This is a job for... SuperJude!

[judecorp]

Ugh. Are these people for real?

This is a little campus blurb about what I do for work that went out to the university population:

GLBT STUDENT SERVICES OFFERS DIVERSITY TRAINING
-- As part of OSU's Diversity Action Plan, the office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Services is offering an anti-heterosexism education program to help increase awareness of GLBT issues and to foster a more inclusive and welcoming climate for members of Ohio State's GLBT community. The program, known as Heterosexism Education and Reduction Orientation (HERO), is an effective way for departments and offices to gauge and improve the environment in their units for GLBT people. Participants will also receive a handbook of education and skill-building material.
--> CONTACT: [email address omitted]

Someone sent this email to the Vice President for Student Affairs:

Bill:

I was appalled to read the below story in today's OSUToday Headlines. Will our Office of African-American Student services next sponsor an anti-white education program?

John

~//~

Okay, this is where I rant.

First of all, I think someone needs a little lesson in word usage. Or semantics. Or both. ANTI-HETEROSEXISM is /not/ the same thing as ANTI-HETEROSEXUALITY.

Second, I won't even get started on the blatant racism inherent in the analogy. Or the repressed racist tendencies of the emailer.

Third, is it SO FUCKING HARD to think that people on this campus might need to assess the way heterosexism (and by this, rampant ignorant emailers, I do mean privilege based on being [perceived as] heterosexual, not the attraction between different-sexed people) plays out here at THE Ohio State University? Is it /that/ threatening to think that a program designed to offer a little inclusion of ideas/thoughts/work created outside of the world of heterosexuality exists?

This is not anti-heterosexuality education. It is anti-heterosexISM education. It is analagous to anti-RACISM education rather than "anti-white education," whatever that is. This is my project. While I didn't write the HERO guides (Coworker Velma did), I support them. I reviewed them. I am helping her present them. So this is MY work, John, whoever you are. This is MY anti-heterosexism education. And I think you, of all people, could use some if you can't see the difference between combatting heterosexism and combatting heterosexuality. Where you stick your bits is /your/ business. I wouldn't take that away from you.

Grumble.

Comments

whoa nelly.

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

It looks to me that it's simply a misread or misunderstanding of the word "(anti-)heterosexism".

I cannot comment on repressed tendencies of the emailer, as I cannot even read the minds of those around me in person.
However, if it was simply a misread, I fail to see blatant racism in the analogy.

Re: whoa nelly.

[dch4.livejournal.com]

Given that the human brain tends to fill in the rest of a word after the first 4-6 letters that the eyes see, it's not hard to believe that he misread it and then jumped the gun.

As for jumping the gun, was it necessarily right? No. Is it partially understandable? As a member of a segment of the population that keeps being told over and over that we're the basis of all the societal ills in the world (only a marginal hyperbole), I can understand from whence his explosion came. This doesn't make it right or excuse him from the fact he should have thought before writing, but I do understand.

Going off the basis of a misreading of anti-heterosexism and seeing it as anti-heterosexuality, I fail to see anything inherently racist in his analogy. Rather, I see it as a fairly valid analogy.

Regardless, he should have re-read things before sending his little snip. The bitterness in his message, though, I can see as a direct outgrowth of the desire to group everyone into their own little group and then those groups having a tendency to point out to all the other groups how they're treading on their "rights."

Unfortunately, yet another outgrowth of the placing of importance on the Group over the Individual.

Re: whoa nelly.

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

Agreed- I think the premise of your program sounds quite worthwhile, though, dear smurfchick.

I actually misread it at first, too - then thought "naw, she wouldn't be a doofus like that" - and re-read.

Re: whoa nelly.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

As a member of a segment of the population that keeps being told over and over that we're the basis of all the societal ills in the world (only a marginal hyperbole), I can understand from whence his explosion came.

While I really don't want to get into a debate with you about this (because I think we both know that it will be one of /those/ areas Jude and Clint do not talk about), I will say that it's less about /blame/ and more about the recognition of privilege. I don't /blame/ my situation on Caucasian males. However, I am keenly aware of privileges that your status affords you that I am not privvy to. Likewise, I am aware of the privileges that I am afforded based on things like my skin tone, my socioeconomic status, etc.

The bitterness in his message, though, I can see as a direct outgrowth of the desire to group everyone into their own little group and then those groups having a tendency to point out to all the other groups how they're treading on their "rights."

I can't even imagine the climate at the extension campus of which he is a Dean. I can, however, speak at lengths about the climate here in "liberal" Columbus. When people are killed here because of perceived differences (whether or not they are true), we /are/ talking rights. Without fucking quotes.

I am sad. I am sad that respect for all people, regardless of how they are perceived or how they live their lives, is a fantasy. And I'm sad that this is acceptable to so many people. Including people I care about.

And I honestly don't believe it was a misread. Misunderstanding? Yes. But in that "those people want more special rights" kind of way. So worried that someone will try to take some of his God-given privileges away.

Re: whoa nelly.

[dch4.livejournal.com]

Since I didn't say it in my original message, I'm fully willing to accept that this guy, like so many others in this land of talking monkeys, is an absolute ass and jumped the gun rather hard on this situation.

I am sad. I am sad that respect for all people, regardless of how they are perceived or how they live their lives, is a fantasy. And I'm sad that this is acceptable to so many people. Including people I care about.

With this, I will completely agree. I also agree with you (don't faint on me) that it's a bad thing where someone's group identity, rather than their individual identity and merit, singles them out for various things, good or bad. But then this goes back to my issues with Group/Individual and the acceptance or lack of acceptance of the merit of such in the current society.

It's sort of a deja vu thing as at the new years party in Columbus we were talking about Inclusion vs Exclusion and the assumptions this places on someone when faced with a situation dealing with their group or a different group.

Re: whoa nelly.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

While I realize that a 'misread' may have been the case, I still don't see the need to even /include/ the 'anti-white education' bit. But perhaps if he (and I recently discovered that this 'John' is the DEAN of one of OSU's extension campuses) had said "This would be like... anti-white education" instead of "Will our..." which kind of leads my mind to a "What's next?" hostility scenario. I don't know.

I guess my feeling on it is... why bring up African American Student Services at all?

Re: whoa nelly.

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

See definition: analogy.

Re: whoa nelly.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Last I checked, I knew the meaning of the word.

But thanks.

Re: whoa nelly.

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

As I was guessing.

Then you'll note that it involves the comparison with another situation with which it shares parallels.

In which this case would, had he been correct in his read of the word 'anti-heterosexism.'

[iansha.livejournal.com]

Sounds like this guy /totally/ jumped in without fully understanding what he read. It's one thing to get riled up about something, but to do it without being aware of what you are saying is another!
And you are right about the underlying racism in there. It seems like someone had a bone to pick about some /other/ issue and took your article as an opportunity to bring it out.
Rock on Girl!

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

I think that on first reading that blurb, I would have read it the same way: anti-hetero is what people are going to see, because people in general don't pay attention. Now, being that I'm probably more aware of the pro-diversity movement than the guy who wrote in, I would think to myself, "GLBTSS wouldn't teach something like that..." and maybe look into the situation further. 'John' obviously was more willing to forge onward under the assumption that we 'deviants' are trying to make 'his kind' out to be the 'bad guys'. =P

I'm not defending the guy who wrote in. I think his attitude sucketh. But I /can/ see how the blurb can easily be misread. Perhaps one might consider explaining the meaning of a word such as heterosexism when one uses it in the future, knowing that it's going to be easily misread as simply "anti-hetero".

*hugs much*
The Evil Twin

[michael622.livejournal.com]

Forgive me if this is a little lengthy. But since I'm learning so much at my new job, I really feel I have a valid viewpoint here. But let me start with an anecdote of my own. The other day, I spent a very long time talking with Kerry (a woman of color) and Seth (a Jew) about racism. My viewpoint during the discussion was very valid, and yet completely opposite of what Kerry and Seth thought - and their viewpoints were valid as well. Our discussion came about because we placed different definitions on the same word. When Seth and Kerry said 'racism', they meant all prejudice. When I say racism, I separate it from simple prejudice. My connotation for racism is a blatant attempt to harm and/or deny basic rights to someone else on the basis of their race. My connotation for prejudice is attributing one quality to an entire race based on experiences with one or more members of that race. To me, racism is prejudice multiplied and extrapolated out a loooooong way. I freely admit that I have prejudices - everyone does. It's human nature. I do not, however, think I am a racist. Once we cleared that up, we realized that all along, we were all saying the same things.

How does this relate? Well, first of all I think that Judie's program is an excellent idea and the very fact that someone misunderstood 'heterosexism' for 'heterosexuality' shows how necessary it is. But my advice to you, Jude-dear, is not to get angry about this person's viewpoint but see it as proof that you're doing something /right/, and something that is needed. It's that kind of person that you want to reach - so take a deep breath, and count on the fact that some of the people who attend your program will be like the person who wrote that letter - not overtly trying to harm anyone else, but honestly confused and wanting to learn.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Oh, honey, I'm not upset with someone for misunderstanding. I'm upset that this person, this person who is a dean of an entire campus, is writing to the Vice President of Student Affairs at my campus (a campus of 50,000 students!) to say how appalling our work is without trying to understand what it is.

He wrote to my boss of boss of boss of bosses in order to shut down a program he saw a several-sentence blurb about.

THAT makes me angry. That said, I would still love to bring HERO to his campus. To his staff. To /him/. :)

[dch4.livejournal.com]

Very well put. It's good to see someone out separating out the definitions for Rascism and Prejudice/Bigotry.

[noog.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I get so frustrated at constantly having to fight the notion that promoting the rights, status, and visibility of a minority group is the same thing as promoting hate against a majority group. It's such a convenient form of backlash, one that keeps people from examining their own prejudice and dealing with the fact that empowering minority groups means taking away the power the majority groups currently enjoy. Which is not hatred; it's fairness. I don't blame you at all for being angry.

[dch4.livejournal.com]

To bring up a counter point, why does there have to be a push for "group" rights? Why not simply push for acceptance of an individual on the basis of their merit as a person rather than push forward a compartmentalized group?

I do agree there is good in discussing and exposing differences between people, but, in the end, someone should be accepted on their individual merit rather than simply because they're a member (or not a member) of a certain group.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I think it's convenient, at times, to "push" (and I use this word in quotes because it bothers me for some reason) for an entire group rather than an individual because it allows for faster change.

YES, I absolutely think a person should be treated as fairly as another person regardless of any 'group' that either person may/may not belong to. Without a doubt.

However, when certain things have been withheld from people because of their perceived inclusion in a group, giving these things to the group blanket covers all of the people who have been neglected/oppressed. For example, everyone wishing to legally commit to (i.e. marry) a same-sex partner is withheld that right. Every denied individual can fight for his/her right to marry, but is it not more effective to fight for /everyone's/ right to marry?

And, umm, I love you, Clint, I do, but I get /very/ nervous when I hear things like "on the basis of their merit as a person" unless of course you're meaning that all people have merit based on their person-ness.

This, of course, is because I firmly and wholeheartedly believe (with the very core of my being and every speck of energy I possess) in the inherent worth of all people. Everyone deserves everything. To me, anyway. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with me. In /my/ universe, there would be no need for 'special' legislation or whatever, because there would be no segregation on /any/ level.

[dch4.livejournal.com]

Does everyone, in and of themselves, start out the same and with the same merit? Yes. Do all of them make the same choices and therefore stay on the same level? No, they don't. Do I think anyone should be discounted solely on the basis of physical things (sex, race, sexual orientation, etc) or on things that only have a personal bearing (religion, etc), no. Do I think someone's personal choices on how to improve (or not improve) their life has a bearing on whether or not they should be in the running for jobs, etc? Yes, I do.

To speak to the other point you made, I agree that fighting against discrimination of a group as a group is a good and worthwhile tactic. I simply do not believe that someone should be granted something (or denied it) simply on the basis of a group to which they belong. Judge them on their individual merit (or lack thereof) and not on a superficial basis.

[noog.livejournal.com]

I think that's easy to say when one belongs to a member of a group who has the power to determine what "merit" is or is not in society, and whose sense of individuality is the only basis for distincion/discrimination, because they do not belong to a minority group. What the dominant group might consider worthy of merit may not be what other groups consider merit, and someone who is worthy of merit may not receive it simply because of the group politics of our society. Hence, work within the home, "women's work", is not considered real work and is neither acknowledged nor paid; hence a working-class person may work longer hours under more dangerous circumstances than their middle- or upper-class counterparts and still not get paid enough to make ends meet.

I think you underestimate what a so-called meritocracy would do to our society, and how many people that threatens. Many of the straight white men in power are intelligent, gifted people, yes; but if a true meritocracy were to exist, the distribution of people in power would be more proportional to the distribution of people we see in our own society, because everybody would be given an equal chance to succeed. Thus, there would be more GLBTQ people in power, more racial minorities, and over half of the powers that be would be women. In order to even the balance of power to be one truly based on merit, in other words, many of the straight white men would have to be knocked out of the power structure. Obviously, there are vested interests in not allowing such a thing to happen.

I think people in minority groups often deserve to be deemed more meritorious, because they have to fight twice as hard to get where they want to go. I have met racial minorities and working class people who fought all through their school years not to be put in remedial classes, knowing they were intelligent enough to exceed in school, against the teachers' and administrators' wishes. I have a lot of queer friends who also fought their way through school, because they were so harassed by their peers that they felt as though they shouldn't come to school and graduate at all. As a woman and a queer individual, I feel that I constantly have to fight to be heard amongst my peers, because either what I say won't be taken seriously or people will accuse me of being "too political," of taking everything too seriously. Minorities can't just work toward individual merits, because they first have to defend their right to exist. Straight white men don't have to do that.

Understand that I'm not accusing you, individually, of putting this structure into place (I'm assuming you're a straight white man based on this comment thread; if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me), but there is a power structure in place which most if not all of us contribute to through our livelihood and our social assumptions and interactions, and it is easy as a person who has never had to fight for visibility for being a member of a group not to understand, not to truly feel what being a member of an oppressed group really means. A minority member has to know how the dominant group operates; they live under the dominant group, so it is literally a survival skill. The dominant group, however, does not have to think, every day, about what minorities go through.

[dch4.livejournal.com]

Just to get it out of the way, you're assumption's right. I'm a straight white male with viewpoints that often make Judie and I fume at each other despite loving each other dearly. ;-)

As to your comments above, I fully agree, understand, and support that in a true meritocracy, there would be a greater distribution of "minority" groups in charge. Do I necessarily believe it would be in equal proportions to the representation of said groups in society? No. But that's solely because from what I've observed in society to this point, laziness, apathy, and the like runs fully through all segments of society.

Do I believe there will ever be a pure meritocracy like I would want to see? Not really, no, simply due to my personal cynicism. I don't think all people involved can set aside their mores and societal constructs to make the necessary clean start to allow things to start at ground zero on equal footing.

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

it's a shame we can't
solve all the world's problems with
a bit of haiku

he misread the word
"heterosexism" and
got all defensive

he'll get over it
one day when his daughter says
she's a lesbian

:)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

This is pure beauty.

=)

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you, ma'am. :)

I was gonna make the last line "she prefers cootchie," but I was going for the "classy" effect.

I'm glad it worked. :)

"she prefers cootchie"

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. Oh goodness. I am /crying/.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I'm so glad I added you to my friends list. =)

*gggrrrr* >:<

[nikkibladesgirl.livejournal.com]

*gets out her hitlist an her lil slugger bat* hahaha no jk... hates not the way.... *kicks the whole situation an runs away cowardly*