The events of recent weeks inspired me to set down the following thoughts. I understand that you will probably not be able to print it, as--in violation of paper policy--it is not signed. I apologize for this, but my parents have worked too hard, spent too much money, and taken out too many loans for me to risk my Bates education over this issue.

However, I have had serious misgivings about the charges and tactics of GLBA on this incident. It is my hope that perhaps a more eloquent, tactful writer than myself might be able to raise some of these matters in future issues. I believe that John Connors began to move in this direction in his piece in the October 31 issue, and would like to see more scrutiny of the Coalition of Angry Students' contract demands and its implications.

Thank you for your continued coverage of this matter.

Sincerely,

A student

P.S. If Bates does not meet the Coalition of Angry Students' demands, will they become the Coalition of Really Furious Students?

The editorial begins

You know what I am?

I'm a white male heterosexual student at Bates. I never even saw the original Coming Out Weekend display on the quad before it was removed. I did see the "replacement" display, though. Here's what I thought when I saw that: Wow, that's a lot of chalk.

I don't mean to be callous. I know several members of GLBA, and most of them are good, decent people. If they say that they have suffered insults and injustices during their time at Bates, I believe them. Really. And I hope the melee resulting from the removal of the display brings about some positive change. I doubt it, though.

The homophobic incidents that most of these activists have described in the "forums"--and I use the term loosely--have been individual, not institutional. And there will always be ignorant people. Yup, even at Bates. Even with doctorates.

Back to the display incident, though:

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that Bates is a homophobic institution which wishes to keep its gay population in the proverbial closet. So GLBA comes to its homophobic institution and proposes a display on its homophobic quad.

Uh-oh.

Panic ensues. This can't be allowed. It must be stopped.

So, rather than citing any of a myriad of available excuses to deny GLBA permission to put up the display in the first place, here's the plan they come up with:

First, smile and give full permission to GLBA. Then, after it's all set up, wake up a whole crew of homophobic maintenance workers at 3:30 a.m. to come in under the cloak of darkness to covertly remove the entire display. That'll teach `em.

Finally, to really drive a stake through their little gay hearts, apologize fifteen thousand times the next day and invite the entire campus to help re-construct the whole thing so it'll still be up in time for the weekend.

Good plan.

As far as I know, throughout this whole process, no one--not even any GLBA members--has accused Deans Branham, Sawyer, or Reese of being stupid. Homophobic, mean, oppressive, unresponsive--yes; stupid--no. But that's what you'd have to believe to buy a conspiracy theory like this one.

Paging Oliver Stone....

Now, for a moment, imagine that you're a Bates Security officer working the graveyard shift. At that particular hour, you're the only person in America wearing a bike helmet and combat boots. While crossing the quad, you come upon chalk renderings of vaginas and penises, along with a litany of gay slogans, all over the walkways. You call into the office to find out what's going on, and apparently no one has any knowledge of this whatsoever. You then picture President Harward crossing the quad on his way to Lane the next morning, gingerly stepping around the penises and vaginas in his path. You then picture him canning your ass for not handling the situation.

Here's what I would have said if it'd been me--if I was that Security officer:

Get the hose, Bobby!

On the positive side, though, this whole incident has been an incredible boon to The Bates Student. Oh, I definitely see some journalism awards coming out of this thing. Don't you love it? It's our own little soap opera. Personally, I can't wait to get my next issue any more. The things people actually say just amaze me. Did you read these?

One of the members of the Coalition of Angry Students (easily the best student organization name on campus - wish I'd thought of it first) said that the removal of the display made her "feel violated and deceived."

And she's not even a Drama major.

However, the best absurdity goes to Charles Nero, the faculty member who said: "There's been a huge amount of talk about the incident and of how insensitive the people in GLBA have been to Dean Branham...That's like saying, `well, if I kick you in the groin, how dare you say ouch!"'

I've never met Mr. Nero, who is a Professor of Rhetoric. The American Heritage Dictionary, which sits on my desk as I write this, gives two definitions of rhetoric: 1. The art of effective expression and the persuasive use of language. 2. Affected or pretentious language.

I'd say his comment definitely falls under the second definition.

I actually had to laugh out loud when I first read his comment, as it is undoubtedly one of the most inappropriate, melodramatic, exaggerated, slanderous analogies I've ever heard in my life. Someone acting like this big an ass must be tenured.

How's that for a kick in the groin, Chuck?

On the other hand, though, at least Nero said something. It struck me as curious that, while Branham was being crucified in public as evil incarnate, there was no outcry from Conher friends or colleagues. Oh, there were a few minor comments that she had been treated "insensitively," but that was it. Why? Do all her colleagues and friends agree that she is "F. Celeste Branham, Homophobe"? I would think that someone--especially the people in power who selected her to be Dean of Students--would vociferously rise to her defense, but no one did. Not even the President. That's kind of sad, I think. I don't know Dean Branham, but if I did, this would be my advice to her: Hey F.! You need some new damn friends!

Anyway, I asked around a little bit. Felt out the situation. I really wanted to know why the faculty and administration were letting F. fry like that. Did they all really hate her? Here's what I found out:

Well, before I tell you that, I should explain that I didn't speak to too many faculty members. My experience has been that, even in casual conversation, faculty members can talk for hours without ever saying anything. Heck, I've had a couple that have gone an entire semester without saying anything. So I spoke mostly to other employees of the College.

Overwhelmingly, they told me that they liked F., that they knew she wasn't homophobic, that they refused to believe that the incident was anything but what she said it was--an unfortunate mistake.

So why, I asked, didn't you speak up? You know what they told me? They were afraid to.

You can't say anything line that here at Bates, they said, because you would be perceived as being part of the homophobic problem. The place is just so politically correct. It would be stupid to say anything even mildly critical of GLBA or any other minority group--whether it was accurate or not- as you would risk having your name publicly dragged through the mud. Risk being branded a homophobe. Or a racist. Or a sexist. Just like Branham is now. So they preferred to say nothing at all.

And listen to this: I believe them. You know why? Because that's exactly the same reason that I won't put my name on this piece.

Political correctness has not solved anything. It's made people afraid to voice a differing opinion. It has simply replaced intolerance on the political right with intolerance on the political left. It has imposed the worst kind of censorship on people here: self-censorship, where people feel unable to publicly express what they honestly feel or believe for fear of retribution. Isn't that what GLBA was supposed to be working against?

Congratulations, GLBA--you have become what you set out to fight. Are you proud?