On Dairy Lane, only a short drive from campus, sits a brick house that is over 100 years old. At the time it was built, the house may have been intended to be a quiet, secluded home among lofty trees (which it still is). But now, the home is serving a purpose that would probably surprise its original builders: It is a fully sustainable household run with the hopes of exemplifying the future of environmental stability.
The overhaul began in 2004, when a group of Ohio University students and faculty and Athens community members came together with the goal to build a home that would illustrate solutions to wasteful energy practices. The group approached the Ecology and Energy Conservation Committee at OU and wrote a proposal indicating the need for education about green living, especially in Ohio. As indicated by the Ecohouse, Ohio is “often ranked in the top three states of the country for releasing the highest amount of environmental toxins into the air and water.” The university supported the project as an aspect of “Vision Ohio,” a document outlining OU’s top academic priorities.
A university-owned house was chosen and the renovations began in August 2005. The first improvement installed was a solar electric array–the flat black panels can be seen tilted toward the sun in the side yard. It has already offset over 6,514 pounds of greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, about 9,000 pounds of greenhouse gases are emitted per person in the average US household.
Nathan Jud, a senior Plant Biology student and Ecohouse resident, said that the project is meant to illustrate that one house “is a part of a bigger system.” Nathan was one of the several students who helped launch the project. Two junior undergrads, Hallie Morris and Tyler Dawson, currently share the space with Jud. The residents conduct research committees and write proposals for all changes made to the house. So far, this has ranged from energy-saving appliances to a solar-heated water system to improved installation made of shredded newspaper. There is even an alternative fueling station functioning out of the Ecohouse, with a greasel filtration system that recycles grease (from restaurants, for example) to power cars.
But these considerable changes are not the only ways that the Ecohouse demonstrates how we can effectively conserve energy and live a more sustainable lifestyle. The house also engages in composting, maintains a vegetable garden, and uses non-toxic household cleaners. These are the easiest ways for homes that may not be able to make the large initial investment required for new appliances and solar-energy to adopt green living. Jud mentioned that another simple way to conserve household energy is by using compact florescent light bulbs, which can significantly decrease electric bills (usually by around $10).
The Ecohouse not only serves as a demonstration home, but also provides community outreach and education, which Jud said is one of the most important aspects of the project. The amount of research involved in purchasing an energy-efficient appliance is often confusing, not to mention time-consuming, for new sustainability-seeking consumers. Jud and his roommates hope that by doing the research for the Ecohouse, they will be able to decrease this burden by providing the relevant information. The house is also a social outlet, hosting monthly tours, potlucks and workshops.
In a little over a year, the Ecohouse has become one of the most positive examples of OU’s mission to initiate solutions to national challenges. With a greywater treatment system, a solar greenhouse, and a nature trail in the works for future improvements, the Ecohouse exemplifies sustainability to the max. •
Feb 23, 2008
When the levees broke: a commentary
Over the summer HBO aired Spike Lee’s awaited documentary, “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts.” The four-Act film, about the devastation dropped on New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina, spanned over two nights in August, airing a total of four and a half hours. Longer than his epic film “Malcolm X” of 1992, Lee is to be applauded for his effort in showing the world (certainly for those of us in the States) what a category 5 hurricane can do to a city, and what a government can do to a people and what it will not do for a people. Clearly, the film exposed a modern day subjugation of a people and a view, perhaps, of what the African slave trade must have been like. Imagine the Superdome surrounded by water with people inside chained by a disaster, “sardined” with no electricity, no running water, no plumbing, no drinking water or available food, sleeping in, or amid, feces, urine, menstrual flow and death. Death in the surrounding water, death on the bridges, death lying unfound in homes. Indeed, every breath, in some instances, was a death breath.
Suddenly, we see a modern day slave ship fulfilling its qualifications and requirements of an African enslavement trade. What we see is a government slow to respond to its “home-land” tragedy and quick to respond to citizens of another place at the expense of its own citizens; its second-class citizens. Five days later when the government did respond, it scattered and sprinkled families like salt and pepper to places that, in many instances, they knew nothing about and knew no one in; separating families, taking children from mothers, brothers from sisters, husbands from wives, expanding and extending the diaspora. Indeed, parents let their children go so the rising waters of Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico wouldn’t ravage their children. Through interviews of the survivors—everyday folk, actors, politicians, doctors, engineers—the piece exhibits and exposes the lack of care given to people of African descent and those that are poor, especially in the St. Bernard Parish, by a government supposedly, “for the people and by the people.”
As I watched the film, I was drawn into thinking of Lee’s nearly three and half hour “Malcolm X,” and I began to think of Malcolm’s speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet” particularly the one delivered in Detroit in 1964 (Malcolm delivered two speeches by the same name in two different locations, the other was delivered in Cleveland) I began to relate some of what he said then, to what we continue to see today, especially in the wake of Katrina and what people were saying in Lee’s film. Malcolm X’s commentary then provided a critical historical view of the now: The past in the present and the past of the present. Not only did it speak to the disaster of response to Katrina but the disaster of the current politics of that time and, this time. Here are some excerpts from his speech:
* “The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another negro into the community and get you and me to support him so he can use him to lead us astray -- those days are long gone too.”
* “So we’re trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Anywhere we go we find that we’re trapped. And every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap.”
* “So as you can see brothers and sisters, today -- this afternoon, it’s not our intention to discuss religion. We’re going to forget religion. If we bring up religion, we’ll be in an argument, and the best way to keep away from arguments and differences, as I said earlier, put your religion at home -- in the closet. Keep it between you and your God.”
* “Whether you are a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don’t hang you because you’re a Baptist; they hang you ‘cause you’re black. They attack all of us for the same reason…We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation -- all of them from the same enemy.”
* “The government has failed us; you can’t deny that…This government has failed us; the government itself has failed us, and the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us.”
* “You and I have never seen democracy; all we’ve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream; we’ve experienced only the American nightmare. We haven’t benefited from America’s democracy; we’ve only suffered from America’s hypocrisy.”
The travesty of Katrina is the travesty of our existence in the United States since the critical masses of us were brought now into the 21st century. In a time when we think that we’ve arrived, there is Katrina; when we think that we’re in control, there is Katrina; at a time when we seemingly have more, more money, better jobs, bigger homes, there is Katrina; at a time when we’re more “educated,” there is Katrina; when we think that we’re free and living in a democracy, there is the hypocrisy of Katrina. James Baldwin once said, “History is a nightmare. People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” It seems that we continue to be “trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped.” “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts” is not easy viewing, but it is a necessary viewing. I hope it will wake us up, and clean us up, so that we can stand up. •
Najee is a Associate Professor of Cultural Studies in Education here at Ohio University.
Suddenly, we see a modern day slave ship fulfilling its qualifications and requirements of an African enslavement trade. What we see is a government slow to respond to its “home-land” tragedy and quick to respond to citizens of another place at the expense of its own citizens; its second-class citizens. Five days later when the government did respond, it scattered and sprinkled families like salt and pepper to places that, in many instances, they knew nothing about and knew no one in; separating families, taking children from mothers, brothers from sisters, husbands from wives, expanding and extending the diaspora. Indeed, parents let their children go so the rising waters of Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico wouldn’t ravage their children. Through interviews of the survivors—everyday folk, actors, politicians, doctors, engineers—the piece exhibits and exposes the lack of care given to people of African descent and those that are poor, especially in the St. Bernard Parish, by a government supposedly, “for the people and by the people.”
As I watched the film, I was drawn into thinking of Lee’s nearly three and half hour “Malcolm X,” and I began to think of Malcolm’s speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet” particularly the one delivered in Detroit in 1964 (Malcolm delivered two speeches by the same name in two different locations, the other was delivered in Cleveland) I began to relate some of what he said then, to what we continue to see today, especially in the wake of Katrina and what people were saying in Lee’s film. Malcolm X’s commentary then provided a critical historical view of the now: The past in the present and the past of the present. Not only did it speak to the disaster of response to Katrina but the disaster of the current politics of that time and, this time. Here are some excerpts from his speech:
* “The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another negro into the community and get you and me to support him so he can use him to lead us astray -- those days are long gone too.”
* “So we’re trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Anywhere we go we find that we’re trapped. And every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap.”
* “So as you can see brothers and sisters, today -- this afternoon, it’s not our intention to discuss religion. We’re going to forget religion. If we bring up religion, we’ll be in an argument, and the best way to keep away from arguments and differences, as I said earlier, put your religion at home -- in the closet. Keep it between you and your God.”
* “Whether you are a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don’t hang you because you’re a Baptist; they hang you ‘cause you’re black. They attack all of us for the same reason…We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation -- all of them from the same enemy.”
* “The government has failed us; you can’t deny that…This government has failed us; the government itself has failed us, and the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us.”
* “You and I have never seen democracy; all we’ve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream; we’ve experienced only the American nightmare. We haven’t benefited from America’s democracy; we’ve only suffered from America’s hypocrisy.”
The travesty of Katrina is the travesty of our existence in the United States since the critical masses of us were brought now into the 21st century. In a time when we think that we’ve arrived, there is Katrina; when we think that we’re in control, there is Katrina; at a time when we seemingly have more, more money, better jobs, bigger homes, there is Katrina; at a time when we’re more “educated,” there is Katrina; when we think that we’re free and living in a democracy, there is the hypocrisy of Katrina. James Baldwin once said, “History is a nightmare. People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” It seems that we continue to be “trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped.” “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts” is not easy viewing, but it is a necessary viewing. I hope it will wake us up, and clean us up, so that we can stand up. •
Najee is a Associate Professor of Cultural Studies in Education here at Ohio University.
Unsustainable agricultural practices in China wreak havoc in the Americas
Proper environmental management as a cornerstone of sustainability is not a new concept; it has been toyed-with throughout the history of mankind by the environmentally conscious and by politicians looking for ways to ensure the infinite success of society. Often times those practicing outside the lines of sustainability and well-planned environmental management do not realize the long term consequences of their actions until it is too late. Years of excessive logging, the over-use of soil and the exploitation of limited water supplies eventually lead to land degradation, rendering once productive agricultural systems useless. Once unable to provide enough food to sustain a population, a country must look outside its borders and obtain food from its neighbors, or risk societal collapse. Today the world faces similar socio-environmental dilemmas; global warming, desertification, water shortages, over-fishing, over-hunting, deforestation, nitrogen buildup and the loss of diversity are all connected and very much consequences of unsustainable living.
China is a prime example of a contemporary society facing the consequences of poor environmental management. Since 1950, the Chinese population has experienced massive growth as a result of major agricultural and mining booms. As the availability choice-farming land dwindled, many farmers moved to lands unsuitable for heavy agriculture, such as the semiarid to arid lands of north China. The cultivation and subsequent irrigation of these lands require a great input of water, which comes from both surface water and deep aquifers, both of which are slow to replenish. Over-taxation of these sources resulted in the evaporation of many inland lakes and the reduction in river flow, and much land unclaimed by humans was rendered unsuitable for vegetative growth as it eventually degraded to desert. The effects of desertification soon reached agricultural lands as water shortages hit the human population, and once lush fields became nothing more than desolate wastelands, comparable to the Great American Dust Bowl. The Chinese government is now feeling the repercussions of its history of environmental abuse and its agricultural sector can no longer produce the food it needs to sustain the population; forcing Chinese authority to look outside of its borders to ameliorate the dilemma.
As a solution to the inevitable food shortage, China turned to Brazil, the largest producer of soya in the world. With China’s demand, major headway has been made in Brazil toward the production of the bean, leading to a remarkable 10,675 percent hike in bean turnout since 1995. This phenomenal growth in the soya sector has both stimulated Brazil’s economy and provided China with the material necessary to feed its populous and agricultural sector.
To make room for soya fields land is necessary. Fortunately for China, Brazil has great agricultural potential in the relatively untouched rainforest of the Amazon River Basin. At first sight it seems the basin hosts an endless amount of fertile soil and plentiful rainfall, and that the land is prime for development. While large amounts of rain are great for agriculture, it also increases soil erosion in lands that are deforested to make way for farming, contributing to a general demise in soil quality and agricultural output when the deforestation is practiced on a wide scale. This type of land clearance strips the soils of many nutrients essential to plant growth and agricultural potential suffers. Wide-scale deforestation will also affect rainfall, as more rainwater will flow back into rivers and flow out of the area instead of being redistributed through transpiration. As a final note, the rampant deforestation that accompanies unsustainable development reduces biodiversity that could lead to great advances in medicine, tasty dietary additions and opportunities for exploration and ecotourism.
The hour is late in the present chapter of the Brazilian/Chinese soya trade. With Brazil eagerly expanding its environmental sector to meet China’s rising demand for soya, more land is stripped of forest, more indigenous peoples are losing their homelands to squatting farmers and more biodiversity is disappearing. The trend is slightly reminiscent of China’s agricultural boom in the last half of the century. Will Brazil implement proper environmental management into their agricultural agenda and ensure the longevity of its land and peoples? The answer lies within the world’s response. We can safeguard our future when we, the human race, look past short-term gains and plan for the prosperity of future generations. •
Nick Stanich is a senior environmental biology major at Ohio University and is President of the Sustainable Living Organization.
China is a prime example of a contemporary society facing the consequences of poor environmental management. Since 1950, the Chinese population has experienced massive growth as a result of major agricultural and mining booms. As the availability choice-farming land dwindled, many farmers moved to lands unsuitable for heavy agriculture, such as the semiarid to arid lands of north China. The cultivation and subsequent irrigation of these lands require a great input of water, which comes from both surface water and deep aquifers, both of which are slow to replenish. Over-taxation of these sources resulted in the evaporation of many inland lakes and the reduction in river flow, and much land unclaimed by humans was rendered unsuitable for vegetative growth as it eventually degraded to desert. The effects of desertification soon reached agricultural lands as water shortages hit the human population, and once lush fields became nothing more than desolate wastelands, comparable to the Great American Dust Bowl. The Chinese government is now feeling the repercussions of its history of environmental abuse and its agricultural sector can no longer produce the food it needs to sustain the population; forcing Chinese authority to look outside of its borders to ameliorate the dilemma.
As a solution to the inevitable food shortage, China turned to Brazil, the largest producer of soya in the world. With China’s demand, major headway has been made in Brazil toward the production of the bean, leading to a remarkable 10,675 percent hike in bean turnout since 1995. This phenomenal growth in the soya sector has both stimulated Brazil’s economy and provided China with the material necessary to feed its populous and agricultural sector.
To make room for soya fields land is necessary. Fortunately for China, Brazil has great agricultural potential in the relatively untouched rainforest of the Amazon River Basin. At first sight it seems the basin hosts an endless amount of fertile soil and plentiful rainfall, and that the land is prime for development. While large amounts of rain are great for agriculture, it also increases soil erosion in lands that are deforested to make way for farming, contributing to a general demise in soil quality and agricultural output when the deforestation is practiced on a wide scale. This type of land clearance strips the soils of many nutrients essential to plant growth and agricultural potential suffers. Wide-scale deforestation will also affect rainfall, as more rainwater will flow back into rivers and flow out of the area instead of being redistributed through transpiration. As a final note, the rampant deforestation that accompanies unsustainable development reduces biodiversity that could lead to great advances in medicine, tasty dietary additions and opportunities for exploration and ecotourism.
The hour is late in the present chapter of the Brazilian/Chinese soya trade. With Brazil eagerly expanding its environmental sector to meet China’s rising demand for soya, more land is stripped of forest, more indigenous peoples are losing their homelands to squatting farmers and more biodiversity is disappearing. The trend is slightly reminiscent of China’s agricultural boom in the last half of the century. Will Brazil implement proper environmental management into their agricultural agenda and ensure the longevity of its land and peoples? The answer lies within the world’s response. We can safeguard our future when we, the human race, look past short-term gains and plan for the prosperity of future generations. •
Nick Stanich is a senior environmental biology major at Ohio University and is President of the Sustainable Living Organization.
America the beautiful - One student’s reflections on our country upon her return from a quarter in London
“O beautiful for spacious skies…”
If I have gained one perspective about my homeland from a quarter abroad in London, it has been the staggering and unparalleled majesty of our purple mountains, amber waves, and sheer vast expanse. After two and a half months of black snot and post-nasal drip, I realized just how much I’d taken for granted the fresh air and clean water of home. Part of this is the reality of living in any city, European or otherwise, but living in London is not living in New York.
When my mom came to visit for a week, I found myself vacillating between embarrassment and admiration as she made eye contact, smiled, and made conversation with people—on the street, on the tube, on the bus—standing out like a sore thumb amidst the detached British politeness. But whenever I was annoyed, a larger part of me always reminded myself, “This is my mother’s humanity. This is someone unafraid to connect with the people around her.” Put any middle American in her place and I think the behavior would be the same. We are loud; we are obtrusive; we are blunt. Perhaps part of having all that space makes us need to project ourselves further; in London the people live on top of each other, so maybe the need to create personal space is justified.
Within the cushy protection of the world’s two largest oceans and the cradle of our eastern and western mountain ranges, we take for granted our geographic enormity the same way we take for granted our influence throughout the world. I’ve come to believe that much of our patriotism, independence, and yes, ignorance is simply because we are so big and so far from the rest of the world. In London, visiting the rest of the Western (or North African, or Middle Eastern) world is as easy as island hopping in the Florida Keys. Foreign policy and its ramifications are not so far away, and global events aren’t quite as easy to ignore when they’re only a short flight from home. We’ve managed to perpetuate, I generalize, the mythical tranquility of peacetime when we are very much at war, actively engaged in economic and political changes throughout the world, and obliviously teetering on the edge of a global energy crisis. We argue about who can marry whom and where to draw the line between religion and science, when we’ve already made a god of capitalism, a god of reckless consumerism, and a god of “democracy.” Perhaps our inability to understand or empathize with the Muslim extremists that continue to terrorize our military is because they attack us for what we refuse to admit to ourselves: We are a polytheistic society; our ignorance is our liturgy.
“America, America,
God shed his grace on thee
‘Til selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!”
I came home from London asking myself, what do we do? How do we become a more enlightened force in the world? I think it begins with honesty.
I believe there is plenty of reason for the average American to be upset. A very large portion of the world is in chaos and we continue to be directly responsible, while our administration hides behind ideological and religious issues like gay marriage, abortion, and teaching evolution, instead of honestly addressing the real and impending problems we face. If it’s too far away to think about the suffering of civilians in the Middle East, what about our own Hurricane Katrina survivors, still living out of trailers or worse, in New Orleans? As we continue to recklessly produce and purchase SUVs, when will the price of gas become unavoidably crippling—before or after we’ve developed alternative fuel sources, before or after global temperatures and ocean levels have risen beyond repair?
As the babies of complete and total media-saturation, dishonesty and corruption are something we inherently understand and expect in a way our parents do not. We question, we discredit, and then we ignore. We understand what’s wrong, to some extent, and we may even have an opinion about it, but we don’t honestly believe anything will change.
“Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!”
When America itself is a war-state, when our own idleness or apathy allows our leaders to run unchecked, we must call ourselves to action. It is our job to ring the alarum bell. If all we can offer is a hollow affirmation of the attributes that perpetuate our paralysis, if we continue to watch events unfold from behind our computer and television screens, then we are members of a cowardly, compliant, and dead nation. That is not this country’s legacy.
Our generation not only has the responsibility, but also the privilege of coming of age in an era of revolution. Now is not a time for idealism; now is the time for honesty. •
Manda Martin is the president of Up In Arms.
If I have gained one perspective about my homeland from a quarter abroad in London, it has been the staggering and unparalleled majesty of our purple mountains, amber waves, and sheer vast expanse. After two and a half months of black snot and post-nasal drip, I realized just how much I’d taken for granted the fresh air and clean water of home. Part of this is the reality of living in any city, European or otherwise, but living in London is not living in New York.
When my mom came to visit for a week, I found myself vacillating between embarrassment and admiration as she made eye contact, smiled, and made conversation with people—on the street, on the tube, on the bus—standing out like a sore thumb amidst the detached British politeness. But whenever I was annoyed, a larger part of me always reminded myself, “This is my mother’s humanity. This is someone unafraid to connect with the people around her.” Put any middle American in her place and I think the behavior would be the same. We are loud; we are obtrusive; we are blunt. Perhaps part of having all that space makes us need to project ourselves further; in London the people live on top of each other, so maybe the need to create personal space is justified.
Within the cushy protection of the world’s two largest oceans and the cradle of our eastern and western mountain ranges, we take for granted our geographic enormity the same way we take for granted our influence throughout the world. I’ve come to believe that much of our patriotism, independence, and yes, ignorance is simply because we are so big and so far from the rest of the world. In London, visiting the rest of the Western (or North African, or Middle Eastern) world is as easy as island hopping in the Florida Keys. Foreign policy and its ramifications are not so far away, and global events aren’t quite as easy to ignore when they’re only a short flight from home. We’ve managed to perpetuate, I generalize, the mythical tranquility of peacetime when we are very much at war, actively engaged in economic and political changes throughout the world, and obliviously teetering on the edge of a global energy crisis. We argue about who can marry whom and where to draw the line between religion and science, when we’ve already made a god of capitalism, a god of reckless consumerism, and a god of “democracy.” Perhaps our inability to understand or empathize with the Muslim extremists that continue to terrorize our military is because they attack us for what we refuse to admit to ourselves: We are a polytheistic society; our ignorance is our liturgy.
“America, America,
God shed his grace on thee
‘Til selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!”
I came home from London asking myself, what do we do? How do we become a more enlightened force in the world? I think it begins with honesty.
I believe there is plenty of reason for the average American to be upset. A very large portion of the world is in chaos and we continue to be directly responsible, while our administration hides behind ideological and religious issues like gay marriage, abortion, and teaching evolution, instead of honestly addressing the real and impending problems we face. If it’s too far away to think about the suffering of civilians in the Middle East, what about our own Hurricane Katrina survivors, still living out of trailers or worse, in New Orleans? As we continue to recklessly produce and purchase SUVs, when will the price of gas become unavoidably crippling—before or after we’ve developed alternative fuel sources, before or after global temperatures and ocean levels have risen beyond repair?
As the babies of complete and total media-saturation, dishonesty and corruption are something we inherently understand and expect in a way our parents do not. We question, we discredit, and then we ignore. We understand what’s wrong, to some extent, and we may even have an opinion about it, but we don’t honestly believe anything will change.
“Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!”
When America itself is a war-state, when our own idleness or apathy allows our leaders to run unchecked, we must call ourselves to action. It is our job to ring the alarum bell. If all we can offer is a hollow affirmation of the attributes that perpetuate our paralysis, if we continue to watch events unfold from behind our computer and television screens, then we are members of a cowardly, compliant, and dead nation. That is not this country’s legacy.
Our generation not only has the responsibility, but also the privilege of coming of age in an era of revolution. Now is not a time for idealism; now is the time for honesty. •
Manda Martin is the president of Up In Arms.
From the Midwest to the Middle East: Dispatches from the holy land
Before I left Ohio to spend a year studying and volunteering in Israel, I emailed a family friend who had just returned from a semester here, to express my sadness that the result of Jewish suffering has been to inflict suffering onto other peoples. While I take pride in Israel’s successes as a modern society with a high standard of living and a thriving intellectual, literary, and creative culture, the consequences of Israeli militarism often eclipse these brighter points. My correspondence with this friend began amidst Israel’s bombardments of the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, as news of the rising Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli death tolls cycled in. It was not a sunny moment.
My comment was a relatively simpleminded observation: After nearly two millennia of virtual pacifism, Jews in Israel have developed a powerful military force with a corresponding impulse to dominate any foe. The lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip is evidence of the stark consequences of this arrangement. After Jewish residents were evacuated from Gaza last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces have continued a fierce military and economic siege that keeps Gaza, the most densely populated patch of land on the planet, in a constant state of crisis regarding food, water, sanitary conditions and electricity. Objectively, it’s a human cage; disagreement is only over the cause.
The response to my email by my friend and our families was interesting. News of my comments spread rapidly and an ideological alarm was sounded: Criticism of Israeli behavior is evidence of a traitorous Jew, a pro-Palestinian backslider. A famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was invoked more than once. “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.” I had never fully realized the potency of the American Jewish bottom line and the rapidity with which any dissenting opinion should be squelched. As I prepared to depart for Israel, the challenge of developing a conscientious and ethically sound relationship with this country started coming into clear focus.
This personal episode is relevant because it reflects a frequent phenomenon among the American Jewish community at large. While there is a wide political spectrum in Israel with contentious arguments over every policy, especially settlements and major military operations, it is taboo to mimic these arguments in the organized Jewish community. Great organizational energy is instead directed at the narrowly defined concept of “support for Israel,” which entails total approval of everything that goes on here, so as not to fuel the nation’s anti-Semitic enemies.
Defining support for Israel in this manner preserves a binary that paints Israel as the morally pristine peace-seeking party left with no choice when dealing with the hostile, anti-democratic terrorists that surround them. This binary rejects the legitimacy of Arab grievances, making peaceful settlement a categorical impossibility and failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in creating its own enemies.
In a controversial article published in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt dissect American support for Israel, emphasizing non-Jewish neoconservative leaders who are equally intolerant of criticism of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer ridicule the idea that open debate, by threatening the status quo, endangers Israel’s existence, and argue conversely that the status quo is extremely dangerous to both Israel and America. The status quo guarantees decades and decades of additional conflict, and makes the recruitment of radical militant enemies a certainty. It guarantees the intensification of anti-American opinion in the Arab world and underscores America’s arrogance in unilaterally charting the course for this region.
Additionally, the suppression of dissenting opinion is a great loss to Israeli peace organizations’ desperate fight to chart a less bloody future. Without a significant counterpart in American politics, Israeli doves cannot generate the necessary power and momentum to undermine the supremacy of their country’s military establishment and move toward a more sincere and lasting settlement.
American Jews frequently tout their role in the civil rights movement and identify the recent suffering of the Jewish people as a driving force in preventing the suffering of others. Clearly, however, the civilian death toll in Lebanon and the lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip undermine such claims, as the September InterActivist’s interview with Jehan Mullin demonstrates. (To receive a PDF version of September’s edition, email theinteractivist@gmail.com) There are enormous ethical and humanitarian issues relating the state of Israel, and as a young Jew deeply invested in the longevity of his people, I feel a responsibility to work sincerely toward resolving these issues during my lifetime. •
Ben Mendelsohn graduated from Ohio University in August, 2006 with a degree in English literature and film. He is currently living and volunteering in Tel Aviv, Israel.
My comment was a relatively simpleminded observation: After nearly two millennia of virtual pacifism, Jews in Israel have developed a powerful military force with a corresponding impulse to dominate any foe. The lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip is evidence of the stark consequences of this arrangement. After Jewish residents were evacuated from Gaza last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces have continued a fierce military and economic siege that keeps Gaza, the most densely populated patch of land on the planet, in a constant state of crisis regarding food, water, sanitary conditions and electricity. Objectively, it’s a human cage; disagreement is only over the cause.
The response to my email by my friend and our families was interesting. News of my comments spread rapidly and an ideological alarm was sounded: Criticism of Israeli behavior is evidence of a traitorous Jew, a pro-Palestinian backslider. A famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was invoked more than once. “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.” I had never fully realized the potency of the American Jewish bottom line and the rapidity with which any dissenting opinion should be squelched. As I prepared to depart for Israel, the challenge of developing a conscientious and ethically sound relationship with this country started coming into clear focus.
This personal episode is relevant because it reflects a frequent phenomenon among the American Jewish community at large. While there is a wide political spectrum in Israel with contentious arguments over every policy, especially settlements and major military operations, it is taboo to mimic these arguments in the organized Jewish community. Great organizational energy is instead directed at the narrowly defined concept of “support for Israel,” which entails total approval of everything that goes on here, so as not to fuel the nation’s anti-Semitic enemies.
Defining support for Israel in this manner preserves a binary that paints Israel as the morally pristine peace-seeking party left with no choice when dealing with the hostile, anti-democratic terrorists that surround them. This binary rejects the legitimacy of Arab grievances, making peaceful settlement a categorical impossibility and failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in creating its own enemies.
In a controversial article published in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt dissect American support for Israel, emphasizing non-Jewish neoconservative leaders who are equally intolerant of criticism of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer ridicule the idea that open debate, by threatening the status quo, endangers Israel’s existence, and argue conversely that the status quo is extremely dangerous to both Israel and America. The status quo guarantees decades and decades of additional conflict, and makes the recruitment of radical militant enemies a certainty. It guarantees the intensification of anti-American opinion in the Arab world and underscores America’s arrogance in unilaterally charting the course for this region.
Additionally, the suppression of dissenting opinion is a great loss to Israeli peace organizations’ desperate fight to chart a less bloody future. Without a significant counterpart in American politics, Israeli doves cannot generate the necessary power and momentum to undermine the supremacy of their country’s military establishment and move toward a more sincere and lasting settlement.
American Jews frequently tout their role in the civil rights movement and identify the recent suffering of the Jewish people as a driving force in preventing the suffering of others. Clearly, however, the civilian death toll in Lebanon and the lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip undermine such claims, as the September InterActivist’s interview with Jehan Mullin demonstrates. (To receive a PDF version of September’s edition, email theinteractivist@gmail.com) There are enormous ethical and humanitarian issues relating the state of Israel, and as a young Jew deeply invested in the longevity of his people, I feel a responsibility to work sincerely toward resolving these issues during my lifetime. •
Ben Mendelsohn graduated from Ohio University in August, 2006 with a degree in English literature and film. He is currently living and volunteering in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Advocates for healthcare reform - Group spotlight
I recently had a chance to sit down with LaPortia McElrath and Kristin Kaffen from Ohio University’s Advocates for Healthcare Reform (AHR). AHR is a relatively new group that began last spring and is seeking to educate the people of Southeastern Ohio on the current problems with the healthcare system in America and to gather signatures for a petition supporting the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act.”
InterActivist: Why exactly is healthcare reform needed?
Laportia McElrath and Kristen Kaffen: The healthcare system in America is run by private insurance companies with little to no regulation. Currently about $11.6 billion per year is wasted on this inefficient private insurance system with a 20-30 percent administrative overhead. It’s an extremely expensive proposition to keep people insured; in fact about 46 percent of personal bankruptcies are related to medical expenses. The prices for insurance have become outrageous; it’s about $400 a month to keep a family of four insured. We’ve actually talked to a physician in The Plains who can’t even afford his own personal healthcare insurance. Here in Ohio, things are especially bad. As of now, 1.3 million Ohioans have no health insurance and millions more live with inadequate coverage.
IA: But I thought America had the best healthcare system in the world, right?
LM & KK: Actually, the World Health Organization ranks the US healthcare system 37th in quality as compared to other countries, according to figures from 1997. Many countries already have a universal healthcare system in place. We’re seriously beginning to lag behind the rest of the world in terms of healthcare; even Botswana has its own universal healthcare system. Every year Americans spend nearly twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, and we get less for it because most of that money is going to private insurance providers.
IA: OK, so private healthcare insurance is obviously not working very well, but what are our other options?
LM & KK: We’re advocating a universal system of healthcare known as the Single-Payer system. Basically, it entails the creation of a non-profit governmental agency, which is responsible for one fund that would make payments for all medical services. We are working in conjunction with SPAN-Ohio (Single-Payer Action Network) to collect petitions to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put into action in order to create a Single-Payer system here in Ohio.
IA: What are the key points of the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act?”
LM & KK: If it became a law, it would provide coverage for the full range of inpatient and outpatient hospital care, preventive care, mental health, vision, hearing, prescription drugs, dental, and all other necessary medical services as determined by any state licensed, certified, or registered health care practitioner. It would provide coverage regardless of income or employment status. It would even go so far as to reimburse workers at insurance companies, who might lose their jobs as a result of the changes brought about by the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act.”
IA: So what is Advocates for Healthcare Reform doing to help make universal healthcare a reality?
LM & KK: Right now we’re working to educate the community about the great need for a single-payer system. There are a lot of myths associated with universal healthcare; it’s not the same as socialized medicine. Under a universal system people still have a choice as to which doctor they see and when. You can still receive the same amount of care from your own personal doctor. We’re also collecting petitions to try and get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot, so Ohio voters can vote on whether or not to make it a law.
IA: Is either gubernatorial candidate this year pushing for any kind of similar reform?
LM & KK: Not exactly. Blackwell is pushing for a “universal insurance plan,” which still leaves room for insurance companies to act as the middle man in healthcare. Strickland is trying to push for more federal grants, but he’s basically advocating Medicare under a different name. That’s why it’s so important that we collect enough signatures for a petition to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot in the next election.
IA: How can people living in the Athens area help?
LM & KK: We are always looking for volunteers to help us in our campaigns, to create awareness and educate people about the need for healthcare reforms. We are also canvassing Southeast Ohio to collect signatures for the petition. Advocates for Healthcare Reform is responsible for getting signatures from Hocking, Athens, and Vinton counties. Remember, healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege that we pay for. We all have a basic right to healthcare.
It was a pleasure talking to these two women who are very passionate on the subject. It’s important to remember that the need for healthcare affects everyone. For more information, contact AHR at advhealth@ohio.edu or check out their website at www.ohiou.edu/advhealth. AHR also hosts meetings every Monday night at 8 p.m. in Grover Hall Room W113. •
Mike Lottes is the managing editor of The InterActivist.
InterActivist: Why exactly is healthcare reform needed?
Laportia McElrath and Kristen Kaffen: The healthcare system in America is run by private insurance companies with little to no regulation. Currently about $11.6 billion per year is wasted on this inefficient private insurance system with a 20-30 percent administrative overhead. It’s an extremely expensive proposition to keep people insured; in fact about 46 percent of personal bankruptcies are related to medical expenses. The prices for insurance have become outrageous; it’s about $400 a month to keep a family of four insured. We’ve actually talked to a physician in The Plains who can’t even afford his own personal healthcare insurance. Here in Ohio, things are especially bad. As of now, 1.3 million Ohioans have no health insurance and millions more live with inadequate coverage.
IA: But I thought America had the best healthcare system in the world, right?
LM & KK: Actually, the World Health Organization ranks the US healthcare system 37th in quality as compared to other countries, according to figures from 1997. Many countries already have a universal healthcare system in place. We’re seriously beginning to lag behind the rest of the world in terms of healthcare; even Botswana has its own universal healthcare system. Every year Americans spend nearly twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, and we get less for it because most of that money is going to private insurance providers.
IA: OK, so private healthcare insurance is obviously not working very well, but what are our other options?
LM & KK: We’re advocating a universal system of healthcare known as the Single-Payer system. Basically, it entails the creation of a non-profit governmental agency, which is responsible for one fund that would make payments for all medical services. We are working in conjunction with SPAN-Ohio (Single-Payer Action Network) to collect petitions to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put into action in order to create a Single-Payer system here in Ohio.
IA: What are the key points of the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act?”
LM & KK: If it became a law, it would provide coverage for the full range of inpatient and outpatient hospital care, preventive care, mental health, vision, hearing, prescription drugs, dental, and all other necessary medical services as determined by any state licensed, certified, or registered health care practitioner. It would provide coverage regardless of income or employment status. It would even go so far as to reimburse workers at insurance companies, who might lose their jobs as a result of the changes brought about by the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act.”
IA: So what is Advocates for Healthcare Reform doing to help make universal healthcare a reality?
LM & KK: Right now we’re working to educate the community about the great need for a single-payer system. There are a lot of myths associated with universal healthcare; it’s not the same as socialized medicine. Under a universal system people still have a choice as to which doctor they see and when. You can still receive the same amount of care from your own personal doctor. We’re also collecting petitions to try and get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot, so Ohio voters can vote on whether or not to make it a law.
IA: Is either gubernatorial candidate this year pushing for any kind of similar reform?
LM & KK: Not exactly. Blackwell is pushing for a “universal insurance plan,” which still leaves room for insurance companies to act as the middle man in healthcare. Strickland is trying to push for more federal grants, but he’s basically advocating Medicare under a different name. That’s why it’s so important that we collect enough signatures for a petition to get the “Health Care for All Ohioans Act” put directly on the ballot in the next election.
IA: How can people living in the Athens area help?
LM & KK: We are always looking for volunteers to help us in our campaigns, to create awareness and educate people about the need for healthcare reforms. We are also canvassing Southeast Ohio to collect signatures for the petition. Advocates for Healthcare Reform is responsible for getting signatures from Hocking, Athens, and Vinton counties. Remember, healthcare shouldn’t be a privilege that we pay for. We all have a basic right to healthcare.
It was a pleasure talking to these two women who are very passionate on the subject. It’s important to remember that the need for healthcare affects everyone. For more information, contact AHR at advhealth@ohio.edu or check out their website at www.ohiou.edu/advhealth. AHR also hosts meetings every Monday night at 8 p.m. in Grover Hall Room W113. •
Mike Lottes is the managing editor of The InterActivist.
Veteran LGBT rights activist reflects on time at OU - Activist spotlight: Mickey Hart
A tireless activist for peace and justice since coming to Ohio University in the early 1990s, Mickey Hart now runs OU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center and sits on the board of statewide LGBT rights organization Equality Ohio. Earlier this month, Hart spoke to The InterActivist’s Dana Stewart and Damon Krane about issues facing LGBT people at OU and across the US and how he got his start as an activist.
The InterActivist: What led you to become a social activist?
Mickey Hart: Beyond getting an education, I came to Ohio University to come out of the closet. That was a large reason why I left my hometown of Laurelville, Ohio, a small town in Hocking County about an hour from here. I had opened a restaurant in Laurelville at age 18, and I ran it for its first five years. My mom still owns the restaurant now with my former business partner. But I needed to come out of the closet, and didn’t feel like I could do it there. I knew I could do it in Athens.
So I came to OU in the early 90s, which was a very politically active time here. Before I really focused on coming out, I got my start in social activism protesting the Gulf War. In the process, I got to learn from some of the greats, like Pete Hill and Art Gish. It was a phenomenal experience and one of the only times I’ve seen strong collaboration between student and local activists. We would have meetings with 100 people, and I would co-facilitate some of these consensus-based meetings. I learned lots of activist skills: meeting facilitation, peacekeeping, affinity groups, civil disobedience—just so much, so many great things.
In addition to all of the anti-war activism during this time, there was also a big surge in LGBT activism across the country. It was great to ride that wave. In some ways it’s been kind of a let down since then. Nationally, there’s not quite as much activism now, and some of the groups have become more mainstreamed—still working towards making change and progress, but probably not as bold and in-your-face.
IA: How did you then get involved in LGBT activism at OU?
MH: At the time there was only one student group for LGBT people, Open Doors, which has existed under different names at OU since the 70s. It started out as the Gay Liberation Front, then the Gay People’s Alliance, the Gay and Lesbian Association (GALA), and in 1988 it became Open Doors. But during the early 90s, there was also a takeover of Student Senate by an amazing group of student activists.
As the Minority Affairs Commissioner of this activist Student Senate, one of the first things I did was to push for the creation of an LGBT Commission. At the time, a very wide range of different groups of students affected by very different issues were all lumped together under one Commission of Minority Affairs—including military veterans, LGBT students, and non-traditional students. My proposal to establish a separate LGBT Affairs Commission took some doing to create and get passed, but eventually it was passed with I think only two “no” votes. These came from the more conservative members of Senate, one of whom we all knew at the time was gay. (laughs) He’s since come out… He’s still a Log Cabin Republican, though! And with him, his best girl-friend also voted against the proposal. But they were it, and since then I think the existence of the LGBT Commission has helped open the door to creating additional Commissions to better represent other groups of students.
IA: What are some problems facing the LGBT community at OU?
MH: There have been some reported assaults on LGBT people, but not the kind of violence that’s happened in other communities. Right now most of the negative experiences LGBT students have are things like hateful or threatening messages being written on bulletin boards and on dry erase boards on people’s doors in the Residence Halls. Stuff in the Residence Halls is particularly difficult because it happens in such a personal space. It’s where these students live. Residence Life at OU has been very supportive in dealing with this throughout the years, but because the dorms are such a personal space for students, the students in these situations aren’t always satisfied with the results they get from Residence Life.
Most of the problems we see tend to happen uptown, on Court Street, when people are drunk. It tends to be name-calling and sometimes physical threats and intimidation directed at LGBT students, as opposed to actual physical violence. But to me, the potential for actual physical violence is just below the surface at all times. So I always caution students to always be aware of your surroundings no matter where you are, no matter how safe you feel. I’m not saying walk through your life ready to be victimized or being so on-alert that you’re overwhelmed by it. But don’t get so focused on what you’re doing that you’re not aware of the impact beyond your group or circle of friends.
IA: How have you seen the situation of LGBT students at OU change over time?
MH: Even though Athens is relatively safe for LGBT people, I do think there were times when we were better off here than we are now. OU is a very different place than when I came to school here. Because you need better grades and more money to go here now, we’ve had a class shift here at OU in recent years. I refer to it as the Miami-ization of OU. In an effort to become more recognized, we have become more mainstream, and have declined in some ways by becoming Any Mid-West University. At the same time, the US has become more conservative and probably less open to LGBT issues. Both of these things have happened simultaneously to create a chillier climate than there used to be for LGBT students at OU.
At the same time there is a real base of open-minded people in Athens County. Athens, after all, was the only county in the state to vote against issue #1. So even as there has been this class shift at OU and the country has gotten more conservative, Athens has held its ground. Years ago I wanted to make bumper stickers that said “Athens: We just think we’re liberal,” because even though there is this idea that Athens is some bastion of liberalism, a lot of folks here aren’t really working for social justice. I don’t think I could make those bumper stickers any more, because as the nation has gotten more conservative, I don’t think Athens has. So we probably are liberal now, but not in the way that we would have defined “liberal” ten years ago.
IA: In Ohio and states across the country, gay marriage has been the big LGBT issue on the agenda. What’s your take on this?
MH: It’s not the LGBT community that has pushed to make gay marriage an issue. The Right raised this issue because they knew it would work in their favor as a wedge issue and would turn out more conservatives to vote. It’s no coincidence that marriage amendments were on the ballot in 11 states during the last presidential election. Of all the things that the LGBT political movement could have pushed for, marriage would not have been the first priority. But now that marriage is an issue, it raises some very interesting questions.
A lot of people don’t want LGBT people to be able to marry, but maybe they’ll accept civil unions. Well, we know that separate but equal just doesn’t work. All of the laws recently passed don’t talk about “civil unions,” they talk about “marriage,” So legally, “marriage” really means something. There are over 1000 laws, rights and obligations that come with “marriage”.
Looking even deeper into the issue, we have a separation of church and state in the US, but when clergy pronounce a couple married, they say “by the power vested in me by the State of Ohio...” So we’ve had the church doing the state’s job for years, certifying marriage. Given the idea of separation of church and state, we probably should have always had civil unions for all couples. Beyond that, you want to go to church? Have it witnessed by your family and God? Then you go do that as well. That’s my perspective. But for people who want both legal and religious recognition of their commitment to one another, it’s definitely a troubling issue.
Some more radical folks in the LGBT community really wouldn’t strive for marriage at all, because they think it’s not such a great institution and they’d want something better than marriage. But for other folks, it’s just a real basic idea: I just want to be part of the American dream, with marriage and maybe children and a household and all those kinds of things.
IA: You’re on the board of the statewide LGBT rights group Equality Ohio. (see www.equalityohio.org - ed.) What does the group strive for?
MH: Equality Ohio came about after issue #1, the so-called marriage amendment, passed in Ohio. Initially, there was this sort of kicked-in-the-gut reaction that many LGBT people had, that our neighbors had done this to us. Our neighbors made us feel like second class citizens. They made us not feel at home in our own state.
But we knew we couldn’t just have a reactionary kind of effort. We knew we needed a long-term effort over the next few years aimed at changing the hearts and minds of voters. So a pretty representative group of 60 prominent LGBT activists from throughout the state came together for Equality Ohio’s first meeting and began formulating our plan.
Our mission essentially comes down to creating an Ohio where everybody feels at home, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. And one of the things we’re saying is we’re tired of being the Right’s wedge issue. We’re not going to let them use us that way anymore.
IA: How did you come to be Director of LGBT Programs at OU?
MH: Well, I’m actually not a director. People often think, “Oh, of course there’s a director of LGBT Programs at OU,” and this raises a very important issue.
For years I had the title of LGBT Programs Coordinator, which in hindsight, was a way to have someone doing the work of a Director without paying the person at that level. Currently my title is Assistant Director of Campus Life for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Programs. There is some concern in the LGBT community here about being incorporated into Campus Life as part of recent restructuring at OU. Most recently, though, I’ve been raising the overall question about how the university addresses diversity.
There are five operational areas of Ohio University that focus on diversity: International Student and Faculty Services, Multicultural Programs/Lindley Cultural Center, the Women’s Center that’s going to be opened in the new Student Center, Disability Services through the Office of Institutional Equity and, lastly, LGBT Programs. As a result of recent restructuring, the first four divisions now fall in the domain of he President and the Provost and are each headed by people who have the title of Director and/or are paid at that level. These divisions also have budgets reflecting the higher priority attention they’re receiving. In contrast, LGBT Programs is not within the area of the President and Provost, and it’s not funded at the Director level. LGBT programs also received a budget cut this year, which was to be expected given decreased funding for higher education, but the cut was larger than I expected. So there is a huge discrepancy here that raises a big question about equity among the different components of diversity at OU, and for me personally, the issue of equal pay for equal work.
IA: You’ve worked for change at OU from both outside the bureaucracy as a student activist and within as an administrator. What are the pros and cons of each position?
MH: It is really interested that when you become part of a system or structure, it changes the way you approach things. My approach is as a professional. I try to be really thoughtful about it. I understand both sides of these issues. I understand why LGBT Programs hasn’t been able to grow the way we want to grow. I understand budgets and those kinds of things. But at a certain point the understanding needs to stop, because-- wait a minute, there are some real inequities here. LGBT Programs hasn’t grown the way other areas have grown, and what’s that really all about? In part, I think our growth has not being a priority; it hasn’t really been on the radar of upper level administrators. How do you bring those issues up? It’s different on the inside than it is on the outside.
When students have concerns I try to point them in the right direction. But I’m also cautious, because I think some people have this notion that I’m planting these ideas in order for students to carry out my agenda. More importantly, it’s my job to make OU feel safe for all LGBT people. I strive to create harmony within the community, among those who are politically active and radical and those who are only beginning to come out. The reality is that doing something pretty radical, that makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of attention, can advance a cause or a group. But it can also create a lot of turmoil within the community. Just being LGBT in this society is hard, and a lot of people aren’t looking for more difficulty.
At the same time, I’ve probably been too cautious. I’ve done things to appease students and told them to take a more cautious route to raising concerns. And in recent years my own cautiousness has probably hampered some efforts for change. On a college campus I think change happens very slowly. But over and over again, at OU and other college campuses, it’s when students organize and speak out and call attention to things that more sudden change and progress is made. •
Sidebar:
What’s in a name… err.. label?
“LGBT” is short for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. As in LGBT people or the LGBtT Community. Some misuse LGBT as a noun. There is not such thing as “The LGBT”
In addition to LGBT you could also add “A” for Ally “Q” for Queer or Questioning , “I” for Intersex, “TS” for Two Spirit, just to list a few.
It’s easy say “LGBT,” but to sensitize people to what those letters really mean, in public and in print, it’s important to say the words “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.”
The term “queer” is interesting. Some like “queer” because it’s easier to say than the alphabet soup mentioned above. However, others do not like it because it has negative connotations as a hateful, derogatory term. Still others like “queer” as it speaks to their political identity, which has to do with being different, being queer, in a hetero-normative society, where we’re all taught that we’re supposed to be heterosexual.
Some people aren’t happy with any of these terms, and some don’t even want to be labeled anything. So, as much as possible, it is best to let people label themselves to define who they are.
The InterActivist: What led you to become a social activist?
Mickey Hart: Beyond getting an education, I came to Ohio University to come out of the closet. That was a large reason why I left my hometown of Laurelville, Ohio, a small town in Hocking County about an hour from here. I had opened a restaurant in Laurelville at age 18, and I ran it for its first five years. My mom still owns the restaurant now with my former business partner. But I needed to come out of the closet, and didn’t feel like I could do it there. I knew I could do it in Athens.
So I came to OU in the early 90s, which was a very politically active time here. Before I really focused on coming out, I got my start in social activism protesting the Gulf War. In the process, I got to learn from some of the greats, like Pete Hill and Art Gish. It was a phenomenal experience and one of the only times I’ve seen strong collaboration between student and local activists. We would have meetings with 100 people, and I would co-facilitate some of these consensus-based meetings. I learned lots of activist skills: meeting facilitation, peacekeeping, affinity groups, civil disobedience—just so much, so many great things.
In addition to all of the anti-war activism during this time, there was also a big surge in LGBT activism across the country. It was great to ride that wave. In some ways it’s been kind of a let down since then. Nationally, there’s not quite as much activism now, and some of the groups have become more mainstreamed—still working towards making change and progress, but probably not as bold and in-your-face.
IA: How did you then get involved in LGBT activism at OU?
MH: At the time there was only one student group for LGBT people, Open Doors, which has existed under different names at OU since the 70s. It started out as the Gay Liberation Front, then the Gay People’s Alliance, the Gay and Lesbian Association (GALA), and in 1988 it became Open Doors. But during the early 90s, there was also a takeover of Student Senate by an amazing group of student activists.
As the Minority Affairs Commissioner of this activist Student Senate, one of the first things I did was to push for the creation of an LGBT Commission. At the time, a very wide range of different groups of students affected by very different issues were all lumped together under one Commission of Minority Affairs—including military veterans, LGBT students, and non-traditional students. My proposal to establish a separate LGBT Affairs Commission took some doing to create and get passed, but eventually it was passed with I think only two “no” votes. These came from the more conservative members of Senate, one of whom we all knew at the time was gay. (laughs) He’s since come out… He’s still a Log Cabin Republican, though! And with him, his best girl-friend also voted against the proposal. But they were it, and since then I think the existence of the LGBT Commission has helped open the door to creating additional Commissions to better represent other groups of students.
IA: What are some problems facing the LGBT community at OU?
MH: There have been some reported assaults on LGBT people, but not the kind of violence that’s happened in other communities. Right now most of the negative experiences LGBT students have are things like hateful or threatening messages being written on bulletin boards and on dry erase boards on people’s doors in the Residence Halls. Stuff in the Residence Halls is particularly difficult because it happens in such a personal space. It’s where these students live. Residence Life at OU has been very supportive in dealing with this throughout the years, but because the dorms are such a personal space for students, the students in these situations aren’t always satisfied with the results they get from Residence Life.
Most of the problems we see tend to happen uptown, on Court Street, when people are drunk. It tends to be name-calling and sometimes physical threats and intimidation directed at LGBT students, as opposed to actual physical violence. But to me, the potential for actual physical violence is just below the surface at all times. So I always caution students to always be aware of your surroundings no matter where you are, no matter how safe you feel. I’m not saying walk through your life ready to be victimized or being so on-alert that you’re overwhelmed by it. But don’t get so focused on what you’re doing that you’re not aware of the impact beyond your group or circle of friends.
IA: How have you seen the situation of LGBT students at OU change over time?
MH: Even though Athens is relatively safe for LGBT people, I do think there were times when we were better off here than we are now. OU is a very different place than when I came to school here. Because you need better grades and more money to go here now, we’ve had a class shift here at OU in recent years. I refer to it as the Miami-ization of OU. In an effort to become more recognized, we have become more mainstream, and have declined in some ways by becoming Any Mid-West University. At the same time, the US has become more conservative and probably less open to LGBT issues. Both of these things have happened simultaneously to create a chillier climate than there used to be for LGBT students at OU.
At the same time there is a real base of open-minded people in Athens County. Athens, after all, was the only county in the state to vote against issue #1. So even as there has been this class shift at OU and the country has gotten more conservative, Athens has held its ground. Years ago I wanted to make bumper stickers that said “Athens: We just think we’re liberal,” because even though there is this idea that Athens is some bastion of liberalism, a lot of folks here aren’t really working for social justice. I don’t think I could make those bumper stickers any more, because as the nation has gotten more conservative, I don’t think Athens has. So we probably are liberal now, but not in the way that we would have defined “liberal” ten years ago.
IA: In Ohio and states across the country, gay marriage has been the big LGBT issue on the agenda. What’s your take on this?
MH: It’s not the LGBT community that has pushed to make gay marriage an issue. The Right raised this issue because they knew it would work in their favor as a wedge issue and would turn out more conservatives to vote. It’s no coincidence that marriage amendments were on the ballot in 11 states during the last presidential election. Of all the things that the LGBT political movement could have pushed for, marriage would not have been the first priority. But now that marriage is an issue, it raises some very interesting questions.
A lot of people don’t want LGBT people to be able to marry, but maybe they’ll accept civil unions. Well, we know that separate but equal just doesn’t work. All of the laws recently passed don’t talk about “civil unions,” they talk about “marriage,” So legally, “marriage” really means something. There are over 1000 laws, rights and obligations that come with “marriage”.
Looking even deeper into the issue, we have a separation of church and state in the US, but when clergy pronounce a couple married, they say “by the power vested in me by the State of Ohio...” So we’ve had the church doing the state’s job for years, certifying marriage. Given the idea of separation of church and state, we probably should have always had civil unions for all couples. Beyond that, you want to go to church? Have it witnessed by your family and God? Then you go do that as well. That’s my perspective. But for people who want both legal and religious recognition of their commitment to one another, it’s definitely a troubling issue.
Some more radical folks in the LGBT community really wouldn’t strive for marriage at all, because they think it’s not such a great institution and they’d want something better than marriage. But for other folks, it’s just a real basic idea: I just want to be part of the American dream, with marriage and maybe children and a household and all those kinds of things.
IA: You’re on the board of the statewide LGBT rights group Equality Ohio. (see www.equalityohio.org - ed.) What does the group strive for?
MH: Equality Ohio came about after issue #1, the so-called marriage amendment, passed in Ohio. Initially, there was this sort of kicked-in-the-gut reaction that many LGBT people had, that our neighbors had done this to us. Our neighbors made us feel like second class citizens. They made us not feel at home in our own state.
But we knew we couldn’t just have a reactionary kind of effort. We knew we needed a long-term effort over the next few years aimed at changing the hearts and minds of voters. So a pretty representative group of 60 prominent LGBT activists from throughout the state came together for Equality Ohio’s first meeting and began formulating our plan.
Our mission essentially comes down to creating an Ohio where everybody feels at home, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. And one of the things we’re saying is we’re tired of being the Right’s wedge issue. We’re not going to let them use us that way anymore.
IA: How did you come to be Director of LGBT Programs at OU?
MH: Well, I’m actually not a director. People often think, “Oh, of course there’s a director of LGBT Programs at OU,” and this raises a very important issue.
For years I had the title of LGBT Programs Coordinator, which in hindsight, was a way to have someone doing the work of a Director without paying the person at that level. Currently my title is Assistant Director of Campus Life for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Programs. There is some concern in the LGBT community here about being incorporated into Campus Life as part of recent restructuring at OU. Most recently, though, I’ve been raising the overall question about how the university addresses diversity.
There are five operational areas of Ohio University that focus on diversity: International Student and Faculty Services, Multicultural Programs/Lindley Cultural Center, the Women’s Center that’s going to be opened in the new Student Center, Disability Services through the Office of Institutional Equity and, lastly, LGBT Programs. As a result of recent restructuring, the first four divisions now fall in the domain of he President and the Provost and are each headed by people who have the title of Director and/or are paid at that level. These divisions also have budgets reflecting the higher priority attention they’re receiving. In contrast, LGBT Programs is not within the area of the President and Provost, and it’s not funded at the Director level. LGBT programs also received a budget cut this year, which was to be expected given decreased funding for higher education, but the cut was larger than I expected. So there is a huge discrepancy here that raises a big question about equity among the different components of diversity at OU, and for me personally, the issue of equal pay for equal work.
IA: You’ve worked for change at OU from both outside the bureaucracy as a student activist and within as an administrator. What are the pros and cons of each position?
MH: It is really interested that when you become part of a system or structure, it changes the way you approach things. My approach is as a professional. I try to be really thoughtful about it. I understand both sides of these issues. I understand why LGBT Programs hasn’t been able to grow the way we want to grow. I understand budgets and those kinds of things. But at a certain point the understanding needs to stop, because-- wait a minute, there are some real inequities here. LGBT Programs hasn’t grown the way other areas have grown, and what’s that really all about? In part, I think our growth has not being a priority; it hasn’t really been on the radar of upper level administrators. How do you bring those issues up? It’s different on the inside than it is on the outside.
When students have concerns I try to point them in the right direction. But I’m also cautious, because I think some people have this notion that I’m planting these ideas in order for students to carry out my agenda. More importantly, it’s my job to make OU feel safe for all LGBT people. I strive to create harmony within the community, among those who are politically active and radical and those who are only beginning to come out. The reality is that doing something pretty radical, that makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of attention, can advance a cause or a group. But it can also create a lot of turmoil within the community. Just being LGBT in this society is hard, and a lot of people aren’t looking for more difficulty.
At the same time, I’ve probably been too cautious. I’ve done things to appease students and told them to take a more cautious route to raising concerns. And in recent years my own cautiousness has probably hampered some efforts for change. On a college campus I think change happens very slowly. But over and over again, at OU and other college campuses, it’s when students organize and speak out and call attention to things that more sudden change and progress is made. •
Sidebar:
What’s in a name… err.. label?
“LGBT” is short for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. As in LGBT people or the LGBtT Community. Some misuse LGBT as a noun. There is not such thing as “The LGBT”
In addition to LGBT you could also add “A” for Ally “Q” for Queer or Questioning , “I” for Intersex, “TS” for Two Spirit, just to list a few.
It’s easy say “LGBT,” but to sensitize people to what those letters really mean, in public and in print, it’s important to say the words “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.”
The term “queer” is interesting. Some like “queer” because it’s easier to say than the alphabet soup mentioned above. However, others do not like it because it has negative connotations as a hateful, derogatory term. Still others like “queer” as it speaks to their political identity, which has to do with being different, being queer, in a hetero-normative society, where we’re all taught that we’re supposed to be heterosexual.
Some people aren’t happy with any of these terms, and some don’t even want to be labeled anything. So, as much as possible, it is best to let people label themselves to define who they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)