February 4, 2012

On January 24, the Yale Political Union finally debated abortion directly. The fight had been simmering for a while; every week or three someone references it on the floor; it’s the cause célèbre of Right ...]]> By NATHANAEL DERANEY

February 4, 2012

On January 24, the Yale Political Union finally debated abortion directly. The fight had been simmering for a while; every week or three someone references it on the floor; it’s the cause célèbre of Right and comes up in speeches and especially questions quite often. Half of the members of the Right who showed up for the debate had just returned from the National Right to Life March in Washington, and WLH 119 remained packed for the two hours of the debate. Yet despite the enthusiasm of the Right, despite the passion of the guest, when the vote finally came, Resolved: Repeal Roe vs. Wade failed 36-25.

The Union is Yale’s largest undergraduate organization, and each week features a guest who speaks on a chosen resolution; students may question the guest and make their own speeches, and then the body as a whole votes on the resolution at the end of the evening. That Tuesday evening the guest was Timothy Goeglein, top lobbyist for Focus on the Family, a disciple of Karl Rove, and the founder of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and adviser to the president before resigning over plagiarism. In all eight Yale students gave speeches that night, responding to Goeglein and to each other, with numerous others asking questions. Attendance peaked at around a hundred students, and the room was far from quiet: as is tradition, members of the Union express support for a point by pounding desks and thighs, disapproval by hissing. The energy was not limited to the Right; several times during Mr. Goeglein’s speech, his words were completely drowned out by hissing (no mean feat), and the pounding during negative speeches was at least as strong as that during affirmative ones.

Mr. Goeglein, despite having informed the Union he would speak primarily about the constitutionality of Roe, immediately made his speech about abortion itself and “the tyranny of abortion-on-demand.” Further, it was an intensely partisan speech; Goeglein spent at least a third of it attacking Obama as an abortionist and, “if he really cared about women,” a hypocrite. Three main tactics of the anti-choice right were on display: first, that abortion is a danger to women’s health; second, relatedly, that regulation for safety and away from the “absolute right” of Roe is necessary; third, that abortion redounds to racist ends (he claimed that Planned Parenthood is “targeting” African-American and Hispanic women). Despite his “concern” for the health of women and for lowering the abortion rate, under questioning by he did not support any system whereby contraception might be made more available, and it was clear that the “safety regulations” he supported were designed chiefly to constrain and strangle as many clinics as possible–a strategy that has been on clear display in Virginia and Kansas.

Following Mr. Goeglein were three docketed speeches–longer speeches selected and prepared in advance. The first negative was given by Kara Brower ’13 of the Party of the Right; the second affirmative by Jeremy Weltmer ’13 also of that party, and the second negative by Jess Belding ’13 of the Party of the Left. Mr. Weltmer’s argument hinged on the voluntary nature of sex and its consequence, pregnancy; he claimed that, even if pregnancy was oppression for women, the government could not intervene against any oppression that derived from choice, not accident of birth. Both negative speeches concentrated on reasoning out the right to abortion: that the government should not intervene against “moral gray areas” and that Roe could be well supported by appeal to the 13th Amendment prohibition of involuntary servitude–directly calling out the “forced birth” position. Ms. Belding also pointed out, amidst some of the loudest pounding of the night, how it “follows in the great legal heritage of not trusting women” and, in a move that she herself found “disturbingly libertarian,” she translated it for the Right: if you don’t trust the government to spend money, she asked, why do you trust it to intervene within the family itself? This was a line of argument that proved convincing; a number of members on the Right, particularly in the somewhat-libertarian Party of the Right, in the end voted against Repeal Roe.

The speech most strongly in the affirmative was given by Isabel Marin ’12 of the Federalist Party, who dismissed comparison between the “potential horror” of unwanted pregnancy and the “murder of 3500 babies per day.” Ms. Marin is well-known to the Union for her passion and eloquence on this subject, bringing it up in debates on everything from economics to genetic engineering; she spoke for double her allotted time before finally being gaveled down. The strongest speech in the negative was given by Marian Homans-Turnbull ’12 of the Liberal Party; in it she marked out the oppression of unwanted pregnancy as very much about one’s inherent condition of being female-bodied, and laid out a sweeping vision for a society wherein we all have full bodily autonomy. Roe was a landmark advance, she said, in the path of establishing women’s rights and as human rights, and to overturn it would be an attack on that entire process and that bedrock conception. Due to time constraints (a desire to watch the State of the Union), and the presumption that the debate would be more about constitutional questions than the morality of abortion itself, no speech was prepared or given directly lauding abortion as a positive good, though a number of members of the body were willing to do so.
As evinced by the sharply divided pounding and hissing–with the Left hissing as the Right pounded, and vice versa–the sides in the room were often talking past each other. This is not surprising, as despite the occasional attempts of various Third Way groups to “find common ground,” there is not all that much that can be said between those who believe in bodily autonomy and those who do not, or those who believe that human life begins at conception and those who do not. Both points came up during the two hour debate; neither Mr. Goeglein nor any other member of the affirmative gave any argument for their definition of human life, despite being asked multiple times; no member of the negative, despite often agreeing to the idea that abortion was “complicated” or “a gray area,” was willing to sacrifice autonomy or make women’s decisions for them.
Instead, as was made particularly clear during the questions put to Mr. Goeglein and his answers, the common-groundist approach of “safe, legal, rare” has turned into strangle-with-regulation and deny-contraception. One can only conclude that something other or beyond a desire to lower the frequency of abortion is at work here. It all comes back to Ms. Belding’s point: the anti-choice position is yet another in the “great…heritage of not trusting women.” It is here, perhaps, that the pro-choice movement should concentrate: rather than vainly attempting to find common ground on safety regulations and contraception, the focus should instead be on convincing us all to, finally, trust women.

Nathanael Deraney is a junior in Berkeley College. He is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

February 3, 2012

Jay Michaelson, like many who are both queer and spiritual, speaks of fear. For years he concealed his homosexuality from others and from himself, convinced that coming out would spell the ...]]>

By A. GRACE STEIG

February 3, 2012

Jay Michaelson, like many who are both queer and spiritual, speaks of fear. For years he concealed his homosexuality from others and from himself, convinced that coming out would spell the end of his Jewish life. Instead, as the writer told an audience seated in Yale’s Slifka Center, “it was the beginning.” A Yale Law School grad and author of four books on religion, Michaelson was here on a book tour for his newest work, God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality. In God vs. Gay, he dispels the myth that the titular conflict exists, arguing within the framework of a literal interpretation of the Torah and New Testament. Michaelson discusses the sexuality of women as well as men, carefully and repeatedly noting that their cases should be addressed independently. A pious lesbian may be surprised, relieved, or disappointed to learn that her sexuality goes almost unmentioned, invisible, in Jewish and Christian religious texts. To his credit, Michaelson opens up the conversation about women’s absence from the texts. His central lesson for us, based on literal and historical textual analysis, is that God loves queers. This message should reach powerfully to a generation of budding lesbian, bisexual, and queer religious girls.

The messages in the Torah and New Testament are very different for a gay woman than for a man. There is a relative silence on lesbianism, as most Old Testament passages taken to preclude homosexuality in fact address only male-specific sexual acts. Take Leviticus 18:22, perpetually cited in Jewish discussions of homosexuality, which Michaelson translates in the following way: “And at a man you shall not lie the lyings of woman: it is a toevah.” The passage neglects to make an inverse command prohibiting women from lying with women. It addresses only male-male anal sex. And even more precisely: the word toevah, meaning a taboo associated with a specific group of people, is linked to cultish practices. Its historical context is indispensable to the reading of the text; as stated in Deuteronomy 23:18 and 1 Kings 14:24, the Canaanites practiced cultic orgies, in which both female and male prostitutes were used in sexual rituals imitating goddesses and gods – the real object of concern for an elective monotheism. In line with the Commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” Leviticus 18:22 forbids only specific cultish sexual acts in order to guard against idol worship. Thus, this passage should not be taken to condemn homosexuality in general. Neither this book nor any in the Old Testament forbid, or even mention, lesbian acts.

Within the texts, unique in directly addressing female queer sexual acts is a passage in the Christian New Testament. In Rmans 1:26-27, speaking of “shameful lusts” that the pagan Romans acted upon, the apostle Paul writes, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” It next addresses men who “committed shameful acts with other men” and as such is taken to prohibit all – female and male – homosexual acts. This passage, according to Michaelson, is in fact less about same-sex relations than about gender roles. In his interpretation, the problem is not that women have relations with other women, but that, based on the assumption that one partner needs to take a “dominant” role, one woman is acting masculine and thus improper. In a modern context, Paul’s teachings that women must necessarily be meek and defer to the other sex are no longer taken as truth, except on the peripheries of Christianity that still regard women as unfit for leadership positions in the workplace, church, or home. This passage is a condemnation of lesbianism only if we view it as a condemnation of any power for women. As Paul’s words form the sole passage that addresses female-female sexuality, there is no strong case to be made against lesbianism in an age where Christian women gain political power.

Yet if a condemnation of lesbians is absent, so is the mere mention of lesbians. There are beautiful examples of a nonsexual love between women, such as the devotion of Ruth to Naomi in the Torah, evident in her pledge, “Wherever you go, I will go.” Their tender bond should be read as an affirmation of female love, emblematic of a general acceptance of love outside the confines of a heterosexual marriage. Yet lesbian sexuality is invisible in the texts. In biblical times, same-sex sexual acts did not define an identity. Further, women’s erotic acts were not even considered sex, to the Jewish scholars in biblical times whose phallogocentric discourse defined sex as penetration with a penis. Equating gay women with men, and considering same-sex desires indication of inherit gayness, is an anachronistic concept. Queer women may be troubled that their love and sex are not mentioned in the texts. If lesbianism is not an identity recognized in the Torah or Bible, how should women reconcile the blossoming of their spirituality with that of their queer sexuality?

Michaelson’s answer, which he finds in the texts, is that for many people they are two essential ways of expressing love. Passages abound proclaiming God’s compassion and love. As pronounced in 1 John 4:8, “Anyone who fails to love can never have known God, because God is love.” To deprive ourselves of love, we are also depriving ourselves of God’s love. In contrast, the acceptance of one’s identity and feelings is holy. As Michaelson stressed to the assembly in Slifka, “A loving God could not want the tyranny of the closet.” Instead, we should read the texts as affirming our freedom to explore and express our love. Glimpsed through these written messages, God’s wish for us is a loving, spiritual life.

I beheld the blossoming of life and love in one brave girl’s experience. In seventh grade, that clichéd-because-it’s-true time between childhood and adulthood, I attended a friend’s bat mitzvah ceremony, the symbol of a girl’s passage into womanhood. A young Conservative Jew, very small on the bimah, she delivered an eloquent and simple oration on the topic of homosexuality in the texts. She explained that the impetus in Old Testament times for heterosexual relations was a high birth rate to counteract the very low survival rate; an urgency that is no longer applicable to the world with its medical advances. At the time, this girl was in the process of coming out as bisexual, and her conclusion, six years ago, was the same as Michaelson’s: God loves and accepts queer people. Here was a female blossoming into womanhood before the eyes of the seated, amazed congregation. Having dispelled the falsities that too often plague religious queers, including Michaelson well into his adult life, this young woman was filled with a spiritual and personal love that dazzled us. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all girls could mature healthily and free of self-doubt? Her goal, Michaelson’s goal, is an understanding and experience of this spiritual love, available to all.

A. Grace Steig is a freshman in Yale College. She is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

The first semi-annual Yale University Report of Complaints of Sexual Misconduct was released to the student body, staff, and faculty members, by Stephanie Spangler Tuesday evening. Spangler was charged with overseeing Yale’s By HANNAH ZEAVIN
February 1, 2012

The first semi-annual Yale University Report of Complaints of Sexual Misconduct was released to the student body, staff, and faculty members, by Stephanie Spangler Tuesday evening. Spangler was charged with overseeing Yale’s Title IX office after sixteen students, including this and other Broad Recognition editors, filed a Title IX complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education last March.  However, nearly all of this information was readily available in different sections of the Yale University website.

The report contains details of all reports filed through Yale’s various redress mechanisms: the new Title IX coordinator, the University Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct (both formal and informal complaints), the Yale Police, and the human resources office.

According to the Report, 29 undergraduates reported experiencing sexual misconduct, along with thirteen graduate and professional students, seven staff, two faculty members, and one person not affiliated with the University who experienced misconduct by a student affiliated with the University.  It is important to note that these figures only represent the students who used the reporting mechanisms. This Report excludes those who may have filed complaints through the New Haven Police Department, and those who did not report.  Though it is a truism, it is important to note that these statistics do not encompass all acts of sexual misconduct that occurred this academic year.

The documents lists, by reporting mechanism, the classification (i.e. college student, student, staff, faculty) of the complainants and respondents. It also briefly discusses the nature of the complaint, the gender of each respondent and complainant, and the resolution of the case, excluding all identifying details.

The Report indicates that men are seeking redress for sexual misconduct that they have experienced, perpetrated by both male and female respondents.  Though rape is stereotypically thought of, and depicted, as a problem unique to women, it most certainly is not. This often serves to discourage men from reporting.

Noticeably, the Report was not restricted to the student body, and discussed cases between students, staff, and faculty, as well as cases in which there was no student respondent or complainant. This further demonstrates that the sexually hostile environment present on our college community, and communities around the country, is also wide-spread in higher levels of the academy. Ten faculty members were respondents in these cases, and though Title IX law does not protect faculty and staff in the same mode as it does students, two alleged that they had been the targets of sexual misconduct.  One faculty member respondent was “relieved of his teaching duties.”

The Report exceeds legal requirements for reporting, but, as President Levin wrote in his follow-up statement, this serves as a gesture towards transparency. While it is true that the document is a step in the right direction, much of the information contained within it was already available, though not actively disseminated to students.  Anyone, whether or not they are affiliated with the University, has access to the archived results of the Executive Committee and the former Sexual Harassment Grievance Board. Though the Sexual Harassment Grievance Board has been replaced by the University Wide Committee, one can assume that in keeping with the Cleary Act, that body would also make a record of its activities available.  Because there was no listed Title IX coordinator before the Title IX complaint was filed in March of last year, that reporting mechanism did not compile such a report.  Whenever a report is made to the Yale Police, the Cleary Act mandates that students have access to that information. However, the University was found out of compliance with that Act last year.

Levin’s transparency comes on the heels of the New York Times exposé of Patrick Witt and his alleged assault of another student.  While the informal complaint is one of those listed in this release, Levin did not address the allegations that he signed Witt’s Rhodes Scholarship endorsement while that complaint was pending.  Levin has not explicitly addressed the student body at all in regards to those allegations, leaving open the question of whether the University administration was complicit in a cover-up.

Spangler wrote in her email, “The number and scope of complaints make it abundantly clear that there is more that we must do as a community and as individuals to prevent sexual misconduct and to ensure that Yale’s culture is optimally supportive and unfailingly respectful of all individuals.” While a pressing goal of the utmost importance, it remains to be seen how the administration will encourage the community to prevent such misconduct.

Hannah Zeavin is a senior in Yale College. She is the Editor-in-Chief of Broad Recognition.

Last week, Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, alleged that Gingrich had asked her to join him in an open marriage after she found out about his affair with current-wife Callista Gingrich (then Callista ...]]> By ANDREW WAGNER
January 31, 2012

Last week, Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, alleged that Gingrich had asked her to join him in an open marriage after she found out about his affair with current-wife Callista Gingrich (then Callista Bisek). The only other time I personally remember hearing about open marriages from the media is in an episode of Arrested Development. Tobias, a former psychiatrist, and his wife, Lindsey, are having marital troubles. Tobias mentions to Lindsey that he has advised some of his patients to try out open marriages in order to save their own relationships. “Well, did it work for those people?” asks Lindsey. Tobias responds, “No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might—but it might work for us.”

Open marriages, when not condemned in the media as outright immoral, are typically depicted as being weaker than traditional marriages, and bound for failure. As Gingrich comes under fire for his open marriage proposal, bringing open marriages into the national limelight, some members of the polyamory community have been unexpectedly compelled to defend Gingrich.

Legitimizing the very idea of polyamory has become a necessary first step. In a piece written for Salon, Sierra Black talks about her own, successful polyamorous lifestyle, asserting, “My marriage is open. It’s also happy and stable.” Black notes that polyamory isn’t for everyone, but explains the joys she and her husband personally get from it: “ I get so much support from my lovers. No one else, not my friends, not my parents, no one, is as willing to deal with the messes and mishaps of parenting as my sweeties.” Polyamory is such a hidden taboo in our society that its sudden entrance into the mainstream necessitates explanation and defense from those who are polyamorous, such as Black.

The context for Gingrich’s request, after his affair had been discovered, suggests to many that open marriages are only something desperate men spring on their wives when they want to continue an affair. Tristan Taormino, author of the book Opening Up: Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships, says, “We’re hearing that there was actually an attempt at an open negotiation. In a way, he gave her an opportunity to consent to it or not.” In Taormorino’s view, Gingrich wasn’t merely trying to force his wife into letting him have more sex, but instead was trying to openly discuss with his wife the possibility of an open marriage.

Black, on the other hand, distances polyamory from Gingrich. She writes that, unlike Gingrich’s scenario, “my husband’s and my open marriage has been based on openness and honesty from day one.” For Black, Gingrich’s “open marriage” would have been built on deceit, lying and shame—not an ideal comparison to convince people of the validity of her own open marriage. She thus makes clear that her open marriage—a “successful” one—is wholly different in character from Gingrich’s. She and her husband happily consent to each other’s extra-marital relationships and enjoy sharing stories of their other girlfriends. In essence, Black is trying to reclaim polyamory from the shady, shameful associations evoked by stories like Gingrich’s. Unlike Gingrich’s situation, Black’s open marriage is not a case of one partner urging or pressuring the other into transforming their relationship into an open one. Both Black and her husband wanted a polyamorous, open relationship with each other before they decided to get married. Her open marriage and many others just like it are formed because both partners mutually desire an open relationship, not because one partner is trying to accommodate another partner’s whims.

Taormino notes, however, that open marriages don’t always start in the “honest,” ideal  way that Black describes. “Plenty of the couples that I talked to for my book came to a place of non-monogamy from cheating. I think it would be a mistake to dismiss this as Newt wanting to have his cake and eat it too,” says Taormino.

Gingrich’s open marriage came up at the recent South Carolina debate last Friday. Gingrich denied that he had ever asked Marianne for an open marriage (“The story is false!”) and received applause from the Republicans in the audience. Dan Savage notes in a piece he wrote for the New York Times that such a reaction shows that conservative voters are fine with Gingrich’s previous adultery, but not with an openly non-monogamous relationship. This, at first, seems incredibly hypocritical—what rationale could conservatives possibly have for tolerating a politician’s adulterous relationships, but not an open marriage?

Upon investigation, this isn’t quite so strange. Adultery, while a breach of the marriage contract, is still something of an affirmation of the basic rightness of the traditional institution of marriage. Adultery is typically discussed by most as a sin or crime one “commits,” suggesting (if not explicitly stating) disapproval. A person who has committed adultery is expected to feel guilty about cheating on their spouse, in turn implying that a monogamous marital relationship is the best relationship. In an open marriage, however, extra-marital relations are not denounced as sinful or damaging to the relationship but rather celebrated, thereby contending that monogamy is but one of many ways to successfully structure a relationship. As Amanda Marcotte writes, “There’s nothing nontraditional about what Gingrich was asking for, which is why the traditionalist voters didn’t hold it against him.” Adultery fits into our normative assumptions of the supremacy of the monogamous relationship. Open marriages challenge it.

Andrew Wagner is a freshman in Yale College.  He is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

January 28, 2012

Dear Dilemma Emma,

I am a queer woman.  I love men, I love women.  I am in a long-term relationship (LTR) with a cisgendered dude right now.  We’re really in love, and I don’t ...]]> By DILEMMA EMMA

January 28, 2012

Dear Dilemma Emma,

I am a queer woman.  I love men, I love women.  I am in a long-term relationship (LTR) with a cisgendered dude right now.  We’re really in love, and I don’t often feel sexual urges towards other people.  Yet, I can’t help but feel alienated from the queer community, and from women sexually.  I am wondering what the deal is with polyamory, and how we might begin that conversation?  Does poly ever work? I don’t want to go the rest of my life without having sex with a woman! but I also don’t want to leave my partner.  Can you help me?  

Yours,
Have Her Cake and Eat It

Dear HHCAEI,

Polyamory does work.  I’ve seen it happen and it is a beautiful, open armed love.  In fact, I think that you have touched on one of the situations in which polyamory is most successful.  It sounds like you want a female partner in addition to your male partner because there’s something concrete that your male partner can’t give you: he can’t be a woman for you (unless s/he can, which is a separate, wonderful matter).

What kind of a relationship would you want to build in addition to the relationship with your primary partner?  Do you want something friendly?  Something raunchy?  Something casual?  Something all-consuming?  Something private?  Something public?  Or some combination of these things?  Pin down exactly what you want, so you don’t give the impression your desire is vaguely for “something else.”  When you say “I want something else,” chances are that your partner is going to hear, “I want anything but you.”  Be specific, think about boundaries, and prepare to have a few conversations.  It can also be good to remind your partner of all the reasons that you love him and want to be with him, the reasons he will always be your #1, and what that might mean when a #2 is involved for the first time.

I’m not going to lie: the polyamory conversation is rarely easy, and not all paths lead to lady love.  But my suggestions are simple: be specific, be honest, be kind, and be open to your partner’s thoughts and feelings.

There’s one more question in your letter.  You want to know what it means to be queer when you’re not having sex with women?  Ask a 12 year old lesbian.  But seriously, it means surrounding yourself with people who support your queerness.  It means queering heteronormative spaces. It means complicating the gay mainstream.  It might mean having queer sex with your male partner, however you might define that.  Unfortunately, it means you may be the focus of some queer women’s pain from being objectified by straight women.  It’s going to mean being disbelieved.  You may be called an attention-seeker, a slut, a hasbian, a sellout, a freak, or any multitude of other thoughtless rejections.  But that’s gay life, man.  It makes you beautiful.

Good luck.  I’m rooting for you and your partner(s).

Love,
Emma

Dilemma Emma wants to hear from you! Anonymously voice your concerns or questions. Questions will be answered every week and will remain completely anonymous. Send them over to yalebroads@gmail.com.

In 1984, Roger Gail Lyon spoke in front of Congress asking that more efforts be made to combat the new disease that was killing him. In Congress, he made an iconic ...]]> By CHAMONIX ADAMS PORTER
January 26, 2012

In 1984, Roger Gail Lyon spoke in front of Congress asking that more efforts be made to combat the new disease that was killing him. In Congress, he made an iconic statement: “I came here today with the hope that this administration would do everything possible, make every resource available—there is no reason this disease cannot be conquered. We do not need in fighting, this is not a political issue. This is a health issue. This is not a gay issue. This is a human issue. And I do not intend to be defeated by it. I came here today in the hope that my epitaph would not read that I died of red tape.”

Roger Gail Lyon died later that year. In the early years of the epidemic in America, HIV prevention methods were poorly understood. Today, through the incredible efforts of researchers and activists, HIV is a completely preventable disease. The most vulnerable and oppressed people in America, though, continue to “die of red tape.”

One of the most effective ways of preventing the transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections is syringe exchange programs, in which intravenous drug users turn in used needles and receive clean ones in exchange. This prevents addicts from sharing needles with others who already have the disease.  One-third of HIV positive people in the United States contract it directly from IV drug use, and many more from sexual contact with infected drug users.

Syringe exchange programs are also one of the most cost-effective HIV prevention methods. Syringes cost less than ten cents, while lifetime anti-retroviral HIV treatment on average costs $385,200. According to The Harm Reduction Coalition, this is enough to prevent 30 HIV transmissions through syringe exchange programs. Additionally, six government studies and much outside scholarship have found that syringe exchanges do not promote increases in drug use rates. In fact, as they provide safe, non-judgmental space for users, they are often a path to rehabilitation and recovery.

In light of this, it was shocking when the FY2012 Budget reinstated a ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs that President Obama had lifted in 2009. With a single sentence, the budget slashed one of the most important tools in HIV prevention. According to The Drug Policy Alliance, 32,000 people in the US are infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from sharing dirty needles each year.  Without federal funding for syringes, each and every one of these people’s lives will be in danger.

This, though, is not merely a health issue: this is a feminist issue. The people who will suffer most from the reinstatement of the ban are women—particularly poor women, queer women, and women of color. Feminists must make syringe exchange a key political issue in the upcoming year. Vocally and actively opposing the ban is a necessary facet in the ongoing fight for social justice.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that in the United Sates, 61% of HIV cases in women are caused by drug use or sexual contact with someone who contracted HIV from sharing needles. In 2009, women comprised 23% of Americans newly infected with HIV. The incidence of HIV in women of color is staggering: 1 in 32 African-American women will contract the virus in her lifetime. The CDC goes on to state, “from 2000–2007, HIV infection was among the top 10 leading causes of death for black females aged 10–54 and Hispanic/Latina females aged 15–54.” The funding ban, then, will only serve to exacerbate the challenges women of color face.

Sex workers are also disproportionately affected by HIV and drug use. A study of sex work among women at US syringe exchange programs found that the percentage of women who were sex workers ranged from 15% to 40%. Sex workers are also very likely to have sex with drug users, and may not be able to negotiate condom use, thereby potentially leaving themselves open to HIV infection from clients, especially in light of the ban.

Poor women are more likely to be drug users, and their addictions exacerbate their poverty. The same study indicated that 53.8% of women at syringe exchange programs who frequently sold sex had lived on the streets in the last six months. Only 42.5% had graduated high school. The ban, then, will heavily impact these vulnerable populations, who are rarely able to afford HIV treatment.

Queer people of all genders will also disproportionately suffer as a result of the federal funding ban. The National Network for Youth estimates that up to 40% of street youth identify as gay or lesbian. When transgender and queer people are included, the figures are even more staggering.  A National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study indicates that 26% of surveyed gay males became homeless the day they came out. Unsafe schools, unwelcoming families and discriminatory workplaces leave LGBT young people with few options, making them turn to drugs and sex work in disproportionate numbers; 46% of transgender youth reported sex work. Much like in the case of women sex workers, syringe exchange programs are one of the only barriers between these young people and blood-borne diseases.

Transgender people are also at particular risk as those who buy black-market hormones rarely have access to safe, clean needles. For many transgender people, hormone treatments are essential for good mental health and to help prevent violence against them in the work place and elsewhere based on gender presentation. A San Francisco Transgender Health Project study found that over 50% of clients had injected hormones outside of traditional medical settings. As 29% of transgender people have experienced harassment in medical settings, and as transgender people are four times as likely to have an annual income of under $10,000 than the general population, it is unsurprising that the hormone black market is flourishing. Without needle exchanges, these many transgender people will have struggle even more to find safe access to the hormones that they need. They, like so many other impoverished and excluded populations, will have a vital health measure removed.

The federal government made a cowardly decision at the end of last year. The language of the ban does not cut any money—it simply makes it impossible for groups to apply the funding in the best way that they see fit. HIV prevention groups will no longer be able to use federal funds to buy needles—thus limiting one of the most effective ways of stopping the disease. By cutting funding for needle exchange programs specifically, they condemn women, people of color, poor people, queer people, and sex workers to disease and death.

Albert Camus once stated, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.” As feminists, as progressives, as activists, we must not stand by as the federal government sentences people to death for their poverty, their work, their gender, their color. We must speak for the politically voiceless. Feminists have changed the world a thousand times over before—and we can do it again.

If we believe that discrimination is wrong, we will stand in opposition of the ban. If we want to claim the “AIDS-Free Generation” our president so optimistically speaks about, we will push him to not include the ban in his FY2013 budget and to push Congress to remove the ban.

Roger Gail Lyon died of red tape. He died because to the federal government, he was unimportant—after all, he was a homosexual sufferer of a disease of difference. The ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs will only perpetuate the myth that some people are disposable, and that it is not our obligation to prevent disease whenever possible. Feminists, as leaders and “thinking people,” must apply our skills, our energy, and our passion to this issue. No one should have to die of red tape.

Chamonix Adams Porter is a freshman in Yale College.  She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition.

As we mark the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, increasingly under attack, Broads looks back at New Haven’s own contribution to the struggle for reproductive rights.  On November 1, 1961, By JULIA CALAGIOVANNI
January 25, 2012

As we mark the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, increasingly under attack, Broads looks back at New Haven’s own contribution to the struggle for reproductive rights.  On November 1, 1961, Esther Griswold, the Executive Director of the Connecticut Birth Control League, and C. Lee Buxton, Chairman of the Yale University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, opened a clinic on the corner of Trumbull Street and Whitney Avenue in New Haven. The clinic operated for only nine days until it was shut down for violating Connecticut law, and Griswold and Buxton were arrested.

The clinic’s services – providing “information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception,” as well as the devices themselves – were deemed illegal under a rarely-enforced state law – the Comstock Law – that made either using contraception or providing it to another person a criminal offense. Similar “obscenity” laws were also in effect at the time in other states.

The repercussions of the New Haven clinic were not unexpected. Griswold and Buxton had intended the clinic as a “test case.” The League’s attempts to overturn the Comstock Law had been unsuccessful. An earlier case, Poe v. Ullman, was found invalid because the law had not, in that case, actually been enforced. Shortly after the Poe verdict, Griswold and Buxton decided to try a more direct tactic. They were convicted, and two appeals failed. Three years later, the Supreme Court to agreed to hear the case, and hearings were held in late March of 1965. On June 7th, the Comstock Law was, by a 7-2 vote, determined unconstitutional. (However, it was not until 1972 that Eisenstadt v. Baird extended the same “right to privacy” to unmarried women as well.)

Thomas I. Emerson, a Yale Law School professor and attorney arguing the case, stated eloquently that the issue “touches upon individual rights: the right to protect life and health, the right of advancing scientific knowledge, the right to have children voluntarily.” Justice William O. Douglas echoed this in the majority opinion, citing the First, Third, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Taken together, these Amendments were used to establish a broader, unprecedented constitutional “right to privacy.” The Griswold ruling was also crucial in the Roe v. Wade case that followed; logically extended, the constitutional right to privacy in matters of reproductive health established in Griswold was also relevant in the argument to legalize abortion.

Griswold has been in the news lately, as Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum attempts to plan an all-out legal attack on women’s reproductive autonomy. He has had some success in the past: unfortunately, the Santorum-sponsored Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 still stands. We learned in October that he believes contraception “is a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Effectively, he would like to reinstate the Comstock Law – federally.  And when he argues for the right of states to establish their own laws, he just happens to choose Griswold as an example of a ruling he disagrees with, a transparent attempt to justify his extreme position.

But cheer up, feminists! Santorum was recently “glitter-bombed” by members of Occupy Charleston; he most likely won’t be the Republican nominee; and, thanks to Dan Savage,  there’s still that minor search engine problem (Google it. Or don’t.). So the next time you go to Caseus, give thanks for the fearless advocates of reproductive rights whose work in New Haven secured crucial freedoms for women across the country.

Julia Calagiovanni is a freshman in Yale College. She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition.

January 21, 2012

Gender-neutral housing has all but exhausted its potential for dining-hall debate. It exists, which is good news for the seniors who want to take advantage of it, and it doesn’t harm those who don’t wish ...]]> By JULIA CALAGIOVANNI

January 21, 2012

Gender-neutral housing has all but exhausted its potential for dining-hall debate. It exists, which is good news for the seniors who want to take advantage of it, and it doesn’t harm those who don’t wish to participate. But while student support seems to be firmly behind extending the program for the current sophomore class—making gender-neutral housing an option for their junior and senior years—Yale’s uppermost administrative body hasn’t granted permission for the policy change.

Last February, the Yale College Council’s Gender-Neutral Housing Committee requested that gender-neutral housing be made available to this year’s current juniors, but that proposal was turned down. The committee, currently headed by Joseph Yagoda, CC ’14, and Isabel Santos-Gonzalez, SM ’13, has gone to great lengths to present the case for the administration to approve gender-neutral housing for juniors. The Jan. 9 release of this year’s report certainly marks a departure from precedent; according to YCC president Brandon Levin, DC ’13, last year’s report was not made public and only presented data from those already living in gender-neutral suites.

This report, in contrast, compiled data from a November 2011 survey of the sophomore and junior classes. Roughly one third of each class responded. Statistics show that 81.9 percent of those surveyed support a gender-neutral housing option for juniors, and 67.1 percent would consider a junior-year gender-neutral suite themselves. While a certain amount of selection bias may be at play, it seems that students overwhelmingly approve of the initiative.

The YCC has been fielding questions and concerns from students and administrators throughout the process. Yes, students who do not feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with students of the other gender would be able to request a single-gender floor. No, no one will be forced into a mixed-gender suite. No, gender-neutral living arrangements will not create an environment with a higher risk of sexual assault, a question of paramount importance for many people given the negative campus events of recent years. Melanie Boyd, special advisor to the dean on gender issues, contributed a letter to the YCC’s most recent report, arguing that gender-neutral living situations would not place students at a higher risk of experiencing sexual assault.

“If anything,” she wrote, “I would expect mixed-gender rooming arrangements to work against the dynamics of assault, by giving students an additional opportunity to develop meaningful mutual relationships with people of different genders.” Maria Trumpler, director of the Office of LGBTQ Resources, echoes Boyd’s sentiments. Trumpler agrees that these living situations can create an environment of respect and maturity, and that they are particularly important to LGBTQ students wishing to live in a “queer-friendly suite.”

***

Following years of student activism, collaboration with faculty and administrators, and YCC initiative, Yale became the last of the Ivies to allow a form of gender-neutral housing. According to several of the people involved in the process, the residential college system made the logistics of implementing gender-neutral housing more complicated; other colleges offer gender-neutral housing as an option akin to themed housing, but the same model could not be replicated within Yale’s housing system. When gender-neutral housing was first implemented for seniors in the class of 2011, those overseeing the change worked to ensure that the option would be available in every college. According to Trumpler, the committee felt that “that ambitious goal was worth the extra challenge.” Now that gender-neutral housing has been a reality for two school years, extending the policy to juniors is unlikely to cause any significant logistical challenges.

The final decision on the YCC’s proposal will be made by 16 alumni, known collectively as the Yale Corporation. Ten members are Alumni Fellows, elected to six-year terms by their fellow alumni; historically, only about 20 to 25 percent of alumni participate in the annual election. The remaining six are Successor Trustees, elected to up to two six-year terms by their predecessors. These 16 join the President of the University and the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Connecticut, ex officio, creating a 19-member board.

Yale claims that the Corporation, relative to equivalent bodies at other educational institutions, “plays an unusually active role in University governance.” The best known of their responsibilities is to oversee the University’s finances and endowment, a task that has created, at least in the current board, a strong showing of Fellows from the financial and consulting industries. All Fellows are alumni of the College or the graduate and professional schools; currently, they number four women and 12 men. The Corporation biography of just one Fellow, Francisco Cigarroa ’79, mentions direct experience in education: Cigarroa is currently the chancellor of the University of Texas system.

In the past few years, the Corporation has been involved with major non-financial decisions affecting student life. The return of ROTC to Yale and the plan to construct two additional residential colleges were both ultimately approved by the Corporation.

But in a recent interview with the Herald, YCC President Brandon Levin explained that gender-neutral housing is unique because the YCC usually has autonomy in making decisions on student policy initiatives. He could not recall another YCC policy that has required Yale Corporation approval during his tenure. He added that the YCC does not work with the Corporation directly, but generally with only Dean Miller and President Levin.

Even former YCC President Jeff Gordon, SY ’12, who was at the forefront of the initial passage of gender-neutral housing for seniors, told the Yale Daily News in February 2011 that “people sometimes refer to the unknown third parties who are more apprehensive about it, but I have yet to have a conversation with an administrator who personally opposes this.”

***

Despite the apparent lack of opposition from administrators, the Corporation has found sufficient reason to reject the proposal. But it is unclear what exactly those reasons are. Hardly any information is available, electronically or otherwise, on the Corporation’s work; its regulations specify that, “[minutes] of the Yale Corporation and its committees are closed for 50 years.”

It seems reasonable that this particular issue would fall under the purview of the Committee on Institutional Policies. While it is possible to find a listing of the members of this committee, no further information is available on the committee’s work or priorities.

The issue of the Corporation’s transparency has been raised before, but its policies haven’t changed. In 2003, a controversial and short-lived student movement known as the Student Committee for Corporation Reform called for the Corporation to make its proceedings more transparent. The Student Committee held an open meeting to which Corporation Fellows were invited; none showed up. At the time, Corporation members stressed that they meet with students often, but that the most appropriate course of action for concerned students would be to speak with the university president. On their website, the Corporation does not publicize any open meetings or offer opportunities for students to meet with Fellows.

Some institutions do have policies similar to the “democratic” reforms the Student Committee called for. While policies for educational governing boards vary, some elect voting student members; Cornell’s Board of Trustees consists of 64 voting members, including students, faculty, and alumni. A similar board of alumni fellows at Columbia advises the Dean of the College on undergraduate policies; three students and two non-alumni faculty members serve on this board.

Referring to the ever-present question of the “campus sexual climate,” Joey Yagoda, CC ‘14 said, “Yale is in a different place now that it was two years ago in terms of the way we discuss certain issues.” While this may be true, Trumpler attributes the Corporation’s reluctance to allow juniors to live in mixed-gender housing to a lingering “concern” about how best to “treat female students equally without creating social chaos.”

There’s no doubt that the question of gender-neutral housing has certainly sparked plenty of student debate, particularly in light of the negative events of the past few years. And while most would agree that campus discussion is a productive development, the gender-neutral housing decision now lies in the hands of the Corporation. While the student opinion on this issue seems clear, it remains to be seen how the Corporation will rule.

The Yale Corporation will assemble on Feb. 24 and 25 to make a decision based on the YCC’s most recent report. The outcome might be what supporters of gender-neutral housing have been waiting for. Should the measure pass, current sophomores may opt for a gender-neutral suite when making their 2012-13 housing decisions this spring. But if the Corporation votes no, we’ll likely be having the same discussion next year.

—Contributed reporting by Charlotte McDonald

Julia Calagiovanni is a freshman in Yale College.  She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition. Charlotte McDonald contributed reporting.  This article originally appeared in the Yale Herald on January 20, 2012.

January 17, 2012

I’m a young dyke living the good life. I’ve recently started doing new and wonderful things in bed with a lovely new someone I’ve been seeing for ...]]> By EMMA DILEMMA

January 17, 2012

I’m a young dyke living the good life. I’ve recently started doing new and wonderful things in bed with a lovely new someone I’ve been seeing for a couple months. Recently she asked if she could make me gag by putting her fingers down my throat and if I could choke her when we’re fucking. We tried it this weekend, and it was sexy and fun and I love turning her on so much. It feels so special and hot to fulfill her fantasies. Afterward, though, I got a little concerned about the risks of choking her, and I got to wondering if their are risks in her making me gag.

I started looking up information online, but it felt like a negative dejavu in the sense that when I looked up information on anal (rimming, fucking, etc) safety a few years ago, I found so much information that was just blatantly incorrect. Worse still, a lot of the “information” was fear-mongering and/or shaming. Can you hook me up with some solid, specific, and safety- and fun-oriented information on the risks of making someone gag and choking? The more information the better, because I want to make sure neither of us gets hurt.
Some specific things I’d like you to address (but if there are more things to address, please share!): risk of cardiac arrest (what?!) during “breath control play;” if light choking and “breath control play” are different (and if so, what are the risks of light choking?); what’s the deal with possibly damaging “sensitive neck tissue” that I’ve heard about (or is this hogwash?)?; possible risks associated with light gagging (losing gag reflex?); and if there are risks associated with heavy gagging, maybe until throwing up.

Thanks,

Strong-Hands Homo

Dear SHH,

Your sex sounds hot.  I think it’s great that you guys are trying new things, and I’m also glad to hear that you are looking into the safety of living out your fantasies.  Breath play is one of those topics that sex positive people keep coming back to, wanting to endorse it but not being fully able to.  I can sympathize with the frustration of looking for reliable information on rimming and other anal play on an Internet that is simultaneously butt-obsessed, anti-butt, and homophobic.  Most of that anal sex information is “hog wash,” as you say.

However, I think that a lot of coverage of breath play is cautious for good reason.  Unlike rimming, people die from breath play every year.  You don’t want to mess with that, and sex gurus more established than I (Dan Savage for one) consistently warn against breath play.  Oxygen deprivation stresses out your heart, that’s a fact.  I want to say, “ask your doctor,” because I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice.  If you have a sex positive doctor who doesn’t envision sex as primarily a method of reproduction, ask your doctor.  Many of your questions are extremely medical, and I’m not qualified to answer them.  I play doctor at home, but not in my articles.  However, I can offer some advice within the limited range of my expertise.

I don’t know how extreme your choking is.  If you are actually preventing your partner from breathing, I feel like a less intense alternative might be warranted.  One way to enjoy the control and thrill of breath play while maintaining a safety valve for the dangers is to limit breath by a signaling when your partner is and is not allowed to breathe, rather than physically preventing her breath.  That is, place a hand gently on her throat, without pressure, and have her hold her breath until you remove it.  Or, use a code word for when breath is allowed.  This way, you are in control of her breathing, but should she need to breathe, she will do so automatically.

So far as gagging goes, is your partner limiting your ability to breathe?  The only risk I can conceive of to gagging is vomiting on the bed sheets, but people who put penises in their mouths take this risk relatively consistently.  If your partner is cool, vomit shouldn’t be that big a deal.  I don’t think that you are really at risk of losing a gag reflex, or frequent vomiting would preclude the ability to vomit in the future.  Not only that, talented givers of blow jobs would die from tragic gag-related accidents every year.  This doesn’t happen.  Feel free to gag on whatever you want, so long as you are not in danger of losing consciousness and you never lose the ability to end the gagging should it overwhelm you.

I want to say “go ahead, rock that choking” but I can’t.  Breath play is pretty serious.  You don’t want to choke your girl out.  You don’t want to be responsible for hurting her seriously.  You certainly don’t want to be responsible for her death!  So, I would alter the play a little bit to include a safety valve.  Signal when she is allowed to breathe, but only that.  She can submit to your restrictions on her breathing, but if she needs to breathe, there are no physical barriers.

Keep living that good life, and keep challenging shame in information about sex online.

Take care,

Emma

Dilemma Emma wants to hear from you! Anonymously voice your concerns or questions. Questions will be answered every week and will remain completely anonymous. Send them over to yalebroads@gmail.com.