Bold Coming Out Day Posters Draw Protests, Explanations

To the editors:

The greatest injustice against Harvard's homosexuals and their supporters is not being perpetrated by anonymous homophobes scribbling cowardly threats, but by the great lie known as the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance (BGLTSA). This snotty clique of narcissists has overstepped not only the bounds of decency but quite possibly those of legality with Tuesday's obscene barrage of shock propaganda (News, Oct. 12). Supporters of equal rights for all people should be outraged at the attempt by the propagandists to appropriate homosexuals for their own self-serving game of limit-pushing.

I saw only one sign stating that people will love you upon "coming out," yet I saw three signs prominently and gratuitously displaying the word "fuck." Similarly, I observed a 1:3 ratio between memorializing Matthew Shepard and glorifying fellatio. Clearly the propagandists have a set priority, which is not bringing down barriers between Americans. This isn't a political outcry; this is exhibitionism, an apolitical exercise in attention-seeking, excepting that it unfairly claims an entire unwilling group as its constituency.

BGLTSA has personally insulted homosexuals and their supporters at large. But although a great many of us would rather not have children passers-by reading BGLTSA's exhortations to pedophilia or obscure, nauseating references to auto-oral-menstrual-eroticism, I saw no conservatives tear down Tuesday's ubiquitous smut. Imagine my outrage, then, upon seeing an avowed liberal, wearing the "coming out day" sticker, nonchalantly destroy two Republican candidate posters Tuesday evening. This movement must abandon its false pretense of open-mindedness. The increasingly bogus "queer" agenda won no supporters and gained at least this opponent today.

Randall W. Lucas '01

Oct. 13, 1999

*

Posters Have Important Point

To the editors:

I find it ironic that a piece ("Sensationalism Does Not Instill Pride," Oct. 13) that accuses the BGLTSA of co-opting the silence of closeted people, moderately gay people and the poor Nike logo quotes a suicide note to suggest that queer visibility kills queers. Indeed, it isn't the threat of murder, disownment and discrimination in every walk of life that keeps people in the closet, the authors claim, but sexually explicit posters and publicly queer peers, making gays their own worst gaybashers.

Having bartered my way into Harvard with an essay bemoaning the difficulty of being a "normal" gay person (or, better yet, "just a person") in face of drag queens and leather daddies, I can understand the repudiation of naughty queers who apparently embody the very homophobic stereotypes that wound us so badly. Why can't they just be normal, decent and respectable like me?

Certainly I can recognize, as a much-maligned BGLTSA co-chair, the importance of establishing queer folk as "normal," but it's doubly important to interrogate those boundaries of normality. To those who found some of our posters offensive (and it's remarkable that it's the same 20 posters that are mentioned in this debate without regard for the 90 or so that featured traditional Coming Out Day slogans, shocking statistics and Liza Minelli), ask yourself why you found them offensive.

It's great to want to develop profound affective bonds, monogamous relationships, and everything else that Cliff Davidson and Alex Boni-Saenz claim we are trivializing. It's also great to just want to "Enjoy cock," "Have a golden shower today," "Cuff a friend" or yes (horror of horrors) even "Taste Menses." Why are these sexual behaviors sensationalistic, trivializing and fundamentally indecent? As a co-chair committed to recuperating pathologized sexualities and gender identities, I am not willing to re-closet those of us who fall outside monogamy. Public visibility is a small, initial step toward avowing these privately popular but publicly denied behaviors. One person's "sensationalism" is often another's way of desiring and living. It's not worth coming out into a world where all we've done is switch the genitals and left whom and how we can love unchanged.

Contrary to Davidson and Boni-Saenz, we have not forgotten the "pain and uncertainty" of being the closet; that pain produces posters like "fuck you, I'm positive not poisonous" and "St. Sebastian: the first fag in the military." That pain motivates our anger in an unjust world. I hate that our posters embarrass some closeted people but a) don't assume other closet queens don't love them (I still have my poster of RuPaul giving the camera the finger from my middle school locker), b) don't assume closeted people don't engage in naughty sex acts themselves, and c) being closeted or speaking in the name of the closeted doesn't necessarily authorize the abjection of people who have different sex lives than yours. Putting forth a "respectable face," while more palatable to the noblesse oblige of the Harvard community, leaves those still deemed indecent in the cold.

Underneath the poster blitz, if anyone bothered to read our literature, this BGLTSA works on wonderfully substantive programming that includes volunteer work at local high schools and gay rights organizations, fighting harassment in first-year dorms, the renewal of a long-dead support group on coming out, the promotion of queer studies, phat dances, art shows and speaking events. We are more than silly sensationalists, silly, masturbatory fags and dykes out to put our egos and personal pathologies on display. Idealistic, perhaps, in our desire to screw the world, but alive, angry and proud.

Michael K. T. Tan '01

Oct. 13, 1999

The writer is the co-chair of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance.

Recent Break-ins Leave One Message: Lock Your Door

To the editors:

The article about the break-ins occurring in the Yard dorms (News, Oct. 13) stated that these burglaries "have led first-year students to call for increased security measures in the Yard." Other victims have taken "the University administration to task for not doing enough to make students aware of the security issues surrounding Matthews and other Yard dorms." However, it seems as though many of the burglary victims have forgotten the cardinal rule when it comes to preventing robberies: lock your doors, especially at night. Harvard oftentimes may seem like a bubble disconnected from the rest of the world, but is in reality easily accessible to the urban streets of Cambridge. Common sense dictates that if you live in a big city, you need to be more careful. A person would no more leave their New York City apartment unlocked at night; why should living in Boston be any different? Beyond closing and locking all of the Yard gates at a certain time (a highly undesirable, confining act) or hiring more security guards, not much else can be done to improve safety.

The subsequent complaint that the University is not doing enough to warn students of these dangers seems unfounded and full of finger-pointing. As a first-year, I remember attending a Harvard University Police Department presentation on safety at Harvard, and heard other warnings from my proctor about risky behaviors to avoid--namely leaving doors unlocked or letting other people "piggyback" into the dorm. Even this year as an upperclassmen we had House/floor meetings reminding us of the safety precautions we should be taking. Instead of immediately blaming other people for the unfortunate robberies, maybe the victims should look inside themselves, realize their mistakes and chalk up this whole experience as a painful but valuable lesson to learn.

Annie K. Zaleski '02

Oct. 13, 1999

*

Self-Locking Doors Will Keep Harvard Community Safe

To the editors:

In recent weeks, we have seen a series of burglaries in Harvard Yard dorms. This has led many to call for increased security in this area to protect students' property and to catch the criminals who have been committing these crimes.

While the problem is clear and needs to be solved, I believe that increasing security is not the answer. Indeed, the solution is much simpler. The burglars are not picking locks or busting down doors or climbing through windows. They are simply opening unlocked doors, entering and taking the most accessible and convenient stuff they can grab. There are no forced-entries. The only way Harvard is going to be able to solve its burglary problem is by changing the locks on the dorm doors to ones that automatically lock. This way, there will be no chance of someone forgetting to lock his door when he leaves the room or goes to sleep.

What will this changeover entail? Obviously a lot of locksmiths and new locks, meaning a great expense. But isn't it worth it? First of all, especially during the first year at Harvard, in which the pressures and adjustments are so intense, being burglarized and having to deal with all the annoyances afterwards are absolutely devastating.

Increasing security in the form of more guards, the other proposed solution, would not be cheap, and would have to continue indefinitely without necessarily being effective. Changing the locks would be a one-time expense and would last for years.

Some might argue that, as a result of these incidents, first-years would have to remember to take their keys with them whenever they leave their rooms. First of all, in most Yard dorms, students need their keys to enter the restrooms, so they take their keys with them even when staying in the building anyway. Plus, I have faith that first-years would be able to handle remembering their keys, even if it takes getting locked out of their rooms a few times.

But the most distressing and serious result of this string of burglaries was mentioned in the Crimson article: students "are becoming suspicious of their fellow students." If we want to have a true learning community, we need to be sure that we can trust one another. While I cannot possibly imagine that students have been committing these crimes, it is essential that no one have such suspicions, as they can lead to a breakdown of the unique community we have in Harvard dorms. The only way that we can be certain that such suspicions do not exist is to be certain that there are no burglaries. The only way to do that is to change the locks to ones that self-lock.

Jonathan M. Gribetz '02

Oct. 13, 1999

*

Change of Locale the Answer

To the editors:

Coming from small-town Wisconsin, I have long lived on the assumption that I can strew cash about my room, prop the door open and still sleep soundly, knowing I am safe. In fact, that is exactly what my brother used to do back home. And let me tell you, it was great. Whenever I needed some extra change, I could just go borrow some from his carpet. (Of course, I always paid the carpet back.)

But now that there have been three dorm room robberies on campus, I am beginning to have serious doubts about the safety provisions at this university. The way I understand it, most students have doors that have to be locked with a key. This is totally unacceptable. Does the university know how much of a student's time this wastes each time he or she has to lock or unlock the door? Seven seconds on average, that's how long (I just timed it); and so if you leave your room 20 times in a day, we're talking on the scale of whole minutes wasted every day. Plus, what if you really need to go to the restroom down the hall? That seven seconds could be the difference between making it and that one time in kindergarten when Johnny made you laugh too hard.

Well, what about this idea of "self-locking locks" on the doors? This is practically just as bad, since you still lose seven seconds every time you come home. And what if you really need to use your in-suite restroom?

Locks are never going to solve this crime rash--no, plague--this crime plague that is sweeping campus. We have to go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is that here near Boston, we are not in small-town Wisconsin. So I have a recommendation for us all: Let's move the whole University to small-town Wisconsin. That way we can all sleep soundly, regardless of whether or not we take the time to lock our doors.

Philip J. Matchett '02

Oct. 13, 1999

Open-Tub Policy Should Join Open Dining Halls

To the editors:

We write in agreement with Benjamin L. Krefetz's letter ("Adamsians Selfish," Oct. 8) citing the selfishness and arrogance of Adams House residents who wish to keep their dining hall to themselves when it is crowded.

As seniors in Eliot House, we were unable to choose Eliot, a house with no bathtubs, only showers. We applaud Mr. Krefetz's willingness to open the bathtub in his suite to use by students in houses that do not provide them.

This open-bathtub policy should be instituted at the highest levels of power as a general Harvard policy. Perhaps individual residents of suites with bathtubs could be allowed to reserve certain popular times, such as 9 to 10 in the morning, for use only by residents of the suites. However, outside of those times, their selfishness and arrogance should be curtailed. Residents of bathtubless houses should be able to use anyone's bathtub (even if it is already overcrowded at the time), any time, night or day.

Also, as an emergency measure, equalization of house facilities should begin with the padlocking of the copious common spaces in the Quad and Winthrop House, and every house's TV area should be made as dingy as Eliot's.

Michael J. Epstein '00

George A. Kirkup '00

Oct. 8, 1999