IGF CultureWatch

Both the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times published articles about gay issues in public (government) schools last Friday (Feb. 20). If that isn't a sign from the empyrean that I should write about that, I don't know what one would look like.

The Tribune story was about gay students at a high school in suburban Lincolnwood holding a "high kitsch" mixer for gay students but open to all students at area schools.

There are the predictable objections from the anti-gay sector. For instance, schools shouldn't take sides in the culture wars by sponsoring gay events. But it is, after all, the students who are sponsoring the event; the school is merely allowing it. Then too, schools have long been taking sides in the culture wars by sponsoring a heterosexual institution. It's called "high school."

Social conservatives also object that schools can shield students from discrimination without mixers and dances. But this the schools utterly fail to do. Ask any out-of-the-closet gay or lesbian student if they were shielded.

The New York Times story was about a school in conservative Orange County, California, that was going to put on a toned-down version of the Broadway show "Rent." But the principal objected to the presence of two gay characters and a prostitute in the show.

Her position was that a high school show should be appropriate for people of all ages, including children. But one would think it mainly needed to be appropriate for high school students, a pretty worldly group, you'd think, what with the Internet, easy access to porn, and-for goodness sake-television.

The principal's second objection was that "Rent" could offend school alumni and others who come back to see the Broadway shows each year. So maybe it is those older adults that she had in mind when she referred to "people of all ages." But you would think a simple warning sign about "controversial content" would handle the difficulty adequately. No such luck. And there have been similar objections in other cities.

Obviously we would all like to help gay and lesbian high school students and help promote just a bit of openness and acceptance. What could help this along?

More gay parents and parents of gay students need to come out and be actively supportive.

Those parents need to consider running for school board. Principals are responsible to the school boards that hired them, so gay-supportive school boards are an important pressure point. Remember that the Religious Right urges parents to run for school board to promote their issues such as creationism, sex-less education, and opposition to gays.

More gay teachers need to come out and be supportive, so long as they have tenure and a supportive unions.

More heterosexual high school students need to be organized as supportive, which is why Gay/Straight Alliances are so important to have in more schools. They provide a way to do that safely.

Gay-supportive community leaders and clergy need to step forward to be more vocal on behalf of gay students-attending mixers, dances and controversial plays, and speaking out in public.

Here in Chicago, a new wild card has been thrown into the mix with Mayor Richard M. Daley's appointment of his former Chief of Staff and Chicago Transit Authority head Ron Huberman to be head of the school system. Huberman is gay and has publicly disclosed that fact in print.

Huberman is a Daley loyalist and will have his hands full trying to improve Chicago's dismal public schools, so he probably will not make any bold initiatives on gay issues. But the very fact that he is gay and holds the position he does may provide encouragement at the level of local school operations.

I've been a member of the American Philosophical Association (APA) for about fifteen years. I go to the annual meetings, I get the publications, and I peruse the frightfully scarce listings in "Jobs for Philosophers."

Last week a colleague sent me a petition addressed to the APA. The petition notes that many universities "require faculty, students, and staff to follow certain 'ethical' standards which prohibit engaging in homosexual acts," and that some of these advertise in "Jobs for Philosophers."

It goes on to point out that the APA's anti-discrimination policy "rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, [etc.]."

Philosophers hate contradictions, and the petitioners detect one here. Arguing that these anti-gay ethical codes run afoul of the APA anti-discrimination policy, they conclude:

"We, the undersigned, request that the American Philosophical Association either (1) enforce its policy and prohibit institutions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from advertising in 'Jobs for Philosophers' or (2) clearly mark institutions with these policies as institutions that violate our anti-discrimination policy."

One would think that as a longtime openly gay philosopher, I would jump at the chance to sign this petition. But I paused.

Part of my hesitation may strike non-philosophers as nitpicky. It seems to me that there's no contradiction in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation while allowing it on the basis of sexual conduct. The schools mentioned don't exclude gay people; they exclude people who engage in homosexual acts. It's a fine line, perhaps, but philosophers like fine lines.

Generally speaking, these prohibitions are part of a more general effort to preserve the schools' robust religious character. Schools that prohibit gay sex generally prohibit pre-marital and extramarital sex as well; some even prohibit the drinking of alcohol. (Philosophy without beer? Count me out.)

At the same time, the APA policy recognizes the special commitments of religious institutions and allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation as long as-and this is key-"the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed."

I admire the petitioners for recognizing the serious injustices that daily confront gays and lesbians and for seeking to remedy those injustices.

I also agree that, while there's a difference between orientation and conduct, the two cannot be teased apart as easily as some religious conservatives would like. Who we are is intimately connected with what we do-especially when it comes to deep personal relationships. Those who profess to "love the sinner but hate the sin" often distort that deep connection.

So let's grant that these schools, even if they don't contradict the letter of the APA's policy, violate its spirit. The APA is (or should be) saying "If you're against gays, we're against you." Why not?

Some might worry that the petitioners' stance violates freedom of association. If you want to organize a school committed to conservative Christian principles-including opposition to homosexuality-a free society ought to allow you to do so.

But no one is suggesting that such schools should be abolished. Rather, they're suggesting that APA-a private voluntary organization-ought to be allowed to dissociate itself from such schools.

Freedom of association cuts both ways, and if individuals are free to form schools that exclude gays, other individuals should be free to form professional organizations that exclude the excluders from advertising in their publications.

Indeed, the petition even concedes that the schools might be allowed to continue their advertising, provided that they are identified as violating the APA's policy. Given the schools' presumed pride in their ethical commitments, they should have little objection to asterisks announcing what they're doing.

That concession strikes me as a reasonable compromise: you can advertise here, as long as we can alert people to your policies and express our moral objection to them.

But when are asterisks insufficient? Suppose a school had "ethical" standards prohibiting interracial dating (as Bob Jones University did until 2000). If such a school should be completely excluded from our organization, why not schools that prohibit homosexual conduct?

On the merits, I think the cases are similar. But pragmatically speaking, our culture is at very different places on those two issues. Excluding schools that in 2009 prohibit homosexual conduct is not like excluding schools that in 2009 prohibit interracial dating; it's like excluding schools that in 1950 prohibit interracial dating.

Such absolute bans have a cost, since they remove the offending schools from the kind of critical environments that might hasten a change in their policies.

In the end, I will likely sign the petition. But I will do so hoping for the "asterisk" option. It's not because the APA needs those schools. It's because those schools, more than most, need us.

I am a gay Republican. I am not "self-hating." I am not confused.

I am comfortable enough with my sexuality to think of myself in terms of traits other than simply my sexual orientation. I believe that my attraction to the same sex should have no bearing to my thoughts on tax policy, trade, foreign affairs or abortion. I believe that my sexuality is merely an incidental part of my life and should not be a major factor in my decision-making.

I am aware that there is a rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right. I am aware that Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney hold the same positions on gay rights. I am aware that Bill Clinton signed into law the last major anti-gay piece of legislation passed by Congress - the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. I am self-respecting enough to know that the words of the Democrats on gay rights are no substitute for their lack of action.

I believe that the virtues of classical liberalism - individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism - help gay men, just as they do all of mankind and are better exemplified by the Republican Party than by the Democratic Party. I am furthermore woefully confused by gay men's ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem.

I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be "proud" of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they're just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.

I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay - their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person's sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is "supposed" to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

I have come to understand on a very personal basis that the stereotypes and caricatures of the parties are no substitute for experiencing their members up close. I see that the "tolerance" and "compassion" of the left only extend as far as a person is willing to further their ideological worldview.

I am not Alex Knepper, the gay man. I am Alex Knepper, a man who just so happens to be gay. I believe that my chosen virtues and the actions that I take, not my unchosen sexual orientation, defines me as a person. I am a man who chooses to think for himself and shape his life on his own terms.

I don't think that makes me so radical.

Last week, a Grand Rapids, Mich., television station decided to pull an hour-long infomercial called "Speechless: Silencing the Christians."

Whether this was a good decision for gay and lesbian civil rights or a bad one depends on what happens next.

On the surface, of course, it seems good. The infomercial, produced by the gay-hating, radical right wing religious organization the American Family Association, is a stream of misdirection, misinformation and outright lies.

Through interviews with leaders of a small number of far-right organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, the Media Research Center and the ex-gay group Exodus International, Speechless tells a story that would be horrifying if it were true: gay and lesbian activists are using violence and intimidation to keep Christians from practicing their religion.

Of course, it's not true at all. Gay people aren't trying to pass laws to keep Christians from marrying, or attacking them on the street because they're Christian, or firing them from their places of employment (which would be illegal anyway, under federal anti-discrimination law that we'd like to extend to ourselves).

These things happen to gays and lesbians all the time.

The infomercial is dangerous, because it feeds on fear and uncertainty with inflammatory language and stock video that tries to scare viewers into believing that if even basic anti-discrimination laws are passed, then America's children (who, interestingly, all seem to be white in the pictures flashed across the screen) are in danger.

What, exactly, they are in danger of isn't made clear. Open-mindedness? Independent thinking?

This sort of infomercial, though, sways opinions in the same way those ridiculous, hate-mongering internet forwards do - by feeding on people's doubts and prejudices by saying things that aren't true, but that people fear are true. So in the world of internet forwards, then-candidate Barack Obama was a Muslim terrorist. And in the world of Speechless, gay people are opening fire on places of worship (really).

When the Human Rights Campaign learned that the station in Grand Rapids planned to air the infomercial, they put out a call to action. The station was flooded with messages from angry gays and lesbians demanding the piece be pulled.

And it was.

What I like about the HRC's call is that it requested that a reasoned debate on hate crime be substituted for the deceitful infomercial. That seems fair.

But the other side, of course, won't see it that way.

In fact, my guess is that the pulling of the infomercial will only lend fuel to the AFA fire - now they'll be able to point to it as just another example of gays and lesbians - and the "liberal" media - trying to stifle Christian speech.

I also worry that the controversy over the Grand Rapids television decision means that many more people are watching Speechless on the AFA website than would have ever seen it on a small, local TV channel.

And yet, when faced with trash like the AFA infomercial, we can't do nothing. We know that lies like these affect real people in our community, giving bigots who fire us and bash us an air of legitimacy.

So what should we do?

First, of course, we need to counter the AFA's lies with point-by-point truth.

But it is not facts that sway hearts - it is points of commonality.

We need to do a better job of building bridges between the gay and lesbian civil rights movement and more liberal faith communities. We need to highlight the experiences of gay and lesbian faith leaders - like Gene Robinson, Mel White and Peter Gomes. We need to start flooding the airwaves with pictures of gay people attending religious services.

We need to end the lie that religion and gayness are incompatible.

I know that a lot of gay people will be uncomfortable with this. Many gays and lesbians, religious or not, have been hurt by religious institutions. But the fact is that America is a religious country, far more religious than other Western countries. And many gays and lesbians who grew up in America are religious, too. We attend church and synagogue. We go to Buddhist temples. We celebrate annual religious holidays. We pray.

Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to deny any parts of ourselves - not our sexual orientation, and not our religious affiliation, should we have one. We can be both religious and gay.

We need to show that gays and lesbians aren't silencing Christians - because many of us are Christian, too.

I am something of a fan of gay-owned businesses. I myself don't have much of the entrepreneurial spirit, but I admire it in others and am delighted when they make a success of it.

As I explained in a recent article, gay businesses not only serve the gay community and their neighborhood, they also help to anchor the community geographically. Their owners tend to recycle their income through the gay community and they bring non-gay patrons and their money into the process. Often too they provide employment for area gays and lesbians.

I should add that a consumer's first concern should be to patronize businesses that provide the best products and services at the best prices. Not attracting patronage is the market's signal to a business to shape up. But other things being equal, without being the least bit anti-heterosexual, I encourage gays to patronize gay-owned businesses when they can and when the businesses offer products and services at least as good as other businesses.

I've done a few pieces on area gay-owned businesses in the past (a bookstore, an art gallelry), so when my editor asked me to write more about gay small businesses, I welcomed the opportunity to learn more about gay businesses: how they started, how they grew, the problems they encounter, etc.

After doing a couple of such pieces (e.g., on a candy-store), it is already clear to me that it is more complicated than I realized. Maybe most people think you decide to open a business, do so, and you're on your way. It's far from being that straightforward. A would-be entrepreneur has to scour the neighborhood to check for other businesses that would draw people to the area, check the density of street traffic that could provide "walk-in" business, look for similar competing stores nearby, check rents to see if they are affordable, and consider if advertising is desirable or necessary and whether local media are affordable.

One business owner told me that he had planned on opening one kind of store, but then saw that a similar store was planning to open up just a few doors away. So he switched to Plan B-a different kind of store. Another gay shop owner was able to find and afford only a second-floor space-a definite disadvantage for any business that hopes for appealing window displays or walk-in traffic.

A high density of similar businesses is not always a disadvantage, however. Bars and nightclubs tend to welcome nearby bars since a larger number of bars draws people to the area and many patrons wander from bar to bar. Probably there is a maximum density of gay bars, but I don't know what that is. Maybe I'll learn.

If gay businesses are selling a product, they have to find out what wholesalers supply the products they want in sufficient quantities, at affordable prices, and in a timely fashion. Unabridged Books, for instance, can replace any books that are selling well and get them within a day or two. The system is called JIT-Just In Time supplying. It means that any store does not have to maintain a huge stock of potentially popular titles. Other businesses may use something similar. I'll find out.

Not every gay-owned business manages to survive. A cheese shop and a gay-owned store selling a variety of coffees opened up in the area. The coffee store closed after barely a year while the cheese shop seems to be doing fine. That is the opposite of what I would have expected. So reading the market and the neighborhood can be more complicated than I realized.

Two gay-owned art galleries opened near each other. One seems to be doing fine. The other moved away, the owner claiming that the area was a poor one for art. To be sure, the kinds of art they were offering differed significantly, and the price range was considerably different, but still ... the differing market responses is an important piece of information.

The quality, knowledgeability, and friendliness of the staff are important variables too. Some gay-owned businesses have staff people who welcome you and ask if they can help you find anything in particular or if you would prefer to just look around. At the other extreme, I visited a gay-owned business (not one of those mentioned here) recently, but during five minutes of my poking around, no one asked me if they could help me find anything. Does the owner know about this? I don't know if I'll go back. Does the owner care about that?

As I pursue this project I'll try to report back to readers what I learn, either explicitly or between the lines. Let me know if there are questions you'd like to see answered.