04/10/2006
Gay Not Fine For Some at Michigan Tech
Anti-gay threats written in chalk were discovered on the campus of Michigan Tech University in Houghton last Friday. They were written in the middle of the night the same week that a slate of gay pride activities was scheduled at the University.
The threats involved the killing, mutilation, and shooting of gay people. The activities on campus at MTU last week included the wearing of "Gay, Fine By Me" T-shirts, meant to send a message of tolerance to students there. Obviously, some homophobe was threatened. If the message that anti-gay prejudice is real wasn't getting across before, it surely has now.
Said Vice President of Student Affairs Les Cook: "This is probably the most pervasive incident we’ve had on campus since I’ve been here. We take these kinds of things serious and we are trying to provide our support. It’s an issue. It’s not healthy for our community and we’re hoping we can resolve things quickly."
Authorities are still trying to find out the identity of the vandals.
Posted 12:04 PM EST by Andy Towle in Crime | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I wish they would just post, all over campus, on huge slabs of poster board with a GIGANTIC font, the results of all the studies that have shown that homophobes really want to get it on with same-sex partners. Maybe that would frighten them into shutting the fucque up and keeping their baseball bats at home.
Posted by: JOE 2 | Apr 10, 2006 12:45:46 PM
"Obviously, some homophobe was threatened."
Actually, it's not obvious that the perpetrators are homophobes. The perpetrators might be gay activists who want to draw attention to the problem of homophobia. Haven't your heard of hate crime hoaxes?
Posted by: Seattle | Apr 10, 2006 12:48:42 PM
Yes, Seattle, I suppose that's possible, although it's not the first place I would go to.
Posted by: JOE 2 | Apr 10, 2006 1:10:45 PM
Check out a related story at The Morning News (themorningnews.org) regarding Christianist groups suing universities over tolerance policies. The story comes by way of the L.A. Times. They don't come off as very Christian.
Posted by: Liam | Apr 10, 2006 1:23:08 PM
No, Liam... sadly they're acting *very* Christian (in the realistic sense of the word).
Posted by: Brian | Apr 10, 2006 1:45:28 PM
By the way, chalk writings on campus sidewalks and buildings is generally not considered "vandalism." It may still be a criminal act if Michigan has a hate crime statute, and it's certainly harassment and a threat to do bodily harm (to a group if not to a specific person). It's probably also a violation of the university's rules to threaten groups like that. But it's not "vandalism," so they can't catch the "vandal."
Maybe "terrorist?" Seems to work for the DOJ in other fear-related cases.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 10, 2006 2:12:12 PM
Joe 2 writes: "... that's possible, although it's not the first place I would go to."
I'm not assuming it's a hoax. Neither am I assuming it's a legitimate hate crime. If anyone is jumping to conclusions, it is those who claim that it is "obvious" that the perpetrators are homophobic. The sensible position here is agnosticism, pending further info.
Hoaxes happen. Here a just a few examples from college campuses:
A Claremont professor vandalized her own car with anti-semetic graffiti.
A lesbian teaching assistant at Eastern Mexico University faked her own anti-gay assault.
San Francisco student Allison Jackson wrote racist comments on the door of her own room. Ditto for Leah Miller, also at San Francisco State. She later told police that "she wanted to be part of something."
At Duke, a black doll was "mock lynched." The perpetrators of this "racial incident" were later found to be a group of students trying to raise awareness about racism.
A woman at the University of Massachusetts falsely claimed she was attacked with a knife after an antirape rally.
You can google these incidents to get the full details.
Also: Molly Martin at Guilford College; Jerry Kennedy at the University of Georgia; Tarsha Michelle Claiborne at the University of Iowa.
Posted by: Seattle | Apr 10, 2006 2:58:40 PM
I'm sure there are surveillance cameras around this campus, especially the dorms, that may have picked up the crime. In light of all of the rhetoric and aggressive acts, isn't it time that the gay community at large pursued self defense training and (within the law) arming ourselves?
Posted by: busytimmy | Apr 10, 2006 3:08:03 PM
I live in Michigan, and the event described, if it did happen the way it seems to have heppened, would not be in the least surprising or out of the ordinary, even for college town (especially in the Upper Peninsula).
Seattle lists a number of faked or allegedly faked hate and hate-crime-related incidents, all of which definitely occurred, and in the not-too-recent past.
If there's evidence that whoever did this was a gay activist trying to draw attention to himself or herself, that evidence will eventually come out. In the meantime, it seems much more likely that the simpler explanation applies: that someone on or around campus hates homosexuals and wanted to advertise that fact and spread some good old-fashioned fear in the process.
Posted by: Frank in AA | Apr 10, 2006 6:10:41 PM
Anti-gay attackers will never be considered a part of the broad definition of terrorism. We still refer to every person who died on 9/11 as "heroes" when all the majority of them did was DIE. Seems to be that all one need do in order to gain a posthumous annual heroes moment of silence these days is to be killed by someone the majority hates. Apparantly, homophobes just don't catch the ire of the chrisitan masses here in the states the way Al-Qeida, NEA, PETA, etc. do.
I remember during the recent rash of church burnings plenty of people openly suggested it might be gay people burning these churches as a way to speak out against the churches rejection of homosexuality.
Hey, maybe those guys in St. Maarten beat themselves to pulp to bring attention to the plight of gay tourists the world over.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Apr 10, 2006 7:56:35 PM
Frank and I simply disagree on the relative likelihood of each scenario. People with different life experiences come to different conclusions about such things. Personally, I don't find it unlikely that campus activists, consumed by their passion and certitude, could feel justified in cutting moral corners.
By the way, note that Frank uses the qualifier "allegedly" when talking about the fakes -- they're "faked or allegedly faked" -- but no one here is calling the sidewalk chalkings an "alleged" hate crime. That's the double standard I'm criticizing, especially regarding the original post.
Posted by: Seattle | Apr 10, 2006 7:57:17 PM
If a Red Chevy Nova crashes into the side of my house I'm going to say a Red Chevy Nova crashed into the side of my house. If some guy walks by my house - either playing devils advocate or on his way to the Red Chevy Nova fan club meeting - and says it was a Blue Taurus then I'll refer to his as an "alleged claim".
Let's not get crazy shall we.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Apr 10, 2006 8:41:52 PM
Chad: Your analogy is poor. The question isn't whether homophobic remarks were scribbled on sidewalks. We all agree on the Red Chevy Nova.
The question is who and why. Were the scribblings done by homophobes wanting to inflame the campus with their anti-gay views, or by sympathetic activists eager to "raise the issue" of homophobia on campus? We don't know yet (and might never know).
Posted by: Seattle | Apr 10, 2006 8:55:21 PM
"Frank and I simply disagree on the relative likelihood of each scenario."
Really? If that's the case then your comments are even more disturbing than I'd originally thought. Initially, it looked like you were reducing a serious matter to a mere game of semantics for self-aggrandizing purposes. That was bad enough. Now, the only disagreement I see as to the relative likelihood of each scenario is that Frank believes the hate crime scenario to be more likely and you believe the fake hoax scenario to be more likely. That's just downright disturbing. Going so far as to give a handful of incidents to support the likelihood of your claim under the mountain of evidence to support the likelihood of Frank’s is really touching the rim of the pale.
For someone who can come onto a board that routinely and currently highlights incidents of mild to horrendous anti-gay violence and discrimination and instead argue over the suspect wording of one of the sentences in the post you sure did a poor job of getting my point. Given that each of your posts seem to argue whatever position will garner another round I think I’ve done enough to make this all about you.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Apr 10, 2006 9:12:36 PM
Chad writes: "Initially, it looked like you were reducing a serious matter to a mere game of semantics."
I think it's a serious matter either way, whether it's a true hate crime or a fake one. Not as serious as getting dragged behind a pickup truck or being *allegedly* raped by Duke's lacrosse team, but serious, yes.
As for whether my argument is mere semantics, my gripe was not simply that the word "alleged" was missing. It's the presumption present throughout the entire post that concerned me.
Chad writes: "Frank believes the hate crime scenario to be more likely and you believe the fake hoax scenario to be more likely"
No, I don't believe the hoax scenario is more likely than the authentic hate crime scenario. I believe it more likely than Frank thinks it is. As I wrote above, I don't assume it is a hoax and I don't assume it is an authentic hate crime. I think either case is likely enough -- not necessarily equally likely -- that the sensible position is to say that we really don't know at this time.
Chad writes: "Going so far as to give a handful of incidents to support the likelihood of your claim under the mountain of evidence ..."
There are, of course, many more instances of hate crimes hoaxes than the handful I mentioned above. Just as there are far more instances of authentic hate crimes than are documented on this site. It sounds like you're troubled by the mere inclusion of evidence that supports the other side. That's not a sign of willingness to engage in honest debate.
At the risk of imflaming things further here, let me close with a plug for being willing to have one's cherished ideas challenged from time to time without responding emotionally. Do you go through life making snap judgments and refusing to keep an open mind, or are you willing to reconsider what you believe, at least for the sake of argument? Won't our opponents respect our arguments more if we engage theirs fairly and honestly? Maybe that's too much to expect of our opponents, but the fence-sitters -- those whose minds are truly not made up yet -- do notice who plays fair and who doesn't, and they often make up their minds accordingly. You can not influence people by insisting that you alone possess the truth and the other side's evidence is not even worth listening to.
That's about all I have to say on the subject of hate crimes and hoaxes. The last word is yours, Chad or anyone else, if you want it.
Posted by: Seattle | Apr 10, 2006 11:28:06 PM
As an alumnus of Michigan Tech, I am saddened and embarassed (but not surprised) at this. My freshman year up there was the first year the campus GLBTQ group held "blue jeans day." You know, where you wear blue jeans on a given day to show that you support equal rights for GLBTQ citizens. They (all six or seven members) didn't and couldn't get a lot of publicity out about this event. One guy who didn't hear about it wor his blue jeans, just like every other day, and was decked in the face while walking across campus by some 'phobe. Michigan in general, and the Upper Peninsula specifically, are pretty socially conservative, xenophobic places.
Watch "Escanaba in Da Moonlight" and consider: the Soady clan would be considered bleeding heart liberals.
Posted by: Joel | Apr 10, 2006 11:58:36 PM
As a current student at Mich. Tech., I am embarrassed and saddened by what happened that night. Although Mich. Tech. is a conservative technical school, hate of this sort is not representative of the university.
The presidents of the graduate and undergraduate student governments sent out the following message:
We all are different. We come to Michigan Tech from different countries, different parts of the U.S., different cultures, and different upbringings. We enjoy different music, food and entertainment, and we study different subjects. Black, white, gay, straight, young and old; we all came to this place at this time. And while we are in this place, we are not required to attend “x” number of cultural events, embrace every religion or develop a master plan for improving race relations, though it would be perfectly fine if each of us did. We are required to do but one thing: be tolerant and respectful of one another. At some point before Friday morning, someone or some group of people decided to break this simple rule by chalking death threats on our sidewalks. At this point, not much is known about who did this or why they chose to disobey the smallest of guidelines for human decency.
Maybe the aggressors were students and maybe they were not. Regardless of who or why, the message that needs to be sent is clear. As the leaders of the overarching representative student governments on campus, we feel justified in providing a word of notice: To those who defiled our sidewalks Friday morning with their hateful words, and to any others that have intentions of threatening or persecuting students: You are not welcome here. If you cannot set aside your differences with others enough to allow them to peaceably live their lives, then you have no place at Michigan Tech.
The president of the university sent out the following message:
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT GLENN MROZ TO MICHIGAN TECH STUDENTS
I feel it is important to communicate this to you.
Last night, April 6, an individual or individuals chalked derogatory
and hateful anti-gay remarks on our campus. These actions are
inappropriate and harmful to members of our community and will not be
tolerated. Our policies clearly state that communication intending to
harm or threaten another person is not permitted.
A full investigation of this incident is being undertaken by Public
Safety. If you have any information, I urge you to call ###-####.
Incidents such as this cause both fear and discomfort on campus and are
completely unacceptable. A campus community is one where freedom of
speech and thought should be embraced and encouraged. However, there
are limits to what is appropriate, and these individuals definitely
crossed the line.
The University is fully committed to providing a welcoming and
inclusive community. We will continue to do all we can to address these
issues; help is available for students and others from Counseling
Services at ###-####. Students are also encouraged to discuss this with
any of the Safe Place allies on campus. Information about Safe Place
can be found at http://www.safeplace.mtu.edu.
Regrettably, issues like this happen on college campuses. It is
unfortunate they arise, but I am committed to reassuring our students
that Michigan Tech is a safe and supportive community.
There is a meeting for dialogue scheduled for next week.
There is also a highly active GLBTQ organization on campus:
http://www.sos.mtu.edu/pride/
Regarding the anecdote related by Joel, "One guy who didn't hear about it wor his blue jeans, just like every other day, and was decked in the face while walking across campus by some 'phobe," I must admit to being skeptical. The simple reason: EVERYONE wears blue jeans every single day here. It's largely engineering school, and blue jeans and t-shirt and the "school uniform."
Posted by: Josh | Apr 13, 2006 1:01:45 AM
I'm shocked how far we've come in many months, yet we've regressed in so many additional thoughts and ideas. I hope to change that....to push towards intelligent and viable ideas that lead our students forward.
Posted by: John G. | Apr 15, 2006 9:29:35 AM