Jackie Gerth
Women and Men in American Society
May 3, 1999
In researching the history of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons' issues at Earlham, I found that past articles from the Earlham Word (formerly the Earlham Post) provided a large amount of insight into the workings of student activism in the past. I became especially interested in some of the conflicts which had arisen in the past, the positions that students took on these issues, and the ways in which they were resolved.
The first evidence of the existence of an organized gathering of gay students on Earlham's campus was with the publication of an opinion article mentioning the existence of posters advertising weekly meetings for homosexual and bisexual members of the Earlham community (Earlham Students for Apathy..., 1973).This article appeared nearly a full year before the Gay PeopleÕs Union first sought funding from the Student Activities Council. According to the article, "the Gay People's Union constitution clearly states their intention as a funded group, wishing to provide a greater understanding of Gayness to people who are not Gay. Also they would like to act as a resource group, sponsoring speakers and lecturers "who can aid in the education of the community at large" (Gay People's Union..., 1974). The GPU was given funding and started as an official student group in the Fall of 1974.
The first mention of a controversy surrounding the GPU after it's founding came two years later. In an editorial about the level of tolerance at Earlham, a student mentioned the burning of a GPU sign in front of hundreds of witnesses (Dunlap, 1976). There was no mention of any official action taken against the student who burned the sign.
The GPU started as an educational group for the benefit of the entire community. In October of 1977, the GPU organized the first confidential support and counsel group for gay members of the Earlham community, both in and out of the closet (Earlham Gay..., 1977). In the listing of names of people involved in the group, it was mentioned that one of the students wished to have included that he does not approve of a gay lifestyle, but did believe in the counseling of gay people. It did not mention how this person might go about counseling people concerning their sexuality if he did not approve of the person's orientation, however.
Since the beginning of the gay rights movement on campus, Earlham's official policy has not always agreed with campus beliefs. Though Earlham funded the GPU, the college did not include homosexuality as part of its non-discrimination policy. In 1980, the Board considered a proposal to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination policy and decided against including it. In a later article about the decision, Trustee Ernest Mills stated, "We didn't feel there was reason to change the statement. You can't choose race, creed, or color. Sexual preference is something you can choose" (Cima, 1981). Though this statement would be considered incorrect today, at a time when sexual orientation is considered by many to be at least partially genetic, at the time it was made it seemed to go undisputed in the press. Richard Newby, the assistant presiding clerk of the Indiana Yearly Meeting seemed to send a mixed message about the decision. He stated that he couldn't believe that Earlham was still discussing the issue of homosexuality because he felt that the issue did not even need discussing, that it should automatically be accepted that some people are homosexual. However, he also stated that he felt the hiring of an openly homosexual staff member would be inappropriate for the school and that he was concerned about the existence of the GPU because it presented homosexuality as a viable lifestyle (Cima, 1981). These mixed messages could only have served to confuse the issue of whether or not Earlham accepted homosexuality as a lifestyle. Though students had access to a support group and to some education on the subject, the official policy did not include any protection for homosexuals. In 1982, Fred McClure, the president of the Earlham College Republican Club, was planning an event which, in part, was designed to show the Richmond community that there were "normal" students at Earlham. Apparently, in talking to a Richmond resident, Fred was asked if there were any normal students at the college and the resident then went on to define "normal" as anyone who was neither a socialist nor a homosexual. At the beginning of a memo reminding people of the event, McClure singled out two students as examples of what was considered Ònon-normal.Ó One of the students was Josh Owens, who as singled out because of his involvement in the GPU. Insensitivity charges were filed with the Campus Judiciary Committee (CJC). The CJC later handed down insensitivity charges. McClure's punishment included an official warning, a requirement of a written apology to the student pressing charges, and the requirement that he participate in a "constructive, educational dialogue concerning the issues out of which the current dispute arose" (Becker, 1982). McClure announced his intent to appeal the decision, but there was no later mention in the student newspaper about any such appeal. (Leyson, 1982; Becker, 1982)
During 1982, an editorial about the forms of expression people chose to make their points mentioned the anonymous removal of GPU signs on campus (Rettenberg and Fitz-Hugh, 1982). During the 1984 Pink Triangles Week, pink triangles were placed around campus as symbols to reflect the persecution and solidarity of queers throughout history and on EarlhamÕs campus. The pink triangles were also anonymously removed (Price, 1984).
In October of 1986, the Gay People's Union added a letter to their acronym by deciding to officially become the Lesbian and Gay PeopleÕs Union. Two years afterwards, they would add yet another letter by deciding to include bisexuals as well. They were then known as the LBGPU.
In 1986, amidst a controversy on the lack of a hiring non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation, the Earlham Word adopted in its masthead the following policy: "We affirm our commitment, in all activities and processes, to treat people equally without concern for age, sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality, or ethnic origin." ("pdb", 1986). The Word then went on to encourage the College to follow their example and adopt the same non-discrimination policy for all areas. This debate over the lack of a faculty hiring/firing non-discrimination policy was still being brought up years later when, in a graduation speech, Robbie Goble brought up the policy. The following year, the administration wanted to discontinue the tradition of allowing a senior to give a graduation speech, apparently to avoid the possibility of such controversial topics being brought up at an affair that was supposed to be a formal way of celebrating the end of four years of study at Earlham (Jay, 1990).
A 1990 opinion article made reference to Dick Wood's support of queer rights. Wood stated that ethical recognition and support should be extended to gay and lesbian couples willing to make a commitment equivalent to marriage. However, he was then criticized for holding back by qualifying this statement by saying that Earlham can't go its own way but rather must be in dialogue with the Quaker meetings. The student writing the article felt that Wood was passing on an important opportunity to make statement about Earlham by accepting gay and lesbian couples regardless of what the Indiana Yearly Meeting may feel about the subject. (Hinman, 1990)
The Queer Collective started in 1990 with a statement of purpose in the Word. In part, their statement read:
"We in the collective are all Queer, and share a brand of politics that tends to be confrontational, even radical. Whereas the LBGPU seeks to create a safe place for the exploration of issues, we claim a public space. We are tired of needing and trying to explain ourselves to non-Queer people." (Queer Collective, 1990)The Queer Collective ran a regular column in the Word throughout 1990.
Following a Pink Triangles Week speaker in 1991, there was homophobic graffiti found on a poster advertising the event. In response, the LBGPU made multiple copies of the defaced poster and put up a "wall" for students to walk through so that students on campus would have to see what someone had written. In addition, approximately twenty students went onto the Saga balcony and one woman started chanting the words of the graffiti, "I'm so ugly no man would fuck me so I eat pussy." More women joined the chant and then another student announced, "Your homophobia continues to destroy and divide. Homophobia, racism, sexism, and other systems of hate disease our community." The entire group then ended by chanting "Silence is complicity. Silence equals Death. Action equals Life. Speak out against homophobia! Speak out now!" Though some of the students received the demonstration well, many of the students who wrote in or were quoted in the Word thought that the demonstrators had chosen an inappropriate way to express themselves. The majority of opinions seemed to state that this type of tactic was found to be offensive and too confrontational. (Southerland, 1991)
A year later, students found themselves in the midst of another controversy. In February of 1992, a radical queer newsletter entitled In and Out was left at Runyan Desk and distributed on all the tables in the dining hall. In response, sophomores Greg Manns and Craig Watson places a sign on their door saying that "fags (or anyone we think is a fag)" would not be welcome in their dorm room. The sign had been on their door previously but they had removed it after students complained about it. Watson's position was that if people were allowed to distribute a radical pro-Queer newsletter in a public space, then he was allowed to express his opinion on his own door. A student took a picture of the sign and posted it on the Opinion Board in Runyan Center, where it was then discussed by a large number of students. Manns stated that he thought the discussions that the sign sparked were good because it brought to light that there were others at Earlham College who shared his views but had been silenced by political correctness. Late Friday morning, students and faculty were surprised to find that an anonymous activist had locked the front doors of Carpenter Hall shut with a bicycle lock and a sign stating that "Breeders" were not allowed inside the building. The lock was finally removed on Friday afternoon by maintenance with the aid of a blow torch. Manns was quoted as saying that the action was "very childish." There was an All-Campus Meeting held at a later date to discuss the incident and the issues that led up to it. (Southerland, 1992)
Later in that same year, an informal Indiana Yearly Meeting committee met with Earlham officials to call for the expulsion of all gay and lesbian students. The committee even brought a lawyer to the meeting to verify the legality of such an action. Dick Wood stated that the college would absolutely not comply with the demand. However, the incident made many students realize the rocky relationship between Earlham and the Indiana Yearly Meeting and caused a large amount of concern over how much control "outsiders" had over the college's policies. (Committee calls, 1992)
In 1993, a group of students, both in the LBGPU and who were not involved with the group, planned "Homosexual Acts on the Heart," an hour one Thursday afternoon during which they intended to go out onto the Heart and engage in such everyday activities such as reading, talking, playing Frisbee, et cetera. This event was advertised as mysteriously as possible, the idea being to bring students out to find out what the mystery was and then to show them that "homosexual acts" were just normal activities because sex (the presumed "act") was really such a small part of their lives. However, when the group arrived at the Heart at the appointed time, they found that a group of athletes had organized a Home Run Derby to start a half hour before in order to stop the Acts from taking place. Not expecting the interference, the group of students were not sure how to proceed. Some of them asked to join in the game, others cheered on the baseball players from the sidelines. A couple of the students decided to make signs with slogans such as "We love our gay baseball players." An editorial written after the event joked about the bravery of the athletes for all boldly deciding to come out of the closet that afternoon. (Gelsar, 1993; Wilson, 1993)
In 1996, the LBGPU disbanded and Rainbow Tribe formed. However, though estimates of the number of active members of the group in the mid-1980's were at about fifty people at each meeting, the estimate for the number of people attending the weekly Rainbow Tribe meetings is down to about seven. Many members of Rainbow Tribe are uncertain of what direction the group should take, whether it be a support group, an educational group, or an activist group. Without a focus, they feel as though they are losing some of their potential members, many of which do not feel as though they need Rainbow Tribe as part of their lives.
(Editor's note: In the past year, there has been a bit of a revival with increased membership. The group does need strong leadership in the future to continue meeting the needs of Earlham's queer and straight committee as well as aclearer sense of mission.)
Acres, SaraAnne. (Unknown date). Gay and lesbian teach-in prompts dialogue. The Earlham Word.
Becker, Dan. (1982, November 4). CTC hands down insensitivity charges. The Earlham Post.
Byler, Jim. (1988, February 26). Gay and straight alike participate in pink triangle week. The Earlham Word.
Cima, Kathy. (1981, April 2). The Indiana Yearly Meeting and Earlham. The Earlham Post.
Collier, Michael. (1976, May 11). Gay alumnus denied "coming out" note. The Earlham Post.
Committee calls for expulsions of lesbians and gays. (1992, May 22). Author unknown. The Earlham Word.
Dunlap, Tad. (1976, April 27). Earlham Intolerant? The Earlham Post.
Earlham Gay PeopleÕs Union has.... (1977, October 20). The Earlham Post.
Earlham Students for Apathy and the National Conservative Front. (1973, April 10). Gay lib called destructive. The Earlham Post.
Gay People's Union seeks recognition. (1974, February 5). The Earlham Post.
Gelsar, Peter. (1993, April 30). Conflict arises over "homosexual acts". The Earlham Word.
Gibson, Robin. (1988, October 28). Students start gay studies program. The Earlham Word.
Himman, David. (1990, September 28). But tragically, and with much sorrow, it was not to be. The Earlham Word.
Jay, James. (1990, February 23). Echoes from ECÕs alumÕs speech break the silence. The Earlham Word.
Leyson, Jenny. (1982, October 28). McClure causes controversy; insensitivity charges filed. The Earlham Post.
McCoy, Daniel. (1997, February 21). Consensus. The Earlham Word.
McCoy, Daniel. (1997, April 4). Consensus. The Earlham Word.
McCoy, John. (1988, February 5). Crushed Flowers. The Earlham Word.
McCoy, John. (1989, May 5). Crushed Flowers. The Earlham Word.
ÒpdbÓ. (1986, September 19). Gay hiring policy needed. The Earlham Word.
Price, Jim. (1984, February 3). Tolerance for gays. The Earlham Post.
Queer Collective. (1990, October 19). We're here, we're queer. The Earlham Word.
Rettenberg, Anne and Lynn Fitz-Hugh. (1982, January 28). GPU attacks discrimination. The Earlham Post.
Southerland, Lori. (1991, March 8). Homophobic graffiti comes out on campus. The Earlham Word.
Southerland, Lori. (1992, February 28). Conflicting opinions come head to head. The Earlham Word.
Wilson, Becca. (1993, April 30). The "jocks" strike back. The Earlham Word.