The "Wait...WHAT???" Blog

The Definition of Family

2011-11-30T21:16:00.000-08:00

Apologies for the severe lack of updates over the past few months. Josh is in the process of becoming Dr. Collins and must tend to his studies, and I (Tiffany) have entered the working world and often find myself exhausted when I come home in the evenings. I do hope to start generating some more content myself in the coming months, but in the mean time, I had to share this inspiring video that I just watched.

The video shows Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old student at the University of Iowa, speaking at a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives, which was aimed at ending civil unions in Iowa. Wahls was raised by same-sex parents and wanted to show the world how normal and loving his family is. There is no evidence to show that same-sex parents are incapable of raising children, and in fact, research reveals quite the opposite (check out some of the articles referenced in the previous post).

You can also check out Zach's interview with Ellen Degeneres.

Falsehood of the Day (July 17, 2011)

2011-07-17T14:57:00.000-07:00

Representative and 2012 Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann is well-known for her extreme anti-GLBT rhetoric. She has been quoted as saying things like:

And what a bizarre time we live in when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.¹

Gay marriage is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not under-stating that.¹

This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural, and perhaps they should try it.²

Bachmann even went so far as to sign a candidate vow, promising to uphold the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman if she is elected as President of the United States. The vow opposes "any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage" and supports "a federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States." The vow also claims that "married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy," although many of these claims have been refuted by a variety of studies (e.g., Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Fairtlough, 2008; Patterson, 2009).

Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, have recently come under fire after an under-cover video investigation, lead by Truth Wins Out activist John Becker, revealed that the state- and federally-funded clinic Bachmann & Associates offers reparative (or conversion) therapy in an attempt to help GLBT individuals convert to heterosexuality. Becker was assured that GLBT individuals can in fact rid themselves of homosexuality, or at least bring it down to a "manageable" level. The therapist tried to extract potential causes for Becker's homosexuality based on his past relationships and experiences, recommended that Becker find a heterosexual accountability buddy, and advised that Becker refrain from attending his friends' same-sex weddings following the passage of New York's marriage equality bill. The therapist stressed that everyone is born heterosexual but that some individuals encounter "challenges" that lead them to believe they are homosexual, and as such, any homosexual individual can successfully convert to heterosexuality.

Claim/Falsehood: Reparative therapy can successfully change one's sexual orientation from GLBT to heterosexual.

The Truth: Reparative therapy does not actually change an individual's sexual orientation but merely forces them to repress their true sexual orientation out of fear, shame, and guilt. Not only is reparative therapy ineffective at changing an individual's sexual orientation, but it is also incredibly dangerous.

Reparative therapy operates under the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, meaning that a GLBT individual need only change their mind and their behavior in order to become heterosexual. Reparative therapists also claim that homosexuality is a symptom of a larger psychopathological problem, such as troubled past relationships or sexual abuse (Bright, 2004). However, sexual orientation is not a choice or a phase that someone may be going through; it is an innate characteristic similar to one's race or ethnicity. Although relationships and environmental factors may certainly impact one's expression of their sexual orientation, many studies have also determined that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. For example, studies have revealed that twins have a heritability of homosexuality between 30-62% (Bright, 2004). Despite mounting evidence that supports Lady Gaga's hit Born This Way, "reparative therapists continue to unjustly represent homosexuality as a pathological and curable mental illness, choosing to rely solely on their pernicious personal beliefs and emotions rather than risk exposure through legitimate research" (Bright, 2004, p. 478).

The following clip, from the award-winning documentary For the Bible Tells Me So, presents arguments to refute the claim that homosexuality is a choice.

Ignoring the fact that reparative therapy simply cannot work, therapists and clinics tout high rates of success. However, a patient is perceived as being cured simply if they do not act on their homosexual feelings (Bright, 2004). Therefore, it may appear that a patient has changed their sexual orientation, but in reality, they are simply repressing their true sexual identity. This repression can create feelings of shame, guilt, and fear, and it can also lead to depression, intimacy avoidance, sexual dysfunction, and even death (Bright, 2004). Reparative therapy is considered a dangerous practice by a variety of medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers. The American Psychological Association (APA) recommends that "practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm" (Hein & Matthews, 2010).

Many of the suggestions and remedies offered during reparative therapy are based on gender stereotypes and misinformation. For example, reparative therapists may suggest that a gay man seeking to become heterosexual should play sports, avoid "gay" activities like operas or symphonies, and interact with women only for romantic purposes (Bright, 2004). Reparative therapists often fail to provide informed consent, potential negative side effects resulting from therapy, or discuss other treatment options, such as gay-affirmative psychotherapy. Furthermore, much of the literature on reparative therapy focuses soley on gay males while ignoring lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders. As such, reparative therapists may be doing additional harm to lesbian, bisexual, or transgender patients because they are working from skewed perspectives and approaches. Additional dangerous approaches include covert sensitization, exorcism, and even electric shock therapy (Hein & Matthews, 2010).

Marcus Bachmann recently defended his clinic by stating that they will offer reparative therapy upon request and that Becker specifically asked for help regarding his homosexuality. This is often the rebuttal provided by those who offer and/or support raparative therapy practices: it is a voluntary procedure initiatied by the patient. However, patients are often pressured to attend reparative therapy sessions against their will by family, friends, the church, and constant messages of disapproval from society at large. Patients may feel like they have no other choice and must rid themselves of what they have been conditioned to believe is their deviant and sinful sexual tendencies. Once the therapy sessions have begun, the patient receives constant reminders from the therapist that homosexuality is considered a despicable disease that can and must be cured.

What can you do? There are several actions you can take to help expose reparative therapy as a dangerous practice and ensure that those who support reparative therapy do not achieve positions of power. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has created an online petition urging GOP presidential candidates to take a stand against Michele Bachmann and reparative therapy practices. Be sure to register to vote for the 2012 presidential election and cast your vote for candidates that support equal rights for GLBT citizens. Finally, spread the word about the dangers of reparative therapy and the need for GLBT equality in America so that others can make informed decisions during the election next year.

REFERENCES:

Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 3-22.

Bright, C. (2004). Deconstructing reparative therapy: An examination of the processes involved when attempting to change sexual orientation. Clinical Social Work Journal, 32(4), 471-481.

Fairtlough, A. (2008). Growing up with a lesbian or gay parent: Young people’s perspectives. Health and Social Care in the Community, 16(5), 521-528.

Hein, L. C., & Matthews, A. K. (2010). Reparative therapy: The adolescent, the psych nurse, and the issues. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(1), 29-35.

Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64(8), 727-736.

Marriage Equality: Now Available in New York

2011-06-25T17:43:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the New York state senate approved a marriage equality bill that now makes New York the 6th and largest state that allows same-sex marriage. Shortly after the senate's approval, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the bill, and the law will go into effect 30 days from the governor's signing. All but one Democrat and four Republicans voted in favor of this bill, demonstrating that the push for equality transcends bipartisan, political boundaries. Republican senator Mark Grisanti, who initially campaigned under the promise that he would oppose same-sex marriage, stated:

I apologize for those who feel offended [...] I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.

Hopefully more and more states, inspired by New York and the other five states who recognize that all people deserve the right to marry the person they love, will join the fight for equality. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans support marriage equality, and this support has been growing steadily over the past decade. There is still much work to be done, but each victory brings us one step closer to full inclusion and equality for ALL citizens.

LGBT Pride Month 2011

2011-06-01T10:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, President Barack Obama proclaimed June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2011 to "commemorate the courageous individuals who have fought to achieve this promise for LGBT Americans, and [to] rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

LGBT Pride Month serves as a reminder that there is still much progress to be made in the fight for LGBT rights and equality, however, it also serves as a time to recognize the achievements that have been made. This past December, President Obama signed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell which, when fully implemented, will allow LGBT service men and women to serve their country openly and proudly. We have also made tremendous strides with anti-bullying legislation as well as efforts to prevent, treat, and cure HIV. In his proclamation, President Obama declared, "While progress has taken time, our achievements in advancing the rights of LGBT Americans remind us that history is on our side, and that the American people will never stop striving toward liberty and justice for all."

A few days before the start of LGBT Pride Month, the citizens of Portland, Oregon organized a public demonstration to show their support for the LGBT community. A week earlier, two gay men were followed and beaten because they were holding hands. In response, thousands of Portland residents, including mayor Sam Adams, joined hands across the Hawthorne Bridge as the Beatles classic "I Want to Hold Your Hand" played in the background. The attacks leading up to this event highlight the continued stigma and discrimination faced by LGBT individuals, but the demonstration itself also highlights the growing support for the LGBT community.

To celebrate LGBT Pride Month, Old Navy is selling Gay Pride t-shirts at 26 select stores throughout the country, with 10% of the proceeds going towards the It Gets Better project. If you do not live near one of the stores listed, you can order the shirts from your nearest store and ask for the shirt to either be shipped to that store or to your home for an additional cost.

Many LGBT-friendly organizations will be putting on a variety of events throughout the month to celebrate LGBT pride. Pride Houston, for example, has a variety of events planned for the month including dinners, concerts, and the annual Houston Pride Festival and Parade attended by thousands of people from all around the world.

Live loudly, love proudly! This month is about celebrating LGBT individuals and their Allies!

"I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate
prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the
great diversity of the American people."
- President Barack Obama

Allies: What You Can Do

2011-05-24T16:23:00.000-07:00

As a supportive friend and ally of the GLBT community, you may be asking yourself: What can I do to help?

STAY UPDATED & INFORMED

It is important to keep up with current issues and legislation locally, nationally, and even globally. This can be accomplished in a multitude of ways, including watching the news, reading the newspaper, and reading news online. Many news sources and magazines have Facebook and Twitter accounts, making it easier than ever to receive timely updates about current events. Social media also makes it incredibly easy to share articles and information with your friends!

BECOME AN ALLY

The Texas A&M University GLBT Resource Center offers Allies Advance Workshops "to raise awareness of another cultural group, since the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is generally very misunderstood; to raise awareness of the way homophobia affects everyone; explore ways allies on campus can support the LGBT community and each other; and provide an opportunity for participants to become an Ally." Upon completing the workshop, attendants can choose to sign a contract and receive an Ally placard to display at their office or home:

Even if you are not in Aggieland, many schools these days have gay-straight alliances that you can join. Many non-profit agencies aimed at achieving equality for the GLBT community also offer volunteer opportunities. A quick search on the internet should help you find several organizations in which you can become involved!

MAKE YOURSELF VISIBLE

If you are a friend and supporter of the GLBT community, show it! This can be accomplished in a multitude of ways, including:

     - displaying your Aggie Ally placard
     - wearing GLBT supportive shirts, buttons, and stickers
     - posting and sharing GLBT-relevant and supportive articles on social networking sites
    - spending time in the GLBT Resource Center (e.g., have lunch in the center)
    - attending events sponsored by the GLBT Resource Center
   - participating in "Guess Who's Gay" panels (must attend Speaker's Bureau Training)

The key is to determine a level of activism with which you are comfortable and go for it!

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

Politicians are elected to represent their constituents, and whether your elected representatives share your political ideologies or not, it is important to make your voice heard. Your first step should be registering to vote in your county so that you can participate in local, state, and national elections. You can also contact your governor, state representatives, and state senators to voice your concerns. Always remain respectful, though firm, in your communications, and when applicable, mention specific legislation that you would like your representative to either support or oppose.

For more information, check out the Resources section of the Aggie Allies website!

Falsehood of the Day (May 15, 2011)

2011-05-15T20:25:00.000-07:00

Inspired by Texas representative Wayne Christian's house bill amendment, nine student senators at Texas A&M University introduced SB 63-106, which stated:

"The Texas Budget bill, HB 1, was amended by Representative Wayne Christian to require Texas public universities to match the funding for alternative sexual education with funding for education on traditional values [...] it is the opinion of the students of Texas A&M University that the university should provide equal funding for family and traditional values education, as well as alternative sexual education."

By proposing the creation of a "family and traditional values" center in direct opposition to the GLBT Resource Center, the bill insinuates that GLBT students cannot and do not embody or support "family and traditional values." This claim, unfortunately, has been perpetuated by many students at Texas A&M as well as people throughout Bryan/College Station and the state of Texas.

This bill presents an additional problem: What exactly are “traditional and family values”? Values are entirely subjective, varying from culture to culture, from religion to religion, even from person to person. When students have been asked how they would define "family and traditional values," their answers have generally looked/sounded something like this:

Many people seem to believe that GLBT people do not embody the "family and traditional values" listed above; therefore, the GLBT Resource Center cannot support "family and traditional valuse," hence the need for a "family and traditional values" resource center on campus.

Claim/Falsehood: The GLBT Resource Center and the GLBT community do not promote or support “family and traditional values.”

The Truth: The GLBT Resource Center and the GLBT community CAN and DO promote and support “family and traditional values.” Furthermore, one's values are independent of their sexual orientation.

There seems to be a pervasive stereotype that members of the GLBT community only enjoy casual dating, have multiple partners, and engage in promiscuous sex. However, many GLBT people are in or are seeking committed, long-term, monogamous relationships, and there are also GLBT people who choose to remain abstinent. Additionally, many GLBT couples would like to get married, however, there are still laws in most states preventing them from doing so. Similarly, there are often laws and restrictions in place that prevent GLBT couples from adopting children. Ironically, those who establish and support such laws are often the same people who assert that GLBT people do not support "family and traditional values."

Furthermore, heterosexuality is not synonymous with "family and traditional values." Just as there are GLBT people who may not support "family and traditional values," there are also heterosexual people who do not. In other words, an individual's values are independent of their sexual orientation. Additionally, there is nothing inherently good (or bad) about the "family and traditionaly values" listed above, and we should not judge a person's worth or moral integrity according to their possession of those particular, subjective values.

Although there are a plethora of problems associated with Wayne Christian's bill, one of the most prominent issues is the ambiguity of the term "family and traditional values" and the way in which the bill suggests that the GLBT community does not support "family and traditional values." The establishment of a "family and traditional values" resource center on campus would only further marginalize GLBT students and create a false dichotomy between GLBT students and heterosexual students.

Texas A&M Administrators Finally Respond to Anti-GLBT Rhetoric... Kind Of...

2011-05-12T11:15:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, May 12, 2011, GLBT and ally students, faculty, and staff at Texas A&M University were given the opportunity to meet with vice president of student affairs Gen. Joe Weber and executive associate vice president for student affairs Dr. David Parrott to discuss the recent discourse around the funding of the GLBT Resource Center and the open existence of a GLBT Aggie community. Both Weber and Parrott seemed to demonstrate adamant (and perhaps slightly condescending and questionably sincere) support for the GLBT community. Weber agreed that he would issue a statement today (Thursday, May 13, 2011) in support of GLBT Aggies, though many of us were skeptical as to whether or not such a statement would directly address GLBT issues or brush over the situation more broadly in terms of "diversity" and "culture."

Even coming off the heels of what was a mostly-encouraging meeting with Weber and Parrott, the public message from Weber confirmed our biggest fears. It seems that university administrators are, in fact, not willing to publicly and adequately address the specific instances of anti-GLBT hate that have occurred in the last several weeks. While we appreciate Weber and Parrott taking the time to meet with all of us yesterday, we also wonder if our fears, hopes, and concerns really got through to them. Lip service "public support" is nearly as harmful as institutional silence (which is what we have experienced up to this point). So, perhaps in a way we should be happy that we have finally gotten SOME - ANY - statement of support. But in reality it just is not enough to make us stop fighting for more.

Here is the text of Weber's message:

To the Division of Student Affairs, Students and the entire Aggie Family Who Support our Student Activities and Organizations:

Ernest Boyer, a noted American educator, once stated, “A college or university, at its best, is an open, honest community, a place where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed. It is a just community, a place where the dignity of all individuals is affirmed and where equality of opportunity is vigorously pursued. It is a caring community, a place where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported and where service to others is encouraged.” I cannot refute this description and find it most applicable to all public institutions of higher education and especially to our beloved Texas A&M.

Yesterday, at the request of a member of our Aggie GLBT community, I was asked to address a group of Students, Allies, Faculty and Staff regarding their anxiety and genuine concern over future funding of our GLBT Resource Center here on campus as well as a lack of public support for them from Texas A&M’s administration. Their concerns are a result of recent activity within our Student Senate and the subsequent exchange of dialogue and communication across campus and in the media, viewed by members of various groups as inappropriate, uncivil and perhaps even illegal.

I stated to this community of Aggies that I do publicly support them as valued members of our university and Aggie family, just as I publicly support each and every other community and organization affiliated with our university. In addition to public verbal support, I reassured them that support would continue to come daily to them, as it does to many other organizations and activities, in the form of resources, marketing/advertising, programming and awards programs.

However, with public support and recognition from administration must come responsibility and accountability, individually as well as from the communities and organizations with which we choose to associate. Key to creating and maintaining an environment of inclusivity and respect , is to insure that we all abide by federal and state statutes, the policies and regulations of our university, and operate within the charters and bounds of our organizations. This is the easy part - for laws, rules and regulations are for the most part fairly clear and set the minimum limits for our behavior. As Aggies, in conducting our activities we have chosen to raise the bar! We have chosen to conduct ourselves at a higher standard, within the guidelines of our six core values of leadership, loyalty, selfless service, integrity, excellence and respect. In choosing to adhere to these core values, we are choosing to conduct activities, discourse and the exchange of ideas at a higher, more productive level that promotes civility and intellectual inquiry. Most importantly, we strive to preserve the integrity and hard earned reputation of the great institution we all so love.

I strongly support the idea that we are a community of scholars whose members include students, faculty, staff and administrators – all of whom contribute in vital ways to education, scholarship, and maintaining a community of respect. While we may disagree with each other over beliefs, we must respect the constitutional rights of individuals to express their ideas and also be open to having these ideas challenged in constructive, responsible ways. Texas A&M University must be a marketplace of ideas that builds and maintains civil dialogue and is welcoming to all. Finally, let it be clear that I stand firm in my commitment to diversity and the aspirations and goals of our University Diversity Plan. I ask all of you to join me in ensuring that every member within the Division and our entire Aggie Family experience Texas A&M as a positive place to work, live and learn.

Have a great summer! You all have accomplished much. I believe I can speak for all staff, faculty and administrators in saying we have enjoyed being a part of the many successes and accomplishments you have achieved this year. Let us all return in the fall with a renewed sense of spirit, unity and purpose…. and with goals and objectives of making Texas A&M and everything about Texas A&M the best in the nation.

LtGen Joseph F. Weber, USMC (Ret)
Vice President for Student Affairs

When GLBT and Ally Aggies left the meeting with Weber and Parrott on Wednesday, most of us were under the impression that today's statement would come in the form of an email sent out to the entire faculty, staff, and student body. In reality, that is what we asked for. In the 21st century, when someone asks for a public statement, an email -- if possible -- seems that it would be the most appropriate form of communication. Why? Email is fast. Email is reliable. Most importantly, email that goes out to all faculty, staff, and students at least makes is possible to claim that everyone received the message and will be held accountable. Choosing instead to make a statement about "commitment to diversity" on the Division web page indicates that administration at Texas A&M is not fully committed to the GLBT community, but rather to appeasing us until we no longer have the strength or will to keep demanding equity.

If we had asked for this kind of public statement in the days before the Internet existed, Weber would have had to go to the papers or to television news programs. Posting his statement on the Division web page is a cop-out. Students WILL NOT see this statement. It is lip service, nothing more and nothing less. If we had to guess, maybe 20 people (probably less) beyond those of us who were at the meeting yesterday and were actively seeking this letter will actually be exposed to its content.

And speaking of content, the message from Weber -- as many at the meeting yesterday feared might happen -- glazes over GLBT issues merely as issues of diversity on campus. While GLBT individuals do contribute to the diverse community at Texas A&M, the fact is that some who are vocally anti-GLBT do not see it this way. They see the GLBT "lifestyle" as perverse and in complete contradiction with University core values and missions. Beyond the mention of the acronym GLBT a few times, Weber's message does little to address the real issue: hatred toward GLBT people. Anti-GLBT words and actions that have been exercised in the last several weeks were not condemned by Weber (by contrast, the faculty of the Anthropology Department have released a statement that does condemn the hostile environment created by anti-GLBT rhetoric).

But as disappointing as Weber's message may be (and it is), it is a step in the right direction. We are hoping for more responses from administrators in the near future. We are encouraged by the stances being taken by students like Garrett Nichols (English Ph.D. student), who recently wrote a letter to Weber about the promises made and conversations had at Wednesday's meeting. Garrett plans to keep contacting Weber and other University administrators regularly as we all strive to make this campus a better place, a more equitable space, for everyone:

Dear General Weber,

First, I wanted to thank you for agreeing to meet with members of faculty, staff, and student body who are concerned about the safety of GLBTQ people and their allies on campus recently. It was very encouraging to know that the administration was willing to meet with us and take our concerns seriously.

Yesterday, you mentioned that the administration was fully supportive of the GLBT community and that you wanted to work hard to make sure that the campus felt safe for all of the people in it. You agreed with us that the administration should have publicly responded earlier to the campus tension, and you promised that you were going to send out a statement this morning that explicitly and specifically called attention to the administration's support of the GLBT community. I am grateful that you have chosen to do so, and I look forward to the administration's continued implementation of the values you promoted in that statement and in yesterday's meeting. I also look forward to similar statements by President Loftin that shows the administration is unified in promoting and valuing the GLBT community at Texas A&M University.

You also agreed that the administration and the university as a whole need to do more to make the campus environment one that appreciates and encourages its GLBT population rather than just tolerating it. You agreed that we need to have more paid staff members in the GLBT Resource Center. As you mentioned yesterday, one staff member is not enough to serve the needs of over 45,000 students on campus. Nor is it sufficient to address the needs of GLBTQ faculty, staff, and administrators. I want to remind you of this promise since it would be easy for it to get lost in the shuffle of our discussions yesterday.

You also agreed that we need to have an inclusive employment non-discrimination policy in the university. You were surprised that the non-discrimination policy as it is currently written does not include protections for sexual orientations or gender identities, and you said that it should be inclusive of those communities. I want to remind you of this since it would also be easy to lose focus of this important issue.

You agreed that the university and the administration need to do more to be proactive in creating a safe and welcoming environment on campus for GLBT people instead of merely reacting to problems that arise. Sir, I was and am very encouraged to hear you agree with us on this issue. Texas A&M has a chance to become a leader in the state (and the nation) in responding to the needs of a population that is not only marginalized and threatened but is also growing increasingly visible and vocal about its rights. I hope that the administration of Texas A&M will recognize that there are many ways to productively foster diversity on this campus -- to actively attract diverse students, staff, and faculty that will improve both the university's reputation nationwide as well as the community in which we work and study.

One suggestion that was brought up yesterday was the inclusion of employee benefits for partners and spouses of GLBT employees on this campus. This is an issue that will undoubtedly become law in coming years, and it would send a very strong message to the GLBT people and allies nationwide to see the administration to take the lead in implementing such changes rather than having to be forced by federal or state dictates. By doing so, Texas A&M can earn its reputation as a leader in attracting and building a diverse community on its campus. Making this campus an outwardly welcoming environment for all kinds of diversity -- including racial, gendered, sexual, class, and abilities, among others -- is a key step in accomplishing all of the twelve imperatives of the Vision 2020 plan. Having a diverse community improves and elevates faculty research and teaching, strengthens our graduate programs, and enhances the undergraduate academic experience. It enriches our campus, reflects and demands enlightened governance and leadership, provides an invaluable resource on par with our sister institutions in the state, and builds community and metropolitan connections. The experiences and perspectives of a diverse community also increase the university's access to knowledge resources, builds on a rich tradition of scholarship in the letters, arts, and sciences, and is a key component of the tradition of professional education. As the Vision 2020 plan notes, "Texas A&M University is a creation of the state and in its origin was designed to prepare educated problem-solvers to lead the state's development." The university, then, has a responsibility to lead the state's development by fostering and welcoming people from diverse backgrounds, including, but not limited to, those of diverse sexual and gendered backgrounds.

In your gracious statement, you write that "we are a community of scholars whose members include student, faculty, staff, and administrators -- all of whom contribute in vital ways to education, scholarship, and maintaining a community of respect." I want to encourage you to do everything within your power as an administrator to make sure that these diverse scholars all receive equal treatment from the university -- particularly in the form of equal non-discrimination and hiring policies, equal benefits packages, and equal public support from administrators like yourself.

Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely,
Garrett W. Nichols

Graduate Student - Ph.D.
Department of English
Texas A&M University

Wait...WHAT???
Tiffany Creecy and Josh Collins

Cyber Bullying: An Important Conversation at Texas A&M University

2011-05-11T07:12:00.000-07:00

Given the escalating hostility toward GLBT people on the campus of Texas A&M, the most powerful weapon that can be harnessed by the community and allies is language. We would like to take a moment to discuss a term that has become incredibly critical in the growing “debate” over GLBT Resource Center funding and the morality/equity of having a space for non-heterosexual individuals but no equivalent space for “family and traditional values.” Understanding this term and being able to use it effectively will be one of the most important steps in helping GLBT individuals, allies, and – hopefully – University administrators combat the lies that have been purported about one of Texas A&M’s most progressive and vital student resources. The term is “cyber bullying.”

Cyber bullying on college campuses occurs when one student or a group of students intentionally threatens, harasses, lies about, targets, humiliates, or embarrasses another student or group of students via the Internet, social media, and digital technology or cell phones. We have, throughout the last few weeks, seen an unfortunate amount of cyber bullying from both ends of the spectrum of perspective on GLBT issues. Those who stand in opposition to the GLBT Resource Center have taken to websites, personal and organizational blogs, Facebook, and even the “comments” section of online publications to condemn the “homosexual lifestyle” as liberal, immoral, and quintessentially anti-Aggie. As sexual orientation is a deeply personal part of a person’s identity, this opposition has sadly often been met with counterattacks by GLBT individuals and allies via the same “cyber” mediums.

Neither is excusable in any way. However, it is undeniable that such words may never have been exchanged if SB 63-106 had never been introduced—if those who oppose funding for a GLBT Resource Center could find a way to articulate their viewpoint in a way that does not also directly attack the individuals who currently take advantage of its existence. The digital hate, lies, and rhetoric of those who vehemently and adamantly stand in opposition to GLBT rights, therefore, may often be classified as “primary” cyber bullying. The responses of GLBT individuals at A&M, while at times unfortunately personal in nature, may be classified as “secondary.” While this does not excuse the behavior and words of these individuals, the question must be asked: “Would we even be having this conversation if anti-GLBT groups could find a more productive and constructive way to voice their opinion?” The answer is likely, “No.”

That is precisely why it is time for University officials to step up to the plate and defend GLBT Aggies.

The recent video (posted by a vocally anti-GLBT student group) from the GLBT Resource Center’s “Safe and Fun Sex” seminar hosted earlier this semester is a good example of how technology can enable anti-GLBT individuals and groups to take pieces of information and use them to construct and sustain their own reality—while simultaneously bullying and harassing the GLBT community. This video, taken out of the context of the entire event, is intended to make it appear as if the seminar had no valid information to offer and was instead designed to introduce participants to “pornographic” material. But the less-than-five-minute video does not capture the spirit of the seminar, which was offered during GLBT Health Awareness Week and aimed to increase GLBT community knowledge about safe sex. Instead, the video—posted on YouTube—seeks to bully GLBT students at Texas A&M by publicly rallying support around a small snippet of information that was carefully chosen to craft a very particular anti-GLBT argument. At the core of the video’s intent, this was most certainly cyber bullying in the truest sense of the term.

Events like the “Safe and Fun Sex” seminar are an important source of information for the GLBT community, a community that is often forced to sit through heterosexually-based sex education from the time they are introduced to the topic in middle school to the time that they take their first kinesiology course at our public university. Without the GLBT Resource Center and without seminars like these, GLBT individuals might not ever hear about the safest practices for sexual activity. And beyond the necessary nature of such a seminar for GLBT individuals, the seminar was completely consensual. Contrary to some of the information now floating around on the Internet because of the video that has been posted, participants of the seminar were told that there would be images and depictions of the safe sex practices to be discussed. Those who did not wish to see the images (which were intended to educate some members of the audience about safe sex practices they might have been unaware of) could have left the room or not participated in the seminar.

But at least one of those individuals chose to stay. Not only did they choose to stay, they chose to video tape it. Why? So that they could use the information to construct a misleading representation of the seminar’s intent and of the GLBT community by posting the video online.

Texas A&M University officials must stand with the GLBT community against these acts of cyber bullying. Stories about this video have now hit mainstream media outlets, resulting in searches for news about Texas A&M that are shrouded in controversy—and more importantly, in lies about the GLBT community. How long will we have to put up with this hate before something is done?

Falsehood of the Day (May 9, 2011)

2011-05-09T17:40:00.000-07:00

In the last several weeks, there have been a lot of rumors floating around about the GLBT community at Texas A&M, and in particular, these rumors have tended to focus on information regarding funding and programs at the GLBT Resource Center. Since the introduction of SB 63-106, many have raised vocal opposition to this safe space for those who do not identify with normative labels and standards for gender and sexuality. We want to be clear: we believe that every individual—conservative, liberal, moderate, or none of the above—has the right to freely express their viewpoint. However, it seems that some approaches to this expression have, unfortunately, been nothing short of homophobic.

Those who stand in opposition to GLBT awareness and education at Texas A&M, and in other places, do not have the right to tell lies, bully other students, twist words, make up facts, or defame the reputation of any individual or collective identity group. Texas A&M University administrators, students, faculty, and staff must begin to take a stand against this kind of hatred and bigotry; this is a public institution of higher learning and our ultimate objective should be to produce educated, informed, level-headed, honest, and productive members of society.

When rhetoric becomes distasteful and untruthful, it is no longer free speech. It is libel. This entry will be the first of what we hope will become a series of entries, where we will present and debunk one GLBT-related falsehood at a time. Today’s claim…

Claim/Falsehood: The GLBT Resource Center is a political center. It promotes liberal viewpoints and lifestyles. The Center has contributed money to political activism movements such as the NOH8 campaign, for the purpose of silencing conservative opinion on GLBT issues and lobbying for liberal perspectives. Funding for the GLBT Resource Center shows a clear University bias toward the left.

The Truth: The NOH8 Campaign is a charitable organization registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporation. According to the IRS, this means NOH8 “may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” It also means NOH8 is “restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.”

The purpose of the NOH8 campaign is to raise awareness about how discrimination and hate have fed into social institutions that do not award the same rights to all citizens. For GLBT students, who may already experience limited visibility on A&M’s traditionally conservative campus, the opportunity to participate in something like NOH8 can be incredibly empowering.

Realistically, the NOH8 Campaign is concerned with more than just GLBT issues. The campaign seeks acceptance of and rights for all, which includes everyone: even conservatives. NOH8 is concerned with making sure that the public gets accurate information about the GLBT community, and rightfully so. To be certain, we must fight to eradicate lies that are still common and very dangerous to the GLBT people. These lies include (but are not limited to): all gays have had or will have multiple sexual partners every year, STI transmission rates are higher for gay people, gays are incapable of monogamy, gay people are more likely to molest children, and gays are not suitable parents. These lies keep GLBT people from being equals in society, and yes, on the campus of Texas A&M.

What we are really talking about is an issue of definitions. The GLBT Resource Center is not a political—conservative or liberal—organization or department. The GLBT Resource Center is a place for GLBT individuals to go so that they can feel safe and supported on a campus, in a state, and in a country that generally only supports and validates heterosexuals. Sexuality only becomes political when it is made so by those who oppose anything that is not heterosexual.

The GLBT Resource Center receives $100,000 a year to provide resources for thousands of openly-GLBT students—and support for the likely hundreds or even thousands of GLBT students who are not out on this conservative campus. The Center is not actively engaged in political activism or lobbying. Want to talk bias? The GLBT Resource Center provides validation and support that some students feel they receive nowhere else at Texas A&M.

Campus Climate

2011-05-08T12:15:00.000-07:00

Campus climate is a term used to describe the general attitude toward diversity on a university campus. The Student Life Studies department at Texas A&M has conducted several studies over the years to assess students' perceptions about campus climate. The results of a survey conducted in 2008 reveal that 70% of homosexual and bisexual students (as compared to 2% of heterosexual students) felt uncomfortable because of others' reactions to their sexual orientation (p. 25). Even respondents who indicated that they never feel uncomfortable because of others' reactions to their sexual orientation noted the generally negative attitude toward GLBT students:

"If I were gay I would not feel safe unless I hid that fact on campus." - Senior, White, Female (p. 26)

Furthermore, some heterosexual students are harassed because of their perceived sexual orientation, simply because they do not ascribe to "traditional" gender roles:

"Having grown up with mostly women and being a male, I have picked up a few effeminate mannerisms which prompts some males to depict me as 'gay' or 'fruity', which is not the case." - Senior, Hispanic, Male (p. 26)

Reactions to recent events highlight the pervasive negative attitude towards the GLBT community, both on-campus and in society at large. The following is a comment left on a Facebook note that was written by one of the authors of SB 63-106:

The following two comments were in response to a video posted on the Facebook page for a political student group at Texas A&M. The video showed footage from a sex seminar that was recently held by the GLBT Resource Center, and a member of this student group sat in the back of the room and secretly videotaped the seminar.

This video was posted on the student group's YouTube account, where the following comments were made:

Will university administrators take a stand and address the negative, and sometimes hostile, attitudes towards GLBT students? Will university administrators abide by their commitment to diversity?

Texas A&M University Officials: A Call to Action from the GLBT Community

2011-05-07T08:20:00.000-07:00

In April 2011, Texas state Rep. Wayne Christian proposed Amendment 143—an amendment demanding that public universities that fund a center for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students also provide an equal amount of funding for student centers that promote “traditional and family values”—to House Bill 1. The amendment passed 110-24. Though it is unclear whether or not the Texas Senate will consider the budget amendment, its introduction has created unnecessarily hostile discourse about GLBT issues at Texas A&M University.

Christian’s Amendment 143 inspired a group of A&M student senators to author a bill with identical objectives: SB 63-106, “The Sexual Education Equality in Funding” Bill. While student governments at other public universities in Texas (e.g., University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston) have openly, adamantly, and clearly rejected the intentions of the Texas Legislature, A&M’s SB 63-106 passed with a vote of 21-21 with the Speaker of the Senate breaking the tie in favor of the bill. The Student Government Association at the University of Houston called for the Texas Governor to veto the state amendment, citing potential harm to the university’s already-existing diversity initiatives—initiatives similar to the ones in existence at Texas A&M, which have long been met with opposition by conservative Aggie student groups.

Immediately after the passing of SB 63-106, Texas A&M students both in favor of and in opposition to the bill expressed impassioned viewpoints that quickly manifested in emotional and aggressive debates. The fervor of these debates was further heightened by the publication of four GLBT-related articles in the student newspaper, The Battalion. GLBT/Ally students felt empowered by the publication of articles with positive representations of GLBT individuals, especially following the events of GLBT Awareness Week, which took place April 1-15. Some non-GLBT/Ally students felt that the articles contributed to an imbalanced, liberal-leaning perspective on the rise at Texas A&M. Many students from both perspectives on the issue have unfortunately engaged in hostile communications and the use of unwarranted personal attacks.

Texas A&M student body president Jacob Robinson vetoed the decision to pass the bill, sending it back to the Student Senate—where it failed to receive the 2/3 vote required to override Robinson’s veto. However, the damage to campus climate as a result of the bill had already been done. Tension between GLBT/Ally students, faculty, and staff and some of the bill’s more vocal supporters has never been higher. The Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center no longer feels like the safe space that it used to be, and although it appears, for the time being, that no funding will be cut and a center for “family and traditional values” will not be established, what has been most alarming about the events that have unfolded over the last month is the lack of public, GLBT-supportive responses from University officials. In perhaps the most critical moment for GLBT Aggies since they won the right to have a student organization on campus in the 1980s, the University has failed to send the message that homophobia, heterosexism, and hatred for the GLBT community will not be tolerated.

In 2008, a student group attracted negative, national media attention for hosting an “Anti-Obama Carnival” which included an egg toss station where participants were given the opportunity toss eggs at an image of Obama’s face. This group received a slap on the wrist from the University, with statements being released to indicate that while the student group had the right to free speech, their opinions should have been voiced in a more constructive manner. Though the University did not publicly address the blatant racism of the rally, a statement—any statement—coming remotely close to condemning the actions of the event helped deflect some the negative attention from the major media outlets. In this instance, the University recognized how the actions of a few can impact the reputation of the entire institution. However, when GLBT Aggies have been bullied with hateful rhetoric and threats to safety, not even the slightest slap on the wrist has been administered.

Just last semester, in October 2010, when a student group distributed fliers portraying Islamic women as oppressed and helpless human beings in need of Westernization, A&M President Dr. Bowen Loftin sent an email to the campus community reiterating “institutional commitment and responsibility to address hate and bias incidents on campus.” Dr. Loftin also said, “I oppose hatred and bigotry and stand firm in our commitment to diversity and the goals of our Diversity Plan.” Dr. Loftin was appalled at how the actions of this student group “misrepresent[ed] and mischaracteriz[ed]” Islamic people. SB 63-106, in placing a “traditional and family values” center in opposition to the GLBT Resource Center, posits that GLBT individuals do not and cannot embody “traditional and family values,” a lie that misrepresents and mischaracterizes the GLBT community. But, again, there has been no public or official University response to the discourse surrounding the bill or the conversations that have taken place as a result of its production.

It seems that issues of race and religion can more easily elicit a meaningful, public, timely, and calculated response from Texas A&M University officials than issues surrounding sexual identity. Perhaps it is because sexual orientation is not officially a protected class at our public institution of higher learning. Perhaps it is because homophobia still remains strong on this campus and has constructed and sustained fear in the hearts of even our most prominent leaders. The data from Texas A&M Student Life Studies in April 2010 indicates that 70% of GLBT students (compared to 2% of heterosexual students) have felt or regularly feel uncomfortable about others’ reactions to their sexual orientation. Make no mistake: a public statement addressing homophobia and heterosexism at Texas A&M must be made before progress can be achieved, before GLBT students can once again feel completely safe and accepted on this campus. Will we hear from our Vice President for Diversity? Representatives from the Division of Student Affairs? University President? Will it take something more serious than the exchange of words to invoke a serious reaction?

VP and Assoc. Provost for Diversity, Dr. Christine Stanley - cstanley@tamu.edu
VP for Student Affairs, Lt. Gen. Joe Weber, USMC (Ret.) - vpsa@tamu.edu
Pres., Dr. Bowen Loftin - president@tamu.edu
What can YOU do to help? E-mail the following Texas A&M University officials to initiate conversations about more public administrative support for the GLBT/Ally Aggie Community:

Wait...WHAT???

Tiffany Creecy and Josh Collins

Update: Check out our post in the Dallas Voice and The American Independent!