The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
Donate
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, May 24, 11:59 a.m.
Opinion |

Op-Ed: Dean Dana did the right thing in defending GLBT civil rights

By Zachary Knox
Posted on Nov. 12, 2009, at 2:01 a.m.

For two weeks, we have been subject to stares, slurs and harassment everyday. This is our reality. This is our life. This is the gay community. We have heard from people who have accused us of wanting to destroy society, people who feel “unsafe” because there is a pride flag on the mall (which was, at one point, stolen), and people who have deemed us unfit for equal rights because we are “a pack of queers.”

All of this in Orono, Maine — your community, which has become rampant with the sort of bigotry and prejudice that brings to mind radical racism of the 1960s. We are the minority for whom too few stand up and say: “You have been wronged!” Last Wednesday, Dean of Students Robert Dana stood up and did just that in the face of anti-gay sentiment in the state of Maine. He has been chastised for defending us, and some have called for him to be fired.

There are those who might say voting yes on Question 1 was a reflection of personal beliefs, not a form of homophobia. But a yes vote was a vote against civil rights and equality. A yes vote was a prejudiced vote because regardless of where you stand, this was never a political or religious issue. This was a moral issue, and many have failed to see the side that is right.

Regardless of religious beliefs on homosexuality, marriage is a civil right. This was the context of Dana’s speech. He stood on the mall to defend a minority that has been denied basic equal rights that are afforded to all other Americans. We are a minority that is demonized by the right as something that threatens America. Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum once asked, “Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”

Are we really so threatening we should be targeted by the same department that protects Americans from terrorists? Now, more than ever, we need someone to stand up for us and to assert we are not a danger to this country or this community, but are open and active members of it, fighting for our rights.

Despite their victory over equality at the ballot box — or maybe because of it — opponents of marriage equality have stepped up their attacks on the GLBT community. One member of Wilde Stein was told while canvassing for the No on 1 campaign that all gay people should be sent to an island to die because they are disgusting. This is the cultural climate we live in. Many of our daily lives are punctuated by incidents like this. These incidents happen with a regularity that is alarming. To hear Dana, a respected member of our community, suggest we are deserving of equal rights in a safe place was a great relief.

It may be unprecedented for an administrator to choose sides on these sorts of issues. If Dana had stood up 40 years ago and said about black people what he said last Wednesday about the GLBT community, he would have received the same reaction from groups and individuals that we see today as antiquated organs of hate and prejudice. Dana was not taking a political stance, condemning Republicans or Democrats or chastising voters for their choices on taxes or political reform. He was taking a stand on civil rights — rights that ought to be guaranteed by the very principles that legitimize our government and our political culture.

The Wilde Stein Alliance for Sexual Diversity unequivocally stands behind Dana and his speech and urges all faculty and staff members at the University of Maine to defend the civil rights of all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation.

Zachary Knox is president of Wilde Stein. Kendra Schindler contributed to this article.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 2:01 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • CCL

    Discrimination based on gender or race (characteristics over which one has no control–the color of one’s skin based on lineage, or a chromosome) is not analogous to a sexual lifestyle choice, and should not be protected in the same way. That old, tired argument that a decision to conduct one’s life in a certain way is tantamount to being born with a certain genetic code needs to be retired, because it simply isn’t credible…as is evidenced by the fact that thus far there has not been an endorsement of that position via vote, in ANY of the 31 venues where it was advocated–not even ultra-liberal Maine, Oregon or California. Neither has it worked, in a broad sense, for addicts of cigarettes, alcohol or drugs, or persons claiming obesity is beyond their control—to give a few examples.

    Having said that however, no one should suffer prejudice or discrimination. It’s not right and it’s not fair. But that is the core of this issue…does saying same-sex marriage is violative of convictions of faith realtive ONLY to marriage, constitute hate, prejudice, or discrimination–is it patently “unfair?” It’s a carte blanche conclusion the “gay” side has drawn that has now put people of faith on the defensive, even though there were NUMEROUS positions, in addition to faith, that caused people to vote “yes” on Q1. Do some research…as you’re finding “every vote” that was contrary to your position, and THEN maybe you can understand the TRUE and VARIABLE reasons…PLURAL…for resistance to same-sex marriage. Some reasons are indeed hateful and bigoted…others are simple matters of conscience—to which the “yes” on Q1 people are every bit as entitled as the “no” on Q1 folks. Those 290,000 people have the same First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion, the same right to vote, etc. as all Americans.

    Marriage is not a “civil right.” A study–albeit it thorough one—of the Constitution and the myriad of cases interpreting the right of privacy, will provide edification of what constitutes this, among other, “rights.” But ONCE AGAIN, the premise of Matt Hunter’s op-ed piece is not “rights,” but that fact is obscured by emotionality. Dean Dana espoused a position AS A REPRESENTATIVE of a state university. He can, as a private citizen, express his own opinion, of course. But to condemn, on behalf of the university, other students (which he INDEED did) alienates the students who are paying tution there and voted “yes” on Q1. Simply put, the university should have kept out of the fray, OR issued some politically correct, benignly objective statement…that’s the way reasonable institutions with a heterogeneous membership properly conduct themselves. This university spokesman virtually demonized people who disagreed with him…the same thing he was criticizing! His words have been applauded by some as “bold”…that’s just a euphemism for “insult.”

  • JTD

    “This was a moral issue, and many have failed to see the side that is right.”

  • Galena

    to “CCL” who said Marriage is not a “civil right”

    “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” ~Chief Justice Earl Warren

    Oops…I guess marriage IS a civil right. Heh.

  • Mark Swaney

    BRAVO Dean Dana!
    Here’s an idea to force the donor names from National Organization for Marriage who are bragging they aren’t being forced to disclose their donors.
    Threaten a class action lawsuit representing every No on 1 donor who’s names are publicly released. OUR donors face equal or a higher level of threat for our political stance as Yes on 1 donors.