Jim Andris, Facebook

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

10/28/74

Memo to: John Paul Davis, Affirmative Action Task Force Coordinator

From: Jim Andris, Assistant Professer

Re: Affirmative Action Task Force Proposed Administration Article vis a vis Gay Rights

One thing stands out and stands out clearly about the proposed administration article:
it is clearly and totally discriminatory against gays, since it makes no specific provisions for treatment of this kind of discrimination.

What can be done about this deplorable and inhumane condition?

I see basically twe approaches. One Is to attempt to include the category 'gay' under 'minorities'. The other is to admit that gay problens have their unique side apart from the fact that the gay person is either a minority in race, national origin, or religion or is a woman.

I am going to suggest amendments to the proposed administration article for both these approaches. I strongly advise, however, that the latter alternative be chosen, since if any subgrouping of gay problems is viable (rationally), it is with the women as a form of sex discrimination rather than with minorities.

I am also going to list some of the unique problems of gays and suggest some
ways in which these unique problems carry over into unversity life. First,
gays are, if they choose to be, "invisible" as few women, blacks, or other minorities are, in spite of the stereotype of gay men as effeminate and gay women as mannish. They have no ready familial reference group, and in most cases, must with considerable courage, choose to identify themselves as gay when they are well on the way to adulthood or in adulthood. They cannot choose to legally marry in most cases, or have children in the case of men. They are the subject of homophobic reactions: people rarely fear that they may be black or may be wemen, but such fear is the motivator for the most vicious attacks against the integrety of gays from both within and without the gay conmunity. This same fear has led to social repression and the creation of a secret gay conmunity, wide-spread and largely unknown to non-gays, the very existence of which conjures up offending images in the minds of many. Gays' very identity is repressed by much of the medical profession with inquisitional fervor. They are the last group about which it is still publically acceptable to laugh, at least in so-called "enlightened" circles. What man hasn't, as an adolescent, perfected his "fairy" act, much to the amusement of his peers? In some cases, this behavior continues into "adulthood". Gays are stereotyped as effeminate or butch, as silly, as out to get heterosexuals to convert, as degraded morally, as child molesters, and as irresponsible, weak, and subject to bribe. They are, because of their "invisibility", probably the subject of the most ignorance on the part of general society. They are often alienated from family and friends if they choose to becone open. They are practically forced to make acquaintance in clandestine situations because of social repression. Their very presence around children is assumed to be something to be treated with extreme caution, lest the children be converted. They often offend religious and prudish mores.

Needless to say, some of these unique problems have their manifestation at the level of employment practices, both hiring and continuing, at an "enlightened" institution such as the university. Since most of the gay community is underground and fears to and is not reinforced for identifying themselves, they are simply not represented as a voice in the university. It would be highly unlikely given the depths and uniqueness of the discrimination and prejudice against gays, if there were not cases of discrimination. And yet at this university it is not even administratively clear if reports of such discrimination would result in amelioration or further reprisal. Further, gays are frequently barraged with slurs in the form of humor and other derrogatory references by insensitive colleaguas and personnel. Those who are open with some may be warned "do not reveal this to your students or to faculty. You cannot tell what might happen around here." In some professions, such as education, it is assumed by some that such open knowledge would be unprofessional and would disqualify the open individual. It is as if blacks were to be required to wear a white mask, or women to wear a man's mask when dealing professionally. The notion of recruting gays as one would blacks and women is epenly laughed and scoffed at, as if it were a perverted or militant suggestion. People are reluctant to get into "the gory details", whatever these might be. Or they are sure there is something somehow different here, but they're not quite sure what." Gays are forced to socialize daily with a social world which only vaguely skirts a central part of their life, and are met frequently with silence and disapproval if they choose to authentically express themselves.

WHO KNOWS WHAT AN INVESTIGATION MIGHT FIND ABOUT SUCH DISCRIMINATION IF IT WERE SERIOUSLY UNDERTAKEN WITH UNIVERSITY SANCTION AND GUARANTEES OF PROTECTION OF RIGHTS?

That the treatment of this problem is the responsibility of Affirmative Action is indicated by quotes from the document in question. The underlining is mine.

The Affirmative Action Task Force (or successor agency) and the Assistant Vice-Presidents designated above with be responsible jointly to develop and assure implementation of remedies for actual problems identified, and to reconmend steps to avoid or ameliorate potential problems …. Responsibility for the analysis and study of employment practices, and personnel policies and procedures, to identify actual or potential problems in the University with Affirmative Action Plan Objectives rests with the Assistant Vice President for Personnel Administration (Academic Affairs). (p. 4)

And yet the very administrative structure and categories used in the document are totally heterosexist. Further, one could easily get the impression that no time or thought was being devoted to the issue at hand:

While time devoted to policy development varies as to most individuals and groups in the process [note that the category 'gay' is nowhere included in the document], Affirnative Action Officer for Minority Affairs devotes at least 80% time to affirnative action matters, the Affirmative Action Officer for Women's Affairs devotes 100% time to such matters. . . . (p. 3)

The situation is that there is no good reason not to include gay rights within the scope of Affirmative Action, and there is good reason to so include it. The Faculty Welfare Council has already approved a resolution stating the University's resolve to protect its members from prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals for 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. (I use the term "sexual orientation" to refer to this.) In view of the fact that the Faculty Welfare Council is going to review the Affirmative Action Annual Report and recommend to the Affirnative Action Task force and to the President any concerns or recommendations it deems appropriate, it behooves the Task Force to include gay rights now. It must be obvious that
in light of the Welfare Council's recent action, no Annual Report which totally excludes gays fron both the administrative structure and accounting categories is going to be accepted.

Finally, given the considerations of this memo already given, and the considerations I stated to the Chairman of the Faculty Welfare Council in my June 21, 1974 memo regarding Gay Rights through Affirmative action which considerations addess more centrally the moral issues involved, I have one more conclusion to assert.

President Rendleman's own words support it:

I want to assure that discrimination problems of any University employee, whether founded in minority, sex, or other considerations, receive equally effective attention. I am persuaded that this requires a woman to handle women's complaints, and a person who is a member of a minority group to handle complaints by minorities." (Feb, 6 memo re Affirmative Action, p. 3)

I agree with Dr. Rendleman and suggest that given the uniqueness of the problems of gays, and the recent Faculty Welfare Council's resolution, there should be some separate administrative structure designed to be responsive to the needs of the gay community at SIUE, which community, I might add, is probably as large as many of the minorities, if not larger.

I urge you to make the first recommended ammendments to the document and take the first step in allowing the SIUE gay community to cease living under fear and repression.

cc:
John Fendleman, President of the University
Rosemarie Archangel, President of Use University Senate
Sally Page, Affirmative Action Officer for Women's Aifairs
John Flamer, Affirmative Action Officer for Minority Affairs
Andrew Coachman, Vice Prosident and Provost
B. D. Hudgens, Vice President in Charge of Businene Affairs
Ramon Williamson, Vice President in Charge of Student Affairs
Dickie Spurgeon, Chaiman of the Faculty Welfare Council
Larry Whitsell, President of Students for Gay Liberation

Follows two pages of suggested additions, deletions or corrections to the Proposed Administrative Article.