Subject: Letters to the Editor: Come Out, Wherever You Are
Date: Published: 3/4/92 (179 lines)
Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc.

    Letters to the Editor:
    Come Out, Wherever You Are

    It was with dismay that I read your Feb. 3 page-one
 article "Campus Liberation:  Gay Students Enjoy Programs,
 Protections at Rutgers University."
    Not to take anything away from student Jeff Van quoted in
 the piece; he may actually wear a dress to Rutgers's gay
 dances on a regular basis, and shout "I'm a faggot!" before
 entering a friend's apartment, as you reported.  But I also
 suspect you fell for a bit of hyperbole in the case of Mr. 
 Van.
    I'm perplexed by your purposes here.  Were you actually
 trying to shed light on Rutgers's progressive policies, as
 your headline suggests?  Or were you really just looking for
 an opportunity to belittle a civil-rights struggle you don't
 support?  Your insistence on weaving in some favorite
 stereotypes of homosexuals -- wearing dresses, cruising the
 bathrooms for sex -- suggests the latter.
    You are half-right in your analysis:  Homosexuals are
 becoming more vocal, even strident, in their demands, not
 only on college campuses but in cities and small towns across
 America.  But you missed the underlying reason for this new
 spirit of activism:  the AIDS crisis.  AIDS makes only a cameo
 appearance in your story, when in fact it's probably at the
 root of most of the activism (or, at least, activist spirit)
 recounted in the article.
    AIDS has not only killed more than 100,000 people in the
 U. S. alone, buts its early and persistent association with
 homosexuality has led to a rise in "gay-bashing" and other
 incidents of violence against homosexuals.  So now, in
 addition to calling for more research, more funding and more
 social services for people with AIDS, gay people are also
 speaking out for greater understanding, or at least peaceful
 coexistence, from the communities in which we live.  As part
 of this process, some gay people are co-opting words that
 have historically been meant as insults, hence the appearance
 in your article of gay people calling themselves "queer" or
 "faggot," a word choice that must have puzzled your less
 politically aware readers.
    John Flinn
    New York
    ---
    Your article is a commendable effort to illustrate the
 ground-breaking efforts of certain universities, including
 Rutgers, in adopting policies prohibiting discrimination on
 the basis of sexual orientation.
    I do take issue, however, with specific statements and
 inferences regarding whether the workplace is hospitable to
 openly lesbian and gay employees.  You cast a pall of doubt
 regarding the ability of lesbian and gay college graduates
 from institutions such as Rutgers to find work in the "real
 world."
    In my 11 years in underwriting and brokerage positions
 within the financial guaranty insurance industry, I have
 encountered a variety of attitudes toward lesbian and gay
 financial professionals, ranging from open hostility to
 benign neglect to acceptance and affirmation.  Actual and
 potential discrimination, including outright dismissal,
 demotion or the more invidious lack of promotion
 opportunities (the socalled "glass ceiling"), has kept some
 highly qualified men and women in the closet, which, by its
 very nature, leads to the lack of social interaction with
 colleagues, and the potential for stress in the development
 of personal relationships.
    My decision to affirm my domestic partnership openly (his
 picture is on my office desk, he attends the office holiday
 party and has met many of my colleagues) has occurred at the
 time I have made my greatest personal advances in terms of
 professional responsibilities, title (vice president), salary
 and other benefits.  I attribute these advances, in part, to
 greater self-esteem in knowing that colleagues and clients
 accept me as a whole person, and not just as a technician.
    David A. Smith
    New York
    ---
    Employers discriminate against gays and lesbians when
 hiring -- even where the law prohibits bias, such as in New
 York City.  Sometimes the law permits discrimination, such as
 in Providence, R. I. But this does not mean gay men and
 lesbians should hide their natural orientation.  Employers
 will discriminate for a lot of reasons -- being gay is just
 one of them.  Face it, if you're not an SWM (straight white
 male) you will be discriminated against.  That's the world,
 and we have to live in it.  Living in the closet just makes it
 scarier and far more difficult.
    The heterosexual students at Rutgers have the advantage of
 knowing when they get out of college that the world is almost
 entirely theirs in which to live and procreate happliy.  The
 homosexual students look forward to the tireless job of
 fighting their own government to allow them to wed the person
 they fall in love with.  Or of fighting for the peace of mind
 that they can walk the street hand-in-hand without being
 stabbed or clubbed to death for no other reason than being
 gay.  If the heterosexual students have to bear a few years
 with regulations giving homosexual students a safe haven
 before they begin their lifelong battle, it is more than a
 fair trade.
    Additionally, if student Clayton DuVall is offended by men
 (not always gay) cruising the restroom, then why is he there?  
 Surely there are other restrooms.
    Randolph E. Dreyer
    New York
    ---
    Use of words such as "homophobe" and "heterosexist" by the
 homosexual lobby does little to encourage legitimate
 discussion of the issue of homosexual rights.  Applying
 euphemisms is a subtle yet pervasive language device that is
 typical of propaganda campaigns, and has proved successful in
 shaping public perception that those who disagree that
 homosexuality is inborn do so out of "hate" or "fear" of
 homosexuals.  It's discriminatory to characterize those who
 consider homosexuality a life style as bigoted criminals who
 commit demeaning or even violent acts on homosexuals.  The
 majority of those who disagree with the homosexual party line
 have never and would never commit violence against
 homosexuals, any more than they would against any other
 person.
    Stephen Campisi
    Hebron, Conn.
    ---
    I am a gay man who has worked for private, public and
 not-for-profit organizations in professional capacities for
 13 years, since coming out at the age of 21.  I have never
 kept this part of me hidden, nor would I encourage my fellow
 gay men and lesbians to do so.  The "closet" is just like it
 sounds, stifling and degrading.  Imagine what it would be like
 for a heterosexual man or woman working in an office where
 you felt you risked promotions or even your job if you were
 to speak openly about the existence of your spouse or
 children.  Unfortunately, this is how many lesbians and gay
 men feel at work.
    Employees are most effective in their professions when
 they feel most comfortable in their workplace.  All employers
 should encourage lesbian and gay employees to be "out" at
 their jobs.  And lesbians and gay men should be open to
 educate their co-workers about who we are.
    Scott Glen Klein
    Brooklyn, N. Y. 
    ---
    There is certainly justification for respecting the
 privacy of truly private individuals by granting them partial
 anonymity in covering a controversial story.  There is no
 justification that I know of to keep hidden the names of
 sources who have willingly made themselves public figures by
 writing bylined columns in the school newspaper, listing
 their full names in "resource guides," or plastering their
 monikers on posters pasted around campus, as some of the
 partially named subjects in the Rutgers story have done.
    There was no need to grant these individuals' demands;
 there were other sources courageous enough to allow their
 full names to be used.  Nor is the "rape defense" -- the
 eroding media compact to keep private the names of sex-crime
 victims -- a valid excuse.  In those cases, there is an
 arguable social need to maintain victims' privacy in order to
 pursue criminal prosecutions.
    In discussing the Rutgers prohibition against insulting
 minority-group members, you describe the policy (which
 forbids even "belittling comments") as merely
 "controversial."  Not once does the story address the
 frightening constitutional implications of a public
 institution's suppression of speech.
    By granting selective anonymity to otherwise-public
 individuals and glossing over serious First Amendment issues,
 you display rank partisanship.  Would the Journal withhold the
 name of a politician who repeated "on background" something
 he'd already said for the public record?  Would you allow a
 corporate executive to keep herself out of a story that was
 impelled by an op-ed piece she'd written?  I hope not.
    Randall Rothenberg
    New York

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
 personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
 hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
 from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]