To the Editor:
I want to try to explain to Kerri Apblett and to anyone else who's interested what I think Professor Orleck (and others) mean when they accuse Oron Strauss '95 and his colleagues of hijacking last week's forum on homophobia ("Reject Hatred and Affirm Community," Mar. 2, 1995). Let's allow, for starters, that hijack is intended metaphorically here. There were no weapons, but that does not mean there was no threat, and I think hijack is a very apt metaphor for what Strauss and company accomplished.
Here's how they did it. The forum was designed to proceed without a formal moderator. In hindsight that appears to have been a mistake, but I reckon the organizers felt the need for an unconstrained format. Nobody anticipated what would happen. As soon as the panelists finished their brief remarks, the provocateurs began their rhetorical sabotage of the forum. The first went on at great length accusing homosexuals of alienating people by openly identifying as gay and lesbian; people who come out as gay prompt reactions like the anonymous flyer and they should take such attacks in stride. It's not a matter of hate, he and Strauss both insisted, it's just a predictable, and therefore understandable, reaction to gays being . . . well, gay.
Simple-mindedly, I attempted to do just what [Apblett] recommends -- I pointed out that there is another, more reasonable, analysis of the matter. He then responded at length as if he hadn't heard me. Senior Associate Dean of the College Dan Nelson then tried. Again, a lengthy posturing response that ignored Nelson's point. Then, one by one, and each one at great length, these men simply postured without listening; they made speeches without responding. It was like a class dominated by students (or a teacher) who hadn't done the reading; more precisely, by people who refused to do the reading or listening required for discussion. As I make this comparison, however, I am aware of two key differences between the forum and a classroom: 1) This disruption was evidently carefully choreographed, and 2) There was no instructor or moderator there to prevent its success.
Of course Strauss and his colleagues did nothing illegal; no one wants to deprive them of their first amendment rights. But they did attend a discussion and refused to discuss. They also effectively prevented others from discussing anything important because, silly us, we actually tried to respond to their posturing. They effectively turned the forum on homophobia into a simulacrum of the queer-bashing meeting advertised by the anonymous flyer. They suggested, like the flyer, that when homosexuals insist that others recognize their civil rights, they are asking for "special rights." They accused gay men and lesbians of "alienating" the Dartmouth community by being openly homosexual. Strauss even claimed that he has been more oppressed and threatened by homosexuals than anything gays have experienced on this campus. The man sitting next to him expressed the fear that homosexuals are trying to "take over" Dartmouth!
Imagine going to your calculus class some morning and four of the students take up most of the hour asking questions about why 2+2 does not equal 5. Though their classmates repeatedly offer answers, they refuse to listen and instead make long speeches about how dogmatic approaches to arithmetic alienate them. I admit the analogy stumbles a bit here and there (as Erasmus was fond of saying, "every likeness hobbles"), but it does convey the frustration many felt. Now add in the intense contempt for homosexuals that motivated this hijacking and you can get the picture. On the other hand, maybe [Apblett] should have been there.
