39 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/05/07 10:28pm)
By now, new students probably feel like they’ve been on campus for months instead of two weeks. Sophomores and juniors are finally shaking off mental cobwebs of summer. Some seniors might be looking ahead to job applications or graduate school exams. Whatever your current place on your journey through IU, it’s not too late to revisit some useful advice.\nYou’ve heard it before, probably countless times the longer you’ve been here: “Go see your professors during office hours!” At the risk of sounding redundant, allow me to add to that wise chorus.\nI know there are many reasons not to heed this mantra that parents, professors, advisers and RAs keep repeating. It’s intimidating. It doesn’t win cool points to strike up enlightening conversations with experts in a field. Students might think, “How can this person who’s infinitely older possibly relate to me?” And certainly those 30 minutes could be better spent putting on make-up and fixing your hair to go flirt – excuse me, “work out” – at the SRSC.\nAs an undergrad, I concocted plenty of excuses to avoid actively the resources at my fingertips. But now that I’m on the other side of the fence, I can’t stress enough to the students in my classes: “Use me! I’m here for you!” Or as a great colleague and mentor told his students on the first day of class: “YOU are my job! You’ve paid good money for me to sit in my office and reserve time just to talk to YOU and answer any of your questions.”\nThe same message applies to all the services on this campus. From Writing Tutorial Services to culture centers to Counseling and Psychological Services, IU’s resources will help students through any and all academic, social or personal obstacles that might prevent full development and success. In my opinion, it’s foolish and detrimental to ignore them.\nYet, supportive environments demand efforts on both sides. Faculty and staff must believe firmly that students are their job – moreover, they must act like it. Simply mentioning office hours on the first day of class won’t cut it. We need to convince students we truly want to serve them rather than put on performances that make students feel they’re an inconvenience or impediment to other important work. I’ve experienced downright chilly receptions in student support offices, where staff members have acted severely put out that I’m asking for help and guidance. Students aren’t likely to benefit from all the services that could give them a competitive advantage if people begrudgingly provide such support.\nSo the next time you have a question, concern, obstacle or need, don’t forge ahead alone. Find the people on this campus eager to help you succeed. Think of the lyrics from the great singer-songwriter Bill Withers, who I believe best speaks for IU and all its resources:\n“I wanna spread the news that if it feels this good getting used / Oh you just keep on using me until you use me up.”
(08/29/07 10:39pm)
Earlier this year, Lifetime broadcast “Gay, Straight, or Taken,” a reality dating show. One woman spent time with three men: one straight and single, one gay and in a relationship, and one straight and in a relationship. After participating in various activities that the audience might consider typically “masculine” or “feminine,” the female contestant had to guess which man was straight and single.\nIt’s a catchy premise, with many problems with perpetuation of stereotypes and restricted gender roles. But who am I to criticize? I play the game every day!\nI see boys strut around campus with a little extra swish in their hips and I think “Work it, girl!” Or I see a guy glance over at me a few too many times while he’s on a “date” with a girlfriend, and I want to go whisper, “Honey, your boyfriend is gay! He just doesn’t fully know it, yet.” Then there are the guys who over-perform their masculinity and everything about them screams “tough guy” – screams so loudly, in fact, that I wonder what supposedly “un-manly” feelings or desires they’re hiding beneath that overly-macho exterior.\nAs I play the game around campus, I realize I’m implicitly endorsing many of the stereotypes of sexuality and gender that I often criticize – although I have to boast that a personal, unscientific analysis of my Gaydar revealed 98 percent accuracy. I certainly don’t wish to promote the idea that sexuality and gender have such clear lines and obvious characteristics – quite the opposite. So before you go tell your friends, “I think my roommate is gay; he listens to Broadway musicals every night!” keep reading.\n“Gay, Straight, or Taken: IU Edition” is more exciting at the beginning of the semester when so many incoming students are away from home for the first time and have the opportunity to express themselves in new ways. Suddenly parents, friends, teammates, and others who might not have been so forgiving or understanding of new identity expressions no longer exert the same influence over us. We can give ourselves permission to try new personas and performances. We are less confined by the expectations of familiar people or by the often rigid group labels and boundaries of high school.\nThat’s not to say branching out and expressing yourself in new ways is easy, but what better time to try? New people, new connections, new friends. Why not reveal some of those feelings and identities you’ve learned to suppress and keep under wrap? Use this school year to cross some personal boundaries you’ve previously followed. I’m not just talking about sexuality – take the opportunity to express, own and be proud of those formerly hidden characteristics that make you tick, even if they defy convention or the “norm.”\nBy the end of every episode of “Gay, Straight, or Taken” the viewers had reason to believe each guy could fit into any of those categories – all the traditional roles and expectations become wooly. It would be great to achieve that here; I say the blurrier the better.
(05/24/07 4:00am)
Everyone's favorite Metallica reject is back.\nAfter Megadeth broke up because of a severe nerve injury in frontman Dave Mustaine's left arm in 2002, the boys got back together for 2004's The System Has Failed, which was a commercial success. In 2007, the band has given us its 11th studio album, United Abominations, another stab at the Bush administration.\nLately Megadeth has been a grab bag of musicians, rotating its lineup constantly. Despite this, Mustaine and his little-known recruits have been able to coerce and create some rockin' music. Thrash fans, unite!\nWhile Metallica has kind of faded and lost its edge, Megadeth is still running strong. Mustaine's snarling growl and anger shines. While his lyrics may border on cheesiness, they're still intelligent and pretty catchy, although his political theories are kind of goofy.\nHowever, Megadeth indisputably knows how to lay down the riffs and guitar solos. "Pray for Blood" soars through with well-executed, challenging guitar work. "You're Dead" sludges by like a run through the graveyard by a pack of hungry zombies − the only thing that's going to save you is if you can outrun the guitar solos.\nMetal reunions are often hit-or-miss, but Mustaine proves that they aren't impossible to pull off. United Abominations doesn't sound dated, and it is still as thrashing as ever. I, for one, am prepared to see one of these tracks incarnated on a future version of Guitar Hero.
(04/27/07 4:00am)
Last weekend in Fresno, Calif., Tony Covarrubias was one of seven young men vying for the title of prom king. But this prom coronation was different from others around the nation: Tony, born Cinthia, identifies as transgender.\nAfter Covarrubias’ classmates nominated him, administrators at Fresno High School reversed district policies that allowed only biological “males” and “females” to compete for the titles of prom king and queen, respectively. School officials made the decision to comply with a 2000 California law that protects students’ ability to express gender identity at school.\nTony explained: “My freshman year I just started feeling different. When I decided to change to be like this, all of a sudden I said, ‘Wow, I feel OK. I feel like finally I’m being me.’”\nGender identity is one’s subjective sense of one’s own “sex.” It is often strongly and unambiguously felt, yet it is difficult to prove. Nevertheless, gender identity is just as real as one’s physical gender, and largely unchangeable. Transgender people often feel “trapped in the wrong body” because outward appearance does not match their internal identity .\nTony’s participation in the prom court is a positive sign that society is growing to accept more diversity in gender expression. And the story reminds us to be conscious of avoiding policies and decisions that confine gender to a narrow binary based on biology and rigid social expectations for behavior and appearance. But a long road lies ahead for comprehensive transgender rights.\nAll students deserve a safe and welcoming learning environment, but transgender youth do not frequently enjoy this right. A nationwide survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network found that 90 percent of transgender youth felt unsafe at school, 55 percent reported physical harassment, and 81 percent reported being sexually harassed because of their gender expressions.\nIU has made small steps toward an inclusive and welcoming environment for a growing number of transgender students. Residential Programs and Services changed many restrooms to gender-neutral to provide transgender residents with safe bathroom access. A handful of restroom conversions is a wonderful – but minimal – step in the right direction.\nUnfortunately, the living spaces in our residence halls are still gender-segregated, and therefore unwelcoming, even threatening, for transgender students. Many official University forms demand that students mark their “sex” rather than recognizing a diversity of gender identities. New buildings on campus still go up with gender-segregated restroom facilities.\nMost alarmingly, the University does not include gender identity and expression in its nondiscrimination policies (the city of Bloomington does). A university committed to inclusion, diversity and education cannot excuse such an omission. Including gender identity in University nondiscrimination policies would recognize the complexity and breadth of gender and, more importantly, provide a foundation for future institutional changes.\nWe’re not there yet. But hopefully IU will soon be an educational institution whose policies and practices recognize the needs of all students – an institution that even potential prom kings like Tony would be proud to call home.
(04/20/07 4:00am)
Many of us have tried to make sense of the murders and suicide at Virginia Tech on Monday. It’s hard to comprehend how one person can become so isolated, angry and hopeless that the only solution is to destroy life that he has come to loathe so fiercely. But it’s not simply the gunman’s actions that have unsettled my thinking.\nNot surprisingly, Cho Seung-Hui showed countless warning signs: extreme withdrawal and sullenness, refusal to communicate, violent poetry and plays described as “something out of a nightmare” with “twisted, macabre violence.” Although some faculty and administrators tried to intervene and referred Cho to counseling, I can’t help but wonder how many others just wrote him off as a “nut job.” What if just one or two more peers had refused to let this troubled young man withdraw from all human contact and emotion? What if he’d just heard one more reassuring, kind voice rather than another dismissal? Would the outcome have been different?\nWe’ll never know in Cho’s case, but it should serve as a reminder for us to be more attentive and attuned to the friends and strangers around us, to err on the side of kindness and compassion rather than avoidance, rejection and silencing.\nPredictably, the event has also reignited gun-control debates. Personally, I favor strict regulations, if not an all-out ban, on gun ownership. Yet some gun-rights advocates suggest that the solution is to eliminate gun prohibitions on campus (IU has such a policy). They believe arming students, staff and faculty members would prevent such a rampage. But do we want to create communities of fearful, paranoid citizens ready to pull the trigger at the slightest disturbance? That’s not exactly the model of a healthy, learning environment or trusting community.\nPerhaps most unsettling is the juxtaposition of our reaction to Virginia Tech with a largely apathetic public response to the “war on terror” in Iraq. Our national gaze is directed at Blacksburg, Va., as we mourn 33 untimely deaths. We have held vigils on our campus and observed moments of silence for the dead. And rightfully so.\nYet on Wednesday, over 140 people were killed just as senselessly in Baghdad in four separate bombings. My guess is most of us didn’t bat an eye. Our “war on terror” has (in)directly killed over 3,300 U.S. soldiers and caused anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. (A Johns Hopkins report puts the estimate at more than 655,000.)\nMy intent is not to devalue the victims in Virginia but to point out how selectively we mourn the loss of life. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we responded to the daily bombings in Iraq with the same grief and compassion for human life that we’ve directed toward the tragedy in Virginia?\nWhile we all try to make sense of the shootings and grieve over the victims, I hope we also reflect on the larger lessons and implications this ugly act has for our everyday actions and lives.
(04/13/07 4:00am)
"Nappy-headed hos.”\nThat description of the Rutgers women’s basketball team marks the latest public eruption of the racist and sexist attitudes – another sign that oppression is alive and well.\nRadio host Don Imus unleashed this ugly description on his show last Wednesday. Rutgers head coach C. Vivian Stringer denounced his comments as “deplorable, despicable and abominable,” and NBC News, which carries his program, called them “racist and abhorrent.” Imus has since been suspended from his morning show for two weeks.\nImus apologized for his “insensitive and ill-conceived remark,” attempting to prove he was a “good person who said a bad thing.” Imus described charitable work he has done for children with terminal illnesses, many of whom are black. He remembered the many black guests he welcomed to his radio show. He recounted the many black leaders who he approached since his comments in order to make amends.\nI wholeheartedly believe that Imus sincerely doesn’t want to be racist or sexist: very few of us do. But wishing it doesn’t make it so.\nImus claimed his comment was a miserable attempt at humor and lamented, “I understand there’s no excuse for it. I’m not pretending that there is. I wish I hadn’t said it.”\nI, on the other hand, am thankful he said it. I’m also grateful for Michael Richards’ racist outburst last December; and for Sen. Joseph Biden’s questionable description of Barack Obama as the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy;” and for Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic, sexist tirade.\nIf we’re honest with ourselves, these public lapses in judgment force us to come to terms with an ugly, often hidden part of our consciousness and should prompt some uncomfortable self-reflection.\nDon Imus, Michael Richards, we all have been raised in a culture that teaches us to devalue certain people – racial minorities, women, gays and lesbians, and the many others who get marked as less human, less important, less fit for unlimited opportunity and potential. Some messages are subtle, for example, “black history” is relegated to the sidebars in history books and is treated as an afterthought to (white) American history. Others are so pervasive that we’ve largely learned to ignore them: for example, the way men regularly dehumanize women into mere objects for their sexual pleasure and indulgence.\nWe could learn a lot from Imus or Richards – or the next public figure who unexpectedly spews racism or sexism. The lesson is not to censor ourselves or blame the P.C. police for patrolling our thoughts. Instead, we’d do better to acknowledge the reality of our ugly conditioning and start the self-reflection that these men began one racist statement too late.\nI believe most of us are “good people,” too. Good people who have internalized terrible lessons. But that doesn’t excuse us. The key is to identify, own, reflect on, and most importantly correct those oppressive lessons before they rear their ugly heads “nappy-headed” or otherwise.
(04/06/07 4:00am)
In the world of Google, Hurricane Katrina never happened.\nGoogle Inc. came under fire last week when an Associated Press article reported that Google Maps was displaying pre-Katrina satellite images of New Orleans and the surrounding Gulf Coast region. \nThe satellite images of New Orleans showed intact neighborhoods, parking lots full of cars, marinas full of boats – as if Katrina never hit. In reality, entire neighborhoods no longer exist, while others are in shambles. Ruston Henry, president of the Lower 9th Ward Economic Development Association, described the current state of New Orleans: “Everything is missing. The people are missing. Nobody is there. We still have no idea what’s happening.” None of the destruction showed up on Google maps, where accurate satellite pictures would show empty lots and blue tarps covering the rooftops of many damaged homes that haven’t been touched since the hurricane.\nCongress even stepped in to investigate the Google Maps mishap. The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology asked Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt to explain why his company is using the outdated imagery, and Google is expected to brief the House Committee on the map discrepancies.\nU.S. representative and committee member Brad Miller wrote CEO Schmidt a letter claiming that “Google’s use of old imagery appears to be doing the victims of Hurricane Katrina a great injustice by airbrushing history.”\nPoor Google. It’s rough to be a scapegoat and take a hit for other people’s failures.\nThe last thing Congress needs is a day of “briefings” from Google on why some online images were outdated. (For the record, John Hanke, Google’s director for satellite imagery, said the pre-Katrina aerial photos were online because they were higher-resolution, higher-quality photographs.) Why not demand briefings from FEMA, or even President Bush, on why schools, churches and businesses have been untouched since the hurricane hit? Maybe Congress should brief the American public on why we value spending money on bombs for Iraq as some of our suffering brothers and sisters in the Gulf Region continue to live with nothing?\nGoogle hasn’t done anyone a “great injustice.” Shame on Brad Miller for pointing the finger. Outdated satellite images might be a foolish mistake, but not a “great injustice.”\nNational lawmakers and leaders are doing the greatest injustice to Katrina victims. The House committee seems more intent on getting accurate online pictures than on ensuring the conditions depicted in those pictures are fixed. There should no longer be so much widespread destruction to be “airbrushed.”\nAfter the report and the ensuing U.S. House committee interrogations, Google Maps once again shows New Orleans in ruins – the Lower 9th Ward is once again covered in debris, the protective tarps are in place, the lots are empty.\nI suppose the critics are happy again – the satellite evidence of destruction and suffering is back online and we’ve wagged our fingers at Google.\nNow we can all go back to ignoring the problem. What a relief!
(03/30/07 4:00am)
Imagine a town with a sign at city limits warning: “Nigger, don’t let the sun set on you here!” Probably some racist Southern town from 100 years ago, right? Guess again.\nFrom the 1890s through the 1960s many towns through the West and Midwest forced out black (and sometimes Asian and Jewish) residents. In some communities, white mobs would violently run every black resident out, burning and destroying homes or terrorizing blacks until they left. Many of these towns then posted ominous signs, like the one quoted above, at the city limits. Other towns used subtler strategies to force and keep blacks out. Social pressures, police harassment and city ordinances that prevented blacks from renting or buying homes created many “white only” towns throughout the Midwest.\nProfessor James Loewen, who spoke on campus last Friday, documents this racist history in his book “Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism.” “Sundown towns” are towns that were “all white on purpose” – places that actively excluded people of color for many years, some as recently as the 1990s. Loewen has confirmed more than 470 sundown towns in Illinois alone, over 100 in Indiana, and thousands nationwide (although very few exist in the South). In other words, if you grew up in an all-white (or nearly all-white) town in the Midwest, odds are excellent that the racial makeup of your community didn’t “just happen.”\nFor example, Loewen’s research reveals in 1906 the white residents of Greensburg, Ind., drove out almost all the 164 black residents. In 1960, the entire county had only three black residents. And as of the 2000 census, Greesburg still had only two black households.\nThese towns weren’t created by a few crazy Klansmen. Rather they were the collective work of most white residents who “either approved of the policy of exclusion or said nothing to stop its enforcement.”\nIt’s tempting to say, “I wasn’t there. I didn’t do those things. Don’t blame me!” Or it’s easy to say, “We don’t exclude people anymore.” But we can’t let ourselves off the hook so easily.\nWe’ve inherited this racist history whether we like it or not. And simply “not doing it anymore” isn’t nearly enough. If we truly care about ideals of justice and equity, we have to work actively in order to reverse the ongoing effects of a racist past. In the case of sundown towns, taking down a threatening sign or eliminating racist laws is one step, but only an active effort to welcome people of color will reverse the effects.\nIf we’re not consistently willing to challenge and reverse the outcomes of the past, then we are completely complacent in reproducing and perpetuating the inequalities and injustices that history created. Racism doesn’t just fizzle away; we must make an ongoing effort to stomp it out.\nTry it today. Think of one thing you can do to challenge and counteract racism. Don’t just shrug your shoulders and excuse yourself. Get busy.\nYou’ve got until sundown.
(03/23/07 4:00am)
I hear many Christians whine about how his or her faith is “under attack,” but it hardly seems like faith – much less Christianity – is in jeopardy. The vast majority of our national and state lawmakers are people of faith; “God” appears on all our currency and Target is stocked full of Easter and Christmas goodies for months each year. And now, God is all over the streets because thousands of Hoosiers’ license plates proclaiming “In God We Trust.”\nThese plates, the brainchild of State Representative Woody Burton, are an extension of the nation’s motto. Burton says the new plates “(give) the public an opportunity to show their faith in their religion and their country.” In his view, the license plates show no bias toward any religion (except maybe monotheistic ones) nor do they push religion on anyone. \n“If nonbelievers don’t want the ‘In God We Trust’ plate, then they don’t have to get it. I’m a Christian man, but I don’t have the right to force my beliefs onto another person,” said the man whose beliefs led him to oppose repeatedly the existence of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender center on campus.\nNo, Christianity is not at risk. But it would seem that national unity is increasingly jeopardized thanks to an exclusive and marginalizing motto.\nFor those eager to invoke history in defense of our nation’s motto, here’s a quick lesson. The motto is only 51 years old. Lawmakers wanted God on our side in the 1950s to separate ourselves from the evil, communist “others.” In 1956, President Eisenhower signed a law declaring “In God We Trust” the national motto replacing “E Pluribus Unum,” after its 180 year run as the official motto.\nIn other words, we replace “out of many, one” – a unifying motto that celebrates the richness of a radically pluralistic society – with a motto that necessarily excludes many Americans from consideration.\nWho exactly is the “we” in the national motto that is supposed to speak for and encompass all Americans? Do Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, atheists and many agnostics count? Anyone who refuses to believe God is necessarily male doesn’t count either, at least if you ask George Bush. On the 50th anniversary of our questionable motto, Bush offered thanks for “his (God’s) great gift of liberty” and proclaimed that all Americans must “continue to seek his (God’s) will.” And I would argue that the lawmakers who pushed for this national motto didn’t imagine an inclusive view of Jews and Muslims, especially since Jews would never print the name of God on currency, much less license plates.\nI say get “God” out of our national motto. We separate church and state for a reason. Forcing a narrow view of god into national discourses causes more trouble than good. Instead, it’s time to fully embrace the principle of E Pluribus Unum and learn to put our trust in fellow citizens on whom our day-to-day lives depend.\nIn a healthy nation we not only love our neighbors, but trust them as well.
(03/09/07 5:00am)
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore …” We’ll make sure they suffer even more – that’s the American Way! Suffering is the new civil right!\nThe Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal demonstrates how some of our most vulnerable citizens suffer. The Washington Post documented inhumane conditions as soldiers from Iraq who lost limbs, suffered brain injuries and experienced post-traumatic stress were stuck in rooms teeming with black mold and rats while medical professionals failed to provide adequate follow-up care. After this report, veterans across the country have shared stories of similarly bleak hospital conditions and poor medical treatment at military facilities nationwide. Suddenly the bumper-sticker slogan “Support our troops!” takes new meaning.\nBut neglecting our tired, poor and vulnerable masses doesn’t stop with injured, traumatized veterans. \nIn 2005, a disastrously slow federal response left thousands of Gulf Coast residents stranded in flood waters. Eighteen months later, they still suffer. Half the homes in New Orleans do not have electricity; 60,000 families in Louisiana still live in 240-square-foot trailers; almost half the public schools remain closed and untouched since Katrina hit. The citizens in one of the poorest regions of our country suffer despite big promises from the current administration.\nCase in point, last April President Bush stood beside Ethel Williams in front of her uninhabitable house in New Orleans and said, “We’ve got a strategy to help the good folks down here rebuild. Part of it has to do with funding. Part of it has to do with housing.” Bush promised Williams a bright future. As of last week, the only change is that her former home – her only remaining possession – has been condemned.\nThe suffering epidemic extends further. The administration has pumped us full of the “No Child Left Behind Act” propaganda that stresses “accountability,” “achievement” and “success” in every school. Yet schools in poorer communities – both rural and urban – lack the resources or support to provide suitable (or humane) learning environments. Author Jonathan Kozol documents American schools without clean, functioning bathrooms; where mold grows on the walls; where barrels throughout the building collect rainwater that pours through the roof; where four kindergarten classes and a sixth grade class are packed into a single room with no windows. These children are typically poor and predominantly black and Hispanic, communities we repeatedly neglect.\nThe current administration is hell-bent on protecting, preserving and promoting certain lives and standards in word but not in deed. After all the hype and lip service, we desert our own citizens and sacrifice the most vulnerable among us.\nHow can we be proud Americans when we show such disdain for our own brothers and sisters? Something must be done to help the tired, poor and suffering.\nUnfortunately, we seem intent only on twisting the knife a little deeper.
(03/02/07 5:00am)
Perhaps you’ve seen the reserved parking spaces for mothers with children – a second level of reserved parking, just beyond the disabled parking spaces, marked with universal icons of a woman and little children.\nI have no doubt that managing several young children in a parking lot could be a challenge. And able-bodied people who aren’t toting toddlers along shouldn’t be bothered by walking a few extra spaces to the door. But the implicit messages of the sign irk me. Why does it only depict mothers?\nThe sign could be depicting a drag queen who is grocery shopping with little people, but I sincerely doubt the sign’s creators aimed for such inclusion.\nThe “family parking” signs invoke restrictive messages about families and gender roles. The sign appeals to an ideology of women as primary caretakers and nurturers, stay-at-home moms who perform chores like grocery shopping and presumably return home to prepare dinner. Women are responsible for the children while the men are off at work.\nBut why not a male icon? Why not a father and his children?\nMany people may retort, “Relax! It’s just a sign.” And admittedly I’m infusing this well-intentioned sign with much meaning. If pulled into the space with children in tow, I’m sure no one would raise a skeptical eyebrow to suggest I shouldn’t park there. But if we examine the cumulative cultural messages about men as fathers, a clear pattern emerges that suggests we are inept at – or worse, incapable of – child-rearing and nurturing.\nIncompetent fathers provide audiences plenty of comic relief in films. For example, “Mr. Mom,” “Three Men and a Baby” or “Mrs. Doubtfire” depict farcical, failed attempts by men to change diapers, raise children and perform household tasks.\nPaternity leave for the birth or adoption of a child is still a rarity and if is allowed, is most commonly unpaid. Why? Because we still largely support an ideology that men should be working, not staying at home changing diapers, rocking babies to sleep and forming a bond with their children.\nHow many stay-at-home fathers do you know? How many men would even be willing to fill that role while his partner (male or female) is off earning the cash? Most men would likely consider that a strike against their masculinity, and I find that sad.\nI see it as a strike against men’s humanity that so many cultural messages suggest I’m incapable of nurturing and skillfully raising children. As a man who one day hopes to raise children (with another man no less), I resent the fact that some people question my ability to provide emotional comfort to my children and quiet a baby while juggling laundry, dinner, grocery shopping and soccer practice.\nWe rightly fought for gender equality in terms of recognizing a woman’s full potential and her desire to pursue a fulfilling professional career outside the home. It’s time we also recognize the full humanity of men and our capacity as nurturing fathers and caretakers.\nClear a parking space for my minivan full of kids.
(02/23/07 5:00am)
Some librarians and teachers are on a crusade this week to ban an award-winning children’s book from their shelves. The 2007 Newbery Medal recipient (the most prestigious award for children’s literature) “The Higher Power of Lucky,” by Susan Patron, is under attack because of one word: “scrotum.”\nIn the first pages readers encounter the following line: “Sammy told of the day when he had drunk half a gallon of rum listening to Johnny Cash all morning in his parked ’62 Cadillac, then fallen out of the car when he saw a rattlesnake on the passenger seat biting his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.”\nPatron argues that the central theme of the book motivated her word choice: the title character, Lucky, is preparing herself to be a grown-up. Learning about language and body parts is an important part of that process. Patron believes providing children with accurate information is better than leaving them to unscramble “half-truths” and “overheard tidbits.”\nBut apparently many teachers aren’t up to the job of education. “I don’t think our teachers ... want to do that vocabulary lesson,” said one book-banner. A male librarian argued, “I wouldn’t want to have to explain that (word).” He needs to get more comfortable with his own scrotum. A teacher and librarian from Colorado claimed, “Because of that one word, I would not be able to read that book aloud. There are so many other options that the author could have used instead.”\nWould they prefer that Patron used playground euphemisms for human anatomy? I doubt “balls,” “cojones,” “nuts,” “nads,” “sack,” or “tea bag” would have received a warmer reception.\nIt’s a good thing the book didn’t use other dirty sounding, yet medically accurate, body terminology such as “sternum” or “clavicle.” We wouldn’t merely ban the books – we’d burn them, too!\nWhat’s wrong with children knowing accurate terminology for their body parts? Thankfully my 3-year-old niece knows what her “vagina” and “vulva” are, and she knows her baby brother has a “penis.” She doesn’t run around saying “noodle” or “hoo haw” or “privates,” which gives her far more maturity at the age of 3 than some of these librarians who refuse to read the word “scrotum” aloud.\nBut even more disturbing is the underlying message of this censorship. The hoopla over censoring “scrotum” and the hush-hush attitude that prevents mature conversations about sex and sexual organs sends a message that such things are dirty and offensive. Teachers ought to demystify sex and give children accurate information, rather than give kids psychological baggage that will produce negative body attitudes and make puberty even more difficult and uncomfortable.\nKids naturally will question their bodies. Why not equip them with appropriate vocabulary instead of overprotecting children from simple (and accurate) facts and making natural, human organs seem dirty and bad?\nPatron should keep producing this important educational writing going, so I have a recommendation for her next work that’s sure to be a hit with prudish, censor-happy teachers.\n“The Scrotum Monologues.”
(02/15/07 11:58pm)
Patriotic dissent and free speech won big at the 49th annual Grammy Awards last Sunday.\nFour years after the Dixie Chicks were vilified, threatened and shunned for exercising basic freedoms, their voices -- both musical and political -- were finally honored with five Grammy awards.\nAt a concert in London on March 10, 2003, days before the Iraq invasion, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines, said, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." That's when all hell broke loose for the country music stars.\nRadio stations stopped playing their songs due to listener protests. Their No. 1 single at the time plummeted off the charts. Country music stations hosted "parties" for former fans to throw away Dixie Chicks albums and concert tickets. Others crushed and burned their CDs. The group received hate mail and death threats for their "unpatriotic" views. \n"Free speech" had a hefty price tag for the Dixie Chicks.\nMaines and her fellow Chicks could have backed down, backtracked, and "made nice" for the sake of their careers (or their safeties). They could've pandered to more conservative country music listeners. Or they might have been terrorized into silence.\n"Shut up and sing!" threatened one hateful letter. So continue to sing they did. But their political voices grew stronger as well.\nShortly after the London incident, Maines said she felt the president was ignoring public opinion in the United States and alienating the community with the war in Iraq. "My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view," she explained in a statement on her Web site.\nTheir Grammy winning album, "Taking the Long Way," kept their critical voice alive. They made no apologies for speaking out against the war and the government, despite pressure to conform. Maines has added, "Am I sorry that I asked questions and that I just don't follow? No." Nor should she be.\nBut maybe our country should be sorry and ashamed that the Dixie Chicks were attacked in the first place. Or as Maines sings in "Not ready to make nice," "It's a sad, sad story that a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger."\nIt seems "patriotic" Americans who attacked the Dixie Chicks posed a bigger threat to freedom than the pesky "terrorists" around the world. What does that say about us?\nThe country music world is still unforgiving. The defiant album was snubbed at Country Music Association Awards. But fortunately the Grammy Awards opted for a celebration of dissent and political freedoms.\nUpon receiving one of her Grammy Awards, Maines said, "I think people are using their freedom of speech tonight with all these awards." Using freedom of speech to reward a group that refused to shy away from controversy and have that right repressed. Seems like a better choice than silencing dissent.\nBravo, Dixie Chicks
(02/08/07 11:40pm)
I've heard recently that gay folks like me shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Britain is the latest battle ground in this "culture war." A Catholic Cardinal is fighting for Catholic orphanages to be exempt from a nondiscrimination law that includes sexual orientation. After all, the argument goes, children need a mother and a father in order to be "normal," "healthy" and to understand gender roles. The Catholic Church and other fundamentalist religious groups don't believe the sexually "immoral" have any business raising innocent children. What kind of "queer" role model could those fathers or mothers possibly provide?\nLet's assume opponents of gay adoption are right. Quite frankly they don't extend their arguments far enough. Homosexuals aren't the only threats to our children. If the restrictions are "for the children" then we need to get serious and consistent about child rearing prohibitions.\nYoung black men are statistically more likely to go to jail than get a college education. That leaves us with the crisis of black children running around without a father figure. And in the unlikely event the father is present, he's probably an uneducated, criminal role model, right? Black reproduction must be stopped. It's for the children.\nSome Mormons are polygamists. If two dads or two moms causes psychological trauma to a child, imagine growing up answering to daddy, mommy, mommy and mommy? Those poor kids will never function normally in society. And what terrible lessons will those children learn about wholesome, family values? I say vasectomies for all Mormon men! It's for the children.\nSome parents send their children off to day care from the time the kids are 6 months old. And in many families the father or mother (or both) are absent because he's a lawyer and she's an investment banker and they put in upwards of 90 hours a week. Day-care providers in the midst of germ-spreading toddlers cannot properly raise a child. We must shut down day cares and only allow parents who can care for their own children to reproduce.\nSmokers should have their children taken away. It's child abuse to force an infant to inhale secondhand smoke all day. The poor should be stopped from having children, because they cannot provide adequate food, clothing or education for their young. And since we're concerned about our youth learning "correct" gender roles from a father and mother, any ambitious career-oriented woman who refuses to stay home and raise her young should be automatically banned from the privilege of child rearing. It's for the children.\nIn lieu of preposterous, oppressive restrictions, we could simply stop endorsing ignorant stereotypes and uninformed generalizations; and more importantly, stop imposing our allegedly "universal" moral judgments on the rest of the world. Maybe we'd see that gay parents -- or any other group we see fit to vilify and condemn -- are just as capable, moral, human and loving as any others.\nThat's the value system I'd love to see … for the children.
(02/02/07 2:32am)
The secret is out. I'd hoped my people would keep it under wraps a little bit longer, but unfortunately James Rutz, the founder and chairman of Open Church Ministries, let the cat out of the bag. The all-powerful weapon for advancing the gay agenda is soy.\nSoy is apparently a pretty potent plant. Rutz said it's a "slow poison" that "severely damages" our children and even worse, threatens to "tear apart our culture." It seems that for Rutz, soybeans bring new meaning to the term "bioterror" (which means the soybean has now officially become a member of the axis of evil).\nHere's how soy works: It's rainbow magic (at least in Mr. Rutz's world). Soybean products are feminizing because they contain chemicals that the body treats like estrogen. Eating large amounts of soy products is apparently the equivalent to flooding your body with estrogen. So for men, this estrogen surplus "suppresses masculinity" and stimulates our "female side," thereby making us gay.\nIf estrogen is the evil soy substance that feminizes men, then Rutz doesn't explain sufficiently where lesbians come from. Certainly he must believe that the extra boost of "femininity" from soy would be detrimental to lesbian formation! Perhaps he'll soon report that rather than eating tofu with a side of soy milk, lesbians eat too much beef and pork and maybe munch an occasional buffalo testicle as an afternoon snack for an extra dose of testosterone.\nBut Rutz's primary concern over the evils of soy -- and its power to destroy the country -- centers on soy converting men, not women, to the pink side. Maybe he's just one of those homophobes who doesn't mind as much if he has to watch two women kissing.\nReading his alarmist warning, I wondered where I fit into his little theory. I grew up on a very meat and potatoes kind of diet. I'm quite sure the words "soy" or "tofu" were never uttered in my house until well after I went to college. Nevertheless, here I am chasing boys. Interestingly, I only switched to a largely soy-based diet seven years after I came out. So which came first? The soy or the gay?\nBut we have precious little time to ponder this question because the threat doesn't end with male homosexuality (although that is presumably the primary factor that will "tear apart" culture as we know it). Soybean products also lead to a "decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion," and a diminished sex drive. And here we were thinking foolishly that our major social problems were an unjust war, poverty and global warming. I, for one, am thankful that Rutz has called our attention to this serious threat.\nSo please, check the ingredient list on your energy bars and think twice before you order your next soy latte or pad thai with tofu. The future of our culture rests on your decision!\nAnd for my sake, choose the soy.
(01/26/07 1:02am)
Someday my prince will come -- but if my 3-year-old niece has any say, I won't be dancing with him at the ball.\nMy niece loves Cinderella, and on a recent trip to visit my family, she instructed us to pretend that we were all attending Cinderella's ball. So I asked, "Can Uncle Jonathan have a turn dancing with the prince?"\nShe swiftly responded with an emphatic "No!" I asked why I couldn't, and she told me, very matter-of-factly, "Because you are not a princess. Only princesses may dance with a prince." (I wondered if her response would have been different if she'd seen me in Miss Gay IU two years ago.)\nIn her defense, it's not her fault she's only 3 and already teeming with heterosexism. Nor is anyone else in the family responsible for filling her with such silly ideas of exclusion. During pregnancy my sister wore a T-shirt that proclaimed "Gay Friendly Womb," accompanied by a big rainbow. My parents serve on the planning committee for the Gay Pride Parade in their city. My niece is fully aware she will have four fabulous uncles (my brother is gay, too). In short, she is immediately surrounded by overwhelming acceptance and inclusive messages about sexuality.\nIf any little girl would let me dance with the prince, my niece would ... except that she's an unwitting victim of a heterosexist culture. And clearly the socialization has already worked its magic.\nAfter all, she's grown up watching Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora, Jasmine and others fall for their respective princes. She's watched Donald and Daisy, Mickey and Minnie, even Maria and Luis on "Sesame Street." My niece already internalized messages about what counts as a normal relationship or who should be dancing with whom. Most strikingly, she has learned to make negative judgments about supposed deviations from the status quo, as evidenced by her strong "No!" to my request for a slow dance with Prince Charming.\nFortunately, I'm not worried about my niece. She's in extremely good hands -- amazing parents and grandparents (and a gaggle of gay uncles) who will teach her acceptance, love and inclusion.\nSadly, not everyone receives lessons in how to resist heterosexist programming -- and many still stand by narrow worldview in which Aladdin would never take me on a magic ride and later show me a whole new world. But thankfully, occasions for such tales and romances are on the rise. This weekend, Bloomington's PRIDE Film Festival taking place at the Buskirk-Chumley Theater will offer our largely heterosexist culture a nice slap in the face.\nGay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender film festivals offer valuable sites for both resistance to heterosexism and celebration of sexuality. A place where Snow White and Sleeping Beauty can snuggle together in the same bed in the castle, while the princes bump and grind to a divalicious dance remix of "Once Upon a Dream."\nI can't wait to take my niece to such a film festival one day. And I'll even let her cut in for one waltz with my prince.
(01/19/07 4:53pm)
This year's Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration theme was "The Power of One," a slogan which reminds us that the capacity for change, for improving our world, rests within each of us. Working for equity, justice, peace and understanding in our communities, our country or simply at our University is not the responsibility of a great leader -- we've all got a hand in the action.\nBut many of us are awfully busy being a little self-absorbed and disinterested. So first, what not to do:\nI've heard numerous white students dismiss the recognition of MLK Day as a "black holiday" in which they have no desire to participate (oddly, the same students often claim to be "colorblind"). But race and racism in this country are everyone's problem. Perhaps no white American students alive today owned slaves or directly participated in the legal racism of the 20th century, but we've all inherited the same country with its overtly racist history that has shaped our communities today. As long as people are still negatively judged, marginalized and excluded on the basis of race, we will all have a stake in remedying the problem, at least if we want to claim that we're just, moral people.\nIt is equal in comparison to other forms of oppression in the U.S. Take sexism: It's not just a "women's issue" that they still earn less than men. I certainly don't have to be a woman to be upset about this inequity. Rather, I need to be a concerned citizen with a moral conscience.\nOr, for example, it's neither a "black issue" nor a "women's issue" that the burning question of next year's presidential election is already: "Is America ready for a black (or female) president?" The fact that we even pose the question betrays ugly realities for our land of freedom and supposedly unlimited opportunity (notice no one ever asks, "Is America ready for another heterosexual, white, Christian male president?" Although that's a more appropriate question). The continuing reality of exclusion and social inequality is an issue for which we are all responsible.\nWhat do you need to channel this power?\n• Awareness and compassion for the people around you. Unless you're an isolated hermit, you are part of community that is much greater than you. Therefore, we must all negotiate our needs, problems and wants collectively -- with an eye toward consequences and ramifications. We must also be willing to act on behalf of those with whom we share a community; prove we are trustworthy citizens and friends through our actions.\n• A person with a moral consciousness that doesn't understand others deserves to be stripped of humanity or human dignity. Morality that dictates individual gain should not produce harm and suffering for others.\n• A clear sense of responsibility and accountability that prevents you from claiming, "That is someone else's problem!"\nThis may not be the magic recipe, but it's a starting point to embrace and enact the "power of one"
(12/07/06 3:39am)
The Mathers Museum of World Cultures and the Native American Graduate Students Association hosted the annual Celebrating Kids and Culture event last Sunday. I'm sure it was a fun day for the kids, one that taught them extremely valuable lessons, such as how "Dances With Wolves" does not represent all American Indians. Or even better, Rebecca Riall, co-chairwoman of the Native American Graduate Students Association, said: "We want people to see us as humans that are still alive. We're modern people that can have a good time, and you can be around us without being scalped."\nThat's what I call rich cultural awareness.\nOne goal of the event was to dispel stereotypes while "having a good time." It was about both "fun and awareness." Planners wanted participants to know that American Indians have not been "wiped out" but are still a part of everyday society. \nI question how much good these token events really do. We're all familiar with programs such as "Diversity Dinners" where we eat egg rolls, flautas and baklava and then believe that somehow we're culturally enriched.\nOr, for example, IU's CultureFest each fall, where we get to watch flamenco dancers, black soul singers and drag queens take the stage while we eat "ethnic" cuisine. In the end we've somehow absorbed more rich cultural knowledge and become kinder and more accepting.\nDon't get me wrong, I suppose these events are a good starting point for people who have limited (or no) exposure to anything outside their narrow cultural experience. But unfortunately, these "diversity" programs stop significantly short of true cultural learning. For example, food is a very important part of every culture, but simply eating it only educates my taste buds about new flavors. Deeper learning comes from discussions about sociological and anthropological significance of meal time, how food is prepared or why certain ingredients are used.\nThat's just one extra layer that is often ignored in these so-called cultural-awareness programs. But even more frequently we leave out the particularly ugly bits of cultural learning. Just a guess, but I bet the American Indian program made no mention of arguably the worst genocide in world history, when European settlers quickly destroyed the population of native dwellers after "discovering" the country. Dennis Lamenti, co-chairman of the Native American Graduate Students Association, said that "it's about living in the world with other people." \nBut there is more to learn from the parts we always omit -- the unfortunate historical lessons that point to our inability to live in the world with others (American Indian genocide, slavery, racism). Learning how to make a pot may be fun, but that won't teach me how to navigate and confront cultural difference.\nSurface-level diversity is comfortable yet empty. We've got to scratch deep below the surface to make a meaningful difference.
(09/05/06 2:47am)
Andre Agassi played his final professional match last weekend at the U.S. Open. During the long standing ovation he received and his brief, eloquent farewell speech, I couldn't stop the tears from flowing. It was sad to see such a remarkable tennis icon step off the court for the final time. But more than anything, I was moved by witnessing this last public chapter in Andre's amazing maturation from arrogant, aimless youth to selfless, philanthropic hero.\nAs I soaked up every tribute I could find about Agassi's career after his loss, it struck me how beneficial his perspective on life might be for navigating through college life. So in honor of his brilliant career, I compiled some "Agassi wisdom" to consider through your IU experience.\n"I don't take pride in my accomplishments," he said. "I take pride in the striving." He added: "The pride I take in everything I've experienced has to do with what I've poured into it, not necessarily what that experience was." Undoubtedly the college experience will be filled with ups and downs, with accomplishments and a few less-than-desirable outcomes. Be it essays or exams, relationships or organizational events, whatever the outcome, will you be proud that you poured yourself wholly into the experience?\nIn his post-match interview, Agassi said, "I think we can find excuses in life or we can find inspirations. I've always tried to find inspirations." It's often easier to find excuses, to shun responsibility. But rather than shunning accountability in a search for futile excuses, why not look for positive inspiration in yourself and others to help address and overcome any shortcomings and keep striving for improvements?\n"The scoreboard said I lost today, but what the scoreboard doesn't say is what it is I have found ... I have found loyalty ... I've found inspiration ... And I've found generosity," Agassi said between sobs in an emotional farewell speech. "You have given me your shoulders to stand on to reach for my dreams, dreams I could have never reached without you." But you don't have to be a tennis star to find such fan support. The IU community is stocked full of resources to help you reach your goals: fellow students, faculty, support services, RAs. Open yourself up to finding those resources and embracing their support.\nAnd finally, describing his relationship with tennis, Agassi said, "For me, it's been about trying to give more than I take." It's impossible to move through your time at IU without taking some remarkable lessons, but at the end of the journey, will you be able to say you've given as much, if not more, to the community?\nThanks, Andre, for 20 years of tennis memories and for setting an example for us to follow in all areas of life.