On Gay Jeans Day pointTrue meaningWe would like to respond to several recent letters to the 'Prince' notably by Timothy Pavlis '99 (Oct. 13), Dottie Hanks (Oct. 19) and Thomas Pyle '76 (Oct. 25). It seems that there has been some confusion as to the "true meaning" of Gay Jeans Day. Simply put, gay people are human beings; there's not much more than that. Mr. Pavlis brought up the question of the language used to define this even, specifically the use of words like "oppression" and "support." He was willing to "support" but felt that standing against bigotry and "oppression" was too negative a wording. While it is true, as Mr. Pavlis asserts, that support for gay people does not follow from a stand against general oppression, much as support for a particular words does not follow from a belief in free speech, a support for gay people requires a stand against our oppression. It is this oppression which necessitates our asking for support, after all. Likewise, Miss Hanks wrote that Gay Jeans Day made her feel "hurt, misunderstood and even angered." With all due respect, we are confused about that. Gay people, and people perceived to be gay, are at constant and very dangerous risk of losing jobs, housing, insurance, children and physical safety for arbitrary and unprovoked reasons or for no reason at all. On Gay Jeans Day, we point this out. Why, then, do the people to whom we point this out feel that they have been hurt and misunderstood? This day is no accusation &emdash; if we wanted to accuse we would do so plainly &emdash; but an attempt to state the facts. It is not an "endorsement" of anything other than the right of gay people to exist. Despite the heartening statement of Mr. Pavlis that [it] is now the cool thing to go along and wear jeans (support our right to exist), we find it difficult to rely on this apparently new sentiment, since it is certainly not reflected in the laws and atmosphere of this or any other country. We would like to thank Dean Janina Montero, again, for her affirmation of our right to exist. As far as we are aware, it is general university policy to support members of ALL communities. it is our hope that Miss Hanks and Mr. Pavlis felt i no way intimidated by the policy which both restated in their letters and therefore with which we assumed they agreed. We question whether, as Mr. Pyle asserted, support for any community is an advocacy of anything at all. What, exactly, is there to advocate of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community at Princeton? We are here, or we are not. Do we not all, traditionally, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Our existence in no way infringes upon the rights of any other person. We thank Mr. Pavlis and Miss Hanks for participating in an atmosphere of civility and respect and ask for all of Princeton to reaffirm the same.
Caitlin Shaw '97 Letter to the editors of the Daily Princetonian,
published on October 26, 1995.
|