Education by Jubilation

In its recent editorial, the editorial board of Spec demonstrated incredible ignorance in their analysis of the events promoted by “the QuAM” (this reference to QuAM demonstrates, in and of itself, a lack of familiarity with the group and events). In addition, the e-board’s implication that sexuality is a “preference” is dually offensive and further exemplary of their ignorance.

It is unfortunate that the board fell into the same trap that so many other media sources have and simply furthered the perception of “the queer” as a sex-crazed maniac with little concern for other matters. This is not only untrue, it is patently offensive.

In fact, as many of my fellow students pointed out in the comments, there are many, many other parties at Columbia which are equally or even more sexualized than the parties sponsored by QuAM or even queer groups in general. Perhaps a prime example of this would be those taking place on frat row, where homophobic and misogynistic prejudices remain their strongest and where value of consent remains the lowest. Indeed, where are the editorial board’s condemnations of the revelry in America’s bastions of heteronormativity?

The editorial’s condemnation of celebrations of queer sexuality is entirely unacceptable and furthermore harmful. In a society where, in many places, to be queer is to face harassment — be it in the workplace, the home, or school — physical violence, and shame, the exact opposite of condemnation is called for — and this is exactly what some of these events were designed to do.

Even in purportedly liberal places, LGBT people — and youths in particular — face a considerable amount of pressure to conform in a variety of ways. Some parents send their children to be brainwashed and “fixed” at camps run by fundamentalist Christian groups, sometimes gay youth face public humiliation when their church congregation prays for God to make them straight. More common, however, is for a demand of outward conformity. While the straight people around us are permitted or even expected to talk about their private lives, queer people are pressured to be silent about sex, romance, and who they find attractive — this expectation permeates not only friendships, but educational environments, a wide variety of professions, and, of course, the military.

There is a reason that the queer suicide rate has been reported to be between three to five times that of our heterosexual counterparts, and, undeniably, part of the reason behind that is the expectation of heterosexuality and the suppression of queer sexuality.

We live in a nation in which the question of queer rights is something up for debate, where my right to marry a person I love comes down to a razor thin vote, even in places like California. In this culture, to be anything other than heterosexual is inherently political, to express that sexuality is inherently political, and, by extension, the revelry which the e-board so strongly condemns is inherently political. This “revelry” is designed to help queer students become more comfortable with themselves and their sexuality, after eighteen, or nineteen, or twenty years of repressing it.

Lastly, while straight allies are highly valued in the LGBT community, the focus of QuAM is not to make them feel at home. It is to make queer students feel at home in a society where heterosexuality is assumed. While the vast majority of straight students rarely feel threatened because of their sexual identity, the same, unfortunately, cannot be said for queer students. Therefore, both a large and important part of QuAM is to create spaces friendly to and comfortable for non-heterosexual students. If those spaces make straight students feel uncomfortable, they have the other 11 months of the year and every other building and room not only on this campus, but in much of the rest of the world.

The only truly acceptable response to this travesty — indeed, that is exactly what the editorial piece represents — is a retraction and apology to the queer community at large.

EDIT: Tom Faure, the editor-in-chief of the Spectator,  recently wrote a conciliatory post on the editor’s blog. However, while certainly well-intentioned, it failed to address a wide variety of the complaints which were levelled against the editorial, amongst which was the fact that the editorial board referred to sexuality as a “preference”, implying that there is a choice involved in being a member of a marginalized and oppressed community.