site is billed as a ‘gay mainstream’, which in the real world means gay liberal centrist. Instead, it is packed with far right attacks on mainstream queers.
Thanks also for deciding who should and should not be allowed here. If you don’t mind, I think pgbach and I can decide that for ourselves.
Want to know what a far right name calling and non-argument looks like? Read your last submission.
posted by LarryJ on
Miller makes a solid point about those who find the bureaucratic/gibberish-like “LGBT” to be less, shall we say indelicate, than just using “gay.”
I work for a company that conducted a diversity survey of all employees a few months ago. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. One of the questions was, as in the blog incident, “Are you a member of the LGBT community.” I think my employers were much more comfortable asking this, instead of just asking “Are you gay or lesbian?”
The issue of conflating transgender (which is gender identity) with gay/lesbian (sexual orientation), and the confusion this creates, is a whole other story!
posted by LarryJ on
I should just add, although I am certainly gay, I don’t think of myself as a “member of the LGBT community.” However, I responded “yes” on the survey. We have domestic partner benefits but I’d certianly like to see tax gross-ups for partner health coverage, so it’s good if they know there are many gay people working here, even if we’re not all marching in political lock-step.
posted by Tom on
I am gay. I am not part of the “LGBT community.” That was very clearly pointed out to me by so-called “friends” in 2008 when I refused to support Obama….enough said.
posted by Jorge on
Don’t fret about the criticism. You are right. This is a moronic non issue. It’s another excuse to spit hatred at the left.
I disagree. This is a relevant cultural issue accompanied by an editorial.
Amd Miller carefully leaves out who he’s talking about: The UCC, one of the greatest allies the LGBT community have.
That’s two things he left out.
I am gay. I am not part of the “LGBT community.
I certainly don’t self-identify as a member of the “LGBT community” or “GLBT community.” But I say “gay community” a lot, and when I do I’m not talking about some Rainbow Brite-esque college gathering. I also accept the concept of a queer community, which even fewer people agree with.
The language issue is important as it speaks to how the gay community defines itself, who within the gay community gets to define it, and who without the gay community, who among its allies, gets to define it.
Much of the split between conservative and progressive gays is over questions like these, in fact. Gays openly question the attention and political power we should give to bisexuals and transgendered. I still favor GLBT over LGBT. Politics and activism comprise many definitions of the gay community, and define it as progressive. The old Log Cabin Republicans and upstart GOProud respectively expand and challenge definitions of the gay community that identify progressive politics and activism. Bruce Bawer once wrote in “A Place at the Table” about people being caught between calling themselves “gay” and “homosexual.” We’re seeing the same thing here.
posted by Houndentenor on
Labels are tricky. Don’t confuse the typical liberal with the handful of people obsessed over this kind of thing. They are the exception and not the rule. Sexuality is far more complicated than the simple labels people try to use. Often people mean well and shouldn’t be yelled at when they are truly trying to reach out to all people and make sure everyone is acknowledge and included. College is an especially tricky time for this. A good many (most?) people who will later identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual (and maybe even transgendered) are still sorting that out for themselves, and people dealing with young adults need to be sympathetic to that.
And finally, there’s nothing “conservative” about identifying as gay or lesbian. Libertarian perhaps. Progressive often. But “conservative”? Not so much. (It is also possible to be conservative on some issues and progressive on others. Hell, I even agree with Ron Paul occasionally.)
posted by Jorge on
And finally, there’s nothing “conservative” about identifying as gay or lesbian.
I fail to see how that is relevant to this topic or my post.
posted by Jorge on
“Gay openly question the attention and political power we should give to bisexuals and transgendered.”
Should read “Some gays…”
posted by Tom on
My comment above sounded much more harsh than I intended. When I referred to the “LGBT community,” I was referring to the ones who think because you are gay, you have to follow the liberal progressive thinking…and supporting everything they stand for because, well, you are gay. Someone mention libertarians. I possess a strong libertarian mind set. Those online quizzes that claim to assess one’s political ideology always place me in the libertarian leaning conservative area (but never far from the exact center).
posted by BertieorBirdie on
The purchases I make are entirely based on these artlceis.
posted by Jimmy on
“I still favor GLBT over LGBT.”
Ladies first is just being polite.
posted by Jorge on
I see it as an attempt at social castration.
I’m rather blunt when I choose to be.
posted by adam on
the phrase “the gay community” has troubled me for a long time. it implies unity and homogeneity when often there is none. it makes it sound like we’re all off on an island somewhere, in “our” community, rather than sharing a college campus, in this case, with straights, allies, and antagonists. it makes it sound like one person can speak for “the community” when often we’re far from having, or even wanting, a consensus. as has been said, i can see what the college is up to, pussyfooting around asking the question. but we can all align ourselves with whom we want to, and assuming singularity when it isn’t the case, marginalizes us all the more.
~ peace
posted by Dale on
The essay that heads this thread and the comments that follow reflect, for the most part, astounding silliness. The terms “community” and “diversity” are not incompatable, as the Elmhurst College question clearly recognizes.
posted by Jorge on
And twenty-plus or so years ago, so did debates about “Negro” and “African-American.”
posted by Lymis on
Seems to me that straddling the question might have made their point clearer – “Are you lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) or do you consider yourself to be a part of the LGBT community?”
Of course, that begs the question of “queer-identified straight kids” or other people who would claim membership in the community but not any of the individual identities which make it up, but it would potentially err on the side of overcounting, rather than undercounting.
I know that I don’t hedge anything about identifying as gay, but my answer to the question of the community would be “depends on just what you mean by ‘community’.”
I would think that distinction would be particularly true of college students who know (or suspect) something about their orientation but don’t identify as part of any such community (yet, if ever.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I note with amusement that Rick Santorum has picked up the “gay community” lexicon: “So the gay community said, ‘He’s comparing gay sex to incest and polygamy, how dare he do this,’ and they have gone out on a, I would argue, jihad against Rick Santorum since then,” Santorum said yesterday. I guess we can be thankful that he doesn’t consider himself a “member”.
posted by bls on
Maybe something similar is going on here: it seems less “offensive” to say “LGBT community” than “gay.”
Yes, that’s all this is about – people trying to be “polite.” They think it wouldn’t be nice to ask what they view as “sexual activity,” but that it’s OK if it’s couched in “political” language.
posted by Lymis on
“it seems less “offensive” to say “LGBT community” than “gay.””
But that misses an important point – “gay” isn’t inclusive. It doesn’t include a lot of lesbians, who feel that gay is a male term, but it doesn’t in any way accurately describe bisexual people or transgendered people who aren’t also gay.
That’s like comparing saying “racial minorities” to saying “blacks.” While whether or not one or the other is offensive or not might be debated, not all people who are member of a racial minority are black.
This isn’t about politeness or offensiveness so much as accuracy and inclusion. If you are trying to count gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people, you’d be foolish to simply ask “are you gay?”
posted by tommy jefferson on
I think that this is a good thing to do so initially, which will hopefully be fined tuned as it goes on. Hopefully, it will help that campus better include all students.