Jim Andris, Facebook

Why Gay Rights Must Be Guaranteed by the SIUE Affirmative Action Program

When I use the word ‘gay’ I referred to these people either who have a preference for a sex partner of the same sex or who have a preference for a sex related role usually adopted by the opposite sex. That is, men having a preference for men, women having a preference for women as sex partners (I mean to include the homosexual equivalent of marriage here) or men behaving effeminately and women behaving mannishly. In spite of stereotyping, the two are not synonymous, and discrimination against persons with each of these preferences occurs.

Gays are sane. Writers are beginning to realize that to be gay is not necessarily to be sick. For example, Thomas Szass points out the incredible zeal with which therapists seek to convert homosexual patients into heterosexual ones in The Manufacture of Madness. That outdated sickness theories of homosexuality should be discarded is most firmly illustrated by the following actions of the American Psychiatric Association: “Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior and, like other forms of sexual behavior which are not by themselves psychiatric disorders, is not listed in [a] … nomenclature of mental disorders …. Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capability, therefore, be it resolved that the American Psychiatric Association deplores all public and private discrimination against homosexuals in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing and declares that no burden of proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon homosexuals greater than that imposed on any other persons. Further, the American Psychiatric Association supports and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer homosexual citizens the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further, the American Psychiatric Association supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private.“

Many non-gays who discriminate against gays are not sane. Dr. George Weinberg in Society and the Healthy Homosexual points out that many gays and non-gays are suffering from homophobia, a fear of homosexuality. He traces these fears or phobias to certain historical, social, and cultural roots. Sexual sanctions built into the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, existence without vicarious immortality, repressed envy, a threat to values, and a secret fear of being homosexual are some of these roots. Without going into details, a colleague of Weinberg‘s, Ken Smith, found that high scores on a homophobic scale were correlated with attributes approximating the Archie bunker mentality.

Gays are a significantly large minority. Kinsey found that 25% of the adult white males in the nation have had or will have distinct and continuing homosexual experiences and that one in 10 of the males is more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. Other studies have born this figure out. While one may quibble about percentages, the size of the minority is clearly significant: 5% at the very lowest to 20% at the very highest. If social repression were not so strong, the percentage would undoubtedly rise to some extent.

Gays are living in an extreme state of oppression. If you have not read Laud Humphreys’ Out of the Closets or a similar exposé of gay discrimination, by all means do so. Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and governments have discriminated to the point that to even have one’s reputation linked with homosexuality can be damaging to a career. Homosexuals are beaten up by SWAMPS (straight white Anglo-Saxon male Protestants). Some are killed.
Joseph Acanfora’s case, now before the Supreme Court, demonstrates that gay teachers risk their profession by being openly gay. The same is true for other occupations. The military gives gays undesirable discharges. It was the socially generated self-hatred in gays which led to the theory that being gay is being sick. Society creates its own “perverts“ by denying them status. Carol A. B. Warren in Identity and Community in the Gay World documents the existence of a subculture based on stigma and secrecy. The ignorance of most people of the existence of this subculture is further evidence of repression.

Gays are organized. The National Gay Task Force works for gay rights and keeps the gay community informed. For example, its newsletter it’s Time recently reported on gay foster parents, Acanfora’s case, the APA’s vote to remove homosexuality from its lists of dysfunctions and illnesses, and their demands to the media for fair representation of gay interests. Together with women’s and other minorities organizations, NGTF is challenging the existing bigotry within our society that prevents it from being a true democracy. It is just a matter of time before the legitimacy of the cause is widely recognized.

What must be done at SIUE: There seems to be much concern that protection of the gay minority is not a matter of legal record. This strikes me as being a phony reason. Our democracy was founded on the basis of FREEDOM. It was persecution of minorities that occasioned the concern for individual rights in the Constitution. The fact that the government has failed to make clear its obligation to its gay citizens through legal enactment is surely a shoddy reason for denying them some form of protection. Countless religious, civil rights, legal, and medical organizations have made the moral rightness of protection for gays a higher concern than the legal concern. I have statements from NOW, YWCA, AFT, ABA, ALA, the National Federation of Priests Councils, the Lutheran Church, American Anthropological Association, Council for Christian Actions, Unitarian Universalist Association, and organizations in business such as AT&T decrying such discrimination. The University has a reputation for the support of enlightened causes; why should it not follow suit?

Affirmative action is supposed to protect against discrimination and unless some legitimate reason can be found for discriminating against gays, it has a responsibility to ensure that protection. The Faculty Welfare Council has already approved and the Executive Committee of the Senate passed on a statement guaranteeing such protection. It reads: “The Welfare Council resolves that the University’s commitment to Affirmative Action with respect to prejudice and discrimination founded in sexual considerations extends to protection for members of the university community because of either a preference for a sexual partner of the same sex or a preference for a sex-related role usually adopted by the person of the opposite sex.“ Such a statement must be written into the Affirmative Action Plan and disseminated to the University community by official administrative officers of the University. This is the very least that must be done to remove the stigma and fear which I assure you are prevalent at this, as at other, institutions.

Earlier I criticize the Administrative portion of the affirmative action plan as being heterosexist, and offered extensive revisions, including a set of accounting categories which included ‘gay‘. While I still believe that this is the right course of action, I am aware that there is a concern for right of privacy that is different in degree from the black or woman’s situation. If a choice must be made, I will relinquish my demand for full status as a discriminated group.

Besides the formal adoption of the policy previously mentioned and its dissemination to the University community, however, efforts must be undertaken to remove the discrimination which exists. Deans and chairman must become sensitized to the issue. Some sort of information on the scope of the problem must be gained. Despite the fact that it would be psychologically and sociologically more comfortable, a legitimate place must be found within Affirmative Action for clearing the air about this matter. I am convinced that it requires a clearly specified representative for gay rights. Otherwise, the topic will simply be swept under the rug and not discussed.

In closing, what I am requesting has already been done at other Universities. President Warren Bennis at the University of Cincinnati, when confronted with a similar resolution simply required that the phrase “sexual orientation“ be added to the University’s non-discrimination policy. I have requested President Rendleman to follow this example. I request the Affirmative Action Task Force to follow this example. That would be a step in the right direction.

Presented to the Affirmative Action Task Force, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Jim Andris, 12/4/74.