Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
-Frank Zappa
A word like progress has a general textbook definition, but what defines “the norm” varies wildly from person to person, much like the emotions a word like progress invokes. In a country still reeling from a real estate bubble collapse and recession, economic progress reads as a symbol of hope as people look ahead. Technological progress has defined how our generation communicates with each other. For many Americans, LGBTQ progress has nothing to do with civil rights progress, which evokes images of racial inequality and the rights finally granted to African Americans in the 1960s, nothing new. For them, the civil rights era has come and gone, an epoch to be fondly remembered, and the world in which they live today has become what they consider “the norm”. Of course, what was considered “the norm” fifty years ago was the exact reason for the start of the civil rights era in the first place. There came a time when a group of people realized that they disliked how the majority was defining “the norm”, and with hard work, dedication, and patience, they redefined it.
For the last few weeks, I have been combing both the Michigan State University and State News archives, looking for accounts that give perspective into how MSU’s community dealt with LGBTQ issues in the past to use as part of a timeline. The immediate thought I had was how amazing it was how far we’ve come. University studies from the early 1990s were met with a polarized reaction; news articles and eyewitness accounts from the 1980s and earlier portray a community aware of the presence of the LGBTQ community but intentionally deaf to its many voices; out of sight, out of mind dominated as the default attitude at MSU. One editorial response printed in the State News, published January 20, 1982, disparaged the State News for covering the dismissal of a fraternity brother based on his sexuality, and suggested they help put the gay rights movement “…back in the closet where it belongs.” My roommate, himself a member of MSU’s Greek community, assures me such attitudes are completely unwelcome in his fraternity today. Most people today would declare themselves progressive and would never harbor ugly or discriminatory feelings against another person. In spite of this, the future of LGBTQ progress hangs in the courts as the United States decides the fate of bills allowing or hindering gay marriage. Even the title of the Defense of Marriage Act explains the “norm” its proponents wish to preserve at the cost of progress, at the cost of basic civil rights.
The drawback of conveying progress with a timeline is that a timeline is constantly looking back when the nature of progress is always looking forward. It’s easy to look at the bad events of the past and contrast them to the present as evidence of progress and say, “Look how far we’ve come!” Doing this may add to our hindsight, but it diminishes the potential for change in the future. The timeline of LGBTQ progress has not ended, and for as far as we have come, there are still goals that need to be met and there is still a ways to go. The present’s status on the ongoing timeline is still undefined and yet unwritten; it is our responsibility to define what our present is and what our “norm” will be. Only then will we ever know where we are now.
Chris
-Frank Zappa
A word like progress has a general textbook definition, but what defines “the norm” varies wildly from person to person, much like the emotions a word like progress invokes. In a country still reeling from a real estate bubble collapse and recession, economic progress reads as a symbol of hope as people look ahead. Technological progress has defined how our generation communicates with each other. For many Americans, LGBTQ progress has nothing to do with civil rights progress, which evokes images of racial inequality and the rights finally granted to African Americans in the 1960s, nothing new. For them, the civil rights era has come and gone, an epoch to be fondly remembered, and the world in which they live today has become what they consider “the norm”. Of course, what was considered “the norm” fifty years ago was the exact reason for the start of the civil rights era in the first place. There came a time when a group of people realized that they disliked how the majority was defining “the norm”, and with hard work, dedication, and patience, they redefined it.
For the last few weeks, I have been combing both the Michigan State University and State News archives, looking for accounts that give perspective into how MSU’s community dealt with LGBTQ issues in the past to use as part of a timeline. The immediate thought I had was how amazing it was how far we’ve come. University studies from the early 1990s were met with a polarized reaction; news articles and eyewitness accounts from the 1980s and earlier portray a community aware of the presence of the LGBTQ community but intentionally deaf to its many voices; out of sight, out of mind dominated as the default attitude at MSU. One editorial response printed in the State News, published January 20, 1982, disparaged the State News for covering the dismissal of a fraternity brother based on his sexuality, and suggested they help put the gay rights movement “…back in the closet where it belongs.” My roommate, himself a member of MSU’s Greek community, assures me such attitudes are completely unwelcome in his fraternity today. Most people today would declare themselves progressive and would never harbor ugly or discriminatory feelings against another person. In spite of this, the future of LGBTQ progress hangs in the courts as the United States decides the fate of bills allowing or hindering gay marriage. Even the title of the Defense of Marriage Act explains the “norm” its proponents wish to preserve at the cost of progress, at the cost of basic civil rights.
The drawback of conveying progress with a timeline is that a timeline is constantly looking back when the nature of progress is always looking forward. It’s easy to look at the bad events of the past and contrast them to the present as evidence of progress and say, “Look how far we’ve come!” Doing this may add to our hindsight, but it diminishes the potential for change in the future. The timeline of LGBTQ progress has not ended, and for as far as we have come, there are still goals that need to be met and there is still a ways to go. The present’s status on the ongoing timeline is still undefined and yet unwritten; it is our responsibility to define what our present is and what our “norm” will be. Only then will we ever know where we are now.
Chris
RSS Feed