On the 'Appropriate Attire Policy' at Morehouse College

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.