By Michael Gryboski

Whether certain political figures want to admit it or not, homophobia is a very real problem in our society. Last year in Oxnard, California a middle student named Lawrence King was killed by a classmate because he was gay. During a computer lab at E.O. Green Junior High School a student took out a gun and shot King to death.¹ In the 1990s a Navy seaman named Allen R. Schindler was murdered by a shipmate. The perpetrator would be sentenced to life imprisonment.² In the summer of 1999 partners Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder were shot to death not far from Redding, California by two brothers who were said to hold militantly white supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Their slayings led to an interfaith unity rally dedicated to Matson and Mowder’s memory.³

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 2007 alone there were 1,512 victims of hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation, the majority of them were homosexuals.⁴ This makes up 16.6% of all hate crimes for the year 2007 in America. These numbers do not include the many victims of homophobia-driven violence or discrimination in other countries, such as the Republic of Cuba and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Looking at these numbers, many have sought to combat the problem of homophobia. One method created recently and found extensively in American colleges is the Safe Zone Program. The policy’s purpose is to provide a safe area for people who suffer from homophobia in all its forms, as well as other victims of persecution on the basis of sexual identity.

It is doubtful that any ill intentions were based in the establishment of this at various Universities. Nevertheless, the Safe Zone Program at George Mason University and possibly the overall nationwide program have fundamental problems which make it a detriment for our campus community rather than a benefit.

The Safe Zone Program was established at George Mason University in 2005. According to http://lgbtq.gmu.edu/safezone/, “[t]he primary mission of George Mason’s Safe Zone Program…is to create a safer, more welcoming & inclusive campus environment, to strengthen community and encourage networking among faculty, staff, and students toward the goal of supporting the well-being of LGBTQ people.”⁵ This endeavor to create inclusion involves combating the various hostilities found with homophobia in American society. Those things include “Homophobic remarks and jokes”, “Potential isolation and loneliness of LGBTQ students”, and “Threat of physical injury and/or death LGBTQ students from incidents of hate.”⁶ All of these things listed, as shown by events in and out of the headlines, exist. They happen, both here and abroad.

It is not a challenge to find the Safe Zones that exist on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University. Many offices have either stickers or posted cards with a circular rainbow, the hues splashed in a circle. Above the hues is the word Ally in black lettering. Typically the first name of the safe zone trained figure will be listed, providing the indication of haven for those who endure the inexcusable. GMU is one of an estimated 200 universities in the United States that has a Safe Zone Program and the number is expected to grow. This policy is seen as being essential in assessing the campus climate and organizations like Campus Pride consider it something that should be “required training” for all academic institutions.⁷

This policy has plenty of good intentions. In the views of supporters like Campus Pride the policy has improved campuses throughout the country. Yet there are fundamental drawbacks with the policy, some of which are so inherent that mere reform or improved training of participants may not sufficiently fix. The first issue is found with the core element of the idea presented: words.

The Policy makes use of terms describing derogatory elements found against sexual minorities. “Homophobia” and “heterosexism” are both used with frequency regarding the Policy. However none of these terms, crucial as they are for this program’s set purpose, are defined. Things not allowed in Safe Zones, including “Homophobic remarks and jokes” go without proper definition. This can generalize a broad range of people who have various objections to homosexuality, a range going beyond the stereotypical bigoted white protestant. Consider the most recent referendum to amend California’s constitution to define marriage as man and woman. Proposition 8 was fiercely debated and voted into law in November 4th, 2008. Approximately 70 percent of African Americans, 64 percent of Catholics, and 53 percent of Hispanics in California voted for Proposition 8, making its appeal stretch beyond the aforementioned stereotype.⁸

Political preconceptions also do not work. During the same election, liberal Democrat Barack Obama won California, as well as Virginia, the Commonwealth that voted in favor of a similar measure for its State Constitution two years earlier. During the 2006 election, in which Democrat Jim Webb defeated Republican George Allen, Virginia voted in Proposition 1, amending their constitution for marriage. In both circumstances many people who voted for a Democrat, even a liberal one, also voted in favor of a specific marriage definition. Despite these and other examples too many advocates for sexual minorities resort to generalization of those who disagree with them.

The question remains though whether or not the Safe Zone Program at GMU encourages this ideological groupthink. The answer could be an affirmative. In the past the GMU chapter of Pride Alliance and like-minded peers has engaged in ideologically extremist actions with little or no accountability.

During the Virginia Marriage Amendment campaign the GMU campus was hotly divided between the two sides. Two student organizations were created to represent both positions, Vote No GMU and Students 4 Marriage. The debate became very heated and included inflammatory rhetoric, especially from Vote No GMU and its allies. As the referendum drew closer words like “Totalitarians” appeared in large chalk letters as a way of describing those who favored the amendment. Vote No GMU held an interfaith rally against the amendment in which speaker after speaker willfully misrepresented the amendment and its supporters. A couple rally attendees even compared support for the amendment to support for institutional slavery. As one disillusioned sophomore wrote in the Broadside, Vote NO GMU’s position was simple: “This is the answer and if you disagree you are ignorant, homophobic, and somehow against interracial marriages."⁹

Recently the Pride Alliance got a blog for their website. The first entry for the blog was a basic introduction, but the second was different. The entry described an incident at the much publicized Metro Silver Diner endured by the author. As a result of this incident, the author refuses to eat there any longer. Was it because he was denied service due to his sexual orientation? No. Was it because some member of the LGBTQ community was kicked out for being open? No. Was it because some group of bigots harassed him or one of his peers? Wrong again. The reason why the Diner will no longer have his business was because a waitress there said that male employees were not allowed to have pierced ears since it was not seen as “gender appropriate.”¹⁰

Earlobes are the reason. The Diner has not declared opposition to gay marriage, gay adoption, or decriminalization of homosexuality. Neither have they used the f-word, physically attacked or threatened to attack members of the LGBTQ community, demanded reparative therapy, or supported Westboro Baptist Church. They have a dress code and that was all it took for the author to use terms likes “hypocrisy”, “discrimination”, and to make references to racism and segregation.¹¹ Granted there was only one author to this entry, but the fact it was placed under a category dubbed “What We Think” should be an indicator of a collective socio-political thought pattern estranged to critical analysis.

Denunciation of “heterosexism” is also part of the program. The GMU community was deemed “an often heterosexist environment” by the program’s online charge. So what constitutes heterosexism, itself a component of overall homophobia? Well, there are many examples given by a document available at the lgbtq.gmu.edu site. These include, but are not exclusive to, “Assuming that everyone you meet is heterosexual”, “Being afraid to show physical affection to someone of the same sex as you”, and “Not asking about your LGBT co-worker's partner, although you regularly ask about your heterosexual co-worker's spouse.”¹² How does any of this compare to the abominable acts committed against Lawrence King, Allen R. Schindler, Gary Matson, and Winfield Mowder? According to the program, it is no longer enough to tolerate homosexuality, now one must totally accept it.

This demand for intellectual conformity stretches farther into the Safe Zone Program, as attested by another online document at the same website. Entitled “Tips for Allies”, this list was adapted from New York University’s Safe Zone Program. Of the items put forth for allies none of them regard recognition of valid opinions against homosexuality, religious or secular. Instead, further ideological isolation is encouraged for the allies, so that they in turn can encourage groupthink among members of the LGBTQ community. Tips include the following: “Read LGBT newspapers”, “Attend LGBT events, meeting, and programs”, and “Take an LGBT studies class.”¹³ These examples are coupled with others, namely “Provide correct information when you hear myths and misperceptions about LGBT people”, “Understand your own culture, socialization, prejudices, and privileges”, and “Critically consider media presentations of LGBT issues and call, email, or write the appropriate parties with complaints, suggestions, or praise.”¹⁴ As usual, no effort is made to even hint that people can have objections to homosexuality and not be bigots.

The question remains: are the numerous incidents of groupthink and ideological isolationism on GMU’s campus products of the Safe Zone Program? One thing is for certain: the program is not inhibiting these actions; neither is its written charge offering any way to inhibit these actions. Through not adequately defining what constitutes bigotry and what constitutes constructive criticism the program is at least contributing to the climate of partisan banter and also is performing another disservice.

Another problem found is the strong emphasis on victimhood. This emphasis is common to many corporate diversity programs nationwide. The stress on victimhood is quite visible in the literature for the Safe Zone Program at GMU. “When asked about their mental health concerns, many LGBTQ college students report feeling sad or depressed, and/or anxious. Coming out to family and friends, being ridiculed for being LGBT-identified, and having one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity discovered by others without their consent are often identified as major stressors by these students.”¹⁵ The online resource also notes problems for LGBTQ youth, compared to the general population, including being “over 5 times more likely to have attempted suicide in the past year”, “over 3 times more likely to have skipped school in the past month because they felt unsafe at or en route to school”, and “over 3 times more likely to have been threatened or injured with a weapon at school in the past year.”¹⁶

This stressing of victimhood is not a good thing, as research has shown. Kalev et al recently published a study on corporate diversity programs. They found that the majority of said programs were ineffective.¹⁷ One of the reasons why was due to their stressing of victim status and discrimination. Diversity training is ineffective when training “emphasizes the risk of discrimination lawsuits and threats; for example, downloading government regulations to educate managers on how not to discriminate.”¹⁸ Other issues bare a strong comparison to the program. When training “[focuses] on ‘sensitivity training’ and interpersonal attitude change”¹⁹ it tends to have a negative impact. This is exactly what one sees with the examples cited in section III regarding the tips for allies and the mission platform. Another negative on diversity training found by Kalev was training that “emphasizes social justice goals and the need to redress historical wrongs.”²⁰ This would definitely fit the efforts laid out in the tips for allies and safe zone goals, of which includes social justice demands for sexual minorities.

Apart from research there is common sense. How will anyone’s demeanor be uplifted if victimhood is stressed? In psychological philosophy, think of the process of self actualization. Can self-actualization, this hallmark of identity, be achieved through continual self imposed suffering and paranoia? Paranoia being used as a term in regards to this section and the previous. The examples laid out for heterosexism will and most likely do foster a level of paranoia. There are a thousand reasons why people do certain things mentioned as evidence of heterosexism. Maybe someone does not want to touch another of the same sex because they are contagious with some illness; maybe they do not talk about someone’s partner because they are not aware of that partner’s existence. These more rational assumptions are tossed aside, making the program encourage isolationism, distrust, and victimhood through overstressing the bad experiences of some. This victimhood is being overstressed as shall be noted in the next big problem with the program.

Every group experiences pain. Pain is life. For every identity group out there, some level of prejudice, hatred, or malice has been displayed against them. Religious, political, sexual…we all suffer. Every entity has its martyrs and its extremists, its bad times and its brushes with intolerance. With this noted, why should there be some program specifically designed only for victims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? What makes this particular persecution somehow more important to stamp out than say racism or religious intolerance? In an environment that prides itself on inclusiveness sexual minorities receive special treatment by having their own space.

Some would say supply is demand. After all, the introduction to this essay outlined the prevalence of discrimination based on sexual orientation, backing it up with statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, the FBI statistics are more telling than the numbers initially provided. Although in 2007 16.6% of hate crimes in America were on the basis of sexual orientation, 50.8% of hate crimes were based on racial discrimination and 18.4% were based on religious discrimination. This means more people were discriminated against last year because of race and religion than sexual orientation. So why do we lack a safe zone for all races and religions? Especially with regards to Muslims and Sikhs, who after September 11th had a wave of xenophobia strike their communities with fatal results. If ever groups that need a safe space to deal with intolerance, it’s them.

Some argue these groups already have protections, but then again so do sexual minorities. According to GMU’s University Policy Number 1201, “George Mason University is committed to providing equal opportunity and an educational and work environment free from any discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or age.”²¹ Also there is an Office of Equity and Diversity Services, which has as a policy statement that any member of the Mason Nation “who feels he or she is the victim of harassment or other form of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, or veteran status” can file a grievance.²²

The Safe Zone Program is therefore excess, granting special treatment, ideological isolation, growing distrust of others, and obsession with victimhood. None of these things are beneficial for any group to be consumed by; regardless of how justified they are or may see themselves in seeking the advancement of their group. So what is to be done about these matters and the program that encourages them?

First solution is to remove it. There are plenty of antidiscrimination programs funded by the University, including the discrimination bias form, official written policy, offices for various groups including faith based groups and sexual minorities, and an overall climate that seeks to protect those it views as most vulnerable. Removing the program would not limit the resources of the LGBTQ community, as counseling can be easily performed by the professionals provided by the University and there is nothing stopping people from still meeting with former participants.

The second and possibly more acceptable solution is to expand the program’s mission. By removing the emphasis on victim status, the absence of acknowledging valid dissenting opinions, and by adding all other groups that could face discrimination on campus the program would be as inclusive as it claims to be. An all inclusive antidiscrimination policy would be fairer to the broader campus community. The only problem with this solution would be that there are already plenty of resources to combat discrimination in other regards. In an age when money and resources are an issue solution number one might be more relevant.

Something must be done to the Safe Zone Program. Established with good intentions in response to a genuine concern in our society as the tragic stories above showcase, it suffers from several drawbacks. These blemishes make it a source of great harm to the well being of not just the student body of George Mason University but also the campus communities of other colleges that implement it. Maybe GMU, the college renowned for multiculturalism, can see past politics and correct this mistake.

Sources:

1. Cathcart, Rebecca, “Boy’s Killing, Labeled a Hate Crime, Stuns a Town”, New York Times, February 23rd, AD 2008, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html, accessed March 11th, AD 2009.

2. Jameson, Sam, “U.S. Sailor Sentenced to Life Imprisonment in Murder”, Los Angeles Times, May 28th, AD 1993, found at http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N28/sailor.28w.txt.html, accessed March 25th, AD 2009.

3. “Redding, CA: Where Hate Turns Deadly”, PBS, July 1st, AD 1999, found at http://www.pbs.org/niot/citizens_respond/redding.html, accessed March 25th, AD 2009.

4. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm and http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm, both accessed 11/16/2008.

5. http://lgbtq.gmu.edu/safezone/, accessed March 14th, AD 2009.

6. Ibid.

7. “Safe Zone”, Campus Pride, http://www.campuspride.org/safezone.asp, accessed March 25th, AD 2009.

8. Haro, Jessica, “Prop. 8 and the Hispanic Vote”, HispanicBusiness.com, found at http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/11/7/prop_8_and_the_hispanic_vote.htm, accessed 11/17/2008 and “70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, Poll finds”, Associated Press, November 5th, AD 2008, found at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html, accessed 11/16/2008.

9. Gryboski, Michael, “Why voting ‘Yes’ was a good thing”, Alexandria Times, November 16th, AD 2006.

10. Crofton, Robert, “Why Metro Silver Diner No Longer has my Business”, September 15th, AD 2008, http://gmupridealliance.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=2, accessed March 26th, AD 2009.

11. Ibid.

12. lgbtq.gmu.edu/safezone/HomophobiaandHeterosexism.doc, accessed March 27th, AD 2009.

13. http://lgbtq.gmu.edu/safezone/TipsforAllies.doc, March 28th, AD 2009.

14. Ibid.

15. http://lgbtq.gmu.edu/safezone/, March 14th, AD 2009.

16. Ibid.

17. A. Kalev, E. Kelly, & F. Dobbin, “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies”, American Sociological Review, August 2006, Vol. 71, pp.589-617.

18. Vendatam, Shankar, "Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds", Washington Post, January 20, AD 2008, p.A3.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/policy/newpolicy/1201gen.html, accessed 11/16/2008.

22. http://www.gmu.edu/equity/policies_grievance.htm, accessed 11/16/2008.