A Jaded Perspective

Last year, in an Executive Board meeting of the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA), heated discussion ended in the decision by some members that a palm tree was an offensive image for a poster design. If palm trees offend, Jada Pinkett Smith professing a message of love and tolerance never had a chance.

(Full disclosure: I was the Public Relations Chair of the BGLTSA last year, and the palm trees were deemed to be “Orientalist” and “exoticizing.”)

The recent controversy surrounding the “heteronormative” speech by Pinkett Smith at this year’s Cultural Rhythms indicates once again that the BGLTSA is more dedicated to pointless rhetoric than substantive change. But more than that, the BGLTSA has disingenuously dragged Pinkett Smith—who talked about the roles men and women can play in our evolving society—into their battle for further inclusion within the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations.

When the BGLTSA applied for membership of the Foundation, several members of student groups protested the application on the grounds that the BGLTSA promotes a deviant lifestyle. While it is deplorable that groups aimed at the value of diversity would choose to criticize the BGLTSA in this way, it is similarly deplorable that the BGLTSA has hijacked Pinkett Smith’s speech to further its own skewed agenda.

“Heteronormativity” is hardly a pressing concern when issues like hate crimes and job discrimination plague LGBT Americans more frequently and devastatingly. And yet still the BGLTSA focuses its efforts on demonizing Pinkett Smith, who spoke from her heart and personal experience in a plea for a respect for diversity. How dare she?

By terming Pinkett Smith’s speech “heterosexist discourse,” the BGLTSA serves only to isolate and alienate proponents of a respect for diversity. Instead of condemning Pinkett Smith, the BGLTSA should have focused on their objective: forming a productive discourse with the Foundation in order “to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class.”

The reactionary politics of the BGLTSA also represent a more systemic problem in LGBT politics: radical isolation. By advancing fringe agendas, which have a negligible impact on the lives of LBGT people as compared to larger more pressing problems, LGBT activists alienate even would-be supporters of their cause. The outrage and media frenzy which erupted over e-mail lists yesterday in response to this controversy is directly indicative of this aforementioned problem.

The sad reality of the situation is that if the BGLTSA continues on its track, it will also fragment its own community. People who have dedicated a significant amount of time and effort to advancing LBGT equality will become increasingly frustrated with the institutions that purport to represent and argue on their behalf such as the BGLTSA. In order to avoid this fragmentation, it is necessary that the BGLTSA work to encourage coalition building among constituents and further bridge the gap between politics and people.

Sorry, Jada, but you’re caught in the crossfire.

Adam P. Schneider ’07, a Crimson associate magazine editor, is a government concentrator in Quincy House.