(This is an open letter to the Oberlin community concerning the recent hate crime perpetrated against Matthew Shepard and Oberlin's reaction to it.)
The murder of Mr. Shepard was horrible, and the subject and contents of this letter do not mean to belittle his death, or any other individual or group that faces hatred. However, there are several issues which this campus needs to be aware of and think seriously and critically about.
Mr. Shepard's death sparked a candlelight vigil, a speak-out, active advertising of Oberlin Gay/Straight Alliance and the painting of a rock on Tappan Square. All these acts are commendable, but at the same time are regrettable in a way. They are commendable because they express our community's outrage at a heinous crime, a crime of hate. All such crimes need to be vociferously condemned. However, they are regrettable because the nature and certain aspects of the acts illustrate a very unpleasant aspect of American society - racism.
According to the 1996 Uniform Crime Reports, Hate Crime Statistics, the majority of hate crimes are perpetrated against blacks. While this may not be entirely surprising for some community members, the recent events indicate that the majority is not truly aware of how often hate crimes occur. Hate crimes against blacks are almost three times as frequent as crimes against the next closest group (whites), and almost four times or more for the four next closest groups (Jews, homosexual males, Latinos/as and Asian-Americans). Why then did Mr. Shepard's killing make the national news? To answer the rhetorical question, it is because he was white. Only particularly gruesome hate crimes directed against other minorities, Mr. Larry Byrd's dragging death, and the black man who was set on fire in 1995 in Florida, make national news. In addition, at least two-and-one-half more blacks die as a result of hate crimes than do any other group.
Some community members have argued that the response was solely due to the fact that this death is the most recent hate crime. This is a valid argument only insofar as it made national news. However, this argument is somewhat disingenuous. For example, the March 1997 beating of Lenard Clark in Chicago, Illinois that made national news elicited no campus reaction. A brief recap follows for those who are unaware of it.
On Friday, March 21, 1997, Lenard Clark, a black thirteen-year-old male, was assaulted by three white teenagers, ages 18-20, as he rode with two friends through a white majority area of Bridgeport on the South-side of Chicago. Lenard has irreversible brain damage due to the savage beating he received for being in the wrong area with the wrong skin color. On October 16, 1998, one defendant was sentenced to 8 years in prison. On October 20, 1998, the other two defendants were given a plea bargain agreement under which one received 2 years probation and the other received a 30-month prison term, which was commuted to time served.
Even if this argument is taken sincerely and entrusted to represent an honest and dedicated anti-hate effort by people of color and others sincerely concerned with hate crimes in this community, there are still other problems. The increased advertising of the Oberlin Gay/Straight Alliance and the painting of the rock on Tappan Square best illustrate these problems.
While the Oberlin Gay/Straight Alliance does important work and is needed in our community, its recently increased visibility was lacking something. That is a more general program to address hate crimes and hate in general. Given the argument concerning the reasons for all the recent anti-hate activity, it is hard to reconcile this trust with the fact of the omission, especially in light of the above statistics.
Since the majority of hate crimes are perpetrated against blacks and other minorities, any anti-hate group should focus on blacks and other minorities quasi-proportionally. This is not to say other minorities should be ignored, or disregarded in any way because that should never be the case. All that is meant by the above statement is that any discussion of hate needs to keep the discussion equally balanced. Instead of forming a true anti-hate group or alliance in keeping with the stated goals of the speak-out, this campus has once again shown that the majority of its members are disingenuous when it comes to dealing honestly and wholeheartedly with issues affecting people of color and other minorities. Seemingly, the only circumstances under which the majority of this campus/community will address anything even remotely relating to people of color issues is when those same issues also affect them. After all, homosexuality knows no racial or ethnic bounds, nor does affirmative action since it affects all individuals in the society in which it is in place. Even if this problem can be dismissed or is ignored, there is still another problem - the rock.
The rock on Tappan Square was painted by the day of the speak-out and depicted a candle with an inscription that read, "Hate crimes now have a face". Obviously, this statement is very offensive to many people of color and their allies in this community. However, this fact seemingly eluded the individuals who wrote it, otherwise why would they have written it? This conundrum is more troublesome than the statement itself.
The use of this phrase is problematic because the face to which that statement refers is white. Not only are whites not the usual targets of hate crimes, but they have traditionally been the majority of perpetrators of hate crimes, 75 percent according to the F.B.I.'s Hate Crime Statistics. This phrase is a direct affront to the experiences of people of color with America and its systems, which have, and continue to commit racist, hate-filled attacks on people of color throughout the world. For example, the genocide against the Native Americans and their continuing subjugation, the genocidal and dehumanizing institution that was slavery, support for vicious dictators (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Pol Pot, etc.) the world over, and the countless cases of police brutality, hate crimes, prejudiced behavior and racist institutions in general. Thus if hate crimes can truly be said to have a face it surely would not be a white one.
The purpose of this letter is to convey to the members of our community what anti-hate really implies and possibly bestow a slight bit of knowledge about the experience of people of color with America and hate crimes. The next time any community member would like to address hate crimes or hate, we, the endorsees, would sincerely hope that the message in this letter is considered and heeded.
John Partridge is a college senior and endorsed by the residents of Third World House. Other contributors to this essay include: Baderrinwa Lumumba-Umoja, Aubreya Lewis, Kristen A. Keniray, Natacha Zamor, Eva Owens
I am writing this letter to the Review because I was unable to attend the forum on the SM/BD club, but I feel that my voice should rightfully be heard on this issue. Although I do not share the exact same religious convictions as professor of physics John Scofield, I believe he has several good points in opposing the SM/BD charter. Although I do not want to pigeonhole people according to race and ethnicity I do agree with his statement that a good number of minority students, such as myself, come from backgrounds that place church and family in high regard. And the SM/BD charter is counter-productive to including these minorities from enrolling in this institution. I also agree that it would probably tarnish this institution in Alumni support and public opinion. But even more than that I am against the chartering of the SM/BD club because I don't want them to use my activity fee money for the physical (or intellectual?) pleasure of the sexual preference of a very small group of people. Shame on you Roger, I expected a touch of class from such a well-respected man. You say it is a harmless activity, but it is NOT harmless if it aids in choking off the financial support to more productive organizations. By productive I mean other groups that make a positive contribution to this campus, our community, and other communities.
I'm writing this piece because I'm mad as hell that I've tried to get an organization chartered for the last two years to teach migrant farm workers English as a second language on the border of New Mexico. I believe this to be a noteworthy cause that includes the talents of students helping others to utilize their talents and empower themselves through education and organization. Everybody says what a great idea this is and yet I've submitted and resubmitted a charter to the Student Union twice to receive SFC money and meeting space in Wilder. Instead, I've had to depend on the generosity of the President's Office and the Center for Service and Learning, and the Winter Term Committee so we would just have enough money to get down there and teach 6 hours a day, 7 days a week for three weeks. I wanted to include a summer program for children and to expand the number of people doing this work, so I went to some organizations on campus to ask for their support and to see if they would join my organization. But I haven't been able to get back in touch with any of them since I never know the status of this organization. I'm not sure the Student Senate or General Faculty has ever even seen my charter. And as a fifth year graduating in December the possibility of this organization continuing is extremely slim. Am I jealous of the SM/BD CLUB? You're damn right I am! And I believe I have the right to be. I personally consider it a slap in the face that I have to beg for money and they're automatically approved for $1,200. As morally righteous bull shit as that may sound, honestly, don't you think SFC money could be used in more productive ways for more productive organizations? It's your money! What do they plan on using with $1,200 anyway? Buying a gross of flogging whips? Bringing in speakers? They better exhume the bodies of the Marquis deSade and Voltaire to speak at their functions because I'm sure there are a hell of a lot of better speakers that people would rather see such as Community Activists, Nobel Peace Prize Winners, Revolutionaries, and Scientific Discoverers.
I want people to understand I'm not personally denouncing an individual's right to engage in SM/BD activity. Quite frankly, I don't care if you screw an ox; it makes no difference to me as long as you don't harm anyone else. It seems there are plenty of other ways for the group to exist without taking our activity fee money or tarnishing the reputation of Oberlin College. If the group is truly a discussion group and not a mixer for singles, than why can't it be an EXCO instead, after all that is what the experimental college is for in the first place. This seems to be a very self-interested group in search of personal gratification based on sexual preference, so why should I sponsor it? By sexual preference I do not mean someone's sexuality or gender difference. I do not believe homosexuality to be defined as a sexual preference, because for instance, in the case of my beloved brother he did not choose to become homosexual just to spite our pious Latin American Catholic mother for his own personal gratification. He didn't choose anything, being homosexual is who he is and always was, it is a part of his identity. SM/BD by contrast is not a trait that one is born with, it is an active choice to engage or discuss an activity that is hedonistic by nature. Therefore, I support LGBTU's role on campus to fight homophobia within and outside of this campus and their progressive role in AIDS awareness over the history of the organization. But I don't support the notion that the SM/BD club is promoting such positive roles in the community or teaching others how to engage in "safe" SM/BD activity. By this notion there should be a hard-core drug user's club to prevent others from overdosing or injecting heroin with infected needles. The bulk of this work can be done with pamphlets issued by Res Life or S.I.C.
Although this is no longer a religiously affiliated institution, we still claim to espouse Learning and Labor as part of an activist tradition at Oberlin. How does this group promote these ideals under the Oberlin College banner as an officially chartered organization? It seems fairly simple that those who choose to engage or discuss SM/BD activity can do so freely and safely without our money and muddying our ideals. In short all I have left to say is smartin' up, you sickos.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 7, October 30, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.