Jim Andris, Facebook

Foundations of Education
Education Division
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025

June 21, 1974

MEMO TO: Dickie Spurgeon, Chairman, Faculty Welfare Council

FROM: Jim Andris, Assistant Professor, Foundations of Education

SUBJECT: Gay Rights through Affirmative Action

The purpose of this memo is to call to the attention of the Faculty Welfare Council the fact that gay rights are not currently adequately assured by the Affirmative Action program at SIUE, and to propose that the Faculty Welfare Council take the position that gay rights are protected by Affirmative Action. Subsidiary purposes are to take the position that this situation is morally wrong; to review the history of my attempts to clarify the status of gay rights, and to propose steps to rectify the situation.

In President Rendleman's February 6 , 1974 memo on Affirmative Action Policies he specifies the University's internal commitment to affirmative action in matters involving prejudice founded on sexual considerations. In conversations with John Paul Davis, I have attempted to clarify this passage with respect to gay rights. As nearly as I can tell, he thinks that case litigation is currently in the courts on this matter, and that gay rights will ultimately become protected via such decisions under
the sex discrimination category. He also suggested that a clarification of the phrase "sexual considerations" by the President's office would be inappropriate unless there was support from the Faculty Welfare Council. Thus, I request the Faculty Welfare Council to request President Rendleman to so extend the scope of his February 6 directive.

It is morally wrong for gay rights not to be protected by the Affirmative Action program, where by "gay" I mean either a preference for a sexual partner of the same sex or a preference for a sex-related role usually adopted by a member of the opposite sex. First, gay sex between consenting adults is legal in this state.
Second, the American Psychiatric Association voted in March, 1974, to strike homosexuality from its list of illnesses and/or disfunctions. Third, arguments that gay behavior is wrong from a religious point of view are irrelevant because the
Constitution of the U. S. requires that all religious points of view be tolerated equally.
Fourth, arguments that gays cannot reproduce themselves are irrelevant because some non-gays cannot reproduce themselves and yet are not discriminated against.
Fifth, arguments that gays threaten majority values are irrelevant because the Constitution protects minority rights. Sixth, empirical evidence that gays have more influence on children's sexual orientation or preference than non-gays has not been forthcoming.

Seventh, arguments that children should be protected from any influence toward a gay life style assume that such a life style is wrong. The first six reasons given above tend to refute the assumption that being gay is undesirable. Unless other independent reasons are produced to show that being gay is wrong, there is no good reason why children should be discouraged from regarding being gay as just another life
style. It might be argued that since society discriminates against gays, to encourage children in homosexuality would be wrong because they would have to suffer discrimination. The same argument would obviously justify the sterilization of blacks. To counsel children against a life style merely because the majority opposes it without an independent examination of its pros and cons is to counsel the acceptance of the
tyranny of the majority. Children have a right to intelligent, free choice; their parents do not own them.

It is becoming known that homophobia, or the fear of homosexuality is a pervasive illness in this society. Because of the way children, and especially males,
have been brought up in the U.S., gays are perceived as threatening in a number of ways. First, they are a reminder to the straight majority that they do have homosexual impulses. Second, they threaten the WASP heterosexual male chauvinist domination of this society by suggesting that being a WASP heterosexual male is not regarded by all as being better. Third, they threaten the nuclear family as the only viable social organization. Fourth, they threaten conservative values merely by being different.

I take the position first that there is nothing inherently wrong with a gay life style, and that gays have had and will have a morally liberating influence on this society, along with blacks, women, and other minorities, by their challenge to an essentially provincial and bigoted attitude on the part of the majority.

The question has arisen in conversations whether or not there is a problem with discrimination against gays. I can say with confidence that there is. I know of cases, and in spite of an almost universal repressive attitude on the part of the University community. As with blacks, most people simply don't have appropriate social skills in their repetoire to relate in a fully human fashion with an out front gay. They prefer to ignore it because they don't know how to talk about it. And when they do make a sincere attempt to talk about it, many times a shocking ignorance is revealed. Ignorance of that human condition and its relation to society.

I suggest that ways be devised, and there are ways, to probe the depths of this problem. One first step, of course, would be the adoption of the proposed Affirmative Action policy by the Faculty Welfare Council and by the University. In the face of this protective policy, gay persons would feel freer to voice complaints. In any case, whether there is discrimination or not does not mean that protection against that discrimination is not needed to prevent occurrences of it. As far as other measures, persons within the Affirmative Action program subsequent to this clarification of policy should be charged with gathering information or disseminating information in a way consistent with the official attitude. The details could be worked out.

The University has a responsibility to take a leadership role in the dissemination of enlightened and worthy causes. Much of the bigotry directed at gays results from ignorance, f e a r founded on ignorance, and intolerance. I urgently request your immediate attention to this most serious problem, and offer to appear before the Council in defense of my proposal.

cc: Rosemarie Archangel, John Paul Davis, David Grothous, Gene Haffner, George Henderson, Warren Joseph, Karen Kearns, Glenda Lawhorn, James Metcalf, Norman Nordhauser, Willie Pyke, Marvin Soloman, Rudy Wilson, Don Davis