'How to be Gay' course draws fire at Michigan
 

from the washington times

A course called "How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation," scheduled this fall, has reignited a culture war at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
A family-values lobbyist is leading public opposition to the self-proclaimed "uncompromising political militancy" of the professor who teaches "lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender."
The lobbyist, Gary Glenn, says professor David M. Halperin and the university "are guilty of perpetrating a fraud against UM students and the people of Michigan [with] propaganda statements about so-called cultural studies and academic freedom" as they promote "queer studies" at taxpayer expense.
Mr. Glenn, president of the Michigan affiliate of the conservative American Family Association, first criticized the "How to be Gay" courses three years ago. In 2000, the Michigan state legislature fell just four votes short of passing a measure to cut off all government funds for the courses.
Last week, he renewed his crusade against Mr. Halperin's classes, urging Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, the legislature and the university's Board of Regents to "stop letting homosexual activists use our tax dollars to subsidize this militant political agenda."
The professor says critics misunderstand the "How to be Gay" class.
"It does not teach students to be homosexual," Mr. Halperin says in an interview. "Rather, it examines critically the odd notion that there are right and wrong ways to be gay, that homosexuality is not just a sexual practice or desire but a set of specific tastes in music, movies, and other cultural forms — a notion which is shared by straight and gay people alike.
"The reason these courses exist is not that homosexual teachers have hijacked the university for their own purposes; they exist because they convey the results of research which sheds genuinely new light on history, culture, society and thought."
However, in a course description on the university's Web site, Mr. Halperin says: "Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn't mean that you don't have to learn how to become one. Gay men do some of that learning on their own, but often we learn how to be gay from others."
The course description says students "will examine a number of cultural artifacts and activities" including "camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, taste, style and political activism." Mr. Halperin's class explores "the role that initiation plays in the formation of gay male identity."
The emphasis on "initiation" into homosexuality is what appears to be most offensive to conservatives like Mr. Glenn.
"We don't know what [Mr. Halperin] does in the classroom," the state AFA president says in an interview. "It is outrageous that Michigan taxpayers are forced to pay for a class whose stated purpose is to 'experiment' with the 'initiation' of young men into a self-destructive homosexual lifestyle."
Mr. Glenn notes that Mr. Halperin has boasted in print about his success in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In a 1996 article in an academic journal, Mr. Halperin wrote: "Let there be no mistake about it: lesbian and gay studies, as it is currently practiced in the U.S., expresses an uncompromising political militancy. ... The emergence of lesbian and gay studies has brought about a far-reaching intellectual transformation in the disciplines of the humanities, arts and social sciences as well as in the social life of American universities and in the professional culture of American academe."
Mr. Halperin wrote that "lesbian and gay studies scholars" were leaders in lobbying universities and governments "to adopt and enforce anti-discrimination policies, to recognize same-sex couples, to oppose the U.S. military's anti-gay policy, to suspend professional activities in states that criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortion, and to intervene on behalf of human rights for lesbians, bisexuals and gay men at the local and national levels."
Robert M. Owen, the university's associate dean for undergraduate education in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, defends Mr. Halperin's course.
"This course is not about encouraging people to become gay, but about how individuals in our society create meaning and beliefs about gay culture from literature and the arts," Mr. Owen said in a prepared statement. Such a course helps students who plan to enter careers in law, social work or other fields where they will "encounter a large and very diverse clientele."
Mr. Owen said public criticism of Mr. Halperin's class stems largely from "the title of the course," and said, "The interpretation of that title is very troubling for some people."
The course is part of the university's "genuine search for intellectually interesting and sometimes provocative subject matters," the associate dean said. "The historic freedom granted to pursue this search is one of the hallmarks of higher education."
University officials have been "inundated" with AFA-distributed postcards objecting to the course, says university spokeswoman Julie Peterson. But she does not expect the postcards to affect the university's support for Mr. Halperin.
"He is a very popular professor," Ms. Peterson says, "and there is always a long waiting list for his courses. The list gets longer when stories like this happen."
Mr. Glenn argues that such a statement by a university official "mocks and even taunts Michigan taxpayers, reveling that the more taxpayers dare protest the use of their tax dollars to teach kids 'How to be Gay,' the more students will enroll in the class.
"Such arrogant dismissiveness toward taxpayers' legitimate concerns is all the more reason Michigan lawmakers should exact a greater degree of public accountability from UM officials."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

They also charge a lab fee. I won't ask. :eek:

I don't know. I did not find the argument against the class very convincing. I saw a lot of speculation and demonization of the class and no concrete criticism of one work read, one thing taught or anything that actual goes on in the class. It did sound like the object focused heavily on the course title and did not address the course substance. It always bothers me when people are quick to protest and really do not know what they are protesting against (a show they have never seen, a movie they have never seen, a book they have never read, etc.) I would need more to really feel the objection is justified than simply a disapproval of homosexuality.

(BTW, since they look at a lot of cultural elements, the lab fee could easily cover access to AV equipment to view relevant video)

With everything that is going on in terms of legislation, gay bishops, gay marriage, the Catholic Church, etc., we may as well expect to see a big controversy over anything relating to the gay community in the near future.

Perhaps a different name would be more PC.

Do they have a distance learning component? I wanna register! :D

After hearing on NPR the prof's explanation of what the class actually was vs. the name, I found the name misleading. It would seem the name was chosen just to garner media attention. Might be the prof's attempt at his 15 minutes of fame. Sounds like a liberal arts elective that would be as worthy as anything else out there.

I don't think the name was chosen in order to get more media attention (teaching a class like this, the last thing you're gonna want is MORE media attention). I think it's intended to entice more kids into taking the class. :p

NPR? ;)

Irregardless of the name, if students weren't interested in topics such as these, there would be no class for it.

The lab fee is hardly surprising, regardless of the class topic. Renting or using AV stuff is expensive as hell, and some interdisciplinary courses are not covered by a department or college's account. Certain supplies simply are not covered by the University the way they were in fatter economic times. With video rentals, readers, and other stuff, I'm surprised more of the classes I have taken don't have fees.

I wonder if Mr. Glenn read a syllabus of the class, or talked to someone who actually took it. There was a controversy with some reactionary think tank calling my school a hotbed of "socialist liberalism" based on class TITLES. When everyone discovered that the people had not read the syllabus, talked to the instructor, or knew anything about the subject matter, their credibility was slashed.

I actually go to U of M Ann Arbor, starting my second year and I have yet to figure out what those lab fee's are for. I had a lab fee in an english class, we watched no movies, recieved no handouts... I think the prof used it to buy dounuts or something...

In general, being a liberal campus this class doesn't surprise me at all, nor does it offend me(a somewhat conservative), I think it'd be pretty darn funny.
(I'm a huge fan of "queer eye for the straight guy"~ watch it!)

"NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO!" he says in his best big, booming FM announcer's voice.

I'm amazed that people actually would take this course :eek:
If you're already gay, then you don't need to know HOW to be gay. If you're straight, then why do NEED to know how to be gay?

However, after reading further through the article, I see that it's just a name to draw attention.

Speaking only for myself, I'd take the course to understand the ways in which queer culture, specifically gay male culture, has influenced and continues to drive mainstream popular culture, even when queer society is still considered an underground, "fringe" subculture.

To use your logic, non-Black people shouldn't want to take an African American studies course, and non-White people shouldn't want to take a course on the Roman empire. What's wrong with learning as a means of developing an understanding of a culture other than your own?

Taking an African-American studies course is not the same thing as "How to Be Black". The study of the culture is different than "how" to be that culture. Like I said, the course name isn't representative of what the class actually is.