Truth, though, is a funny thing. Everyone’s heard the expression, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I suppose the same could be said for truth.
I get it. Being gay isn’t wrong. It’s just another way of life. But in the same breath that I say I know that it’s acceptable to be gay, others can say just as equally that they know it isn’t.
I spent the rest of my freshman year becoming involved on campus, building bridges, and fitting into the community.
I was starting to look at the students around me with a different set of eyes. Where before, I felt I didn’t know anyone, I now felt like I know that people were going to support me in this cause. And if people don’t support me, that’s fine. As Robert Frost said, “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.”
At the conclusion of my freshman year, I took some much-needed time off and returned home for the summer. The thing about running away is this: problems rarely work themselves out unless you take some initiative.
In the year after the incident on my door, the same crime was perpetrated against gay students six times. When you factor in our Christmas break, Spring break, and summer, that means that a gay student woke up every month branded with the word “faggot.”
Something had to be done, and I knew exactly what that was.
During the summer between my freshman and sophomore year, I poured all of my effort into setting up a timeline with which to tackle the complex issues surrounding the formation of a student group for GLBT students. Every night at 6:00, I would stop whatever I was doing and start researching, making phone calls, e-mailing, etc.
I returned from my summer feeling rested and rejuvenated, confident in the idea that I would be doing the right thing. I knew that, during my sophomore year, the battle for equality and tolerance would begin.
In October of my sophomore year, I held a program titled “Stepping Out, Stepping Up: An Interactive Forum.” I asked a variety of different speakers to come and present on several topics, including a priest, a psychologist, as well as representatives from Freshman Studies and Community Development. While each speaker presented on different topics, all agreed that the needs of students were paramount. Students also agreed. The sentiment from the students who attended the program seemed to mirror that of most people: “There isn’t a valid reason that Seton Hall can’t have a group for GLBT students and allies.”
In November, I had readied myself to finally propose the group, a group that had previously only existed as an idea in my mind. Ideas like these are the ones that stir in you until you do something about them, the ideas that infiltrate every part of your life.
In proposing a gay-straight alliance, I wanted to name the group appropriately, something youthful and edgy, but still respectful and professional. I met with a friend and interested member who was far more creative than me when it came to things like that. We talked about the values that were important to the formation of the group, and the principles that we wanted our name to reflect. After awhile, he suggested the name T.R.U.T.H., which stands for Trust, Respect, and Unity at The Hall. That was a keeper.
I handed in my packet of information, and applied for provisional recognition under the Student Organization Advisory Council. I met all requirements as laid out by the Department of Community Development. I spoke to the members of the Council and answered their questions in an open and honest way.
“Is this a group for just gay and lesbian students?” No, this group is open to anyone who is supportive of putting an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“Is everyone in this group gay?” No, it’s a very nice balance of people from all walks of life, including both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
”Are any of your members Catholic?” That’s not a question that we formally ask students before they can join. Religion doesn’t play a factor for members of the group, even though some of our members are Catholic.
”How does T.R.U.T.H. fit in with the Catholic Church?”
“Wouldn’t this group be against the teachings of the Catholic Church?”
Many questions of this sort were asked concerning T.R.U.T.H.’s specific relationship with the Catholic doctrine. The administrators asked me questions centering on the mission-attentiveness of my group, and what role I saw the University playing in the group itself. I responded in the same way that I have responded to every person that has asked me a similar question since that time.
People hear the words “gay” and “Catholic” in the same sentence and there is almost an instantaneous hesitation, a resistance almost. I can tell you that I was raised Catholic, and never once was I told to hate people, or treat some people differently than other people. But I am not an expert in Catholic Theology, so I talked with people who were. I contacted administrators at Catholic University of America, one of the premier Catholic colleges in the United States. I talked with them about what I planned on doing, and asked for some words of advice. You see, Catholic University of America has had a group for gay and lesbian students since the late 1980’s.
Thusly, I knew that people there had figured out a way in which gay students and a Catholic administration could find a successful compromise and work together to end discrimination on campus in a way that was completely faithful to the mission of the Catholic Church, and with full respect to Catholic teachings on sexuality.
Therefore, in seeking provisional recognition for a group whose members could potentially have sexual orientations that differed slightly from normative acceptable Catholic theology, I added the following phrase directly into the group’s mission statement:
“Our organization will not represent its views as those of the University, nor will it permit any ambiguous use of the University’s name to imply that the University approves of homosexual lifestyles, of homosexual activity, or of homosexual behavior as morally neutral.”
What this meant was that, by affording T.R.U.T.H. provisional recognition, Seton Hall was taking a step towards tolerance and equality without compromising its Catholic mission or heritage. To afford provisional recognition to T.R.U.T.H. would be for the University, in essence, to do what many other Catholic schools across the nation have already done, embrace diversity in all its facets. The mission statement of our group was flawless when it came to the Catholic mission, for I mirrored the goals for my group after not only the mission of other Catholic institutions, but our own institution as well. Seton Hall’s policy on racial and ethnic discrimination was used extensively in the construction of the mission statement for T.R.U.T.H. My reasoning behind that was simple. If the University denied provisional recognition to T.R.U.T.H. on the basis of the Catholic mission, it would ultimately be an act of hypocrisy, for my goals and the goals of our University were one and the same.
As it turned out, though, I didn’t have to worry about the Student Organization Advisory Council or their denial, because T.R.U.T.H. was approved by SOAC. But, it was at that point that the Vice President of Student Affairs, Laur
a Wankel, stepped in and made the decision to deny the group. After consultations from many sources, and rumors have flown concerning exactly who was involved in the discussion concerning this group, although that is neither here nor there, T.R.U.T.H. was denied. The statement issued by Dr. Wankel contained a “Memorandum of Understanding.”
The “Memorandum” was almost exactly what I expected it to be. In planning all of these things from the ground up (at that point my seventh month working on these things), I refused to be taken by surprise, so I had planned the recourse for my group regardless of the decision. I didn’t expect a “no,” but I also doubted that I would get a full “yes.” I expected a compromise, and a compromise was what I got. The key word here, and please keep it in your mind, is compromise.
The deal that the administration offered contained several parts, including what we would be allowed to do and what we would not. It seemed as if the list of “yes you may” was far exceeded by the list of “no you may not.” The group was prohibited from having any type of social activity, as defined by Dr. Wankel. Every move the group made would have to be passed across her desk before it was approved. We were also barred from holding any sort of religious services. Nowhere in my proposal did I ask to hold religious services, but for some reason, that privilege was being implicitly denied. We couldn’t use the name “T.R.U.T.H.”, because the word truth is considered a synonym for Christ. Also in the “Memorandum of Understanding,” there was a line that stuck out to me from the very first time I read it. At the end of the document, the following lines had been added:
“These guidelines are subject to change at the discretion of the University at any time. The group acknowledges that, in accepting these guidelines, it will neither seek nor expect formal recognition by the University or elsewhere.”
By agreeing to that compromise, we would not be able to pursue formal recognition. This statement was later modified to make it clear that the sole focus of this group would not be to seek full recognition.
Some people who loved this compromise were quick to use gay marriage as a leverage point. They said, “If your ultimate goal is gay marriage, you don’t push for that right out of the gate. You take the hospital visits, then the tax exemptions, and then the domestic partnerships and you build from there.”
However, this arrangement was unacceptable to many members of my group, for when is it that the price you must pay outweighs that which you receive in return? Mohandas Gandhi is famous for his theory of “civil disobedience,” in which he states that when a law or rule is unjust, one has a duty to disobey it, in an effort to be the change one wishes to see in the world. Smart man.
I am not a selfish person, and I am not a stubborn person. I am someone who is more than willing to compromise.
But I refused to compromise my dignity.
I refused to remain silent.
I rejected the “Memorandum of Understanding” as inherently discriminatory and utterly unacceptable. I couldn’t do it.
But there were and continue to be students who are willing to work within the context of Dr. Wankel’s “Memorandum” in an effort to bring about change in our University community in the here and now. I respect and admire those students, the students whose passion and dedication to this issue are so strong and vehement that they are acting on them and putting forth their efforts to change the community in which we live for the better.
In laying the groundwork for this movement, as I have said, I refused to be the victim of circumstance. I was prepared for this denial, and ultimately, the work that would follow. I went through an attorney selection process and ultimately ended up hiring a lawyer who would represent me and the members of my group as we sought to work with the University in obtaining the same rights as every other group on campus receives. That’s perhaps the most important part of all of this. We weren’t asking for anything more, or anything less, than any other group on campus receives. We asked to be recognized by the University; the same University that, in a policy issued in October of 2000, stated the following:
“No person may be denied employment or related benefits or admission to the University or to any of its programs or activities, either academic or nonacademic, curricular or extracurricular, because of race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, handicap and disability, or veteran’s status.”
The document continues on, stating:
“…Policies are to be applied in all decisions regarding hiring, promotion, retention, tenure, compensation, benefits, layoffs, academic programs, and social and recreational programs.”
I saw this policy in high school, when I was still completely closeted, and saw it as my chance. This policy said that it wouldn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, even when it came to social and recreational programs.
Growing up in a small town, it’s easy to adopt the “big fish in a small pond” mentality. When you want to start a club or group, you just do it. I felt confident that, based on Seton Hall’s own policy, I could start this group for students like me who were in the closet and just wanted friends, people to talk to that have gone through the same stuff.
I hope that it is clear that I am only asking for that which the University contractually promised it would give.
My lawyer contacted Seton Hall on February 6, requesting a meeting with Dr. Wankel and any members of the administration who wanted to attend. He stated that we preferred to resolve differences outside of the courtroom, but if Seton Hall refused to compromise, it would leave us with no choice but to have a court remedy the illegal conduct. From February 6 to March 10, we heard from the University but once. They said that they had passed the matter on to legal counsel.
I wanted nothing more than to work this issue out in a way that was meaningful and beneficial to both students and staff, without having to besmirch the University, its reputation, or its standing among the Catholic community. But when a University will not work things out, it’s hard to remain silent and watch injustice continue.
Injustice breeds ignorance, hate, and violence, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, in an effort to end injustice based on the illegal criteria of sexual orientation, I filed suit against Seton Hall University on March 10, in the Essex County Superior Courthouse, on behalf of myself and the other members of T.R.U.T.H.
No comments:
Post a Comment