1) The Brown Daily News; Confronting transgender discrimination in ROTC
2) Inside Higher Ed; Where ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Remains
3) Passport Magazine; University Students Ditch the Spring Break Parting to Help the gay Community
4) Tufts Observer; Somewhere Over the Rainbow House: The History of LGBT at Tufts
5) The New York Times; Study Undercuts View of College as a Place of Same-Sex Experimentation
1) Jennewein '14: Confronting transgender discrimination in ROTC
Maddy Jennewein March 14, 2011
In the current debate over the potential return of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps to campus, much attention has been given to economic, administrative and militaristic concerns. But little attention has been paid to the rampant discrimination within the military against transgender people. Though the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is lauded as a huge victory for the LGBTQ community, it does nothing to affect the status of transgender service members.
It is clear that the driving force behind the new committee on ROTC is the recent repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but an immediate reinstatement of ROTC ignores the "T" in LGBT. Transgender people are continually ignored in the push for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights. Before declaring recent political events a success for LGBT rights and an open invitation for ROTC, we need to consider continuing discrimination in the military.
Transgender identity and gender identity disorder have always meant automatic disqualification from military service. Prospective soldiers undergo a medical examination in which anyone with prior genital surgery is rejected and those who have been diagnosed with gender identity disorder are turned away for mental health reasons. In addition, veterans who come out after their service face difficulties getting treatment at veteran's facilities, and those who change their sex after service face difficulties in simply receiving veteran benefits.
The military's discrimination, and thus ROTC's discrimination, against transgender people, stands in direct violation of the University's anti-discrimination policy, which states, "Brown University does not discriminate on the basis of … sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression in the administration of its educational policies, admission policies, scholarship and loan programs or other school-administered programs." Because ROTC runs military science courses and offers scholarships, it directly violates this code. With its exclusionary rules on admission, ROTC goes against Brown's anti-discrimination policy.
This calls into question what a non-discrimination policy means to Brown. Is our anti-discrimination policy a strict code that we expect all Brown institutions to follow or lenient guidelines that take a back seat to broader University goals? If we allow ROTC to ignore the non-discrimination policy, where do we draw the line? Which campus groups can interpret the policy at will and who must strictly adhere to it?
Bringing ROTC back on campus is a direct affront to transgender students and allies. On a campus that has made huge commitments to transgender inclusion in areas such as health services and residential life, ROTC's return would bring back the inequality that Brown has been working so hard to expel. ROTC's presence would establish a hierarchy within the Brown community. It makes a statement about who is more equal and who is more deserving of rights.
The military has always had an evolving standard of discrimination. With each new generation, a new facet of discrimination has been deemed too much. With women, African Americans and now lesbian, gay and bisexual people, aspects of prejudice have been stripped away. But after each new fight, when it seemed as if the struggle were over, advocates wanted to quit and walk away with the privileges that they had earned. The LGBTQ fight in the military is not over. The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a huge step for lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers, but there is still rampant discrimination in the military. Is Brown willing to accept discrimination against transgender individuals? Does it privilege sexuality over gender identity in areas of discrimination? This is the question. Do we accept what we have earned and continue to ignore the needs of transgender individuals? Is some equality, but not total equality, enough?
Brown and the committee considering ROTC's return need to carefully evaluate what our values are and what our anti-discrimination policy means to us. Are we willing to allow exceptions to this policy and accept the consequences that come with them? Or will we uphold our strong commitment to equality and keep ROTC off campus? How can we reconcile University goals with Brown's admirable anti-discrimination policy? To what extent will we ignore the minority in the drive to bring ROTC back on campus? I urge the Brown community, and particularly the committee, to take this issue into consideration and remember the values of our community when debating this issue. Brown's anti-discrimination policy exists for a reason and cannot simply be ignored for the sake of ROTC.
Maddy Jennewein '14 is a co-president of GenderAction. She can be contacted atmadeleine_jennewein@brown.edu.
2) Where 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Remains
Joshua Wolff March 15, 2011
Last December, many of us watched as Congress passed the historic repeal of the military's "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, a move hailed as the most significant piece of federal legislation to advance the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons in the history of the United States. The policy, in the words of President Obama, forced "young men and women to lie about who they are" and denied them the right to serve their country solely on the basis of "who they love."
Yet for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning (GLBQ) students in religious colleges and universities, "don’t ask, don’t tell" is a daily reality -- with no sign of repeal in sight. According to Soulforce, a nonprofit group dedicated to ending religiously motivated discrimination toward sexual minorities, an estimated 200 American colleges and universities with religious and military ties now have written policies which bar admission, enforce consequences, and expel students who are openly GLBQ.
Little data exist about what happens to these students at such institutions, yet it would be unrealistic to assume that these students are always treated with dignity and respect given the long history of religious intolerance toward the gay community in the U.S. Furthermore, nonprofit organizations have also documented the use of re-orientation therapies, enforced closeting and numerous expulsions of such students at these institutions. While some may argue that these are isolated incidents, recent attention has demonstrated that this is still happening right now, given the recent furors erupting at respected Christian colleges.
And while these types of policies and disciplinary actions would not be tolerated at many public educational institutions, they remain protected under the guise of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (i.e., religious freedom and expression). Hence, many legal protections and governing policies that are designed to protect GLBQ students from discrimination are not extended to religious educational institutions. But at what cost to GLBQ students who attend such institutions are these policies allowed to continue?
My Story
This is a question and an issue that I have spent many hours reflecting on over the past several years as a former student at a private religious university. Ironically, it was at this institution where I learned to love myself as an openly gay man, and did so with the support and love of some of my classmates and faculty members. Yet, that acceptance did not come without years of pain, struggle, and a constant fear that I would be dismissed for having the courage to live my life with integrity and honesty as a gay man.
You may wonder why I chose to go to this type of college. Like many of the GLBQ youth in this country, I grew up learning that being gay was one of the worst types of evil (or "sins" as evangelical Christians like to call them). Therefore, I thought it was only logical that going to a religious school would help me to keep this dark part of my life in check, and perhaps (I desperately hoped) help change me so that I would no longer be gay. At the time, it seemed like a religious program in psychology would be the perfect fit so that I could address my sexuality, and in the process learn to help others who were facing sexual identity struggles and challenges.
It came as quite a shock to learn that my attractions toward men not only failed to go away, they actually intensified after immersion into such a program. However, the real struggle began for me once I started to ask myself the question, “Could I really be gay?” For most of my life, that had never been a question I could bring myself to verbalize, even to myself. Yet, as the thought began to replay itself in my head over and over again, I had no choice but to face it. After a process of several years of dealing with my own inner demons and opening up to those closest to me, I was finally able to embrace my sexuality-- the part of myself that had always been kept hidden and restrained.
In the days and weeks that followed my "coming out" moment, I experienced a newfound freedom, self-acceptance, and intimacy with my friends and in my faith. Yet, a new fear also emerged: “What if I am kicked out of my graduate program for being gay?” It was a very legitimate fear, given my graduate school’s Student Code of Conduct, which explicitly states that “homosexual behavior” is grounds for dismissal. Just knowing that this policy existed influenced how I discussed these issues in my classes and who I told about this part of my life, both on-campus and even after I had moved almost 3000 miles away to Boston for my pre-doctoral internship.
In the midst of this fear, it also filled me with a sense of deep sadness that, despite my accomplishments in the program (I got into a Harvard program, for goodness' sake!), these could become instantly meaningless if the wrong person found out I was gay, even though I still professed the same faith and lived my life with the same integrity as my classmates. It was a fear that crossed my mind every day for over a year, until the day I received my diploma in the mail. With my diploma in hand, I would not have to hide from anyone anymore.
Despite the pain, confusion, and the fear that I experienced, I don’t regret attending a private religious school where I got a good education and was loved unconditionally by many of those who knew me best. Still, I’ll never forget the needless worry, suffering, isolation, and inner torment that came from knowing that I could be dismissed in a heartbeat or face some other sort of disciplinary process because I was gay. Furthermore, I doubt my coming out process would have been so painful had I known that my university community would have embraced me fully, without conditions and limits placed on whom I could be.
Recommendations for religious programs
It fills me with a great sense of sadness as I think about the GLBTQ students — many of them — who feel isolated, alone, and/or scared to just love themselves and step forward openly as a GLBTQ person in an environment with structural policies that discipline them as such. No one who faces something so painful and personal should have to face such pressures and threats for having the courage to live their life openly. And no one should have to be told to lie about who they are, a practice inconsistent with the core moral teachings of the religions to which they subscribe. As a result, structural policies that ban or preclude GLBTQ students from admission, enforce consequences against them, and foster environments of shame and stigma must come to an end.
This will not happen without faculty members and senior leadership at such institutions boldly coming forward to challenge such policies. While the inherent risks of losing one’s job may be a reality, one cannot ignore the needs of an at-risk student population who are desperately needing to be told that they are loved, valued, and children of God, regardless of their sexual orientation or identity. Current policies at such programs discriminate, reinforce stereotypes, and send the message to prospective and current students that "If you are gay, you do not belong here."
Changes like this cannot happen without institutional support for those who are most affected by discriminatory policies and negative campus climates. Institutions must create safe support networks for GLBTQ youth in environments that remain judgment- and consequence-free. Whether in a residence hall or counseling center, GLBTQ students must know they are not alone.
Additionally, accrediting bodies that govern colleges and programs must step in and say “enough” when schools use religion to hide from accountability for policies and programs that can cause psychological harm. Religious freedom is essential and part of the backbone of this country. Yet, religious freedoms do not give leeway for one group to be oppressed or discriminated against, especially when such individuals may experience harm as a result (e.g., depression, anxiety, bullying, etc.) and are already marginalized. Finally, alumni like me and the thousands of others who have been affected by such policies need to come forward and challenge them. For the sake of the students currently affected and those after them, we can no longer afford to be silent.
Joshua Wolff is the co-author of “The Purposeful Exclusion of Sexual Minority Youth in Religious Higher Education: The Implications of Discrimination”, published in Christian Higher Education. He is a graduate of the Rosemead School of Psychology at Biola University, and is currently a second year post-doctoral fellow of psychology at Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School.
3) University Students Ditch the Spring Break Parting to Help the gay Community
Joseph Pedro; March 14, 2011
It's not all about shirtless dudes and belly-button shots for many university students in the United States. Actually, thousands of students are ditching the traditional spring break and using their time traveling all across the country working for various non-profits. From hurricane and oil spill relief in the Gulf to working with inner-city youth, you name it, Generation Y is using their hands for more than just texting. We've scoured the net to give credit to those university students who are putting the LGBT community at the forefront of their altruistic spring break activities.
George Washington University students are in New York City to help out LGBT youth by working with New Alternatives, a Christian LGBT Homeless Youth Empowerment organization and Sylvia's Place, an LGBT youth homeless shelter. Data show that New York City has the largest homeless LGBT youth population in the country, with one in five homeless youth identifying as LGBT. The 13 GW students will prepare meals for the kids, accompany them on numerous cultural outings throughout the city and even lead workshops for them empowering them to take leadership roles in their local communities.
Colorado State University and University of Maryland students will also be heading on over to the Big Apple to help out with HIV/AIDS organizations. CSU will work at the Gay Men’s Health Crisis(GMHC), the first and oldest organization in New York City committed to the fight against AIDS. Students there will volunteer as a client library assistant, kitchen and pantry assistant, and interact with the diverse GMHC clients.
After this year's rash of LGBT teen suicides, Boston University students decided to help out atDes Moines' Youth and Shelter Services, which works closely with gay and lesbian youths. On another trip, BU students are going to be working with both the Ruth Ellis Foundation and Equality Michigan. They'll also be doing lots of LGBTQ community outreach and education and even baking up some goods at a lesbian-owned bakery!
The good souls at Rice University are spending their break in Los Angeles working with AIDS Project Los Angeles and Project Angel Food. We're sure both of these organizations will love all the much-needed help.
George Washington University students are in New York City to help out LGBT youth by working with New Alternatives, a Christian LGBT Homeless Youth Empowerment organization and Sylvia's Place, an LGBT youth homeless shelter. Data show that New York City has the largest homeless LGBT youth population in the country, with one in five homeless youth identifying as LGBT. The 13 GW students will prepare meals for the kids, accompany them on numerous cultural outings throughout the city and even lead workshops for them empowering them to take leadership roles in their local communities.
Colorado State University and University of Maryland students will also be heading on over to the Big Apple to help out with HIV/AIDS organizations. CSU will work at the Gay Men’s Health Crisis(GMHC), the first and oldest organization in New York City committed to the fight against AIDS. Students there will volunteer as a client library assistant, kitchen and pantry assistant, and interact with the diverse GMHC clients.
After this year's rash of LGBT teen suicides, Boston University students decided to help out atDes Moines' Youth and Shelter Services, which works closely with gay and lesbian youths. On another trip, BU students are going to be working with both the Ruth Ellis Foundation and Equality Michigan. They'll also be doing lots of LGBTQ community outreach and education and even baking up some goods at a lesbian-owned bakery!
The good souls at Rice University are spending their break in Los Angeles working with AIDS Project Los Angeles and Project Angel Food. We're sure both of these organizations will love all the much-needed help.
4) Somewhere Over the Rainbow House: The History of LGBT at Tufts
Ariana Siegel; March 21, 2011
Text Not available; See link for PDF
5) Study Undercuts View of College as a Place of Same-Sex Experimentation
Tamar Lewin; March 17 2011
The popular stereotype of college campuses as a hive of same-sex experimentation for young women may be all wrong.
To the surprise of many researchers and sex experts, the National Survey on Family Growth found that women with bachelor’s degrees were actually less likely to have had a same-sex experience than those who did not finish high school.
“It’s definitely a ‘huh’ situation, because it goes counter to popular perceptions,” said Kaaren Williamsen, director of Carleton College’s gender and sexuality center.
For years, sex researchers, campus women’s centers and the media have viewed college as a place where young women explore their sexuality, test boundaries, and, often, have their first — in some cases, only — lesbian relationship.
That phenomenon gave rise to the term LUG (lesbian until graduation). In 2003, a New York magazine article, “Bi for Now,” suggested that women’s involvement in their college’s gay scene exposed them to a different culture, like junior year abroad in Gay World.
But according to the new study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 13,500 responses, almost 10 percent of women ages 22 to 44 with a bachelor’s degree said they had had a same-sex experience, compared with 15 percent of those with no high school diploma. Women with a high school diploma or some college, but no degree, fell in between.
Six percent of college-educated women reported oral sex with a same-sex partner, compared with 13 percent who did not complete high school.
Anjani Chandra was the lead author of the report, based on data from 2006 through 2008.
Although 13 percent of women over all reported same-sex sexual behavior only one percent identified themselves as gay, and another 4 percent as bisexual. To get accurate answers to intimate questions, the researchers asked those surveyed to enter their responses directly into a computer.
“It’s like a Rubik’s cube of sexuality, where you turn it a different way, and the factors don’t fit together,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It may be that the commonly held wisdom was wrong, that people just liked to imagine women in college having sex together, or it may be that society has changed, and as more people come out publicly, in politics or on television, we are getting a clearer view of the breadth of sexuality.”
The findings are especially striking — and puzzling — since the previous round of the survey, in 2002, found no pattern of educational differences in women’s sexual behavior. Most of the change came from higher levels of same-sex behavior reported by the women without diplomas.
“I always thought the LUG phenomenon was overblown, in the context of it being erotically titillating for young men,” said Barbara Risman, an officer of the Council on Contemporary Families and aUniversity of Illinois at Chicago sociology professor. She added that the new findings may reflect class dynamics, with high school dropouts living in surroundings with few desirable and available male partners.
Amber Hollibaugh, interim executive director of Queers for Economic Justice, a New York-based advocacy group, said the results of the federal survey underscored how poor, minority and working-class lesbians had been overshadowed by the mainstream cultural image of lesbians as white professionals.
“Working with a gay-rights group is now something you’d put on your résumé,” said Ms. Hollibaugh, who did not attend college. “Lesbians who aren’t college-educated professionals are pretty much invisible.”
Dan Savage, a gay sex columnist in Seattle, said the LUG phenomenon may be overrepresented in the national imagination because so many students sought attention for their sexual exploration: “A lot of them are out to prove something and want their effort to smash the patriarchy to be very visible,” he said.
Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, said that with gay relationships so much more common throughout society, college campuses may have lost their status as the “privileged site” for women’s exposure to different kinds of sexuality. “Maybe our stereotypes are just behind the times,” Ms. Diamond said, adding that while lesbian and gay couples raising children were still assumed to be sophisticated white professionals, as in the movie, “The Kids Are All Right,” the latest parenting data showed that “holy-moly, it’s less likely to be upper-middle-class same-sex couples than ethnic minorities and working-class couples.”
Most headlines about the report, released earlier this month, focused on a finding that young people were waiting longer to have sex. Almost 29 percent of the females and 27 percent of the males, age 15 to 24, had had no sexual contact, an increase from 22 percent for both sexes in the 2002 survey.
The gender gap on homosexuality remains substantial: Twice as many women as men reported same-sex behavior. Three percent of the women — and 5 percent of the least-educated women — said they were attracted equally to men and women, compared with one percent of the men.
“A lot of data shows that women’s sexuality is more hetero-flexible, more influenced by what they see around them,” Professor Diamond said.
In the past, she said, a women with a single homosexual relationship would have been labeled gay, and urged to accept that identity. But now there is a growing sense that a lesbian relationship need not define a woman.
“It’s becoming more acceptable, at least in some parts of society, to see your gender identity as fluid,” said Joan Westreich, a Manhattan therapist. “I see women whose first loves were women, who then meet and fall in love with a guy, and for whom it seems to be relatively conflict-free.”
No comments:
Post a Comment