Thereâs a black cloud of homophobia hanging over Howard University.
The historically black collegeâs newspaper currently features an article in which âjournoâ Kailyn Hart explores the campusâ queer fears.
Due to mixed feelings and fast spreading rumors, students are paranoid about the notion of homosexual relations taking place at Howard University.
J.D. Brown, a 21-year-old student in the College of Arts and Sciences, said, âThere are a great number of men on campus who are involved in the gay, bisexual or âdownlowâ lifestyle. I feel as though walking up to any Howard man, thereâs at least a 50/50 chance that he has or does engage in homosexual activity, but many of my gay friends feel that the percentage is much higher.â
The horror, the horror!
As Chris Crain points out, Hart then uses a psychology student to perpetuate flagrant right wing ideology. The college kid first explains that people become âarousedâ by particular body parts â duh â and then offers this shocking revelation:
Most who claim to be gay are addicted to the feelings of belonging or interpersonal interaction they get when they indulge in same-sex relationships.
Whoa. âAddictedâ? Does that mean straight people are also addiction to the people to whom they are attracted?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Luckily, this psychology student warns readers what to look for in an âinterestedâ man:
Being smug, pretentious, inwardly insecure, well-groomed, overly superficial, personally awkward, [constantly referring to sexual metaphors] and non-committal, somewhat discreet, are all factors I use to tell if someone is bi-curious.
âŠ
Also, there a lot of guys who simply try too hard to seem masculine. If Iâm scanning Facebook, beyond those who simply donât make an open declaration, I look at friendâs lists.
We always thought that as the legendary and allegedly venerable Howard University would have some matriculatory standards. We were wrong.
Hartâs heartless exposition doesnât stop there. She goes on to cite the Family Research Instituteâs Paul Cameron, a man who the American Psychiatrist Association booted for his radically unorthodox beliefs:
According to [psychoanalysis], homosexuality is a mental illness, symptomatic of arrested development. People believe that homosexual desires are a consequence of poor familial relations in childhood or some other trauma.
If we werenât traumatized as children, we definitely have been now.
Gerard
This disgusting ignorance is not worthy of a comment
commeca
This gives a whole new dimension to “Separate but Ignorant.”
hisurfer
I’ve seen student papers get taken over by small radical groups, left and right, who try to turn it into a mouthpiece for their views. I’m really hoping that this paper doesn’t represent the students’ views overall – an article like this is an embarrassment.
There’s some strange subtext here. The awful quote is from a bisexual student who is describing how to identify the “bicurious.” Then he estimates that gay, closeted, down low, and bicurious represent about 50% of the men on campus. To which I can only add: Go Howard! And no wonder the straight women are writing paranoid articles.
OrchidIsleGuy
No doubt about it, the article was slanted, homophobic and had no real credibility.
Equally as upsetting is the “black” cloud lead in to this story. Plenty of other-than-black universities have punished equally inane and offensive material. Why was the “race” card not played in blogging those incidents – if they were, indeed, noted and reported upon.
A couple of the previous posters were pretty free with their declarations of ignorance. That term – in conjunction with a situation such as this – is usually white-speak for black people.
The article was awful; your presentation wasn’t much better.
matt123
not only Howard. investigation results, most of young people have the same sexual orientation. check a place findbilover.com for alternative lifestyle. those people have passions,romance and hopes.
Soraya Nadia McDonald
As a recent alum of Howard University (2006), I can safely say this article does NOT represent the overall views of the student population.
Please, please don’t take this as a reflection of what’s being taught or accepted there, because it’s not.
I’m a proud product of Howard (and a former Hilltop staffer), but that doesn’t mean I’m not embarrassed by this article and its lack of balance and credibility. That said, I’m with OrchidIsleGuy.
Let’s try to stay away from the “black cloud” ledes.
It makes me sad. Like most alumni, I only want to see my alma mater doing good things and kickin’ ass, and every once in a while something like this comes along.
I’m not going to offer any excuses for Miss Hart, because both she and The Hilltop should know – and do – better. What I am going to do is write an indignant letter to the editor and hope the paper tries to rectify what’s been done.
James Lovette-Black
Why are we surprised that an institution of learning that has been shaped by the antiquated mores of the Christian religion and by a “power-over” dominator paradigm actually has this much ignorance regarding not only sexuality, but of homosexuality?
James Lovette-Black
Okay, forgive my above post: that’s what I get for posting too quickly! I should have made that reference not specific to Howard U, but to the individuals who made the homophobic comments!
Howard University actually has had progressive instructors that many years ago encouraged students to open their minds to the idea that being gay is part of human sexual diversity.
Happy Thanksgiving, one and all!
Teiresias
After hearing the estimates on the percentage of “interested” students, I want in! Tell me, does the school accept middle-aged white guys?
Dave
Um, the American Psychological Association didn’t boot Paul Cameron for his beliefs. They kicked him out for refusing to cooperate with their ethics investigation of him. The American Sociological Association also passed a resolution condemning him for “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research”. The Canadian Psychological Association also condemned him, saying that he “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism”.
So there.
Allan
From the comments to the original article:
J.D. Brown
posted 11/22/07 @ 1:01 PM EST
I never thought that my words would be used for such a slanted and insulting article. Being a college student is no excuse for inaccuracy or misrepresentation. This article borrows too heavily from one spectrum of thought without consideration for the converse. In sitting down for this interview, I expressed my thoughts based upon the questions asked. I apologize to all the readers.
My comments, reposted here:
I am glad that J.D. disavowed the way his comments were used in this article, HOWEVER, that is simply not enough.
“…there are no undisputed reasons for homosexuality,” writes the article’s author. Wrong. The only undisputed reason for homosexuality that matters is that one is attracted sexually to members of one’s own gender. And that’s all there is to it. Biologically, this is not a new or human-specific trait. It is a matter of human survival, where non-breeding family members can help to support the breeding families.
“Brown considers himself a highly discreet masculine bisexual man.”
You mean before this treatise on gay men, mostly, which Brown does not consider himself to be? Author: How would he know?
“Women are seemingly expected to test the limits and go wild in college and then decide,” he said.
Expectations are the worst reason and the least important to engage in any sexual acts, and women who have sex with women just to “test the limits and go wild in college” do not need to do so to tell them whether or not they are lesbians. Being a lesbian is not the answer to a test question.
“For men, that exploration comes in stolen moments and secrecy. There are people who I have told [I am bisexual] and I’m sure that there are others who suspect it, but as long as there is no proof, there is just speculation, which is the life that many Howard men are living.”
This is how you choose to live your life in the closet till now, and you do an injustice to society when you extrapolate that onto anyone else by guesswork.
This is simply the description of a gay (or bisexual) man living in the closet anywhere, and I’m quite sure that “many” Howard men are NOT living in the closet. Heterosexuality is by far the majority norm, while homosexuality will always be the norm for a small minority, far less than the black minority in USA society as a whole.
“Brown described his view on the ways a person can determine if a man is interested in experimenting.”
“Being smug, pretentious, inwardly insecure, well-groomed, overly superficial, personally awkward, [constantly referring to sexual metaphors] and non-committal, somewhat discreet, are all factors I use to tell if someone is bi-curious,” he said.
Horrible, horrible, horrible. These characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with any group of people, none, no matter what label one puts on the group. There just aren’t any groups of people who all meet this description. To ascribe these characteristics to gay and bisexual men shows a deep problem with understanding humans, and the need for more than just a little counseling or education.
The disgraced, discredited quack quoted remains a quack today, just as he was years ago. I won’t even mention his name, but check out NARTH.
I am very glad for the retraction in the comments, but the comments section won’t be what’s quoted forever.
Ervin
BROWN SAID:
ĂąâŹĆBrown described his view on the ways a person can determine if a man is interested in experimenting.ĂąâŹÂ
ĂąâŹĆBeing smug, pretentious, inwardly insecure, well-groomed, overly superficial, personally awkward, [constantly referring to sexual metaphors] and non-committal, somewhat discreet, are all factors I use to tell if someone is bi-curious,ĂąâŹÂ he said.
ALLAN SAID:
Horrible, horrible, horrible. These characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with any group of people, none, no matter what label one puts on the group. There just arenĂąâŹâąt any groups of people who all meet this description. To ascribe these characteristics to gay and bisexual men shows a deep problem with understanding humans, and the need for more than just a little counseling or education.
Allan, Brown NEVER said that individuals need meet ALL of those characteristics, but said they
“are all factors” he uses to make the determination.
This is HIS opinion on what seems to work for him.
Don’t like it…. shite man, got real…
hisurfer
“where non-breeding family members can help to support the breeding families” I had to smile at this, Allan – it’s dangerously politically incorrect! Personally, I think this might be a good explanation for how homosexuality can be a genetic trait that is passed down through generations, without homos directly breeding themselves. It’s similar to ways that geneticists think altruism traits are passed down (they lower the risk of survival for the altruistic person, but increase the odds for their family).
But now if you ever want to see a Queer Theorist’s head explode, bounce this theory off them! You’ll get an earful about why it’s offensive, phobic, a dangerously regressive & reactionary paradigm, etc.
I’m glad to see Howard students and alumni speaking out. I can’t believe that this article would represent a historically progressive institution.
Zeke
“…while homosexuality will always be the norm for a small minority, far less than the black minority in USA society as a whole.”
Who says that the homosexual minority is FAR less than the black minority?
Maybe if you ignore the fact that most gay people, even today, are largely or completely in the closet.
alasexboi
Lets not get our panties in a wad. Sadly written articles about gayness have been written in the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, etc…college newspapers, white or black, aren;t immune.
Brandon85
But now if you ever want to see a Queer TheoristĂąâŹâąs head explode, bounce this theory off them! YouĂąâŹâąll get an earful about why itĂąâŹâąs offensive, phobic, a dangerously regressive & reactionary paradigm, etc.
I’m not a “queer theorist”, but I see it as a reactionary theory for sure. It seems to me that justifications for heterosexuality (and I’m not even talking about the aspect with has nothing to do with procreation which effectively puts that in the same boat as homosexuality) depend on the same circular logic that is assumed to be present in defending homosexuality in an evolutionary scheme. People can claim as much as they like how homosexuality is a “biological dead-end” and that breeding is needed for the continuation of the species. But, I’ve yet to hear an explanation that isn’t contingent upon faith, which accounts for why any species, or anything at all, needs to exist. I think these anthropocentric “purpose” and origin of life type questions are basically religious or philosophical.
hisurfer
I don’t see biology as having any real ‘purpose’ beyond the drive to replicate. There is no higher reason for fecundity. Basic Darwnism states that traits that increase survival & breeding success will be passed on to future generations & become more common as time passes.
If we state that queerness is genetic, then the next question should be: why does a trait that doesn’t increase fecundity get passed on, and why (if the statisticians can be trusted) does it stay constant at ten percent of the population? There needs to be an explanation (not an anthropocentric reason – I’m 100% with you there).
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, of course – I wouldn’t put my money behind this or any other theory. But I do like asking questions, and don’t believe that any question is reactionary. I’d rather here a strong rebuttal than get a slap from the theorists for asking bad questions.
Brandon85
You really don’t see the circularity in the logic? Fecundity exists in order to continue to exist? That’s essentially what is being said, and that’s why I don’t subscribe to the popular Darwin’s survival theory, where it begins with the a priori assumption that survival is the goal of all organisms in any given time or space. I think the fact is much simpler. Any trait that exists, exists because it had the ability to. That it meets some survivability standard being beside the point. I agree that asking questions isn’t a bad thing, however I must disagree again that the genetic theory being addressed isn’t reactionary. “Being gay isn’t genetic” the opposition exclaims. “Yes it is, and here’s why”, the pro-gay side, replies…but of course without questioning the validity of the challenge in the first place.
DavidDust
You maybe should have said “African-American cloud”…
hisurfer
Brandon, I think we’re making similar points, just with different words & terminology. If you strip Darwinism down to the original theory, wihout all the pseduo-scientific baggage that’s been added in the popular imagination, it doesn’t say much more than what you’ve said. The only real modification now is that some scientists argue for more more chance and randomness in evolution – “survival of the luckiest” over “survival of the fittest.”
I think “why are we queer” is a legitimate question, but agree that oftentimes the people asking it are more reactionary. Trust me that I’m not! Since I don’t really know the answer, most theories are still on the table until discredited (most … ideas like ‘too much mother-love’ are pretty much reactionary nonsense).
Andrew
If you think “personally awkward” and “well-groomed” are factors that reveal a person to be bisexual, no wonder you come up with a figure as high as 50%.
As for the gay guy who estimated it higher…a little bit of wishful thinking never hurt anyone! I’m applying to them for grad school — wish me luck! đ
Gregg
Brandon85 and hisurfur – THAT is why gay people exist. Because while straight folks continue making little replicas of themselves, we actually ponder WHY the little replicas are “necessary”. Damn, I love being gay.
I do just want to throw in that the question “why we are gay” only exists if we assume that there actually is a REASON. Perhaps there is no reason at all.
hells kitchen guy
You can’t blame the paper for openly airing the views of one misinformed student. The purpose of a student newspaper is to just that – air all views, no matter how repugnant to some people.
lilymatha
Why does the percentage of the group of gay, lesbian become higher? Why aren’t so many persons attracted by the oppsite sex?
However, just be yourself. supporter on biloves dot com.
Timothy
As Dave (no. 10) said above, Cameron was not ejected for his beliefs but for his ethics and methodologies.
His mission in life is to create anti-gay “statistics”. His methods are ludicrous. His honesty and integrity is non-existant.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be a big surprise that Cameron is a big fan of Rudolph Hoss, the commandant of Auschwitz, and his methods for deterring homosexuality (yes, they are exactly what you think they are).
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,020.htm
ImperfectlyPolished
I got to Howard and I can honestly say that there is much ignorance on both sides. The Black community has been duped by right-wing Repubs. and so they are less-accepting of homosexuality for religious reasons, as we all know. But the down-low lifestyle HAS GOT TO END! I read two articles last semester. One was a young bisexual man who defended his secrecy by saying that women aren’t accepting of bisexual men. But a young woman gave an interesting response that mirrors my own. You r bisexuality is fine, your safety is questionable. What’s done in the dark will come up tot he light, and it’s not always pretty. HIV/AIDS cases in DC are higher than that of S. Africa. 14 miles?! Go figure, people. There is nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual, but we all need to be safe. Secrecy isn’t safe.
jason
Of course, if it was two hot chicks with lipstick and long, flowing hair, these same students would be saying it’s perfectly acceptable and understandable. LOL.
Therein lies the basis for much of today’s homophobia. It’s patriarchal, not moral. Patriarchs (or heterosexual males) realize that their control of our sexual culture is being challenged by the gay community.