Harvard’s Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Allilance (BGLTSA) has a big job: it has to foster a tolerant community for people who identify with the many letters in its acronym. In addition to its duties as a social group, the BGLTSA is also the assigned undergraduate forum for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) political issues. Although the BGLTSA attempts to straddle its two roles, the social and the political, it has failed to do justice to either. The university needs a new way of addressing LGBT political issues, because they deserve more focused attention from Harvard undergraduates than the current organization can provide.

The main reason that the BGLTSA is an ineffective political organization is that its primary job is to foster a social community. Political issues are an ancillary concern. Although the BGLTSA has a political chair, when you take into consideration that three of the eight other elected positions are social roles, there is no question that the organization’s energy is directed elsewhere.

One of the consequences of the overwhelming emphasis on social events is that straight students may feel less comfortable participating in BGLTSA events. Although the BGLTSA formally includes straight people and always welcomes them—it isn’t necessarily easy for those individuals to feel comfortable getting involved. Straight people may feel intimidated taking part in the other facets of the club, such as its political endeavors, if they view the BGLTSA strictly as a social space for queer students.

But members of the BGLTSA have sensed that there are other issues with the organization that inhibit its effectiveness as a political player. In an interview, former Political Chair Katherine E. Smith ’10, said, “the BGLTSA serves a social and community building function and, subsequently, must temper its political stances and activities so to be inclusive of all queer individuals.” She went on to explain that LGBT rights, such as the fight for equal marriage rights or the effort to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), deserve strong, unified support from the organization that can’t afford to be tempered. Smith makes a good point. To put her diplomatic language into straightforward terms, the BGLTSA just can’t agree. There are so many varied and sensitive opinions that, inevitably, someone is offended and someone else opposed. Unsurprisingly, this sort of disagreement among its members is a real impediment to any political activism.

The BGLTSA’s current Co-Chair, Emily D. Donahue ’09, agrees that her organization might not be the best place for political activism. According to Donahue, when the BGLTSA held an open forum to discuss ways of improving the club last spring, people were asking whether it should even have a political role. The forum did not reach a conclusion on this matter, but Donahue has her own opinion. Regardless of what organization takes responsibility for it, students at Harvard should have the ability to be active on these issues. She isn’t ready to give up the BGLTSA’s political arm, but welcomes any outside partnerships.

Recognizing the opportunity to do more, Smith, the former BGLTSA political chair, and Clayton W. Brooks ’10, the current one, have teamed up to address this deficiency in political involvement. Smith and Brooks have recently founded a new organization, the Harvard College LGBT Political Coalition that has created a stir among members of the BGLTSA. Many are relieved and excited by the prospect of this new group, while others wonder why Brooks and Smith feel they need to look beyond the existing organization.

There is a need for such an organization. The Coalition finally offers Harvard a separate organization that can give due attention to these issues. It will be able to organize a stronger, more unified fight. While this group will still deal with a wide range of opinions on controversial topics, these differences will be less inhibiting because of a stronger dedication to ends rather than means. And perhaps Smith and Brooks will have better luck involving a greater part of the straight community at Harvard because, as Smith explained, the purely political focus of the Coalition “would give supporters of LGBT rights, regardless of orientation or identity, a venue through which to express their support.”

Luckily the proposal of the Coalition has sparked discussion instead of conflict amongst BGLTSA and Coalition supporters. The BGLTSA doesn’t have to anything to lose, and LGBT rights stand to gain a new wave of support from Harvard undergraduates.



Megan A. Shutzer ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. She is a member of BGLSTA.