A year ago, I was finishing up the application process for the Conflict Transformation Program, here at Eastern Mennonite University. I felt quite clear and confident that I wanted to be a part of the program, but there were a few things about the university that were quite disturbing to me. I noticed that all undergraduates and staff had to sign a "Community Lifestyle Commitment," pledging to adhere to the values of the university community. One line in the statement said "I recognize my responsibility as a member of the community to refrain from sexual immorality (including premarital, extramarital, and homosexual practices) . . . ." Although I knew that I wanted to attend this program, I thought that joining an institution that was so overtly opposed to homosexuality would be a slap in the face to my gay and lesbian friends and to my conscience. My wife and I considered applying to staff positions at EMU, but we both decided not to, partly because we would need to sign this lifestyle commitment which we thought was wrong. When I described the situation to my friends, I expressed my discomfort with the policy--but I told them that I would do everything in my power to change the policy while I was at EMU. I was willing and eager to engage in confrontational, radical nonviolent resistance to help change the policy. Some friends told me that civil disobedience might not be necessary--but I came to campus ready to walk through campus necade, lead a student strike, or take any risk that would help challenge and remove policies which discriminated against gay and lesbian people. Although I didn't immediately see how walking through campus necade could help transform the situation, I intuitively believed that in-you-face, shocking confrontation was needed and I was ready.
I have now been at EMU for 8 months, and I haven't yet led a strike of students or anything approaching it to challenge discrimination at EMU. Although the Community Lifestyle Commitment is being revised to be a little less overt, I have come to know about a much wider range of issues related to homosexuality at the university. The campus is a painfully unsafe place for gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender people and also an unsafe place for anyone who stands up for these rights. Staff who signed a letter supporting an inclusive stance toward sexual orientation have been pressured and threatened in many ways by the university and church hierarchy. It is very risky for any student to "come out" about their sexual orientation, if it doesn't fit the party line. There is a tone of intolerance and fear of homosexuality that pervades most all layers of the institution. There are pockets of resistance to this intolerance, but the system of the university makes this inclusivity difficult.
Instead of the radical advocate role that I imagined for myself, I have taken more of a facilitative role with the issue. In the fall, I moderated a panel discussion about homosexuality. The event was scheduled to take place on campus, but the day before the event, university administrators decided that our event couldn't be held on campus. That decision was complex and connected to much history and some outside pressure, but the decision felt representative to me of the challenges to open dialogue about homosexuality at EMU. I facilitated that forum (which was moved to a local church) as part of University Accord, an "impartial" group which provides facilitation and mediation services on campus. I have been involved in other facilitative roles for University Accord related to the issue of homosexuality on the campus. Conflicts related to sexual orientation are not limited to top level administration and policies, but seem to seep into almost all conflicts on campus. In many ways, I am a grateful that conflicts related to homosexuality are breaking above the surface, and my role with University Accord seems quite useful in helping constructive change happen--but I still want to envision ways more direct nonviolent action could fit into a long term strategy of change. While I have served in a facilitator role so far, I don't feel confined to that role in the future.
Analysis: The Players and the Power
The kind of violence I am hoping to address is primarily structural in nature. The belief that homosexuality is morally wrong and sinful is intertwined with many aspects of the university system. This belief leads to various actions which ignore, put down, and dehumanize people who identify themselves as gay or lesbian. I have not heard of any physical violence related to sexual orientation at EMU, although I sure that verbal put downs are common. I see the greatest impact of this system as policies and habits of the institution which are insensitive to or disregarding of the dignity and respect of GLBT people. One of the most apparent examples is the lifestyle commitment which I mentioned earlier, but that is the tip of the iceberg. I believe that violence is done to the dignity of GLBT people when a counseling class teaches about how to how to help people recover from the sickness of homosexuality. When a male student is called a "faggot" for appearing feminine and that goes unchallenged, I see this as another expression of a pattern of heterosexism within the university. Another symptom is when professors are pressured by administrators to retract public statements in support of inclusivity. When a group that promotes dialogue about issues of sexual orientation isn't allowed to meet on campus, the harm is furthered. When a potential faculty person is not hired because they are gay, or thought to be, another level of safety is lost. These incidents combine with many others to create a general lack of safety and dignity for people who are gay or lesbian, and for those people who support their rights.
I have a vision of EMU as a welcome and safe place for people of all sexual orientations, and a place where the interrelationship of sexuality, self-identity, and spirituality are openly discussed. I long for a university where it is just as easy for a male student to tell his friends about his new boyfriend, as it is now for him to talk about his new girlfriend. I imagine an active GLBT group on campus that sponsors an annual Gay Pride parade around the area. I would like to see diversity training for all students, and have that training include issues of sexual orientation. I would like all the anti-discrimination policies at EMU to include sexual orientation. I look forward to a time when the EMU staff and faculty includes a percentage of openly gay/lesbian faculty that is reflective of the wider society. I will work for a time when EMU is a beacon for other Mennonite institutions of what it means to be open and affirming to everyone. For any of these visions to happen, change will need to take place within a variety of stakeholders connected with the university.
There are several groups of stakeholders involved with the conflict about homosexuality at EMU and some of those groups are hard to see. Within each category of involved people, there is a spectrum of views about the issue--and some of the categories overlap each other. One often unseen, but powerful, group of stakeholders are the people who make donations to the university. These people have invested their money into EMU and have an investment in its image. These donors carry a financial power with them. In addition to donors, there are several other off-campus groups who have an influence with the issue. Parents of students have played a large role in some related conflicts. There is a Parents' Council which acts as a formal representative of these stakeholders. I'd guess that many parents have a vision of the values that EMU represents, and an interest in making sure the core values of EMU remain intact. There is also the group of alumni, who also have an influence and interest in the values and image of the university. Another very powerful group of stakeholders in this conflict are the Mennonite conferences and churches that are connected with EMU. It is my understanding that the Virginia Mennonite Conference has policies and norms regarding homosexuality that some administrators view as the boundaries within which EMU operates. Beyond Virginia, I believe there are national and international Mennonite bodies which act as an umbrella for EMU. The connected church groups carry a strong moral authority within the EMU community. Other groups of stakeholders, who are more intangible, yet still influential, are potential future students and community members in the Harrisonburg area.
And then there are those of us who are on campus each day. There are undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, administrators, and other staff As students, the university is extremely dependent on our cooperation, and this cooperation can be taken away in many forms: tuition payment, class attendance, "proper" behavior that doesn't embarrass the university, etc. The university system is dependent on the staff and faculty's cooperation in many of the same ways. Some staff, faculty, and students also have great power in their networking and relationships. For instance, some staff might have trusting relationships that bridge many segments of the university. People on campus who are GLB or T have a unique form of power--the experience of oppression and the capability to speak from that experience. At the forum about homosexuality I facilitated in the fall, the lesbian women on the panel had great power to the audience. I had the impression that many people were thinking, "Wow. This is one of those people we talk about all the time, and here she is in the flesh. She doesn't seem as freaky as I thought." Since we talk about GLBT people so often in abstract ways on campus, the power of first hand experience can bring great weight in this discussion. When the woman was speaking on the panel about ways she felt and experienced her sexuality, there was no genuine way of arguing with her experience.
This is a complex conflict--that doesn't simply pit the majority of students against the administration or anything as black and white as that. It seems that within every group of stakeholders (students, alumni, donors, staff, etc.) there is a wide range of opinions about homosexuality. I would guess that none of these groups contain a majority of people who strongly believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable and should be embraced at EMU. I am pretty certain that I am in the minority in wishing for this. This issue is very tied into people's world views and their theologies. EMU will not become a fully welcoming, safe place for GLBT people overnight or even while I am here. I see this as a deep cultural shift that will take years, but I am convinced that the change will happen. What I am interested in doing is helping move that cultural change along as quickly as possible. For those that are GLBT and at EMU right now, it is a painful and dangerous place to be.
In Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," King responds to requests from other religious leaders to slow down and not push the agenda of civil rights so hard. The other ministers ask him to not use extreme tactics, such as the demonstrations in Birmingham, and wait for gradual change that will come with time. King says, "Actually, time is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively . . . Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God." At EMU, it is time to step up the level of conflict, the level of risk, and tirelessly work to end the causes of suffering for GLBT people here.
We've Been Trying That Forever. What's Going to Change Now?
Despite the dominant tone of homophobia at EMU, there have been concerned members of the campus community who have been working to make EMU a welcoming place for people of all sexual orientations for years (right, Lisa?). People have initiated dialogues, written letters, risked their jobs, signed petitions, and done much more to engage the issue of homosexuality at EMU. Although I have only been here for eight months, I am certain that there has been movement. I have heard many people say that the amount and quality of dialogue happening on campus now about the issue has increased markedly this year. I'd guess that University Accord has played a small role in helping that constructive dialogue happen--but I also believe that the years of work of others in starting to pay off. Many in the group, Open Door, have been initiating these discussions and fighting these battles for much longer than I have been here. And I am sure that many will continue to struggle with this long after I am gone. I have also heard many people on campus say they are tired and feel despair about how little attempted dialogues have led to meaningful changes. To me, all of this says that we are ripe for nonviolent action to push these efforts to the next level.
A central (complex) dilemma I see at this stage is: How can we raise awareness about the harms currently being done to GLBT people at EMU and bring pressure on several points in the university system to alleviate the causes of this suffering -- and raise this conflict in a way that involves a minimal amount of alienation of key stakeholders. I see a need to raise the level of heat and dramatize what is unjust--but I also see a need to maintain and build trust with the people who have the power to make the changes. Meeting both of these needs at the same time is the art of nonviolent action.
Another essential challenge is how to change the systems and policies that currently harm GLBT folks--and at the same time, invite individual transformation of those connected with EMU on an emotional, spiritual, and mental levels. As his article, "Non-Violence, the Greatest Force," Gandhi says, "Unless I can reach the hearts of men and women, I am able to do nothing." I don't want to lose track of either the systemic changes or personal changes. Using the strategy of nonviolence, the personal change we are seeking is not only of the "bad guys" who currently judge people based on their sexual orientation. As Gandhi and others have described, self-purification and self-transformation of the nonviolent practitioner are essential components to the desired social change. The question of homosexuality at EMU is deeply interconnected to our self-identities, our relationships with each other, and our theologies. We can not simply pluck out heterosexism from EMU. We need to re-envision and create together the kind of community and people we want to be, and allow love to shape us in more complete ways. At the same time, we can't overlook the need for changes in the systems of the university. I have heard activists on campus say that some top level administrators are personally supportive of gay rights, but these administrators feel that they can not make any changes because of the pressures and expectations of many unseen stakeholders. The Parents' Council, donors, the Mennonite Conference, and other infrequently seen forces sited as barriers to change. So even if many administrators, policy makers and enforcers are personally convinced that homosexuality is acceptable, much of the problem would still exist.
So given these dilemmas, what steps can be taken? I don't claim to fully know the resources and networks that can be mobilized for nonviolent actions on this issue. I hope that some ideas I describe here can be part of the larger, ongoing discussion with many others who care about EMU. I also hope these ideas can be expanded on and revised in learning what other universities and churches are doing in similar struggles. Given those qualifications and in the spirit of brainstorming, here are two categories of proposals for nonviolent action:
1) Claim the power of self-identity and self-expression. One thing I miss at EMU is the creative and thoughtful ways GLBT people elsewhere express and celebrate their identities. In the vision I described earlier of what EMU will look like in the future, I imagined an annual Gay Pride parade. I think we are ready for some gay pride in many forms. How about we organize a parade, of straight and gay people, carrying signs and pulling floats, celebrating the diversity of sexual identity and expression? I don't imagine that the university could officially sanction such a parade, but I think that is part of the reason we need to do it. We could hold the parade on the edges of campus--or we could consciously enter campus as a form of resistance. If many of us were disciplined by the university, or even charged by the city police, the more attention we would gain. Prior to the parade, we could inform all the relevant university officials (as well as the media) of our plans and ask for their support. If they aren't able to offer their endorsement, we can let them know and let them know we are willing to be accept the university's sanctions or punishment.
Of course, such a parade would likely personally turn off some people. While I would fully expect and accept that some people would be offended, I would want to take this concern into account. To partly address the concern, I would want to precede the parade with many explanations of the underlying concerns behind the parade. I would want to write letters to newspapers and distribute posters and fliers to make the purpose and goals of the parade explicit. During the parade, we could have additional fliers, and invite discussions with by-standers about the related issues.
Instead of or in addition to a parade, other actions based on self-identity and expression could be explored. We might distribute hundreds of rainbow stickers to people on campus, and ask them to wear the stickers as a sign of support for GLBT rights. We could hold workshops that invite people to explore the complexities of their own sexual identity--and ask them to create artistic representations of this identity. We could find ways to display these works of art on the campus or near the campus. As another tactic, we could use forms of dress as a means of challenge to the narrow view of gender roles and sexual identity. For instance, one day could be designated for men to wear skirts on campus. To further challenge gender roles and dynamics, people of the same gender could consciously begin holding hands with each other on campus.
A challenge with all of the actions I have described so far would be to think of ways these actions could be built upon to gain wider support. As I said earlier, some people would be further turned off from some of these ideas, and not more sympathetic. Another concern would be for the safety of those involved. Physical violence directed toward people participating in a gay pride parade would need to be a real consideration. Creativity would need to be balanced with a sensitivity to the message people take away from the actions. Those participating in these actions would also benefit from training and dialogue prior to the actions to clarify intentions and practice responses to challenges. I think there are ways of doing some of these actions that would be fun and actually draw in unlikely allies, but this would take careful preparation.
Drawing form Gene Sharp's list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action, all of the ideas in this first section fall into his first category, "Protest and Persuasion." They range from parades (#39 on the list) to forms of social disobedience (#63). These forms of protest could be complimented with actions from another category Gene Sharp describes: Economic and Political Noncooperation.
2) Noncooperation with the harmful systems: A basic idea behind nonviolent strategy is that all institutions and governments only have power to the extent that people cooperate with and support their authority power. This cooperation can be removed from many different angles, and this Noncooperation can bring added power to opposition groups and their requests. As I mentioned when describing the stakeholders in this conflict, many different groups could remove forms of cooperation with the university system to get attention and exercise their power. These forms of Noncooperation could be done by individuals or by organized groups.
Students, staff, and faculty could refuse to sign the university's lifestyle commitment. If there was an organized group of people who refused to sign this commitment, this would get attention from several directions and lead to more discussion about surrounding questions. This group come up with an alternative statement, which affirmed their commitment to honor and respect a diversity of sexual orientations. This alternative commitment statement could be distributed and signed by people, whether or not they refused to sign the lifestyle statement. Given changes currently being made to the official lifestyle commitment, refusal to sign it next year might not be as relevant as this year, but it is a tactic to consider.
A group of donors could organize a public boycott of donations till certain conditions are met. The conditions for this boycott would need to be clear and do-able. Although I would imagine that a majority of EMU's donors aren't gay rights activists, I imagine that there are many out there who would back small requests for making EMU as safe place for everyone. This tactic might need to be preceded by an education campaign with donors about current difficulties for gay/lesbian students and staff and their supporters.
A variety of other forms of Noncooperation could be consider, ranging from symbolic simple acts to riskier ones. Students and/or faculty could organize a walk out of classes one day and hold a vigil during that time. A group of students could withhold their tuition for a certain amount of time, connected with certain conditions being met. Groups of potential students and their parents could make clear their refusal to attend EMU because of a lack of safety for GLBT students.
This list of ideas for nonviolent action is only the beginning of the possibilities. Forms of nonviolent intervention, such as sit-ins in administrative offices or board meetings, could also be explored. None of these actions should be taken lightly, since there are risks involved with each one. GLBT people at EMU and elsewhere take risks everyday just by being who they are. The risk for them isn't always a choice--and it is time the rest of us start sharing more of those risks.
Can't Just Protest and Run: Combining Confrontation and Cooperation
In relation to Lisa Schirch's Social Change Diagram, these suggestions fit into the "Waging Conflict Nonviolently" circle. These actions can not lead to change on their own--but need to be partnered with each of the other circles (Reducing Violence, Addressing the Causes and Effects of Violence, and Capacity Building). In broad terms, these actions would be intended to bring more awareness and immediacy to the issue, and help push toward negotiation of specific problem solving and policy changes. All of these nonviolent actions are surrounded by the complexity of living in the same community day in and day out. These actions would be done in the context of the ongoing need for building relationships with all involved, and working with them to create alternatives that address all perspectives that are involved. A protest in this situation can not be as simple and convenient as picketing the bad guys and walking away. In order to succeed, we need to integrate confrontation with respect, problem solving, and respect. I pray for the ability to remain true to this challenge.