Preventing Anti-Gay Bullying

by on

The Chicago school system now has an openly gay head. Earlier this year, Mayor Richard M. Daley appointed former Chicago Transit Authority head (and before that mayoral Chief of Staff) Ron Huberman to head the school system with an obvious mandate to improve what are often called "the failing Chicago schools."

The situation may be unique. I know of no other school system with an openly gay head, certainly not one of any major city. Huberman's homosexuality was well known within the gay community, and certainly to Mayor Daley, but how widely it was known among the general public is doubtful. In any case, shortly after he was appointed, Huberman "came out" publicly during an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, a disclosure that had all the earmarks of a preemptive strike. Oddly there has been little noticeable objection, not even from the generally homophobic black religious establishment.

No doubt Huberman will be focusing on improving standard measures of school effectiveness such as improving test scores, reducing dropout rates, and reducing teacher turnover. But from our point of view one major problem which may not get addressed unless we push it as a priority is bullying-specifically anti-gay bullying. This is hardly irrelevant to the other concerns: Bullying of students who are or are perceived as gay or "different" can make young people afraid to go to school, resulting in poor attendance, higher dropout rates, and even occasional suicide-as was the case recently with a 15-year-old boy in Western Springs.

Even for those young people who manage to stick it out, bullying creates a poor learning environment and can cause considerable residual emotional damage. A robust-looking man, Huberman probably did not face bullying in school, but he surely knows that many young gays do, and I hope that reducing bullying would be a priority for him. Numerous studies by GLSEN-the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network-have documented its pervasiveness.

The issue can be confronted on two major fronts. In briefest outline here they are.

The schools need to get serious about all bullying, making it an expellable offense-a mandatory ten-day suspension with mandatory counseling for a first offense, and expulsion after a second offense. That may not do much for bullies, some of whom probably do not want to be in school anyway, but it will do much to improve the lives and learning of vulnerable youths.

Huberman also needs to appoint a Special Assistant for Anti-Bullying Initiatives or "Anti-Bullying Czar" to survey programs in other school systems that have helped reduce bullying and institute them in the Chicago schools systemwide.

But reducing anti-gay pressures in the schools is not enough. Positive support mechanisms must be set up. First, the city must encourage the creation of Gay/Straight Alliances at all middle and high schools. It should seek out gay and gay-friendly teachers to act as advisors and provide them (and all administrators) with copies of the "Equal Access" law which mandates the acceptance of a wide variety of student clubs, including, courts have decided, gay student groups.

Second, Chicago must create not just one school but an archipelago of explicitly gay-inclusive and gay-supportive schools across the city for students to escape to if they do not feel safe at their current school.

Third, the city must promote regular schoolwide assemblies on the issue of tolerance and acceptance of all ethnicities and orientations, featuring appropriate speakers, including known athletes where possible to serve as exemplars.

Fourth, the city should facilitate an annual day-long conference of members of existing Gay/Straight Alliances and potential G/SA members at other schools to get to know one another, provide mutual encouragement, and network on ways to address common concerns.

If the schools cannot do at least these things, they cannot be said to be serious about bullying and anti-gay harassment. We as a community will be watching.

3 Comments

Self-Made Schism

by on

Recently, delegates to the Episcopal church's triennial general conference voted to allow the ordination of gay bishops, a vote that overturned a de facto moratorium on ordaining gay bishops that was approved three years ago.

I agree almost entirely with the analysis offered by my fellow Chicago Free Press columnist Jennifer Vanasco. But there are a couple of additional points worth adding.

The vote was "overwhelming" (according to The New York Times)-more than two-thirds of both houses of the convention voting in favor of the new policy. Since most of those votes were probably not new converts to the gay side, that means that those votes have always been there but just not cast on our side.

Instead, they were temporarily persuaded by the appeals of Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, not to do anything that would rupture the Anglican Communion, many parts of which, particularly in Africa, are fiercely anti-gay

Williams made the same appeal this time too, telling the convention, "I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart."

But the appeal did not work this time. Instead the convention voted to stand up for its principles of inclusion and acceptance of gays and, implicitly, for the acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate mode of sexual expression. As one church leader put it, "real relationships are built on authenticity."

It is amazing how frequently calls for "unity"-religious, political, organizational-amount to one side urging the other side to abandon its principles and support a policy or view it does not believe in.

No doubt there will be angry denunciations from anti-gay provinces of the Anglican Communion and threats to withdraw or else expel the Episcopal Church. They have already sought to form alliances with anti-gay dioceses in the U.S., although with limited success.

But the Episcopalians have more or less brought this on themselves. For decades, wealthy American churches have sent millions of dollars to Africa to support proselytizing and missionary work to convert Africans to Christianity.

The result was to provide a homophobic rule book-as both the Old and New Testaments certainly seem to be-without any decent training in the historical and critical analysis of the bible that is commonplace in American seminaries. As one Episcopalian cleric told a startled friend of mine, "Some African bishops have little more than an eighth-grade education." So the message the Africans and others learned was a Bible-based homophobia.

Those Episcopal churches might be well-advised to start sending their millions of dollars to support gay rights and gay equality efforts both within and outside of the African churches to try to undo some of the damage they have done.

The main reason Williams' appeal did not work this time was that it seemed clear that another delay would have had no effect and that the appeal would be repeated again in another three years. It had been hoped that a few years' breathing room on the issue would allow some progress by the Africans (and other homophobic dioceses) in learning more about homosexuality and the historical and critical analysis of the Bible.

But the Africans showed no movement in that direction and instead dug in their heels on the issue. That means that the same urging would be given every time the issue came up, ad infinitum, and Episcopalians would never be able to institute their gay-supportive beliefs. This they were finally unwilling to do.

As if to indicate "Now we're serious about this," the convention also voted to develop formal rites for gay and lesbian unions. But that is a separate issue and deserves separate treatment another time.

7 Comments

America’s Reasonable God

by on

The estimable Peter LaBarbera commented on my post about GLAAD. Some folks here replied with varying levels of snark and/or mockery. LaBarbera does tend to bring that out in people.

But I think his comment deserves a bit more, because I think his assumption helps clarify the distance between us. He says, "When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality in a major film? The "gay-as-victim" shtick is getting so tiresome."

I couldn't agree more with his final sentence. That is one of the things that distinguishes IGF, I hope. But what about those former homosexuals who are content with their sexuality?

It's here that I think LaBarbera and his supporters are at odds with the vast majority of America. it's not that we don't think there are people who describe themselves as ex-gays, or even who have found someone of the opposite sex to marry and are content with, even proud of their lives.

But very few people think those folks are "former" homosexuals. Rather, I think most of us agree with Alan Chambers. Chambers, who is the president of Exodus Intenational, is candid that he continues to "struggle" with his homosexuality, but that his religion helps him to resist that temptation.

While most Americans understand sexual temptation, they don't "struggle" with their sexual orientation, and I doubt very many today imagine God demands that exertion of homosexuals any longer. If homosexuals want to make that deal with their God, they certainly can, but that God is looking increasingly unreasonable. Why should secular gays be in the same class as Catholic priests? Even American Catholics are evenly split on priestly celibacy, with 55% of all Americans saying that rule appears to have outlived any usefulness it might once have had.

I don't know what kind of God LaBarbera has in mind, but I think the deity he and Chambers worship is not the one the rest of us envision. If some TV producer wants to do a modern-day Thorn Birds, with a gay man in the role of the priest (maybe Richard Chamberlain is still available), he might give it a try. But I think that God might get a lot less sympathy than the one in the original could count on.

8 Comments

How Do You Solve A Problem Like MREA?

by on

The Palm Center's just released report, A Self-Inflicted Wound: How and why gays gave the White House a free pass on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', reveals how it's not just politicians who stand in the way of DADT repeal, but some of our own leaders. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, or MREA, is ready to go, with 164 co-sponsors. Independently, the President really could do something unilaterally, but won't. And according to the report, he has been given cover by gay leaders.

Aaron Belkin's position will raise any number of hackles, and it should. Here's mine: Like most politically active minority groups, we don't actually elect any of our "leaders." They are generally self-selected, and over time, that process of self-selection can become incestuous. Small groups of like-minded individuals designate themselves, in various combinations, to represent the interest of the group, and exercise a pretty free ability to determine what they believe that interest is.

Belkin doesn't name any names, but the problems facing DADT repeal speak for themselves. Between 69-75% of Americans now support eliminating this blot on our national reputation, but the fear of a backlash like the one Bill Clinton suffered has the political classes paralyzed and positively verklempt. How much more public support is needed to give them comfort? Do we have to wait until support rises to 80%? 90%?

This is a funhouse mirror image of why minorities are given special consideration in the constitution. Not only are our politicians afraid of a majority's biases about a minority, they are now even afraid of a minority of the majority's biases about the minority.

Can't anyone in our leadership point that out?

I don't know if this phenomenon has a name (I'd suggest CEGSSS: Clinton-Era Gay Shell-Shock Syndrome), but if our leaders can't guide politicians through it, what good are they? I'm sure Rahm Emanuel is no easy project, but are the rest of us supposed to live through the aftereffects of his trauma forever?

1 Comment

We’re Here, We’re Queer, We Were on Primetime Network TV 647 Hours Last Year (Not Counting Cable)

by on

I'm really wondering whether we need GLAAD anymore. They've just released their Network Responsibility Index for 2008-09 to "serve as a road map toward increasing fair, accurate and inclusive LGBT media representations." ABC led the pack among networks; of its 1,146.5 total hours of primetime programming, 269.5 hours (24%) included LGBT impressions. The CW came in second with 138 LGBT-inclusive hours, or 20% of its primetime offerings. CBS gave us the back of their hand, devoting only 60 hours -- 5% of its schedule -- to us. For shame.

In 1985, when GLAAD was a startup, this kind of monitoring was not only valuable, but necessary. Back then, the New York Times had a specific editorial policy against use of the word "gay," to describe us. GLAAD is the reason that changed, and they can claim credit for much more. They've helped us change the world.

But now we are in the position where we can complain when one network only shows us five percent of the time -- a number pretty close to our actual percentage in the population. Anyone tuned only to ABC would have had to put up with 269.5 hours of us. How helpful is it, really, that we know, to the decimal point, total network hours, percentages (subdivided by race, as well; Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives lose serious GLAAD-cred on that point) and year-over-year differentials of GLAAD-approved achievement? Are we studying stuff now, not because we need to, but just because we can?

I don't know how much it cost to do all this monitoring, and slicing and dicing of the data, nor how much was spent to produce the 39-page, very glossy report. But in a world where we have some important and expensive political work to do in (for example) Maine, New York and possibly Washington (and let's not forget California), is this really the best use of $11 million? Do we really need GLAAD as an institution any more? More important, if we ever decided we didn't, would it be possible to get rid of them?

12 Comments

Render Unto Caesar. . .

by on

I was obviously -- and happily -- wrong in worrying about Charlotte. Despite some troubling rhetoric from religious leaders, the gay pride event there went off without a hitch. About 500 believers prayed peacefully, even mingled with the crowd of about 10,000. This shows how people of contrasting beliefs should be able to interact. The Christians, in their red shirts, believe God has "A Better Way" for us, and just like anyone else who is trying to sell us something, whether it's a car, a life insurance policy or a religious way of life, we should respond to their pitch with some measure of the politeness in which it is offered, and any credibility we think is warranted. If and when we give them a clear signal of No Sale, everyone should be able to continue on their way.

Which led me to thinking about a customer they were able to close the deal with: Alan Chambers. He's just published a book called Leaving Homosexuality, about his struggle with unwanted homosexual attraction. An interview with him at CitizenLink fascinated me because, even more pointedly than the protesters in Charlotte, he seems to be able to draw a line between his religious beliefs and the civil society. He seems quite candid in admitting he finds other men sexually appealing. But in his view, acting on that attraction is sinful:

The key thought here is the opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality. It's holiness. There are people who are conflicted with their sexuality, involved with homosexuality, and there is a way out for those who want it. But it doesn't say that they're going into heterosexuality, because that's not the point. The point is that people can leave whatever it is that God calls less than His best and move into something that is His best, becoming more like He is.

That strikes me as getting it just about right. If you hold his religious belief (which interestingly implies that God is heterosexual, something I don't think I've heard before), then you should probably avoid that particular sin. Plenty of religions are questioning that premise right now, but not the one Chambers belongs to.

An awful lot of us, though, are accepting of our homosexual orientation. And Chambers acknowledges that his path is only "for those who want it." The rest of us live in the secular world, governed by secular laws and (in part) by our human desires and affections. Chambers and the Charlotte protesters can try to talk us out of those, but they can't force us to believe something we don't. That's something the First Amendment -- both in the religion clauses and in the free speech clause -- got exactly right. Neither religion nor government can demand belief. Yet that is the knot at the heart of the religious opposition to homosexuality. Because they cannot enforce belief, they are trying to use the law to corral acceptance, but acceptance is, itself, a belief -- and one that is growing.

As we learn every day from the rest of the world, living with people who hold contrasting or inconsistent beliefs is the only alternative to civil unrest and even violence. The Charlotte protest and the Chambers interview show a civility -- and a clear separation of religion from the law -- that I think is admirable. I thought someone should say that.

6 Comments

Kisses and Kids

by on

I'm on the record as being in favor of kisses, as well as kiss-ins. I'm Pro-Kiss.

So I was paying attention to the latest kiss-in in Southern California, outside the LDS temple in La Jolla. It was a small rally, but the quality of the kissing seemed above average, and the point was made: Kissing is really not that big a deal.

But this local news report had something in it I don't think I've ever seen before -- certainly not on local news. A shot of two women kissing pans to reveal a couple of kids playing, with the reporter saying "This, taking place in front of children roaming on church property." My reflexive cringe turned into amazement, though, when the report cuts to one of the kissers being interviewed: "What if those children grow up and they are gay? I don't want them to think it's a bad thing."

That is close to an encapsulation of the entire gay rights movement in two short sentences. The report was able to get past the immediate and natural fear people have for children in general, and offer an opportunity for the audience to think about the world as gay children might experience it. In other words, it actually imagined, for a moment, that all gay people really were, themselves, children at some point. Why should they grow up in a world of images where straight kissing is good but gay kissing is bad? What effect would that have on them?

That leap of imagination -- of empathy -- is the one more and more heterosexuals are able to make. I don't want to make too big a deal of out this one TV news report, but as much as some of the best kisses I've ever had, it took my breath away.

3 Comments

Surroundings

by on

I'm not sure what to make of the proposal by Pentacostal evangelists to "surround" the Charlotte, NC gay pride festival this Saturday with worshippers. Jim Burroway has a very good backgrounder on the cast of characters behind this at the increasingly invaluable site, Box Turtle Bulletin.

The first amendment permits public protest, and this seems to fall well into that fundamental protection. Our nation couldn't survive in its present form without allowing people this necessary freedom. While I disagree profoundly with the beliefs of these protesters, they certainly must have the right to have their say in public.

But what do they mean when they say they have a plan to "surround the gay pride event in Charlotte"? (The quote is toward the end of the embedded video) If this is metaphorical -- and that is entirely possible -- then I see no problem. They may intend to surround the event with what they believe is the love of God, and if that is peaceful and nonviolent, I couldn't object -- though I'd certainly want to check in with God about whether that is the sort of love he had in mind.

But if they are speaking literally -- and have the ability to physically surround the entire area (though I have no idea whether that's possible), it raises what seems to me to be a serious problem. If the presence of protesters interferes with the ability of attendees to enter and exit the grounds, there would obviously be a very intense possibility of physical confrontations. This is the clear meaning of the other phrase the leader of the protest, Michael Brown, is using to describe what he wants to create: a "flash point" in the struggle for gay rights.

If the protesters are able to fully enclose the event at any point during the day, there is real danger, I think This sounds more to me like a near-military strategy of containing the enemy than like the airing of a public grievance. That is where it differs from what I understand to be the reasonable range of public protest. And it strikes me as naturally leading to violence.

I may be overreading what, exactly, the protesters intend, or are capable of. But if this shapes up the way Brown is describing it, it is cause for serious concern.

3 Comments

A Same-Sex Cinderella

by on

When I was a young girl, I loved fairy tales. Especially Cinderella.

Part of it was her sparkly dress in the Disney movie version. But part of it was the feeling all children - and perhaps especially gay children - have at some point: that your family of origin doesn't understand you (and also, they make you do icky chores).

Cinderella captures that, plus the hopeful thought that someday you will fall in love and someone will fall in love with you, and they will see you for the beautiful princess you are.

I loved Cinderella as a child and I loved it as a teenager, when I read re-imagined, darker versions.

The trouble, however, with Cinderella, as with most traditional fairy tales, is that the Princess-to-be is always straight, as is the Prince. Fairy tales help children and teens imagine an adult life where they overcome adversity to find authenticity and love, but it is always straight love. And young people need to know they can find happily-ever-after with a same-sex partner, if that is what their sexual orientation turns out to be.

That's why I really appreciate books like Malinda Lo's Ash. Ash, which will be released in September, is a retelling of the Cinderella story for a young adult audience. In it, the orphaned girl, here given the nickname Ash, is forced into servitude for her stepmother and stepsisters to pay her father's debts. There is a prince, and a ball, and fairies, and a spectacular dress.

But there's something else as well.

Though Ash finds herself at first seduced by a man, she grows into a mature love with a woman who has taught her skills she needs to survive and thrive in the world. It reads the way an actual coming out can, moving from what is expected to what is true.

Ash is not just a straight fairy tale with the genders of one of the heroes switched; instead, it is fairytale told with a lesbian sensibility.

As adult gays and lesbians, we see many more representations of ourselves in the world. We're no longer limited to the limp-wristed gay best friend role in sitcoms, or the murderous lesbian in heels (or flannel) in movies. We are no longer ignored in books published by mainstream publishing houses, or pushed into the gay section in bookstores.

Instead, we are doctors, housewives, and accountants in media representations, just as we are in real life. We fall in love, we do good deeds and bad ones, we get revenge, we get jealous, we get hurt, we get hope.

Children and young adults see those images now, too, but they don't necessarily identify with them. That's why it is amazing that children's books like King & King, which tells the story of two princes who fall in love, and young adult books like Ash are starting to fill in the gaps.

Fairy tales tell archetypal stories with themes that deeply resonate with us. That's why the tales have lasted so long in so many different forms. So fairy tales creatively re-imagined with gay protagonists - fairy tales that use a familiar form to tell true gay stories - are necessary for us to help craft the narratives of our lives.

I'm grateful for Ash and King & King and all the other stories that are reassuring children and young adults who might be gay that their lives, too, will have richness and triumph and magic and love.

They need to know - really, deeply, fully know - that life may be hard. Your stepmother may lock you in the cellar. You might have to clean out the fireplace. No one may understand you. But gays and lesbians have happily-ever-afters, too.

5 Comments

The Curious Case of Boies and Olson

by on

Celebrated attorney David Boies (he led Gore's Florida recount legal team in 2000) explains in the Wall Street Journal why he and Ted Olson (who led Bush's recount effort) have now come together and brought a lawsuit asking the courts to declare unconstitutional California's Prop. 8, which limits marriage to couples of the opposite sex. Writes Boies:

"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."

Meanwhile, some LGBT groups are upset that a conservative lawyer is part of an effort to strike down laws that treat gays unequally, as Mother Jones reports. Well, maybe the case is mistimed and misdirected. But it also seems clear that these groups are really upset over (1) not calling all the shots here (as this Washington Blade story suggests), and (2) the fact that a conservative (albeit a limited government one) is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon. Just how, they must be wondering, could that possibly aid the advancement of the greater progressive agenda under the leadership of the one true party?

11 Comments