News

Homophobia in Higher Ed

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

Like many of our nation’s schools, Virginia state colleges and universities are currently facing a variety of problems–increased tuition, budget cuts, position cuts. Yet rather than addressing these pressing issues, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II felt that last week was the perfect time to issue the following statement:
“It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ’sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly … I am aware that several Virginia colleges and universities have included ’sexual orientation’ in their various policies. For the reasons stated, any college or university that has done so has acted without proper authority … Accordingly, I would advise the boards of each college to take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia.”

The fact that he felt it was appropriate to spend valuable time on this letter is disappointing enough, but the sentiment he is conveying is downright offensive. I cannot think of one instance in which it would be necessary to remove a demographic from a non-discrimination policy.

By suggesting that colleges and universities cease to include “sexual orientation” in their policies, Cuccinelli is saying that discriminating against gay students is not only permissible but protected by the school. If you discriminate against women or minorities, you will be punished. If you discriminate against homosexuals, you will not be punished. Cuccinelli is essentially creating state-sanctioned homophobia.

Luckily, his position does not seem to be shared by other lawmakers in Virginia. In fact, not even all of his fellow Republicans are willing to stand up for him. Vincent F. Callahan Jr., a former Republican member of the House of Delegates and George Mason University board of visitors member, told the Washington Post, “What he’s saying is reprehensible. I don’t know what he’s doing, opening up this can of worms.”

Virginia boasts several of the nation’s best public colleges and universities. If Cuccinelli’s policy changes are enacted, however, they could cause a “brain drain”–top students and faculty will not want to be members of a community in which all are not protected equally.

Sadly, Cuccinelli does have supporters, such as The Family Foundation, which wrote that “The goal [of including gay people in school policies] is not anti-discrimination–it is forced acceptance of a lifestyle that many Virginians find antithetical to their faith.” Apparently, this organization forgot that according to our Constitution, their “faith” should in no way be considered when creating government-sanctioned policies.

It’s sad and ironic that the University of Virginia, founded and so beloved by Thomas Jefferson that he called himself the “father of the University of Virginia,” may be forced to comply with a policy that discriminates against citizens based on religious zealotry. I have no doubt that Jefferson, who wrote both that there should be a “wall of separation between church and state” and that “all men are created equal,” would be appalled.

Will schools be required to change their policies? University officials have thus far been tight-lipped when addressing the situation. You can bet, however, that students will not obey quietly. Virginia students, many of whom believe that Cuccinelli intentionally issued his statement as they were leaving campuses for spring break, have already issued letters, created Facebook groups, and are organizing rallies.

“It’s going to be a mess. There’s no doubt about that,” Carl Pucci, Old Dominion University’s student body president, told the Washington Post. “Our generation is really open-minded. The concept of discrimination, we’re just not interested in that … I think you’re going to see the whole gamut, from angry letters to protests.”

Doing the Most Good

Thursday, March 4th, 2010
In the wake of tragedy, such as an unforeseen natural disaster, witnessing scenes of devastated city blocks, crumbled infrastructure, and grieving families can quickly leave us feeling helpless. The natural first reaction is to want to do anything we can to ease the pain and suffering of those affected. Most of the time rebuilding and comforting in person is simply unfeasible, so we must do the next best thing—make a monetary donation.
But how can we be sure that the money we give will actually help those in need? Giving to a reputable organization, such as the Red Cross, would seem like the easiest way to put your money in the right hands. After my Twitter feed was inundated this weekend with the familiar “donate $10 to the Red Cross” tweets, however, I was reminded me of a blog post Felix Salmon wrote shortly after the earthquake in Haiti.
The post is entitled “Don’t Give Money to Haiti,” but don’t let that rile you up before reading. The headline was clearly designed to draw the most clicks and attention because the article, though unconventional, is far less controversial. Salmon spends some of the post discussing the merits of various charitable organizations, such as Yele Haiti and Doctors Without Borders, but his most significant point is related to earmarking donations.
Salmon quotes a message on the Web site for Doctors Without Borders which asks that donors either “give unrestricted funding, or [give] to our Emergency Relief Fund.” When you earmark your donation for a certain cause, the organization is obligated to use it only for that cause. When a large-scale disaster like a tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake occurs, donations come flooding into charitable organizations. This is, of course, fantastic. The Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders are constantly in need of additional funding. The problem is that these surges in donations are often marked for use only for one group of people or one disaster.
A major disaster certainly means that citizens of the area affected will need additional attention and assistance, but it should not overshadow other people whose needs are less publicized but no less desperate. Salmon reports that even now, five years after the Asian Tsunami, the Red Cross has spent only 83 percent of the money earmarked for the tsunami relief. As he points out, “that’s money which could be spent in Haiti, if it weren’t for the fact that it was earmarked.”
Though this enlightening post is now over a month old, it is no less important or relevant, especially after the events of this weekend. Don’t be distracted by the controversy-grubbing headline—do give money to help citizens of Chile and Haiti. Just don’t earmark your donations. Give to reputable organizations like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders and trust them to do what they think is best with the money. In this way you can be sure that your money will be used immediately to ease the greatest need, whether it’s in Haiti, Chile, or somewhere else entirely. —Shea Connelly

Big Brother Is Watching School Kids

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

This week in “what were they thinking?!” news, a Philadelphia parent filed a lawsuit against his son’s school district after students were given laptops–which were apparently outfitted with webcams used to secretly spy on them both at school and at home.

The case, Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District, was filed after one of the school’s vice principals disciplined Robbins’ son for “improper behavior in his home,” using a photo taken from the camera as evidence, according to the filing.
There are so many things wrong with this situation, it’s hard to know where to begin. Most obviously, there are some disturbing 1984 “Big Brother” similarities at play here. Is the school district really so out of touch and unable to properly control its students that they must resort to privacy invasion in order to know what’s going on in the hallways? The best way to keep schools orderly and safe is to work towards a mutual trust between students and faculty. Yes, students should be held accountable for bad behavior, but so should teachers and administrators. It’s difficult to think of a quicker way to alienate, humiliate, and lose the trust of students than to spy on them.
Additionally, this webcam abuse does not only affect students. It could violate parents’ privacy, as well as anyone who may have stepped in front of the camera, never expecting that someone could be watching or taking photos. In fact, according to the suit, photos from the webcams “may consist of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions … [and] various stages of undress.”
Even putting aside the fact that school administrators have clearly been watching too many James Bond movies, what is the vice principal doing punishing a student for bad behavior in his own home? Once students leave school grounds, they are outside of the school’s jurisdiction. Isn’t it the parent’s job to monitor his child at home? A vice principal has no business deciding what actions are “improper” in other people’s homes. It’s hard not to wonder what this student was doing in his personal time that was deemed inappropriate and worthy of punishment at school.
Sure, technology has done a lot of good in our world, but, as this outrageous incident shows, there are also endless opportunities for abuse. What could the school board have possibly been thinking when they decided that spying on their students was a good idea? There is absolutely no excuse. —Shea Connelly

The Anti-Abortion Crusade

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

“Black children are an endangered species.” Pro-life activists have plastered this controversial slogan on 65 billboards around Atlanta, intending to draw attention to the supposed fact that the abortion rate among African-American women “has become so great that it has begun to impact our fertility rate,” according to Catherine Davis of Georgia Right to Life.

Part of the reasoning behind this statement is true. The New York Times reports that in 2006, “57.4 percent of the abortions in Georgia were performed on black women, even though blacks make up about 30 percent of the population.” The fertility rate among African-Americans, however, is higher than the national average, which makes the message on the billboards false.

Aside from being a lie, the metaphor on the billboards is somewhat offensive. “Black children are an endangered species.” What do you do with endangered species? You put them in special habitats or zoos to encourage increased breeding. Surely this is not what the people behind the billboards are suggesting, but it is, nonetheless, an image the signs could evoke.

Furthermore, as Loretta Ross, executive director of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, suggests to the New York Times, the billboards essentially portray “black women as either monsters intent on destroying their own race or victims of whites who control abortion clinics.”

Though these reasons alone are certainly enough to end this demonstration, the billboards also happen to illustrate the most serious flaw in pro-life activism. Opponents of abortion can’t seem to understand that pro-choice proponents want to lessen the abortion rate just as much as they do. No one is pro-abortion. The key to a lower abortion rate, however, is not banning the act altogether.

Pro-choice activists would do well to remember that most sane people do not make the decision to get an abortion on a whim. No one wants to abort a child for absolutely no reason. Unfortunately, sometimes circumstances demand it be done.

Perhaps instead of spending money on protests like this one, which is more offensive than effective, anti-abortion activists should work on dealing with the issues that cause a high rate of abortion. Extreme poverty, not having enough access to birth control, and poor sex education in schools are just a few of the situations that can lead to unwanted pregnancies.

Pro-choice and pro-life proponents ultimately want the same thing–a lower abortion rate. If everyone spent more time, energy, and money on fixing the causes of abortion rather than fear-mongering and trading insults, we could achieve that lower rate and keep abortion available for victims of rape, incest, and other abuses, as it always should be. —Shea Connelly

Super Bowl, Super Controversy

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010
Photo by Doug Kensrue

Photo by Doug Kensrue

The Super Bowl broadcast this Sunday is sure to include controversy, and no, I’m not talking about a player getting flagged for roughing the quarterback. In fact, one of the most talked-about Super Bowl issues won’t play out on the field at all, but will occur during the commercial break.

CBS has been sharply criticized over the past week for agreeing to air an anti-abortion ad starring Florida Gators football star Tim Tebow. The commercial, paid for by Focus on the Family, features Tim Tebow and his mother discussing the stressful circumstances surrounding his birth. Pam Tebow became severely ill with amoebic dysentery while pregnant with Tim and was advised by doctors to abort the fetus. Obviously, she refused, and as a result we can watch Tim Tebow play football today.
The underlying message of the ad is pretty clear: ”If you abort your child, you may be depriving the world of a good-looking, all-American, future Heisman Trophy winner!”
Though news of the commercial is offending pro-choice viewers, the ad itself is not objectively reprehensible. There are no pictures of aborted fetuses or any of the other scare tactics often featured in anti-abortion propaganda. There does not appear to be any explicit condemnation of those who choose to have an abortion. Though it is not entirely logically sound (after all, one could just as easily say that by aborting an unwanted child you could possibly save the world from the next Charles Manson), overall there is nothing in the ad that wouldn’t be protected by freedom of speech.
If the content of this commercial was the only issue, arguing that CBS should not air it would be difficult, regardless of your feelings towards abortion. But, as is often the case, this issue runs much deeper than a single Super Bowl ad.
First of all, the integrity of the ad is compromised by the fact that it fails to disclose that abortion was illegal in the Phillippines, where the Tebows were living as missionaries, at the time of Tim’s birth. Additionally, while the decision not to abort apparently worked out well for the Tebows, the same decision has resulted in death for other women and babies.
Most troubling for CBS, however, is the fact that in 2004, the network refused to run an ad created by the United Church of Christ which essentially welcomed all people, gay and straight, to their churches. This makes CBS’ decision to show the anti-abortion ad seem hypocritical, to say the least. The United Church of Christ is, understandably, angry and perplexed by the decision.

CBS has responded by arguing that in recent months “it has run more issue-oriented advertising, such as ones for health care.” The network also says that it is willing to consider airing other “responsibly produced advocacy ads” during Sunday’s broadcast. This seems like a fair enough argument, if it were accurate.

But apparently CBS chose not to air an ad for a gay dating Web site, ManCrunch, during this year’s Super Bowl. The ad “shows two football fans touching hands over a bowl of potato chips, which then leads, as the ad implies, to a make-out session.” Sure, this ad contains more sexual innuendo than the Tebow ad, but that hasn’t prevented Super Bowl ads from being aired in the past (for specific examples, see any Go Daddy commercial).

In fact, it would make more sense for the Tebow ad to be rejected than the ManCrunch ad. The whole point of the Tebow ad is to deliver a political message. It’s essentially conservative propaganda. The Tebows would love nothing more than to change a viewer’s position on abortion. The ManCrunch ad, on the other hand, is only politically controversial because our society has turned anything remotely related to homosexuality into some kind of political statement. The ad isn’t advocating gay marriage or promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and it’s certainly no more provocative than the eHarmony ad during which a man asks his girlfriend to promise never to wear clothes to bed.

So what is CBS trying to say? Is sexual innuendo in Super Bowl ads only acceptable if it’s between heterosexuals? Is the Tebow ad acceptable because it’s intended to “celebrate family, celebrate life“? If CBS wants to grant the Tebows and Focus on the Family the right to speak freely about issues that matter to them, they should extend that right to all organizations or face continued accusations of hypocrisy. Needless to say, CBS has a lot of explaining to do. —Shea Connelly