Upon reading Josh Teitelbaum's recent guest column, ("March of the gay penguins," March 1), I was struck by two thoughts. First, I realized that Brown's Queer Alliance, now run under Teitelbaum, is nothing more than a front for radicalizing and hijacking the LGBTQ agenda by those who are closed-minded and rigid in their views, unable to practice the tolerance they demand from others. My second thought had less to do with Queer Alliance and more to do with Teitelbaum as a person - just who exactly does he think he is?
How can QA, an organization that, to quote Teitelbaum, prides itself on being "one big makeup case," tolerate a leader who holds such narrow and intentionally divisive views on issues that affect us all? By catering to the "RuPaul" portion of the gay community and openly dismissing mainstream members, he uses his position in QA to provoke infighting. In the aforementioned article, rather than attempting to foster debate, or advocate other methods of assimilation, rather than offering suggestions as to how to bring the queer community together, Teitelbaum uses his 860 words to detail a rift within his organization. His article unintentionally highlights his inability to bridge that gap.
By touting QA as "existing at all points of the political spectrum," Teitelbaum attempts to mask his obviously radical views. Teitelbaum is under the impression that because some members of the LGBTQ community have become affluent and prosperous within the "straight community," they are somehow removed from the "struggle" and not as worthy as "regular" homosexuals. As such, they should be dismissed. He argues that these middle- and upper-class gays only favor marriage equality so they can keep up with the more prosperous, straight middle class. Teitelbaum will surely alienate QA members by calling them pampered, bourgeois and racist.
The most upsetting portion of the article is his response to "the ripe ... Brown Dem(ocratic) ... cherry" who didn't know his identity. His cynicism and sarcasm seems directed less at her attempts to work with QA and get signatures for a marriage-equality petition than from the fact that she didn't recognize who he was or his sexual orientation, neither of which should matter anyway. He acted like a fuming diva at her own concert - is that the image of QA he wants portrayed?
Teitelbaum's views aren't new; during the Civil Rights era, there were blacks who were able to prosper despite playing the "white man's game." However, other blacks labeled them sellouts because of their success. Even today, the black community dismisses leaders such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as sellouts because of their support of the Republican agenda. The only difference in this situation is that there are no cute literary allusions like "Uncle Tom" for Teitelbaum to invoke when he impugns his ideological opponents.
In his article, Teitelbaum refuses to accept that marriage is just one more step on the road to equality rather than the destination. Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court Case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, did not end racism in America, but it certainly added to the cause of racial equality. His argument that marriage is not going to cure HIV/AIDS, prevent job discrimination or even end hate crimes is at best irrelevant, and at worst an argument that could undermine incremental progress that is possible now.
I agree that marriage won't make us equal. In fact, I disagree with the idea of marriage in general. But, unlike Teitelbaum, I understand the symbolic value that comes with entering City Hall and having a magistrate - a government official - recognize that the love you share with your partner is real. Finally, having the government stand behind you and your relationship is important. What I don't understand is how one can dismiss the idea of gay marriage simply because affluent and "bourgeois" fairies endorse it. By doing so, Teitelbaum spits in the faces of those who long only for the symbol that marriage conveys: acceptance.
Maybe straight people don't really know what's best for "us freaks," but it seems that our "leaders" don't either.
Stefan Smith '09 believes that a leader should know how to compromise.
