Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:12:59 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 570

In this issue:
                 A Different Presidential Selection...
                         MOW/Nebraksa committee
                "Politically correct"? (UGH! Not AGAIN!)
            News: Tracy Thorne appeals for meeting with Bush
                          GOP's Shrinking Tent

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: A Different Presidential Selection...
From: Brian Bergquist <bbergquist@claven.idbsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:24:43 -0700

H E L P !

     I`m on the staff at Boise State University. The school is in the process of
selecting a new president, and the search committee has narrowed the list to
eleven `semi-finalists`. Since the results of the swim-suit competition are
likely to be somewhat bleak, I`d like to see if you have any insight into any of
these folks. It would be helpful if I had a better feeling for what these folks
were likely to support on campus, what policies they`ve introduced, and how
supportive they are of their campus G/L/B community. I can then share this info
with folks on the search committee, or with appropriate individuals on campus.
Who knows, we might even be able to influence the process!
     Specifically, I`d like to know: Is there a non-discrimination policy at
their current institution? Are they supportive of such policies (whether or not
they have one at their current institution)? Do they have G/L/B friends who are
political? Is the campus climate supportive? Is there a faculty/staff group at
their campus? Any relevant personal insights or anecdotes would also be
appreciated. (If any of them are subscribers to Gaynet, that would be nice to
know, too.)  :-)

    The eleven semi-finalists are (drum-roll, please!)
*** Robert C. Shirley:
President of the University of Southern Colorado in Pueblo (Formerly at Trinity
University and SUNY-Albany).
***John M. Hutchinson:
Commissioner of Higher Education for the Montana System of Higher Education in
Helena. (Formerly at Idaho State University).
*** Fredrick J. Dobney:
Vice-provost for Extended university services & professor, Washington State
University at Pullman (Formerly at Loyola University in New Orleans and St.
Louis University).
*** Merrill Lessley:
Vice-chancellor for academic affairs and dean of the graduate school at the
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (Formerly at San Diego State
University).
*** John K. Yost:
Provost and vice-president for academic affairs at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville (Formerly at University of Nebraska in Lincoln).
*** Charles P. Ruch:
Provost and vice president for academic affairs at Virginia Commonwealth
University in Richmond.
*** H. Ray Hoops:
Vice chancellor of academic affairs at the University of Mississippi in Oxford
(Formerly with the Oregon State System of Higher Education and South Dakota
State University.)
*** Eugene M. Hughes:
President of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff
*** Robert E. Glennen:
President of Emporia State University in Emporia, Kansas. (Formerly at Western
New Mexico University in Silver City and University of Nevada-Las Vegas).
*** Joseph W. Cox:
President of Southern Oregon State College in Ashland. (Formerly at Northern
Arizona University in Flagstaff).
*** G. David Pollick:
Acting president of the State University of New York College at Cortland.
(Formerly at Seattle University in Washington)

Seriously: Thank you for any assistance and insight that you can share! Please
reply to my personal mailbox if possible. I really appreciate it.

Brian Bergquist, Assistant Director
Boise State Univ. Student Union
1910 Univ. Drive, Boise  ID 83725
bbergquist@claven.idbsu.edu
(208)385-1677 voice

------------------------------

From: hjhess@odin.unomaha.edu (Heidi Jeanne Hess)
Subject: MOW/Nebraksa committee
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:24:18 CDT

Is anyone out there in Nebraska and connected with the committee working on
the National March On Washington committee. I volunteered myself to help
and not only can't remember the name of the man I talked to, but I lost
the phone number as well.

Anyone who is involved and could help me get in touch with this gentleman,
please write me personally rather than clogging up the net.

Thanks in advance!

Heidi
hjhess@odin.unomaha.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:57:56 -0500
From: romickle@vassar.edu
Subject: "Politically correct"? (UGH! Not AGAIN!)

We finally got a REAL e-mail editor.  Now to reply to something the way
I've always wanted to reply to what someones said.  WARNING: THIS IS A LONG
REPLY

Loren Meissner <lmeissne@u.washington.edu> writes:

>I think Michele ("movies etc") missed the point. While I agree that movies
>make impressions, rather than ranting about what's out there, if one feels
>strongly enough about it, why not make one's own movies and art, rather
>than ranting and raving (with its horrible implications of "political
>correctness" and censorship a-la Jesse Helms).

Since when did all this "ranting and raving" constitute censorshiop?  If I
saw a film that had a bunch of white people running around in blackface and
"imitating" black English, am I to understand that picketing outside a
theatre showing such a movie is implicit censorship?  To me it's a
reciprocal exchange of First Admendment rights: our hypothetical
film-makers had the right to express their racist views and I have a right
to express my discontent with its content and inform others of my views.

And would people PLEASE get over (and beyond) this right-wing construct of
"political correctness?"  Its equivalency with ideological fascism is not
only incorrect, it is not fair.  After all, conservatives have their own
partisanly correct agenda, too, (e.g., family values, maintaining the
status quo, perpetuating an elite) that has elements of censorship as well
(NEA funding, anyone?).

As for making my own films, although I have no the talent, I will on one
condition: get me NEA funding to do it! :)

>While I am not quoting him
>directly, that's approximately the point Gus Van Sant made here at
>UWashington last Fall when confronted by the "politically correct" [SIC] about
>the "Dutch Boy" scene in "Private Idaho." He said that he wasn't trying to
>deliver any political message, and encouraged the "complainers" (my word,
>not his) to go out and make their own movies.

Typical response.  (Talk about a SERIOUS case of internalized homophobia!)
Let's go back to my example above.  Jane White-Racist, our film director,
decides that his standard defense to complaints against his film is "Well,
if them niggers want a film that delivers a political statement, they can
go out an make a film themselves."  Well, is that an acceptable statement.
What's to ensure that what happened and is happening to black (notice the
ommision of "positive") films doesn't happen to gay-positive movies: play
in a limited number of theaters, limited funding, funding only for projects
deemed potentially profitable.  After all, film is an industry.

A lot of people like to point to the example of Spike Lee when spouting
this "pull oneself up by the bootstraps" line.  Let's look at the films
that he's produced.  The first, _She's Gotta Have It_ is a chef d'oeuvre in
misogyny:  the movie centers around a black woman, who, rather than
portrayed as a woman with a healthy sex life, is portrayed as a living
perpetutation of the myth of the wanton, sex-crazed black slut (a Sapphire
on speed).  Nola, the woman, can only be tamed by Jaime, who in the
climatic scene, rapes her and demands an answer to the question, "Whose
pussy is this?"  Nola
acquieses and rejoins, "It's your pussy, Jaime, it's your's." She then
magically looses all desire to be with any man other than Jaime. And we
won't BEGIN to analyze his treatment of the lesbian.  THIS IS THE FILM THAT
CATIPULTED SPIKE LEE TO FAME.  In his next film, _School Daze_ he
exaggerates the issue of skin tone at a historically-black college into a
polemical battle between women--the Jiggaboos and the Wanna-bes (notice
that the men aren't so divided on this issue of skin tone; they are divided
on issues of politics).  The women are "weak" and the men "strong."  It was
critically acclaimed for, as I remember one critic calling it, "griping
hold of the realities of black Americans."  (Historically black colleges,
especially Morehouse and Spellman, have been bastions of the the black
bourgeoisie, who, wanting to imitate the white elite, distanced themselves
as much as possible from the "realities" of everyday African-Americans--and
still do.) The next three movies, _Do The Right Thing_, _Mo' Better Blues_,
and _Jungle Fever_ show a marked maturity in Lee's message: he is no longer
interested in perpetuating black stereotypes with shallow characters and
negative messages.  In _Jungle Fever_, for example, Lee let the women
actress speak extemporaneously while filming on the tribulations black
male-black female relationships which became the scene where the women are
sitting around the living room after the discovery that the husband had had
sex with a white woman.

What brought about the change?  It was Spike Lee listening to people like
black feminists telling him that his films maligned black women and
ultimately the black race.  It was Lee going to college campuses and
hearing rational, legitimate complaints about his films (although he still
hasn't budged on the issue of homophobia in his films).  Nobody told him
what to do, they told him what their impressions of his films were and he
began to see for himself how he harmed the black community with those first
two films.  But he's still learning: rumor has it that _X_, due out in
November, will focus on Malcolm X's life as Detroit Red:  a drug abuser,
theif, and pimp.  (So much for the role-model...).

The point I make is don't call me a "politically correct" thought-fascist
pig (my words and interpretation, not yours) just because I voice my
opinions.  The film-maker just might listen and agree.

>Also, if you don't like a film, don't pay to see it.
> Many of the film studios are businesses, and
>the law of supply and demand does have an impact. However, a word of
>caution here. Be sure that if you are "boycotting" something that you
>think through the issues for yourself, and the decision to boycot is
>really yours rather than letting a bunch of "politically correct" people
>do your thinking for you. Recent films which were on "politically correct"
>boycott lists included "My OWN PRivate Idaho" and "Meeting Venus"> In my
>view, the boycott calls for both films were silly. Homosexuals are people
>too and do silly things. Should straights boycott films showing straight
>people doing silly things because it does not project a "politically
>correct" straight" image?

Let me get this straight,...er, correct.  If I don't pay to see the movie,
I don't have legitimate grounds to criticize it--how can you criticize
something you haven't seen? But if I do see the movies and urge others not
to see it, I am one of those "politically correct" people of whom Loren is
so fond of calling.  Critically, it is not an issue of economics, whether
you are one of those who say that if a movie is going to upset you, don't
go to it or one of those who have seen a movie and urge people to boycott
the movie.  In this instance, boycotting is not an effective means of
eliminating the problem (whether it be homophobic attitudes or racism).
If _Birth of a Nation_ were released today, I assure you that it would be a
box office smash: the hoopla in the press over this racist film would
insure its sucess.  Face it: people are curious, even about things that
they know will horrify them.  The true hurdle here is getting people to
recongnize that that psycho-lesbian serial killer is just as harmful a
stereotype as that sex-crazed black nymphomaniac (when you saw the word
"nymphomaniac" you automatically thought of a woman didn't you?) and that
perpetuating such stereotypes is socially reproachable.  And it is also
getting people to recognize to only show negative portrayals of already
marginalized groups of people not only reinforces their peripheralization,
it feeds phobias of and hatred towards those groups, be them blacks, Jews,
white Southerners (who are either characterized as dumb or racist, often
both), or queers.  We should to urge film-makers not make film that will
negatively impact a marginalized group.  Voicing that opinion isn't telling
film-makers what to do; it's telling them to look at what is fair and what
is right when they pratice their craft.
Can I get an a-men?

>--------
>All this is just IMHO (In my humble opinion). Please no flames or personal
>attacks. As you can see, this posting attacks no one, just expresses
>concerns about "political correctness" and censorship. Please send any
>polite, well-thought out and rational responses to gaynet for posting, as I
>have no time to handle personal e-mail on this subject.

I agree with your concerns here, but understand this: the process of
discourse isn't necessarily orderly, well-thought out, rational, polite, or
nice.  The aim here is for understanding; as I struggle to see things as
you see them, try to see things the way I do.

Derrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Derrick Mickle,  Vassar College________ BLACK, GAY, AND PROUD!
         romickle@vassar.edu      \      /  Box 2699, Vassar College
         romickle@vassar.bitnet    \    /    Poughkeepsie NY 12601
 "I wear black on the outside 'cos  \  /      (914) 451- 2031
  black is how I feel on the inside" \/
               -Morrissey , newfound black activist?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Girlfriend in a coma, I know, I know, it's serious."
  -Morrissey on a suspected closet case?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:07 GMT
Subject: News: Tracy Thorne appeals for meeting with Bush
From: An Anonymous Sender

UPn  07/22 1726  Gay naval aviator appeals for meeting with president
UPn  07/22 1726  Gay naval aviator appeals for meeting with president

By CHARLES DOE
   WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A naval aviator facing mandatory expulsion from the
service after he admitted his homosexuality on national television appealed
Wednesday for President Bush to grant him a meeting.
   "I know you value and understand the hard work and dedication required to
earn the 'wings of gold' that we both wear," Navy Lt. j.g. Tracy Thorne wrote to
Bush, who himself flew Navy combat missions during World War II.
   "Because I am so reluctant to give up these wings as the result of a policy
that I believe is built on prejudice and not reality, and in view of the
importance of the broader social issue the policy raises, I respectfully request
an opportunity to meet with you in the form of a captain's request mast."
   "Captain's mast is a time-honored tradition in the Navy where people can air
their grievances to their commanding officer," Thorne told a press conference.
He said he had written the president because Bush was his commander-in-chief.
   He said his letter was hand-delivered to the White House earlier Wednesday.
Copies were also addressed to Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and acting Navy
Secretary Sean O'Keefe.
   In his letter to Bush, Thorne noted that the president had recently met with
Navy Lt. Paula Coughlin, the main complainant in the Tailhook sex scandal.
   Coughlin was one of 26 women, half of them officers, who were forced to run a
"gauntlet" of drunken Naval and Marine aviators who molested them sexually at
the Tailhook Association's convention in Las Vegas last September. The
association is named for the arresting gear which allows naval aircraft to land
on carrier decks.
   Thorne said he wanted the president "to tell me why I am less qualified to
fly than the naval flyers who participated in the Tailhook gauntlet. Some of
them may be flying at this very moment."
   Thorne is a bombardier-navigator with the Navy's VA-65 "Flying Tigers"
squadron at the Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, Va.
   He will report there Thursday to a board of inquiry that will determine
whether he should be separated from the service in accordance with the
Pentagon's ban on homosexuals. The action follows Thorne's appearance last May
on ABC-TV's Nightline program, where he admitted to being homosexual.
   Asked why he made the public admission, Thorne said: "I could no longer live
a lie. I could no longer look at myself in the shaving mirror."
   He said he had admitted his sexual orientation to an increasing circle of
friends in recent years, but did not believe any of his Navy superiors knew
about it. Shortly before his television appearance, he had warned them about it
"so they would not be blindsided."
   "I have had an enormous amount of backing," Thorne said, "much more than I
could have imagined. It came from all segments of our society -- mostly
straight, I might add. Where I thought there would be hate mail, I have had only
letters of goodwill. Where I thought I would have nasty phone calls, I have only
had calls of support."
   The aviator said he was particularly gratified with the support he had gotten
from other flyers in his squadron.
   "Over half the officers in my squadron personally expressed their support for
what I was doing," he said. "No, they did not necessarily believe that the
Pentagon's policy needed to be overturned, but they agreed with my right to
stand up for something that I strongly believed in."
   Thorne said his own career belied the Defense Department's policy that
homosexuals disrupt good order and discipline and undermine morale.
   "Being gay," he said, "has absolutely nothing to do with leadership, unit
cohesion or privacy."
   "I've lived on board ship and I can control my sexuality," Thorne said. "Gays
are not sexual predators with some kind of hormonal overdrive. We are just as in
control of our sexuality as any hetrosexual. Sexual misconduct in the military
is not and should not be tolerated."
   "If people are uncomfortable with gays," the aviator said, "that is their
problem. These fears are groundless and the way to get around them is through
equality and education. The U.S. armed forces are superb educators. They have
abundant resources, up to date training methods, skilled instructors, and, best
of all a captive audience.
   "When the military does something, they do it with vigor. Ironically, after
decades of discrimination, it is the military that now leads the nation on the
integration of minorities. They did it with blacks. They are doing it with women
and they can do it with gays."
   Thorne's lawyer, Patrick Lee of the Washington firm of Crowell and Moring,
said he will argue before Thursday's Navy board of inquiry that it should
recommend to the secretary of the Navy that he invoke a little-known regulation
that permits him to retain homosexual officers on active duty in those cases
where it is clearly in the national interest.
   Lee will also present a series of depositions from such authorities as former
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower Lawrence J. Korb that the ban on
homosexuals is unfounded.
   Should the board rule against him, the lawyer said he will appeal the ruling
on the grounds that the military ban on homosexuals violates their
constitutional right of equal protection under the laws, the same provision that
has been frequently used in civil rights cases to strike down restrictions on
blacks, women and other minorities.
   "I have every intention to appeal this through all the law courts," Thorne
said. "We're going to win on this."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:13 EST
From: GANDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: GOP's Shrinking Tent

        Just finished watching ABC News' Nightline. The show featured the
story of  a gay staff member who was forced out due to pressure, he says,
from the far religious right. Rich Tafel, (an acquaintance of mine) chair
of The National Log Cabin Clubs, said the strategy was to woo back
Conservatives who were unhappy with his raising taxes, etc. by
throwing them homophobic "family values" rhetoric.
         Now as Liberal Democrat appointed by a moderate Republican
Governor to be on His Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth I've seen
another side of The Republican Party. Now I disagree with Gov. Weld (R-
MA) on many things but he is not a man to tolerate bias. In point of fact
Weld has also found courting the Lesbian & Gay Vote to be a plus because
in this state we have many good old boy democrats who are anti-gay and
anti-choice he parlayed his more progressive stand on social issues to a
win over conservative & homophobic democrat, John Silber.
         On a national level we have a campaign now who is throwing
overboard talented gay folks so they can gain favor & votes from religious
bigots like Jerry Falwell and Rev. Lou Sheldon. Maybe someone should tell
Bush and in particular  Danny Q. that their are more Christians , Jews, and
followers of other religious traditions who support love than those who
support  bigotry. Well I'm off to find a Clinton/Gore Bumper Sticker!

        Jerry Cheney C/O "ganderson@vax.clarku.edu" or
        69 Monadnock Rd., Worcester, MA 01609.
        Phone (508) 755-0005

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU