IGF CultureWatch

[On Sept. 23-24, 2004, Yale University's Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies co-sponsored, with the university's Department of African American Studies, an interdisciplinary conference titled "Regarding Michael Jackson: Performing Racial, Gender, and Sexual Difference Center Stage."]

With a two-day scholarly conference on Michael Jackson, Yale has taken one more step into the depths of academic nihilism.

While I am hesitant to agree with the Yale Daily News' laudatory editorial asserting "scholarship shouldn't be deemed irrelevant or unimportant solely because its subject is contemporary culture," I can at the very least understand a seminar on Michael Jackson sponsored by the African-American Studies Department, touching on issues of racial identity. But what I cannot countenance is the leadership of the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian & Gay Studies in hosting this celebratory conference on a man who is widely, and rightly, viewed by society as a disturbed individual who engages in questionable sexual activity.

The Larry Kramer Initiative (LKI) was founded in 2002 in honor of Larry Kramer, the noted author, playwright and AIDS activist. Meant to foster research and learning about gay issues historical, conceptual and political, LKI has increasingly drifted off into academic irrelevance due to its hosting of outrageously esoteric lectures and its heavy reliance on "Queer Theory," which thrives on themes of marginalization, segregation and oppression.

Modern LGBT-studies is a mish-mash of "social construction," essentially arguing that gender and sexuality are merely "performed" behavior and that homosexuality is not a biological condition. Queer Theory relies heavily on equal doses of Marxism and post-modernism, ranting on about oppression and the need to erase all forms of sexual limitation. It's a revolutionary doctrine, regardless if you want to be a part of the fight or not. As Hunter College art history professor Wayne R. Dynes put it:

For those opposed to "hierarchy," the concept of a core identity is unacceptable simply because it privileges the center over the margins, and is therefore a trope of domination.

Queer Theory thrives on the emphasis of sexual peculiarities and social marginalization, and there is no better representation of these two features than Michael Jackson. Attending the symposium last week, I sensed a general attitude of smug triumphalism amongst the conferees. There was a sensed mutual understanding, and appreciation, for the absurdity of this event. It was an act of academic resistance, and to Queer Theory enthusiasts, life as a queer person is just that, one big act of resistance. Queer Theory posits that the role of gays in society is to be subversive. By embracing the gender and sexuality-bending figure of Michael Jackson, then, queer studies advocates relish in their sexual deviancy.

If one were to randomly walk into a class at Yale, the thinkers that he might hear referred to by a professor would be individuals like Plato, Hegel and Kant, just to name a few. Yet in his opening remarks last Thursday, visiting LKI Professor Seth Clark Silberman cited such intellectual luminaries as the "E! True Hollywood Story," New York Magazine dilettante Simon Dumenco, Steven Spielberg and Moonwalk, the King of Pop's autobiography.

One of the conference organizers was introduced as having an interest in, among other rigorous academic pursuits, "Whiteness Studies." Todd Gray, Jackson's personal photographer from 1979-1983 and a professor at California State University, made a half-hearted attempt at academic legitimacy by citing Hegel's dialectic and Foucault's theories on colonialism in his presentation on the gloved one.

The papers presented at the conference, two of which were, "The Interface as Hieroglyph: Michael Jackson between Peter Pan and the 'Man in the Mirror'" and "Michael Jackson, the King of Melodrama: Innocent until Proven Guilty," demonstrated the arrogance of this whole pursuit as the assembled academics disguised the lack of intellectual worth inherent in the subject with an overdose of academic jargon.

Professors of queer studies might be surprised to find that most of their gay brethren do not view themselves as comprising an oppressed yet sexually rebellious vanguard. Most gay people, at least the ones I know, do not define themselves first and foremost as gay, and certainly not as "queer." We want to be viewed as normal Americans. We want to marry, maybe even have kids, heck, even live in the suburbs with a nice back yard and a golden retriever. Being gay is just a part, one of many parts, of who we are.

But to the academic queer theorists, who are still stuck in 1970s gay liberation mode, this desire to join the mainstream is the greatest threat to their existence on the margins. Gays who seek acceptance by straight people are suckers for "heteronormativity," you see, and criticism of the excesses of gay culture - multiple and anonymous sexual partners, the constant use of victimization rhetoric, an obsession with sex and the body in general - is oppressive.

Every straight friend of mine who heard about LKI's sponsorship of this conference plaintively asked me why any gay person in his right mind would ever want to be associated with Michael Jackson, a man who, in his disturbing relations with young boys, represents the worst and oldest smear against gay men - that of the pedophile. Gays just want to be part of the American family, but queer theorists are unwittingly doing the homophobe's work in trying keep homosexuals in the irrevocable position of social outcast.

What is most outrageous about this conference is not the fact that it happened, but that LKI spent resources that could have been used to host events exploring the social effects of gay marriage, gay child rearing, or gays in the military. Those issues, not hopeless theorizing about a serially alleged pederast, are of actual concern to gay people and, more importantly, are worthy of intellectual inquiry.

Imagine that. Gay people who do not want to be defined by their difference, but by their similarities. How queer.

If all goes according to plan, the Republican Party will hold a love fest of a national convention in New York next month, just as their Democratic rivals did in July. But not if a small group of socially progressive Republicans stand in their way.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a national organization of gay GOP members, has announced its intention, along with Republicans for Choice and the Republican Youth Majority, to call on the national Republican Party to adopt a "Unity Plank" in its 2004 platform. The plank does not call on the party to endorse gay marriage, gays in the military, government-funded contraception, the Harvey Milk School, partial-birth abortion, or any other controversial policy proposal. The plank, in its totality, reads simply:

"We recognize and respect that Republicans of good faith may not agree with all the planks in the party's platform. This is particularly the case with regard to those planks dealing with abortion, family planning, and gay and lesbian issues. The Republican Party welcomes all people on all sides of these complex issues and encourages their active participation as we work together on those issues upon which we agree."

If the Republicans have any sense, they will accept this innocent proposal from these unfairly marginalized members of their own party. After all, the headline speakers at the convention are Governor Schwarzenegger of California, Governor Pataki of New York, and Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York City mayor - all of whom support gay rights. But don't hold your breath.

Considering what they have had to endure, gay Republicans could easily be considered the most loyal members of the GOP. For when it comes to the issues that directly affect gays the Republican Party has been nothing but hostile. The party's leaders have continually opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make it illegal under federal law to fire someone simply because that person is gay. Currently, this practice is legal in 36 states. Congressional Republicans have consistently opposed allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces, at a time when the most qualified individuals are needed to defend the country. And the Republican Party, led by Mr. Bush, has sought to write discrimination into the Constitution by means of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Despite all this, the Log Cabin Republicans are only requesting that a straightforward, three-sentence plank be included in the party's 2004 platform that would make gay Republicans feel welcome within the party whose candidates they vote for, whose ideals they believe in, and whose treasury they help fund.

Is it too much to ask? Apparently so, because leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans have yet even to receive credentials to attend the convention.

Social issues are divisive, and the party's hard-line stance against gays is not only failing to win over voters - only 4 percent of whom say gay marriage is a decisive issue for them - but it will become a political liability down the road as homophobic public policies become increasingly anachronistic with young people. The polls bear this contention out, and Karl Rove would do well to pay attention. In 2000, Mr. Bush nearly split the 18-to-29-year-old vote with Mr. Gore. But in a recently released Washington Post-ABC News poll, Mr. Kerry now leads the president among that same demographic by a 2-to-1 margin. While the war and the economy are paramount in creating this shift, the one glaring issue that separates this age group from older voters - who are evenly split in the presidential race - is gays.

If the Republican Party wishes to have a future, it must come to grips with the fact that its stances on issues related to homosexuality, while perhaps not strategically risky right now, will prove disastrous in the future if they do not evolve. Voters under 30 are "gay friendly." Half of us support gay marriage and a sizeable majority of us support full legal rights via civil unions. We can claim more openly gay friends, relatives, and coworkers than any other generation of Americans. We view any remark that hints of anti-gay animus with the same mix of disdain and ironic bemusement as we do retrograde comments endorsing racial supremacy.

Young people take pride in our acceptance of gay people and are confident that despite the bitter debate homosexuality is causing in our country now, most Americans will share our point of view within the next 20 years. If Republicans have any idea what is good for them as a party, they will get hip with the times.

In the middle of our struggles over gay marriage, the Boy Scouts and sodomy laws, it is easy to develop blinders when it comes to what might initially appear to be peripheral causes. Surely, the past five years have been the most eventful in the gay rights movement with acceptance reaching an all-time high.

If current trends are any indication, the American gay rights cause should even be concluded within the next several decades. Gay marriage will eventually become reality across the country, and legal discrimination will come to an end.

This will not, of course, erase homophobia from society; no more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 erased racism toward blacks. But equality for people of all sexual orientations in the United States will at the very least be written into law, thus realizing the accomplishment of the modern gay rights agenda.

But throughout the world, gays face barbaric oppression that is almost medieval in nature. Up until Afghanistan was liberated in late 2001, the Taliban would regularly flatten gays with massive stones.

Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, has cracked down on gays and publicly labeled them "worse than pigs." Egypt imprisons homosexuals, and Saudi Arabia beheads them.

In sum, Matthew Shepard-like killings, rare in this country, are a regular occurrence in other nations, particularly those headed up by Islamic fundamentalists.

We have a responsibility to stand up for gay rights not just at home, but abroad. Gay Americans have a special responsibility to speak out, for our nation has always served as a place of refuge for the oppressed.

Having achieved economic success and to a large degree, mainstream acceptance, it would be all too easy to rest on our laurels. Many gays in this country, even though they are denied countless basic rights, are ambivalent about the indignity of their inferior status, choosing to lead closeted or apathetic lives.

This attitude must change not only for the sake of gay rights in America, but for fellow gays living outside this country�s borders.

We could take some lessons from American Jews on how a domestic civil rights cause can effectively turn its focus to the international scene. For many years, national Jewish organizations spent a great deal of effort on domestic concerns, encouraging pluralism and denouncing discrimination against religious and ethnic groups.

Once Jews became largely accepted, international issues like global anti-Semitism and Israel became the raison d�etre of American Jewish groups. This is not to say that American Jewry once ignored Israel and their European brethren in favor of domestic causes, but talk to American Jewish leaders today about what concerns them most and you will almost always hear about international anti-Semitism and Israel.

When faced with decisions to fight nativity scenes on town commons or Islamist terror against Israeli civilians, American Jews have wisely made the latter crisis a priority.

This is not to suggest that the United States should traipse around the world invading nations that do not live up to our standards of gay tolerance. But there are many things that the United States can do, short of military action, to support gay rights abroad.

Employing the moral authority of the United States against our enemies, much like Ronald Reagan did against the Soviet Union, is something that left-leaning gay leaders are loathe to do. But it is undeniable that America stands on the side of human dignity: Compare our record with those states that actively persecute gays.

Withholding economic aid to repressive nations is another possibility, along with affording asylum to gays fleeing repressive states. Once gays in this country achieve full marriage equality and win the fight to erase discrimination from the books, non-profit gay money, which is quite plentiful, should be devoted to making gay rights a central part of the American international agenda.

These domestic victories are closer than many gay activists imagine them to be, and so national gay organizations would do well prepare for future battles.

With the current rapid progress, we are emerging more strident than ever in our demands for fair treatment, and these successes have empowered a new generation of gay activists. What agenda these future leaders set is impossible to predict, but advocating the use of American power to aid gay people abroad is a noble start.

In October, the Yale Daily News reported that nearly half of the Yale Law School's professors plan to sue the Department of Defense over its campus recruiting policies. In their haste, they ought to heed the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a free speech champion. In the 1927 case Whitney v. California, Brandeis expressed in his concurring opinion what has emerged as an essential condition in First Amendment legal thinking: in heated disputes, "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Unfortunately, certain members of the faculty are pursuing an illiberal agenda by attempting to prevent Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps recruiters from meeting with students on campus.

The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has inflamed a national controversy in which an anonymous group of law schools sued the Defense Department over the Solomon Amendment. They plan to argue that the 1995 federal statute, which requires universities receiving federal funds to allow military recruiters on campus, violates the free-speech principles of the Constitution. Liberals have embraced the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights. With a pervasive distaste for the armed forces, it is easy for the Left to attack the military's policy on gays.

But what if the military's decision to prohibit open gays from serving, aside from its unseemly un-American quality, is detrimental to our national security? Last November, the military discharged seven Arab-speaking linguists because of their homosexuality. At a time when we are fighting an Arabic-speaking enemy and when the need for trained Arabic speakers is dire, the stupidity of this policy could not be clearer. It is not the military's concern who its translators sleep with, just that they speak their respective languages proficiently.

Frank Kameny, one of the first gay rights advocates and a veteran of World War II, offered a tongue-in-cheek yet logically argued response. "To lower the quality of our armed services is to give aid and comfort to our enemies. But under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a definition of Treason - anyone who supports, administers, or is involved in the exclusion of gays from our armed services "is a traitor who should be indicted, prosecuted, tried, convicted, and hanged for Treason."

Conservatives trumpet their toughness on national security but most of them (with notable exceptions like the late Barry Goldwater) oppose allowing gays to serve openly, placing their anathema to gay people over the national interest. But militaries throughout the Western world allow gays to serve openly. Britain, Canada, France and Israel, a country that by necessity has one of the most effective fighting forces on earth, allow open homosexuals to serve. What makes gays in the military such a political hot potato here is the influence of the religious right, a phenomenon unique to America and a major factor contributing to the military's anti-gay policy.

But here at Yale, liberals are guilty of a similar ideological sin as their conservative opponents, for they, too, place dogma over the national interest. And by impeding students from seeking information on joining the JAG Corps, not only do they prevent our nation's military from attracting the best and brightest minds, they are also undermining the principles of the First Amendment.

It is surprising that so many professors from a school as prestigious as Yale Law would sign onto a lawsuit that rests on such problematic legal ground. No one has forbidden law students, faculty or the administration from speaking out against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Thus it is difficult to understand how anyone's free-speech rights are being violated. Opponents of the Solomon Amendment can stand at the law school with camouflage gags symbolically placed in their mouths and hang black sheets in its hallways, but actively preventing students from seeking information about joining the armed forces is a different action entirely. If anything, it is Yale Law School that violates the free association and speech rights of the JAG representatives and the students who wish to meet with them.

Law students should have the same opportunity to receive information about the JAG Corps as they do to receive information about joining some big corporate law firm. It is not the University's role to tell its students who they can and cannot meet with on campus. To do so prevents the free flow of information and contradicts the mission of a discursive intellectual community. Yale University has a binding agreement when it accepts federal money. If Yale breaches the contract by refusing military recruiters the right to interview students on campus, then the University should not expect the government to fund this obstruction. Unless the professors can prove that the Solomon Amendment is forcing them to violate the Constitution, which they cannot, they will have no case.

In addition to the general anti-military sentiment that is so prevalent on this campus, now one may be labeled a "homophobe" if he merely wants to discuss job opportunities with a military recruiter in a law school classroom. Case in point: only one student signed up to meet with the JAG recruiter last week and that appointment was eventually cancelled.

From a tactical perspective, preventing military recruiters from meeting with students will not change the military's anti-gay policy and those advocates who so self-righteously believe that they are having an impact on this issue greatly exaggerate their own importance.

If gay advocates ever wish to change the military's unconscionable policy, they would be well advised to encourage, and not hamper, military recruitment at a socially progressive campus such as Yale. Gay writer Paul Varnell wrote earlier this year in the Chicago Free Press that banning Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs on campus, which Professor Donald Kagan said was "a stain on our record," has forestalled the revocation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by discouraging those very heterosexuals who oppose the policy from joining the armed forces. "In short, " he writes, "the effect of banishing ROTC and military recruiting by the most liberal, gay-accepting colleges and universities was to increase the proportion of recruits and young officers who are less accepting of gays, whose college experience was unlikely to counter negative views of gays, and who do not want gays in the military." While claiming to be leading the fight for gay equality by snubbing their noses at the military, sympathizers of the gay cause are actually harming the movement's prospects.

It pains me to no end that a country that preaches equality has not fully accepted many of its own citizens into the fold. It is maddening that one of the greatest national institutions is not open to me simply because of who I am. But it would be selfish and self-aggrandizing to let my personal disagreement with the military's unfair policies get in the way of my peers who wish to seek information about serving their country. If the University itself were to join this lawsuit, an institution that touts its duty to produce public leaders would be thwarting that very ideal.