There's an old saying at my alma mater that one does not simply choose to attend Morehouse College, rather, Morehouse College chooses her sons, those "Men of Morehouse" to be made "Morehouse Men." She chooses these men, these men called not to curse the wretchedness of the dark, but rather to light a candle in that dark and illuminate within it the truth, beauty and justice that disturbs the universe.
This is my attempt to light a candle in the dark.
It was earlier this year that I first heard vestiges of what was to eventually become the ‘Appropriate Attire’ policy that has temporarily catapulted Morehouse College into dissonant notoriety. During a landmark address to the college last April, Morehouse College President Robert M. Franklin, a Baptist preacher with the most liberal politics the college has seen in that particular office, articulated an unprecedented vision for the Morehouse community, urging for a peaceful integration of the queer experience into the college’s canon of tradition. His words received prodigious and widespread praise for his inclusive, enterprising mission to revive the Herculean image of the Black man while simultaneously seeking to bridge the very public discord between homosexual and heterosexual – at Morehouse and throughout the Black community.
What was missed by most during his speech, though, was the admonishment of feminine dress sported by some of the male students on campus and abhorred by the larger body politic. It was this tacit repudiation and obscuring of the Black queer experience that has recently exploded into a mass cultural debate about how the image of the Morehouse Man juxtaposes with non-conventional expressions of Black male identity, with as many people praising Morehouse’s actions as stalwart leadership as are berating the institution for its regressive candor.
I support President Franklin and the progressive direction in which he is steering the College. However, I cannot condone the subtle, if ill-intended, castigation of transgressive and non-conforming gender expression and identity espoused in this new ‘appropriate attire’ policy. While I appreciate any attempt to incubate Morehouse’s illustrious legacy, I do not believe that such resuscitation of Black male identity should come at the expense of the institution’s queer students, who, while not exclusively targeted by the policy, will possibly be disproportionately disenfranchised by it. But what’s more significant, and disconcerting, is that, as opposed to the named ‘thugs’ and ‘gangsters’ whose dress may now be limited by this new policy but have no history of significant social subjugation at the college, Morehouse’s gay, bisexual, and transgender students may exclusively reap a possible resurgence of latent homophobic sentiment and the recapitulation of heterosexism, heteronormativity and patriarchy that has now been codified (and therefore legitimized) by the institution, a school that has a sordid history of placidly facilitating oppression against queer students.
Is the policy itself homophobic? Not neccessarily. Admittedly, the policy does not specifically seek to limit the expression of the college’s queer-identified students exclusively, nor are its restrictions concerning ‘feminine garb’ an overt attack on gay and bisexual students. While gender expression and the expression of one’s sexuality are tangent to one another, they are not the same thing. Likewise, many gay and bisexual students will remain unaffected by the shift in prohibited campus attire. However, will the policy possibly fuel homophobia, transphobia and hinder the revolutionary edict that President Franklin so courageously initiated?
In my eyes, yes.
Just as troubling is the reality that, as an academic institution, Morehouse has chosen to subscribe to, and superimpose onto its student body, a very hegemonic and heteronormative prescription of masculinity without genuinely interrogating masculinity as a concept. To be the premiere institution for the education of Black men, there are surprisingly few course offerings aimed at the scholastic investigation of the Black male experience, much fewer that integrate any semblance of sex, sexuality and gender into that sphere of analysis. Morehouse is missing a unique opportunity to lead this burgeoning conversation in the larger Black community about what it means to be a Black man by refusing to incorporate the intersectionality of orientation, gender performance, and sexuality into its curriculum. Leaning on antiquated paradigms of the Black male experience makes it harder to explore this concept in a fresh, erudite, and optimally useful way.
To the greater LGBT community: We of Morehouse College acknowledge that we hold a peculiar position of prestige that solicits a slightly more refined look at our evolving legacy. The collective behavior of Morehouse College does not occur in a vacuum and, when it challenges a fundamental percept of ethical code it, like any other institution, need be challenged on its breach of moral decorum and held accountable for its actions. However, I’ve become particularly incensed by the unmitigated gall of the larger LGBT community to continuously criticize Morehouse for supposed “infractions” against queer people when, in aggregate, that same community does nothing to support the institution or its progress towards enacting more LGBT friendly policy and practices. With a few notable exceptions, there is no concerted effort by the external LGBT community to substantially give of its resources to support the mission of Morehouse College or even the queer students whose interests it purports to serve. So, while you are welcome to express your disdain for perceived prejudice and injustice, please refrain from using my institution as a case study and catalyst for the LGBT social justice agenda – particularly when the larger LGBT community rarely (if ever) engages the institution with any reciprocity of accountability, or in a way that utilizes cultural competency and does not perpetuate the equally problematic oppressions of racism, classism, and cultural imperialism in its intervention.
To my Morehouse brothers, Morehouse College, the greater Black community and other proponents of the policy: I understand that we have a responsibility to uphold the highest moral standard for the Black male ideal – that how we think, speak, act, and yes, look, are all cuts of the brilliant diamond that is Morehouse College and our history of leadership. However, it is the arguments in favor of this policy, much more than the policy itself, that concerns me about our institutional cognition surrounding issues central to this conversation. That the thinking of some welcomes this policy as a targeted censorship of gay/bisexual identity demonstrates that, as an institution and cultural community, we have a lot of self-edification to do concerning issues related to gender, sex, and sexuality and are not yet mature enough to police these concepts 'appropriately'.
As a proud alum of Morehouse College, I love my institution with my whole heart and am infinitely indebted to her for making me the open and unapologetic Black queer man -- the Morehouse Man -- that I am today. In all that I do, I seek to only bring continued strength and honor to "Dear Old Morehouse". As we all look forward to the continued leadership of Morehouse College – the Morehouse that is going to be – we must realize that we must divorce ourselves from certain barnacles of paternalism and bigotry that have characterized the Morehouse that was. The Morehouse demagogue cannot ethically be replicated by the same oppressive forces that helped to create it.
The Morehouse Man (and thus, the definition of such) is ever evolving because that is what keeps our mission alive – the renewed spirit of the Morehouse College mission inspired in a new breed of distinctive philosopher-kings. Our image is not marred or depleted by creating a space in our trajectory for fluid gender expression and non-heteronormative sexuality. On the contrary, this phenomenon radically fortifies our purpose and cements our name further in the annals of history, transforming the conventional concept of Black masculinity and liberating all Black men from the oppressions of imperial patriarchy that have kept us bound in dysfunction for so long. And, though that heritage of prescribed hegemony may be what brought us to revere Mother Morehouse and her sons, it is incumbent upon us to seek an even higher standard of existence – one that embraces diverse expressions of Black male identity, folding them into to the excellence of Morehouse College. This is how we grow the legacy and lead the people.
This is how we change the world.
Michael J. Brewer is an outspoken writer, speaker, social commentator and advocate for progressive change. Brewer currently serves as Chief-of-Staff to Georgia State Representative Alisha Thomas Morgan (HD-39) and Field Organizer for Georgia Equality. For more, visit www.MichaelJBrewer.blogspot.com.
10/13/09
On Straight Black Women & LGBT Activists (w/ Yolo Akili)
When Straight Black Women Attack & Activists Exploit
Thoughts and Statements on the Termination of Sandra Bradley & Morehouse College
Fantasy wedding leads to Morehouse firing
Gay couple’s marriage photos mocked in email comments
http://www.sovo.com/2009/10-9/news/localnews/10702.cfm?page=1 for the entire story)
Also: Rumors have been circulating that Morehouse College is about to enact a policy of "Appropriate Dress" that in its language discourages men to wear "women's clothes" and "feminine Dress". Both MJB & Yolo felt it would be important to address why this would be dangerous and problematic if this was actually made a part of policy.
Yolo Akili
As a community organizer in the metro Atlanta area who is NOT nor has never been a student of Morehouse College, I was still nevertheless, deeply impacted by this situation. In response to this I have chosen to write in solidarity with my colleague, fellow activist and Morehouse College graduate Michael J. Brewer on the many under-illuminated realities of this situation that we feel both the media and the blogosphere have failed to address.
1) Sandra Bradley's comments : For far too long, Black heterosexual middle class women have taken out their anger and frustration at what they percieve to be the lack of viable male partners on black gay men. Instead of investigating thier own elitist and sexist narratives of what constitutes a desirable partner, now our ability to love and embrace eachother has become the site in which black heterosexual women, with disturbingly unwavering support of the black community; can target and attack us. Because many black heterosexual women have been socialized to connect thier worth to men, often black men who love black men is seen as a rejection of them; in much the same way that black men who date white women are seen to have rejected black women. But this is not always the case. Our love of each other or love of someone who is not you, does not mean we love you any less. As black gay men, and yes, even as black men who sometimes chose partners who are not black, we often still and do love you as our sisters, friends, mothers, aunts and daughters. That love is still valid. That love is still meaningful. That love is still real.
However, I must state clearly and succinctly that even though I do not agree with the way in which way Bradley and many black women voice thier pain, I do hear the very real hurt that black women experience in this country. As a feminist it is very clear to me that Black women have a right to feel anger and hurt when this countries insitutions, standards of beauty, and black men themselves assault, attack and demean them daily.
But black men loving eachother and our bonds of care and committment are not the enemy sisters.The enemies are the systems of criminilization, economics, hyper-masculinity and injustice that have created the conditions for the "male shortage" you experience today. I'd also like to add that instead of blaming us, maybe self introspection on your own values, ideas about relationships and how they should look and your own enabling would lead to more insight into the supposed black male shortage. Maybe Instead of projecting our anger on eachother, we would do well to collectively direct our energies towards transforming the systems of ideas, beliefs, and institutions that have ceated what you experience as real today.
2) I do not agree with, nor condone the firing of Sandra Bradley. This model of punitive justice, which has left yet another black woman unemployed in one of the worst economic crisis of our history; has solved nothing. It has not offered Sandra an oppurtunity to learn anything but anger and grief. It has not educated her on her own comments, nor been used as an opppurunity to initiate a dialogue on homophobia on Morehouse's campus and in the AUC. It has not been transformative, and we now we have another sister, who may, god forbid, out of her own anger and pain now become an enemy to black gay men who may join god knows who's church or god knows who;s mission to degrade and devalue the lives of black LBGTQ folks further. I advocate for the re-hiring of Sandra, on the contigency that she attend some program, community service, or education that helps hold her accountable without attacking her.
3) "Morehouse College's Appropriate Attire Policy"- I want to take the time to reinterate the importance of acknowledging myself as an outsider of Morehouse College. This is important to me because in my experience doing organizing in the metro Atlanta area, all too often activists who have no connection to morehouse college use the institution as a grounds to further thier own agendas in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of white activists entering communities of color, or internationally, U.S folks entering other nations. This model is one of exploitation, where the "outside" forces come in to battle some injustice, failing to look to the leadership and communities already living there for guidance and making decisions that, once the brigade has left, create disastrous consequences that those people are left to deal with. I have no desire to enact this model of injustice.
While holding that I must also say that Morehouse college choosing possibly to publicly declare a standard that looks down upon "feminine dress", or "women's clothes" has implications that travel beyond the AUC's borders. This type of policy, if it goes unchallenged, can set a precedence for other academic institutions to feel that it is acceptable to regulate people's bodies and gender expressions.
Not only that, This policy helps to validate the homophobic assaults and harrassments that are already happening at Morehouse. For before, we know that men who dressed in ways that crossed gender boundaries were harrassed, but now, Morehouse college is considering given individuals institutional support to police and condemn men's gender expression. The next thing we know this could spread, and the women of Spelman college will be forced to not wear "masculine dress"; and the women who dress more "masculine" on that campus will be harrassed more than they are already. Ultimately The decision to create and enforce this policy will contribute to fostering a climate where men who are either Gay or non-gender normative are not safe, valued, or embraced. This is simply unacceptable.
At the end of the day you have to ask yourselves, faculty and Men of Morehouse, why your school, that has produced some of our greatest leaders, is choosing to invest its energies in enforcing ideas that do not further the enlightenment nor embrace the diversity and beauty of black men. Why your school instead chooses to invest in policy that imprisons and belays black male expression into a narrow standard of masculinity that is not reflective of you or your school's legacy. I wonder what Morehouse would be able to do if it wasnt wasting all its energy trying to prove that its not gay. Heck, I wonder what most black men would do if they didnt spend half thier lives trying to prove that theyre not gay. Maybe you, and they, would choose to be something else. Maybe if you would choose to be men; heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise you would choose to be men who are responsible, accountable, and secure enough in your sexualities that you could direct your energies towards more loving and productive endeavors.
-Yolo
Yolo Akili is a nationally recognized artist, author, certified yoga teacher and spiritual consultant. For more, visit www.YoloAkili.com.
Michael J. Brewer
Let me take a moment to fully disclose my concealed weapons: I am a recent graduate and proud alum of Morehouse College. I love my institution with my whole heart and am infinitely indebted to her for making me the man -- the Morehouse Man -- that I am today. In all that I do, I seek to only bring continued strength and honor to "Dear Old Morehouse".
I believe it is this passion for Morehouse College that has sparked and fueled my growing frustration (and, might I candidly add, disdain and impatience) of the perpetual and effervescent critique of Morehouse precipitated by the vulturous survelliance of the larger LGBT community, superimposed upon the institution and magnifying every action it takes with regard to its queer student population.
To be fair, Morehouse holds a peculiar position of prestige that solicits a slightly more refined look at our evolving legacy. Likewise, the collective behavior of Morehouse College does not occur in a vacuum and, when it challenges a fundamental percept of ethical code it, like any other institution, need be challenged on its breach of moral decorum and held accountable for its actions. However, the precipitous events that ushered the firing of Ms. Sandra Bradley are viscerally demonstrative -- not of Morehouse's termination policy, but rather of:
-- a dysfunctional history in which the LGBT community's practice of rallying oppostion to the institution callously disregards the soveriegnity of the Morehouse community to address its own concerns,
-- a negligence to the foundation for progress concerning issues related to homophobia and hetersexism forged by constituents of the institution,
-- a disregard for both Morehouse's gay & bisexual students who are being exploited by such a campaign, and the movement for equality spurned by on-campus advocates and allies who challenge the campus status-quo, and
-- an almost complete apathy toward the continued thriving of the institution and longevity of the progressive movement at the institution after the external community has retreated its ideological encroachment.
While Morehouse is certainly not the only example one could provide of such cultural imperialism, I am sick and tired of the LGBT community treating MY institution like a lap dog, in need of constant media supervision, social policing and a sound strike on the nose every time something REMOTELY related to LGBT issues happens. Morehouse is special, and we understand the crown that has been placed above our heads. But really, Morehouse is an institution with its unique challenges and is not to be held to some golden standard. Incidents like those that led to Ms. Bradley's firing occur not just at Morehouse -- in fact, it seems that the specific email that she forwarded even found its way through certain annals of the Fulton County government. However, I rarely if ever see redirected the special spotlight of investigation and indignation that is so often cast on Morehouse College.
Additionally, I'm equally irritated by the unmitigated gall of the larger LGBT community to continuously criticize Morehouse for supposed “infractions” against the queer movement when, in aggregate, that same community does nothing to support the institution or its progress towards more LGBT inclusive policy and practices at the institution. With the notable exception of the HRC (under the brilliant and culturally competent hands of Diversity Coordinator Joey Gaskins), to my knowledge there are no LGBT organizations or agencies who give substantially of their resources to support the mission of Morehouse College. The community so quick to jump to accusations does not even support the gay rights group on campus, which has been advocating for a more progressive Morehouse since the 1980s. Scathing emails and fiery articles in newspapers and on blogs do garner a certain amount of attention, but those words ring rather hollow when those behind the words are offering nothing more substantive to help create a more progressive Morehouse. Here’s a thought: if you want to change Morehouse for the better, give to Morehouse. Develop a trustworthy relationship with the institution so they will invite you to the table when important decisions concerning our queer community are being made. Endow a scholarship for a queer student, or a position on faculty to teach gender and sexuality studies. Support the queer organizing that’s already taking place on campus, and respect that process and their work – they are much more in tune with what strategy works to effect the appropriate change, and they will be the ones left to continue the work at Morehouse after you, ultimately, leave to battle the next injustice. Stop criticizing Morehouse and then retreating to your liberal enclaves where you don’t have to engage with those you so publicly abhor and malign.
This glaring gap becomes even more ostensible when one looks at the "Appropriate Attire Policy" that Morehouse is purporting to begin implementing on its student body this month. Here we have a problematic policy whose implications on the definitions of gender and masculinities -- as well as codified prescriptions for policing both -- reach far beyond Morehouse's institutional walls, but there is no comment from the larger LGBT community on this egregious injustice. And, while I respectfully disagree the institution's position behind such a policy, I am left to wonder where the objectionable chorus of activists and advocates are -- perhaps, when assaults on LGBT culture are made that only effect Morehouse students and have no direct bearings on the entire community, there's no reason to protest. (Sidebar: to my Morehouse brothers still on campus, it is incumbent upon you to raise your voices in opposition to such an oppressive policy. Failure to do so chips away at the progress made by those that came before you.)
Which leads me to the following: to those whom this edict applies, please refrain from using my institution as the catalyst for your social justice agenda, particularly when you cannot engage the institution in the reciprocity of accountability that utilizes cultural competency and does not perpetuate oppression in your intervention. I applaud the swift and decisive actions of President Robert M. Franklin and the Morehouse College community against such alleged homophobia, and I appreciate the campus community's increasing sensitivity to such issues. However, I cannot condone the firing of Ms. Bradley nor the perpetual backlash of the LGBT community which undoubtedly agitated and precipitated Ms. Bradley's termination. And, on a personal note, if those in the LGBT community knew (or cared to know) anything about Morehouse besides what they read in the gay press, they'd learn that while we have certainly missed that mark in the past with regard to LGBT folk, we've definitely earned our stripes when it comes to advocating for the civil rights of marginalized peoples.
To put it bluntly: Check your privilege, first. Then critique -- respectfully.
There's an old saying at my alma mater stating that one does not simply decide or choose to attend Morehouse College -- rather, Morehouse College chooses her sons, those "Men of Morehouse" to be made "Morehouse Men." She choose those men and holds high above our heads a crown, a crown which she challenges us to grow tall enough in intellect, respect, integrity, character, valor and excellence to wear. She chooses those men, those men called not to curse the wretchedness of the dark, but rather to light a candle in that dark and illuminate the truth, beauty and justice that leads nations and moves souls.
I join my cosmic brother Yolo Akili in this manifesto to light a candle in the dark. The unjust firing of former Morehouse College employee Sandra Bradley and the implementation of an oppressive appropriate attire policy on campus brings me great disappointment and is symptomatic of a larger dynamic of injustice -- a conundrum of hypocrisy, patriarchy, homophobia and imperialism that unfairly scrutinizes Morehouse College against a rhetorical standard which few institutions are challenged to uphold, while simultaneously allowing Morehouse College to enact policy that further disenfranchises its queer contingent and opens the doors for institutionalized heteronormativity even wider.
In the paraphrased words of my late Morehouse brother Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ('48), if the LGBT community is going to be a metaphorical "drum major" -- strive to be a drum major for truth. Be a drum major for justice.
Don't just beat the damn drum.
--- MJB
Michael J. Brewer is an outspoken writer, speaker, social commentator and advocate for progressive change. Brewer currently serves as Chief-of-Staff to Georgia State Representative Alisha Thomas Morgan (HD-39) and Field Organizer for Georgia Equality.
Thoughts and Statements on the Termination of Sandra Bradley & Morehouse College
Fantasy wedding leads to Morehouse firing
Gay couple’s marriage photos mocked in email comments
http://www.sovo.com/2009/10-9/news/localnews/10702.cfm?page=1 for the entire story)
Also: Rumors have been circulating that Morehouse College is about to enact a policy of "Appropriate Dress" that in its language discourages men to wear "women's clothes" and "feminine Dress". Both MJB & Yolo felt it would be important to address why this would be dangerous and problematic if this was actually made a part of policy.
Yolo Akili
As a community organizer in the metro Atlanta area who is NOT nor has never been a student of Morehouse College, I was still nevertheless, deeply impacted by this situation. In response to this I have chosen to write in solidarity with my colleague, fellow activist and Morehouse College graduate Michael J. Brewer on the many under-illuminated realities of this situation that we feel both the media and the blogosphere have failed to address.
1) Sandra Bradley's comments : For far too long, Black heterosexual middle class women have taken out their anger and frustration at what they percieve to be the lack of viable male partners on black gay men. Instead of investigating thier own elitist and sexist narratives of what constitutes a desirable partner, now our ability to love and embrace eachother has become the site in which black heterosexual women, with disturbingly unwavering support of the black community; can target and attack us. Because many black heterosexual women have been socialized to connect thier worth to men, often black men who love black men is seen as a rejection of them; in much the same way that black men who date white women are seen to have rejected black women. But this is not always the case. Our love of each other or love of someone who is not you, does not mean we love you any less. As black gay men, and yes, even as black men who sometimes chose partners who are not black, we often still and do love you as our sisters, friends, mothers, aunts and daughters. That love is still valid. That love is still meaningful. That love is still real.
However, I must state clearly and succinctly that even though I do not agree with the way in which way Bradley and many black women voice thier pain, I do hear the very real hurt that black women experience in this country. As a feminist it is very clear to me that Black women have a right to feel anger and hurt when this countries insitutions, standards of beauty, and black men themselves assault, attack and demean them daily.
But black men loving eachother and our bonds of care and committment are not the enemy sisters.The enemies are the systems of criminilization, economics, hyper-masculinity and injustice that have created the conditions for the "male shortage" you experience today. I'd also like to add that instead of blaming us, maybe self introspection on your own values, ideas about relationships and how they should look and your own enabling would lead to more insight into the supposed black male shortage. Maybe Instead of projecting our anger on eachother, we would do well to collectively direct our energies towards transforming the systems of ideas, beliefs, and institutions that have ceated what you experience as real today.
2) I do not agree with, nor condone the firing of Sandra Bradley. This model of punitive justice, which has left yet another black woman unemployed in one of the worst economic crisis of our history; has solved nothing. It has not offered Sandra an oppurtunity to learn anything but anger and grief. It has not educated her on her own comments, nor been used as an opppurunity to initiate a dialogue on homophobia on Morehouse's campus and in the AUC. It has not been transformative, and we now we have another sister, who may, god forbid, out of her own anger and pain now become an enemy to black gay men who may join god knows who's church or god knows who;s mission to degrade and devalue the lives of black LBGTQ folks further. I advocate for the re-hiring of Sandra, on the contigency that she attend some program, community service, or education that helps hold her accountable without attacking her.
3) "Morehouse College's Appropriate Attire Policy"- I want to take the time to reinterate the importance of acknowledging myself as an outsider of Morehouse College. This is important to me because in my experience doing organizing in the metro Atlanta area, all too often activists who have no connection to morehouse college use the institution as a grounds to further thier own agendas in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of white activists entering communities of color, or internationally, U.S folks entering other nations. This model is one of exploitation, where the "outside" forces come in to battle some injustice, failing to look to the leadership and communities already living there for guidance and making decisions that, once the brigade has left, create disastrous consequences that those people are left to deal with. I have no desire to enact this model of injustice.
While holding that I must also say that Morehouse college choosing possibly to publicly declare a standard that looks down upon "feminine dress", or "women's clothes" has implications that travel beyond the AUC's borders. This type of policy, if it goes unchallenged, can set a precedence for other academic institutions to feel that it is acceptable to regulate people's bodies and gender expressions.
Not only that, This policy helps to validate the homophobic assaults and harrassments that are already happening at Morehouse. For before, we know that men who dressed in ways that crossed gender boundaries were harrassed, but now, Morehouse college is considering given individuals institutional support to police and condemn men's gender expression. The next thing we know this could spread, and the women of Spelman college will be forced to not wear "masculine dress"; and the women who dress more "masculine" on that campus will be harrassed more than they are already. Ultimately The decision to create and enforce this policy will contribute to fostering a climate where men who are either Gay or non-gender normative are not safe, valued, or embraced. This is simply unacceptable.
At the end of the day you have to ask yourselves, faculty and Men of Morehouse, why your school, that has produced some of our greatest leaders, is choosing to invest its energies in enforcing ideas that do not further the enlightenment nor embrace the diversity and beauty of black men. Why your school instead chooses to invest in policy that imprisons and belays black male expression into a narrow standard of masculinity that is not reflective of you or your school's legacy. I wonder what Morehouse would be able to do if it wasnt wasting all its energy trying to prove that its not gay. Heck, I wonder what most black men would do if they didnt spend half thier lives trying to prove that theyre not gay. Maybe you, and they, would choose to be something else. Maybe if you would choose to be men; heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise you would choose to be men who are responsible, accountable, and secure enough in your sexualities that you could direct your energies towards more loving and productive endeavors.
-Yolo
Yolo Akili is a nationally recognized artist, author, certified yoga teacher and spiritual consultant. For more, visit www.YoloAkili.com.
Michael J. Brewer
Let me take a moment to fully disclose my concealed weapons: I am a recent graduate and proud alum of Morehouse College. I love my institution with my whole heart and am infinitely indebted to her for making me the man -- the Morehouse Man -- that I am today. In all that I do, I seek to only bring continued strength and honor to "Dear Old Morehouse".
I believe it is this passion for Morehouse College that has sparked and fueled my growing frustration (and, might I candidly add, disdain and impatience) of the perpetual and effervescent critique of Morehouse precipitated by the vulturous survelliance of the larger LGBT community, superimposed upon the institution and magnifying every action it takes with regard to its queer student population.
To be fair, Morehouse holds a peculiar position of prestige that solicits a slightly more refined look at our evolving legacy. Likewise, the collective behavior of Morehouse College does not occur in a vacuum and, when it challenges a fundamental percept of ethical code it, like any other institution, need be challenged on its breach of moral decorum and held accountable for its actions. However, the precipitous events that ushered the firing of Ms. Sandra Bradley are viscerally demonstrative -- not of Morehouse's termination policy, but rather of:
-- a dysfunctional history in which the LGBT community's practice of rallying oppostion to the institution callously disregards the soveriegnity of the Morehouse community to address its own concerns,
-- a negligence to the foundation for progress concerning issues related to homophobia and hetersexism forged by constituents of the institution,
-- a disregard for both Morehouse's gay & bisexual students who are being exploited by such a campaign, and the movement for equality spurned by on-campus advocates and allies who challenge the campus status-quo, and
-- an almost complete apathy toward the continued thriving of the institution and longevity of the progressive movement at the institution after the external community has retreated its ideological encroachment.
While Morehouse is certainly not the only example one could provide of such cultural imperialism, I am sick and tired of the LGBT community treating MY institution like a lap dog, in need of constant media supervision, social policing and a sound strike on the nose every time something REMOTELY related to LGBT issues happens. Morehouse is special, and we understand the crown that has been placed above our heads. But really, Morehouse is an institution with its unique challenges and is not to be held to some golden standard. Incidents like those that led to Ms. Bradley's firing occur not just at Morehouse -- in fact, it seems that the specific email that she forwarded even found its way through certain annals of the Fulton County government. However, I rarely if ever see redirected the special spotlight of investigation and indignation that is so often cast on Morehouse College.
Additionally, I'm equally irritated by the unmitigated gall of the larger LGBT community to continuously criticize Morehouse for supposed “infractions” against the queer movement when, in aggregate, that same community does nothing to support the institution or its progress towards more LGBT inclusive policy and practices at the institution. With the notable exception of the HRC (under the brilliant and culturally competent hands of Diversity Coordinator Joey Gaskins), to my knowledge there are no LGBT organizations or agencies who give substantially of their resources to support the mission of Morehouse College. The community so quick to jump to accusations does not even support the gay rights group on campus, which has been advocating for a more progressive Morehouse since the 1980s. Scathing emails and fiery articles in newspapers and on blogs do garner a certain amount of attention, but those words ring rather hollow when those behind the words are offering nothing more substantive to help create a more progressive Morehouse. Here’s a thought: if you want to change Morehouse for the better, give to Morehouse. Develop a trustworthy relationship with the institution so they will invite you to the table when important decisions concerning our queer community are being made. Endow a scholarship for a queer student, or a position on faculty to teach gender and sexuality studies. Support the queer organizing that’s already taking place on campus, and respect that process and their work – they are much more in tune with what strategy works to effect the appropriate change, and they will be the ones left to continue the work at Morehouse after you, ultimately, leave to battle the next injustice. Stop criticizing Morehouse and then retreating to your liberal enclaves where you don’t have to engage with those you so publicly abhor and malign.
This glaring gap becomes even more ostensible when one looks at the "Appropriate Attire Policy" that Morehouse is purporting to begin implementing on its student body this month. Here we have a problematic policy whose implications on the definitions of gender and masculinities -- as well as codified prescriptions for policing both -- reach far beyond Morehouse's institutional walls, but there is no comment from the larger LGBT community on this egregious injustice. And, while I respectfully disagree the institution's position behind such a policy, I am left to wonder where the objectionable chorus of activists and advocates are -- perhaps, when assaults on LGBT culture are made that only effect Morehouse students and have no direct bearings on the entire community, there's no reason to protest. (Sidebar: to my Morehouse brothers still on campus, it is incumbent upon you to raise your voices in opposition to such an oppressive policy. Failure to do so chips away at the progress made by those that came before you.)
Which leads me to the following: to those whom this edict applies, please refrain from using my institution as the catalyst for your social justice agenda, particularly when you cannot engage the institution in the reciprocity of accountability that utilizes cultural competency and does not perpetuate oppression in your intervention. I applaud the swift and decisive actions of President Robert M. Franklin and the Morehouse College community against such alleged homophobia, and I appreciate the campus community's increasing sensitivity to such issues. However, I cannot condone the firing of Ms. Bradley nor the perpetual backlash of the LGBT community which undoubtedly agitated and precipitated Ms. Bradley's termination. And, on a personal note, if those in the LGBT community knew (or cared to know) anything about Morehouse besides what they read in the gay press, they'd learn that while we have certainly missed that mark in the past with regard to LGBT folk, we've definitely earned our stripes when it comes to advocating for the civil rights of marginalized peoples.
To put it bluntly: Check your privilege, first. Then critique -- respectfully.
There's an old saying at my alma mater stating that one does not simply decide or choose to attend Morehouse College -- rather, Morehouse College chooses her sons, those "Men of Morehouse" to be made "Morehouse Men." She choose those men and holds high above our heads a crown, a crown which she challenges us to grow tall enough in intellect, respect, integrity, character, valor and excellence to wear. She chooses those men, those men called not to curse the wretchedness of the dark, but rather to light a candle in that dark and illuminate the truth, beauty and justice that leads nations and moves souls.
I join my cosmic brother Yolo Akili in this manifesto to light a candle in the dark. The unjust firing of former Morehouse College employee Sandra Bradley and the implementation of an oppressive appropriate attire policy on campus brings me great disappointment and is symptomatic of a larger dynamic of injustice -- a conundrum of hypocrisy, patriarchy, homophobia and imperialism that unfairly scrutinizes Morehouse College against a rhetorical standard which few institutions are challenged to uphold, while simultaneously allowing Morehouse College to enact policy that further disenfranchises its queer contingent and opens the doors for institutionalized heteronormativity even wider.
In the paraphrased words of my late Morehouse brother Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ('48), if the LGBT community is going to be a metaphorical "drum major" -- strive to be a drum major for truth. Be a drum major for justice.
Don't just beat the damn drum.
--- MJB
Michael J. Brewer is an outspoken writer, speaker, social commentator and advocate for progressive change. Brewer currently serves as Chief-of-Staff to Georgia State Representative Alisha Thomas Morgan (HD-39) and Field Organizer for Georgia Equality.
10/6/09
On Joe Wilson and Democracy
“You Lie!”
Almost one month ago, Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-2nd) made headlines and sealed his spot in the history books when he shouted those immortal two words at President Obama during his joint congressional address on health care reform. The dust has finally settled, the incredulity of Joe Wilson having finished lining both his and his Democratic challenger’s respective campaign coffers. President Obama – in addition to Presidents Carter and Clinton – have all had their respective say, and the US House of Representatives has passed its punitive resolution, capturing forever Wilson’s career-defining moment of infamy and ensuring that even if the public or history forgets what he did, the official Record of the House will not.
Yes, much has simmered down since Joe Wilson’s outburst, an outburst precipitated by the heat of this past summer’s series of town hall meetings about health care reform. All is now quiet on the front, and – with the notable exception of the Senate Finance Committee – the national political conversation as turned at least partially toward American foreign policy and our perennial relationships (read: challenges) with Iran & Afghanistan.
That is, everyone except me.
I reserved my reactions to the debacle initially because I seriously didn’t know what to think or how I felt. The pundits of our popular media didn’t make my task any easier, clouding my mind with explosive questions of race that amplified Wilson’s infraction and threatened to overshadow the political conversation proposed to fix our nation’s broken health care system. And now that the talking heads have finally shut up and I can hear my own thoughts again, all I’m left to listen to are questions:
Why didn’t Wilson make a public apology? Why did he “apologize” to Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel instead of the President – the man who actually incurred the expense of Wilson’s disrespect?
Would Wilson’s defense of “being overcome” and “letting his emotions get the best of him” pass muster? What if he had been a woman – would the same defense have worked in that scenario?
Why didn’t the House of Representatives (read: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority a.k.a “Her Partner Dem”) move to censure Wilson for his flagrant breach of House rules and public decorum?
Is the public option really off the table? Like, “for real” for real?
How close are we really to passing a substantive piece of legislation that lowers health care premiums and drives down costs, makes care more accessible to low-income families and the people that need it the most, and relieves some of the burden off of our fledgling health care system and professionals?
But more than these, the central question that continues to ricochet off of these tangent inquiries and consume my thoughts is this:
Was Joe Wilson’s outburst justified?
I know this probably sounds like a misnomer, but I’ve honestly wrestled with this question since I, too, was burned by Nancy Pelosi’s death stare. See, here’s the thing: while I would agree with most people that Wilson’s comments were certainly unseemly, contrary to the order of the proceedings and deserving of rapt punishment, I kind of like that Wilson and the rest of the GOP are able to openly critique the President. In this grand experiment that we call democracy, freedom of speech is not just a provision for the security of one’s own civil liberty – that same freedom forties our democratic process and underlines one of the most basic principles of liberalism: that in a free market place of ideas in which every opinion is expressed, no one opinion may reign unjustly over another because competing ideas battle for public consensus, unearthing from its ashes a new clairvoyance and forging a truth that will allow a government of the people, by the people, for the people to better agree on how to govern themselves. In a democracy, no opinion is above reproach.
In a democratic republic such as ours, in which every person is not given a voice in the creation of new law and public policy and most of us rely on others to articulate our thoughts and feelings to the larger body politic, it’s even more important that that marketplace remain free and open, scrutinized less by the processes and procedures we’ve established to facilitate its operation and committed more to protecting different opinions and preserving the integrity of producing the best government we desire to establish. I would argue that in a democracy, it is the dissenting opinion that is often the most important, protecting the voice that is most often drowned out by the clamorous monotony and projected moral superiority of popular opinion. At one time, women's suffrage, civil rights and LGBT equality represented dissenting opinions (and in some instances, still do) contrary to the pleasure of the majority of the nation. But the core precept of this democracy perseveres: just because more of us agree with the prevailing ideology does not circumvent the continued importance of the dissenting opinion, no matter how much we disagree with it. I’m appreciative and proud that the pervading significance of dissenting opinion has helped move our nation from a past bigotry of oppression toward a more progressive liberalism. And, to be honest, I wish there had been more Wilson-esque outbursts from my elected representatives during President Bush’s (43) tenure.
Was the manner in which Wilson registered his disdain with that particular pillar of President Obama’s health care plan uncivilized? Sure. Was his volatility motivated, even in part, by racism? Perhaps – probably, even. But was Joe Wilson justified in making so egregious of an eruption, in the name of open debate and better government?
I’m still not sure what the correct answer is.
But, in the words of Texas blogger Kathleen McKinley,”criticism can be an act of great patriotism.”
Almost one month ago, Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-2nd) made headlines and sealed his spot in the history books when he shouted those immortal two words at President Obama during his joint congressional address on health care reform. The dust has finally settled, the incredulity of Joe Wilson having finished lining both his and his Democratic challenger’s respective campaign coffers. President Obama – in addition to Presidents Carter and Clinton – have all had their respective say, and the US House of Representatives has passed its punitive resolution, capturing forever Wilson’s career-defining moment of infamy and ensuring that even if the public or history forgets what he did, the official Record of the House will not.
Yes, much has simmered down since Joe Wilson’s outburst, an outburst precipitated by the heat of this past summer’s series of town hall meetings about health care reform. All is now quiet on the front, and – with the notable exception of the Senate Finance Committee – the national political conversation as turned at least partially toward American foreign policy and our perennial relationships (read: challenges) with Iran & Afghanistan.
That is, everyone except me.
I reserved my reactions to the debacle initially because I seriously didn’t know what to think or how I felt. The pundits of our popular media didn’t make my task any easier, clouding my mind with explosive questions of race that amplified Wilson’s infraction and threatened to overshadow the political conversation proposed to fix our nation’s broken health care system. And now that the talking heads have finally shut up and I can hear my own thoughts again, all I’m left to listen to are questions:
Why didn’t Wilson make a public apology? Why did he “apologize” to Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel instead of the President – the man who actually incurred the expense of Wilson’s disrespect?
Would Wilson’s defense of “being overcome” and “letting his emotions get the best of him” pass muster? What if he had been a woman – would the same defense have worked in that scenario?
Why didn’t the House of Representatives (read: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority a.k.a “Her Partner Dem”) move to censure Wilson for his flagrant breach of House rules and public decorum?
Is the public option really off the table? Like, “for real” for real?
How close are we really to passing a substantive piece of legislation that lowers health care premiums and drives down costs, makes care more accessible to low-income families and the people that need it the most, and relieves some of the burden off of our fledgling health care system and professionals?
But more than these, the central question that continues to ricochet off of these tangent inquiries and consume my thoughts is this:
Was Joe Wilson’s outburst justified?
I know this probably sounds like a misnomer, but I’ve honestly wrestled with this question since I, too, was burned by Nancy Pelosi’s death stare. See, here’s the thing: while I would agree with most people that Wilson’s comments were certainly unseemly, contrary to the order of the proceedings and deserving of rapt punishment, I kind of like that Wilson and the rest of the GOP are able to openly critique the President. In this grand experiment that we call democracy, freedom of speech is not just a provision for the security of one’s own civil liberty – that same freedom forties our democratic process and underlines one of the most basic principles of liberalism: that in a free market place of ideas in which every opinion is expressed, no one opinion may reign unjustly over another because competing ideas battle for public consensus, unearthing from its ashes a new clairvoyance and forging a truth that will allow a government of the people, by the people, for the people to better agree on how to govern themselves. In a democracy, no opinion is above reproach.
In a democratic republic such as ours, in which every person is not given a voice in the creation of new law and public policy and most of us rely on others to articulate our thoughts and feelings to the larger body politic, it’s even more important that that marketplace remain free and open, scrutinized less by the processes and procedures we’ve established to facilitate its operation and committed more to protecting different opinions and preserving the integrity of producing the best government we desire to establish. I would argue that in a democracy, it is the dissenting opinion that is often the most important, protecting the voice that is most often drowned out by the clamorous monotony and projected moral superiority of popular opinion. At one time, women's suffrage, civil rights and LGBT equality represented dissenting opinions (and in some instances, still do) contrary to the pleasure of the majority of the nation. But the core precept of this democracy perseveres: just because more of us agree with the prevailing ideology does not circumvent the continued importance of the dissenting opinion, no matter how much we disagree with it. I’m appreciative and proud that the pervading significance of dissenting opinion has helped move our nation from a past bigotry of oppression toward a more progressive liberalism. And, to be honest, I wish there had been more Wilson-esque outbursts from my elected representatives during President Bush’s (43) tenure.
Was the manner in which Wilson registered his disdain with that particular pillar of President Obama’s health care plan uncivilized? Sure. Was his volatility motivated, even in part, by racism? Perhaps – probably, even. But was Joe Wilson justified in making so egregious of an eruption, in the name of open debate and better government?
I’m still not sure what the correct answer is.
But, in the words of Texas blogger Kathleen McKinley,”criticism can be an act of great patriotism.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
