A
s a gay man, I’ve heard
the word “queer” used
as
an
insult
since
childhood. The best definition
I can come up with is to say
that it is used to describe
someone who doesn’t uphold
the same norms of masculinity
as their straight counterparts.
The word stung, but I think
it’s time to have a serious
conversation discussing the
future of the word “queer” in
spaces as it relates to lesbian,
gay,
bisexual
and
possibly
transgender individuals.
In having this discussion, I
understand that I am someone
who has a lot of privilege
in LGBTQ spaces; as a gay,
white male, there are a lot
of privileges that I hold in
comparison to many of my
compatriots. In making this
argument, I will never try to
say that all of my experiences
are the same as people who
fall outside of the binary
or have a different sexual
orientation
than
myself;
however, in terms of activism,
I see this as a powerful way
to unite the community in
shared goals.
In a lot of ways, we can see
that corporate America has
begun to be more accepting of
sexual identity. A favorite store
of millennials, Target Corp.,
has 76 items for sale under
their “PRIDE” umbrella. A lot
of people see this and assume
the world has become more
accepting of LGBTQ identities;
in my mind, these products
simply give companies another
marketing
demographic
to
exploit. If you’ll notice, most
of them talk about “pride” but
avoid the controversial topics
about sexuality or identity, or
fail to acknowledge the tough
questions or advocacy that
a company and organization
should if they’re to engage
in this kind of profitable
endeavor. For example, here
in the state of Michigan, I
could be fired for being gay,
and I don’t see Target Corp.
directly protecting individuals
against
sexual-orientation
discrimination.
Millions
of
Americans are experiencing
the same thing; we can see
that this experience is shared
among a variety of identities
within the queer community.
These shared experiences
are why I want to employ
the
word
queer;
despite
the
various
differences
in
our
marginalization
and
experience in the community,
we should be fighting together
to
protect
people
from
workplace
discrimination,
to
make
it
obligatory
for
insurance companies to cover
gender-confirmation surgery,
for
legal
protections
for
polyamorous relationships and
various other experiences.
I want to employ the word
queer to show solidarity with
other
identity
counterparts
who might be experiencing
marginalization in ways that
I am not. The queer rights
movement did not stop at
gay marriage. And if I have
it my way, it will never stop.
A
common
misconception
of the Stonewall Rebellion,
according to Henry Abelove,
is that the idea of liberation
was to identify as homosexual
or heterosexual. In actuality,
it was to remove those titles.
While I firmly believe everyone
has a place to belong, I want us
to aspire to foster a community
where those identities can
help us find a home both
within
that
identity
and
outside of it, into the broader
queer community and beyond.
There may not be a path to
this in the immediate future,
but I think this argument of
employing the word queer
needs to be a larger focus
in the discussions about the
community. Trans-inclusivity
into the LGBTQ community
needs to be stronger and the
issues of trans individuals
need to be centered in these
discussions, because I envision
a community where the most
marginalized can be the ones
I stand in solidarity with and
assist in any way I can.
As an aside, I’m not here
to use the word for straight
cis-peoples’ comfort. I don’t
care if it makes one of those
individuals uncomfortable in
using the phrase. I’m here to
be a gay man who identifies
as being a part of the queer
community. And I hope that
many of us can aspire to do
the same.
I can think of no better
word
to
describe
the
community
than
the
one
which was employed when I
was a kid. When I was younger,
it
would
symbolize
when
someone was doing something
outside of the gender norms
that we follow on a day-to-day
basis. I want to fall outside of
those norms, though. I have no
interest in being a part of the
structures that have caused
myself and so many of my peers
to be marginalized. I aspire
to reclaim the word queer in
an attempt to show that we
don’t need to fall in line with
the negative connotations this
word initially imposed.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 13, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
Ashley Zhang
Economically,
the
Republican-driven
bill
restructures loan repayment
plans and removes Public
Service
Loan
Forgiveness.
These changes make it more
difficult for undergraduate
and
graduate
students
by
making it more difficult to
receive financial aid because
of
PROSPER’s
redeveloped
loan limit. The bill also calls
for the elimination of Stafford
and PLUS loans, replacing the
varying options with a singular
Federal ONE Loan program.
These
Federal
ONE
Loans give students differing
borrowing limits, depending
on their financial situation;
dependent
undergraduate
students are able to borrow
$39,000 in federal student
loans,
and
independent
undergraduate
students
have a $60,250 lifetime cap.
Repayment options are also
being restricted, with only
two
new
repayment
plans
that are the standard 10-year
plans. These limiting actions,
in addition to the phasing out
of all federal grant programs
(excluding the PELL grant),
have the potential to widen the
education disparity between
socioeconomic
groups
and
lessen the educational options
available
to
lower-income
students. The loss of options,
aid and change in loan caps
ultimately restrict students and
make the pursuit of graduate
education less attainable.
In addition to monetary
changes,
PROSPER
also
includes
many
social
restrictions
that
could
leave
students
fearing
discrimination.
There
are
explicit
provisions
within
the bill about freedom of
expression
and
religion,
which will make it so that
no
government
institution
is able to take action against
an
institution
of
higher
education
that
is
acting
within “its religious mission.”
This
has
prompted
many
LGBTQ
advocates
to
fear
legal
discrimination
based
on
sexual
orientation
and
gender identity. The fear of
discrimination acts as a barrier
for students deciding to which
schools to apply, limiting their
education options.
The bill allows private
institutions
to
receive
federal funding regardless of
whether or not they institute
discriminatory
practices.
The provisions also allow for
discrimination at the public
level, as student organizations
could undermine a university’s
anti-discrimination
policies
due to their own beliefs and
determination of freedom of
expression. And finally, the
focus on freedom of speech
within
PROSPER
could
possibly make it even easier
for controversial speakers to
reach campuses, leading to
social tensions and higher
potential for security risks,
putting the safety of college
students into question.
In addition to economic
and
social
provisions,
PROSPER also comments on
due process in a manner that
undermines
sexual
assault
policies on campuses across
the nation. With a focus
on
sexual
assault
within
PROSPER,
the
bill
allows
institutions to set their own
standards for evidence when
investigating
accusations.
Institutions could, therefore,
have the right to introduce
greater criminal standards,
possibly “beyond a reasonable
doubt” — the standard of
proof required in criminal
cases
—
rather
than
the
“preponderance of evidence”
standard previously required
by the Obama administration.
This
allows
for
more
opportunity
for
victim
shaming, longer trial times and
the undermining of survivors’
accusations. And, this again
affects
LGBTQ
students
disproportionately,
as
they
are more susceptible to sexual
assault and less likely to report
their experiences. This could
ultimately impact the number
of student survivors who come
forward and the concern given
for those who do.
The
PROSPER
Act
is
a bill that hurts current,
future,
undergraduate
and
graduate students by directly
affecting
their
experience
and
safety
within
their
college
environment,
while
also limiting the choices they
have when applying for higher
education. The Michigan Daily
Editorial Board calls upon the
University of Michigan to lobby
against this bill when the time
comes as it is not conducive to
our values of equal opportunity
and anti-discrimination.
Lobby against PROSPER Act
N
ews broke last week
that the Pentagon is
in the early stages of
planning a large military parade
in Washington, D.C. after being
directed to do so by President
Donald
Trump.
The
Trump
administration has long desired
a military parade. It reportedly
hoped to organize one for Trump’s
inauguration and the interest was
rekindled after watching France’s
Bastille
Day
military
parade.
At some point in late January,
Trump’s interest in a grand
military spectacle became an
order, and the parade is reportedly
being planned at the “highest levels
of the military.”
News of the parade elicited
criticism from both sides of the
aisle, and retired military leaders
have also expressed opposition.
Legislation has been introduced
to
restrict
appropriations
for
any
parade,
but
Republican
congressional leaders will likely
block it from even coming to a vote
to avoid embarrassing the Trump
administration. The parade is
likely to proceed regardless of
the criticism, and the White
House has confirmed planning
is underway, with possible dates
including the Fourth of July or
Veteran’s Day.
If executed properly, a military
parade could serve as a fitting and
deserved tribute to our troops and
armed services. However, because
such a parade is unfortunately
more likely to manifest itself as
a politicized show of military
force, it is difficult to envision the
parade’s advantages exceeding its
potential drawbacks.
The most obvious of these
drawbacks is cost. It is estimated a
military parade will cost millions
of dollars at minimum, and one of
the scale that Trump desires will
likely cost several million more.
The steep price tag comes from
costs associated with transporting
military equipment and vehicles to
Washington, D.C. and the massive
security costs the parade will
surely entail. The last time the U.S.
held a military parade was 1991
to celebrate victory in the Gulf
War. That parade cost $12 million,
would be $21.6 million today when
adjusted for inflation.
Furthermore, the parade could
cause damage to D.C.’s roads,
which are not designed to support
vehicles as heavy as the tanks and
armored vehicles that will be
featured. In the 1991 parade, tank
tracks punched holes through
the capital city’s boulevards.
That 1991 parade also caused
extensive damage to a sculpture
garden when the air blast of
low-flying helicopters showered
the exhibits with pebbles. Such
a freak accident will not likely
be repeated in Trump’s parade
but underscores the hazards of
holding military spectacles in
civilian settings.
Another
concern
is
the
disconcerting optics of a military
parade through the nation’s capital.
Some democratic countries do
hold military parades; the Bastille
Day celebrations that inspired
Trump are an example. However,
there is no denying that grand
displays of military strength evoke
connotations
of
authoritarian
regimes like North Korea, China
and Russia, where demonstrations
of force serve to dissuade dissent,
prop up autocratic rulers and
intimidate
adversaries.
Several
retired
generals
have
raised
concerns that military parades
go against American democratic
traditions. Robert O’Neill, the
former Navy SEAL who claims
to have fired the shots that killed
Bin Laden, concurred and likened
the idea of a military parade to
autocracy in colorful language.
Perhaps the authoritarian optics
could be easily overlooked under
another president, but the reality is
that Trump has earned a reputation
for admiring despotism, making
the optics of a military parade
through Washington, D.C. all the
more unsettling. For example,
Trump has previously expressed
respect for Russian President
Vladimir Putin’s leadership and
praised former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein’s brutal internal
security
policies.
Around
the
same time news of the parade
surfaced, Trump called Democrats
in Congress “treasonous” for not
clapping during parts of his State
of the Union address, an accusation
that is both false and grossly
inappropriate in a democratic
government.
These
statements
create the persona of a man craving
power
and
genuinely
hostile
toward his opposition. This image
is entirely self-inflicted and, fairly
or unfairly, is reinforced by Trump
ordering the Pentagon to organize
a military parade.
The White House is marketing
the parade as a celebration of
the armed forces and veterans.
Veterans are certainly worthy of
the honor of a parade, but there
are far better ways to thank
them for their service. Instead
of spending tens of millions on a
lavish and ultimately meaningless
military parade, spend that money
on veterans’ health care, job
placement, disability benefits or
suicide prevention.
Amid these far more important
issues, it becomes clear that
Trump’s parade serves merely
as a distraction from real policy
measures, foreign and domestic.
For
Trump
and
his
dismal
approval ratings, perhaps this
distraction will be welcomed;
but for the American people,
a
military
parade
through
Washington, D.C. is nothing more
than an unsightly and extravagant
waste of time and money. With
the fate of Trump’s parade in the
hands of the White House and the
Pentagon, we can only hope that
his parade of indulgence does not
come to fruition.
A pointless parade
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Taking back “queer”
IAN LEACH | COLUMN
Ian Leach can be reached at
ileach@umich.edu.
Noah Harrison can be reached
at noahharr@umich.edu.
SARAH NEFF | CAN BE REACHED AT SANE@UMICH.EDU
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
FROM THE DAILY
A
higher education bill, known as the PROSPER Act, has been passed
through committee and is awaiting consideration by the House
of Representatives. PROSPER, which stands for “Promoting Real
Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity Through Education Reform,” is
intended to reassert and amend the 1965 Higher Education Act, with a
strong focus on the processes by which students pay for higher education
and the regulations on free speech and assembly within these institutions.
The Michigan Daily Editorial Board feels that the provisions of the bill hurt
students pursuing higher education financially and socially, as well as in
regard to their safety. There are serious problems within the current bill,
which should not be passed without significant amendments.