Art at BYU and the Worth of Words

With the recent backpedaling of the LDS church on the issue of "certain rights" for our families, my view of the organization has changed. I once viewed the organization as just a bunch people in a tough position under yet another strong meme's weight, trying to do what's right. History is full of such folks and I've a hard time blaming them.

It seems some wrong, though, in one way or another, is being consciously excused now. It seems they did a political calculation and decided they had to throw us a bone in some states so as to not appear against equal rights even when they were, for PR reasons. That leaked internal LDS memo already revealed as much, I guess, and I should have known. It's just difficult to actually see people act that way, particularly when you know first hand how well people of various and diverging groups could get along in a straight forward manner.

I guess the annoyance is that the harmful political actions are more than enough. The refusal to take responsibility for how they so directly hurt families and then to claim the organization is fine with some rights for our homes in CA and then refuse to live up to those words where it's not politically necessary to do so, here in Utah, is added to injury. It's an attempt to use the appearance of good, pro-equal rights, in order to do legal harm and I'm sure many Californian LDS voted for Proposition 8 under the impression they, as their church told them, were not hurting anything but, possibly, some percentage of the gay community's feelings; I've read several of such account.

Now, though, I'm beginning to look at their talk of love and inclusion the same way as their talk of rights and respect.

I just read this blog post by Michael. It's about his art project at BYU:

"These portraits are of BYU students who identify themselves as homosexual and a person that supports them. This support person could be a family member, friend or may also identify themselves as homosexual and both people may provide support to each other. I have not included labels with these portraits as I feel that labels only create separation and division and further ungrounded stereotypes. We never know who may identify themselves as homosexual and I felt that not labeling these images would force us as a society to question what it is to be homosexual."

The message behind such an exhibit seems to be quite a smart and potent message of love and inclusion, two things the LDS press releases and pamphlets have been ostensibly offering gay members. These were not images advocating gay sex or anything near that; to me, they just seemed to say gay people exist and they are part of our community.

The message behind its censorship by those in charge, though, is another potent message.

The LDS organization has gotten good PR out of their moves away from their harsher past, even in the gay community, but when the actions don't match the rhetoric, it seems to show the nice rhetoric to be a simple tool of PR; "love" along with "certain rights" are used to deny equal rights and to continue promoting the idea that merely being gay is something you don't want in your group. It's a tragedy when words like love, respect, and civility are used this way.

I should say, I'm sure this is changing. I'm sure some Bishops are great nowadays and many other members are too; I know and very much respect such folks. It is just becoming more and more difficult to hear the official press releases without increasing skepticism, without wondering if even the person composing them believes what they say in the carefully selected words regarding homosexuality.

Personally, I'd bet those in charge who decided to censor this work did so because they are afraid of the consequences of BYU's new inclusion of gay individuals; they want it in sentiment but practice is another issue. I suspect what I said might soon be coming last year after their change in the Honor Code with respect to gays is right on time--I should have put money on it :-)--the fact that such an exhibit made it up at all may be evidence of that. They probably can see they are being pulled by a power bigger than any one person or organization or community, and I'm pretty sure it'll bring them where they, for now, don't want to end up, at unqualified love and equal rights.

So, actually, maybe such a bit of resistance is, while I'm sure it hurts, a good sign? It is a sign that they see what we see; it's not just me. Open gay people, even if they follow all the LDS rules and support the LDS organization completely, are a threat to the old guard and old way; they are a step along the way and, again, as I posted in April of 2007, the line has been moved and is moving; there are new good cops and new bad cops now. But putting them back in the closet would be putting the genii back in the bottle.

It will just be interesting to see how this and future conflicts play out.

BYU, Honor Codes, and Police Cops

I wrote a post a while ago about social change that came from a chance talk with a leader in the Black community, and I didn’t expect it to be much more than something I wanted to remember, here.

To sum up, this woman explained to me that all social movements with minorities seem to have their good cops and bad cops. The bad cops are outrageous and demanding; they do stuff like try to get arrested and other theatrics (fake funerals, you know the stuff...). The good cops are much more reasonable; they see the other side and give it credit. And “The Man,” well, he’s motivated by the bad cop, but can never appear to give in to such tactics. Even if they do give in, in reality, it has to be for another reason to their minds. And that’s why the friendly good cop is so useful. The powers that be will talk to the good cop, feel much more like he’s one of them, and can compromise and change for the good cop. And that’s how societies change to treat minorities fairly, despite the differences in strength.

It strikes me that the recent change in the wording of the BYU honor code may be an example of this woman’s theory. There was no way a group like Soul Force, or any big out and proud gay group was going to get anything on its own. No way. But such groups are part of how the world for gays, all gays, has changed. By decades of social progress, there can now actually be visible good cop gays at BYU; they are, in fact, our fellow bloggers. As long as they are modest in their steps and stay in bounds, they can group together and be heard and effect positive change. This would not have been a decade past.

But where this woman’s idea deviates from the depictions in crime dramas is in the fact that the players here are absolutely sincere. These good cops don’t honestly want, say, me to be able to attend BYU, with my husband and kids in approved housing (No worries; neither do I :-)). They don’t want to be able to walk the campus with their arm around the man they love (unless they’re lesbians, I guess… what a world! :-)). They are in opposition to the bad cops. They are even motivated to speak up in order to show those in power they’re not all bad cops, and are also invested in downplaying the effect of the bad cops on their mutual audience. Let me be clear, these reactions are both done without any duplicity but they are both important parts in this machine. The machine doesn’t work without them.

I know the good cops do it in good faith because this is the role in this theory I naturally fall into with regards to other gay issues. I’m not a fan of hate crime law; I’m all for a person’s right to teach that I’m an abomination; I don’t want there to be, say, hiring quotas for gays, or some other stuff I’ve heard of. I don’t like protests and I’m more of a bridge builder when I interact with elected officials. I recognize in this event with BYU my hostility towards my bad cop’s actions, and I recognize my past assurances that they don’t represent me and that it’s absolutely not the bad cops playing a constructive role. I too am by nature in this role which I must assume is why I, not a member of our bad cops, have the positions I do, and have had the hand in the positive changes I have had. Simply, looking back, I can now see how this idea may have played out in many instances in my life as a reluctant activist.

The thing that strikes me here though is how out of our hands it really is. I’ll not step over the line I see in the sand. Neither will this group of gays at BYU. Nevertheless, we bring the other side closer to our line, in play with the bad cops. Sometimes we bring them so close that another group of good cops, once bad :-), will help our culture past our line. To me, that’s kind of what’s happened in certain countries where preaching that gays are abominable has become a possible legal issue. In those countries I’d feel obliged to try to pull society back, but it went where it went, for good and bad cops more radically gay than I.

Like it or not, the LDS church took a small step here, and there are more than a few members who do not like it. If there’s one thing I’ve learned to keep always in mind about our opponents, it’s that they ain’t stupid; pay attention to what exactly sets them off. They can see what this can mean for the future of gays in the church as well as anyone, despite official reasons about the change (which I do certainly think the BYU officials believe). If you listen to them, it’s clear, it doesn’t matter to the opposition if this is only a “clarification”. The clarification, they know, makes gays more comfortable and open, and they know that any group of even loosely-organized gays on campus, even slightly open and unafraid is a problem.

But these gay students, regardless of where they draw that line in the sand on gay behavior, moved the line for their culture. And now I can’t help but bet they will move it further in the coming decades, even if inadvertently. Knowing the bounds, more gay people will be more open. More people on campus, from students to faculty, will actually see gay neighbors, students, and friends. They will follow their lives to celibacy, to marriages and families with men or women and note how they work out. They will watch the real life version of these blogs, and be affected. And the students of BYU will become the leaders of the LDS church.

Think about it, there’s a very good reason these angry folks wanted gay kids on campus to not be seen or heard, or given any audience or consideration or clarification, no matter the issues or the gay student’s strong testimony or obedience. Obedience is not the point for such folks, as they know the power in what will come from comfortable gays of any sort on campus. Eventually, there’ll be a new group of good cops; there may already be. Even though the current group may adamantly disagree with them, the current group has now merged into next generation’s “The Man”. The line in the sand has been moved behind their wants, to include them, but they did move it that much closer to the next group’s wants as well.

I now wonder if this was as much a concern for folks who helped with this change as it can be for me. I wonder if they agree with this view from my vantage point of the situation. So, if anyone involved cares to tell me… :-)

Edit: I see Soul Force is taking some credit for this, on A Changing Countenance’s blog, here. They need to keep their motivation up too. I’m beginning to feel I need to track that woman down again and take in more for her ideas :-).