4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, December 14, 2004 OPINION 0 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 Utothedaily@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JORDAN SCHRADER Editor in Chief JASON Z. PESICK Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE 44'Go back there and please spare his life. - Scott Peterson's defense attorneys in their final plea to jurors who would later decide to sentence Peterson to be executed, as reported yesterday by The Associated Press. COLIN DALY 40 Lt y . Gay activists misinterpret civil rights history JASON Z. PESICK ONE SAMA.M VOICE ay rights became aprominentissue in the November . < election because liberals sensed an opportunity to expand gay rights and some conservatives sali- vated over the potential to use the issue for polit- ical advantage. Many advocates of expanding gay rights, includ- ing this editorial page, compared the strug- gle to achieve equality for gays to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But these same advocates have failed to realize that there are a number of differences between the two movements. The problem with equating them is not that equality for black Americans should be put on a higher plane than equality for gay Amer- icans, but ironically, that the lack of startling images of discrimination and a dark history of slavery has made garnering support among the American people for gay rights much more difficult. During the '60s, Americans decided the time had come for the country to break with the past on issues of race relations, but it wasn't because moderate Americans sud- denly experienced an ideological transfor- mation. David Garrow, a law professor at Emory University, has written, "Violence by segregationists, combined with what was generally portrayed and perceived as the movement's generally nonviolent nature and its highly legitimate goals, had the effect both of making the movement appear 'extremely virtuous' in comparison to its opponents and of depicting racial segregation as far more brutal than the majority of white Americans realized. Needless to say, a very major role in creating those all-important perceptions and reactions among both the society at large and political actors in Washington was played by the media ... " It was the stark images of "white only" signs in front of bathrooms and drink- ing fountains, the scene of Alabama Gov. George Wallace standing in front of a schoolhouse door to keep blacks from enter- ing, the bombing of Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church in which 21 children were injured and four girls were killed, the incarcerations of civil rights leaders, the assassinations, the firefighters aim- ing their hoses at demonstrators, the dogs attacking the demonstrators and the police beating them that finally made Americans cry "Enough" - not altruism or an intense wave of racial understanding. On March 7, 1965, "Bloody Sunday," a civil rights march in Selma, Ala, turned to chaos as police used tear gas and clubs on demonstrators. The Associated Press quoted U.S. Rep. James G. O'Hara as saying, "This savage action in stormtrooper style ... must have shocked and shamed Americans." And it did. But wild events such as this are more rare in the gay rights movement than they were in the '60s. There is no history of enslaving gays, sending them to separate schools or allow- ing them to live in economic squalor. Thank- fully, gay Americans are not relegated to the slums of society. And leaders in the gay rights movement understand this difference. The New York Times's John Broder wrote that Steven Fisher, the communications director for the largest U.S. gay and lesbian advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, "said the group's emphasis in coming months would be on communicating the struggles of gays in their families, workplaces, churches and synagogues." This strategy could be more effective, but discrimination against gay Americans, while abhorrent, rarely carries the shock value that the frightening vio- lence against black Americans did. So the American people's response will be less decisive now than it was 40 years ago. Cru- elly beating people demonstrating for their most basic civil rights violates core Ameri- can principles. As Jimmy Carter might say, our nation's soul was at stake. Unfortunately, however, many leaders of the civil rights movement now operate under the assumption that because of the asymmetries between what was at stake for blacks and what is now at stake for gays, gay rights is not as noble a cause as racial equality was. On the same day that gay cou- ples in Massachusetts could begin to have their marriages legally recognized, a num- ber of well-known black clergymen went to Washington to show their opposition to gay unions. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted California Bishop Frank Stewart as say- ing, "Gays have never gone through slavery nor been put down and abused like blacks." Seven black pastors, known as the San Francisco Tabernacle Clergy said in a joint statement that comparisons between the movement for gay marriage and for civil rights "are offensive and belittle the cause of freedom and racial justice." Maybe partly because the black commu- nity tends to be socially conservative and therefore opposed to gay rights, these cler- gy mistakenly advocate the position that because gays have not endured the same hardships blacks have, they are not entitled to equal rights. It's a dangerous rhetorical path to tread - a sick competition of whose grievances are more compelling. In this country, a community's history does not disqualify those people who com- pose it from receiving equal rights. Pesick can be reached at jzpesick@umich.edu LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Sexuality requirement an unnecessary burden TO THE DAILY: As I read the article about a proposed gen- der and sexuality requirement (Required sexu- ality course proposed, 12/09/2004), I found myself wondering why a single group of stu- dents would want to require all students to take a gender/sexuality class? These classes already exist - why can't these people take the classes themselves and leave everyone else alone? Added requirements only increase diffi- culties for students. Ask almost any under- classman who recently went through the registration process, and he will tell you how difficult it is. When certain classes are required, you end up with entire classes of students rushing to take them. Slots in these classes become so limited that students have to work their whole schedules around them, eliminating other classes that they would rather take or that are more relevant to their interests. Language, writing, race/ethnicity requirements and others all add to this mad- ness. Adding yet another requirement will only make the situation much worse. Forcing students to take a class they do not necessarily want to take is not only a waste of time and money, but it hurts stu- dents who are actually interested in the topic. You cannot force people to use their minds. I just finished my race and ethnicity requirement, and it was obvious that many students wanted to do as little as possible to get the credit and be done with it. Filling classes with resentful students drags down the educational value of the class and hurts students with a real interest in it. A gender and sexuality requirement will likely have the same results. I have not yet resolved why a certain group of students wants to force the rest of us in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts to take a gender and sexuality requirement. The 1,000 signatures they gathered seems like an insufficient sample at such a large university. Group members were noted as saying that because of the outcome of the 2av marriage want to increase public awareness on the issue that's fine, but leave me out of it. I desperately hope the University does not adopt this plan. It will be an unnecessary bur- den on staff and students, it will degrade the educational experience for interested students and it is an attempt to use the student body as a political tool. I hope that I am not the only one who feels this way. Clark Ruper LSA freshman The letter writer is a member of Young Americans for Freedom Letter writer's attack on Israel unfair TO THE DAILY: The letter to the editor (Taking sides in Middle East conflict is a bad move for student government, 12/13/2004), in yesterday's paper is disgusting, and I can't believe that it was published for the whole student body to read. The author says, "Please refrain from providing unwavering support for a racist state whose illegal occupation and defi- ance of more than 60 U.N. resolutions does not bode well for America's position in the world. In order for the United States to gain the international respect and coopera- tion it needs to prosper, we must bravely reject the fascist Zionist agenda." How can you let someone call Israel a racist state that has a fascist Zionist agen- da? Also, he says, "The aspirations of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and human dignity, in the face of atrocious Israeli oppression and humiliation, are not to be ignored. They are to be embraced." Palestinians send suicide bombers into Israel all the time to kill non-combatants. Why isn't that included in the letter? They don't want peace. This is ridiculous. I want a letter printed with the opposing point of view. Gary Weintraub LSA freshmen While the Dearborn student's heart may be in the right place, I am afraid that Baydoun may give the campus commu- nity an errant view of divestment and the divestment movement. No one within the Palestinian movement on this campus is calling for divestment from Israel on the basis of questionable claims regard- ing the nature of Israel. Some may have read Baydoun's statements as some kind of shadowed attack on Judaism or even as blatant anti-Semitism, and it is important to clarify that the divestment movement is not based upon these principals and even has Jewish members within its ranks. Furthermore, scare tactics should not be employed by members of this community in order to push for divestment. Wheth- er or not Israel is a cause of the United States's problems in the Middle East is not of importance. Using scare tactics is not the most honorable manner in which to promote divestment. Regardless of Israel's impact on U.S. policy, divestment should be pushed based upon its moral and legitimate principals. Israel's flagrant violations of international law and ongo- ing occupation of the Palestinian people should be reason enough for our univer- sity to cut ties with companies that give Israel military assistance. Mohammed Elghoul LSA senior The letter writer is Vice Chair of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality. LETTERS POLICY The Michigan Daily welcomes letters from all of its readers. Letters from Uni- versity students, faculty, staff and admin- istrators will be given priority over others. Letters should include the writer's name, college and school year or other University affiliation. The Daily will not print any let- ter containing statements that cannot be verified. Letters should be kept to approximately 300 words. The Michigan Daily reserves the riaht to edit for length, clarirv and accu- 4 I 4