By wpengine September 10, 2002
To some, a rainbow flag would seem to be the last thing they would expect to see on a trek across the Agriculture Quad. But, if you look up to the third floor of Caldwell Hall, you can’t miss the multi-colored flag that hangs proudly out of the building’s window. The flag marks the home of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Resource Center. According to center’s website, its mission is to, “coordinate the efforts of the entire Cornell University community to ensure the inclusion of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and to eliminate heterosexism and gender identity oppression.” From 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Mondays through Fridays students can come into the center to hang out, talk to a staff member, ask questions, grab pamphlets on sexuality, safe sex and local resources, get free safer sex supplies and buttons or even take out movies or books from the center’s own library. “We think it’s the responsibility of the Cornell Library system to provide the common stuff. So, we have a lot of things that other centers might not spend their money on. For example, we have comic books and lesbian pulp fiction,” the Interim Office Manager, Mel Halberstadt said of the center’s library. The center itself is a comfortable place with rainbow pillows on most of the chairs and on the couch. Huge posters that say “Family is Relative” and advertise the television show “Queer as Folk” hang on the walls. “It’s a really good time to hang out in here. Students hang out for hours and hours at a time here,” Halberstadt said. According to the center’s co-ordinator, Gwendolyn Dean, the center’s biggest challenge is a, “general tendency not to want to talk about sexual orientation and gender identity and silence isn’t particularly affirmative.” Christopher Dial ’04, the co-president of OUTreach, a support group for gay men, agreed. “I think the majority of the heterosexual community actively avoids sexual minority issues. If a white person stands on a corner with a sign that says, ‘I support black rights,’ no one’s going to say ‘I think deep down you’re black.’ But, if a straight person stands on a corner with a sign that says, ‘I support LGBT rights,’ then people will immediately question his or her sexuality,” he said. “I can understand not wanting to be misidentified because I don’t like being labeled as straight because I’m not,” he added. To overcome this problem, the center tries to run various programs. This semester, Out in the World, the center’s support group for graduate students will put together a Miss/Mister Drag Pageant. “Hopefully Cornell will host the first ever Miss and Mister Ivy League, which would happen in the spring,” Halberstadt said. The center is also hosting their annual leadership retreat and a coffee house every Wednesday from 4 to 6 p.m. in the center. “It’s important to be able to model how to talk relatively casually about sexual orientation and gender identity. We do lots of programs so that, in a more passive way, people are aware that there is an LGBT community,” Dean said. Some students agreed that the center is important but feel detached from its mission. “I don’t think the resource center is psychologically accessible to people. I don’t feel like it addresses the needs of people who are at the beginning stages of coming out,” one student who wished to remain anonymous said. However, the center does have resources for those students who may not be as comfortable with their sexualities, according to Halberstadt. “If someone doesn’t feel comfortable coming into the center, we can chat over Instant Messenger or on e-mail or on the phone. As long as they’re willing to take a small step, we can usually do a lot to accommodate their personal comfort level,” she said. Originally, the center was a compromise between students and the administration. “It was a solution when some students and other members of the LGBT community were interested in getting a living and learning center. The resource center was what they were offered instead,” Dean explained. While she admits that she is biased, she added that she feels the resource center is more effective than a living and learning center because it is able to, “have a larger impact on the campus. Having it be residential would affect a small number of students,” she said. Some find the center to be an unwelcoming place and wonder how exactly it affects most students. “I wonder if [the LGBT resource center] isn’t the same as some other organizations that are open to anyone so they can get funding but they’re not really inviting,” said Risley Residential Advisor (R.A.) Genger Charles ’04. “Now that I’m an R.A. I can show up to anything and say I’m there for a program but as a regular student I wouldn’t go there,” she said. Orlando Soria ’04 feels unwelcome in the center as well. “I think you feel like you need a reason to go there, you don’t just want to show up,” he said. Perhaps because students may feel intimidated by the office, the center also attempts to reach outside of its own four-walled office. “One of the biggest strengths of this center as opposed to other campuses is that our coordinator, Gwendolyn, has a really good global perspective. Racism, classism, homophobia and sexism all perpetuate each other. There is nothing that is not a gay issue,” Halberstadt said. Therefore, last semester the center ran a Marlon Briggs movie series that was co-sponsored with the Multi-cultural Living and Learning Unit. They worked with the Latino Studies Program to bring speakers from New York City. During Women’s History Month, the center joined with the Women’s Resource Center to create posters of notable women to be displayed on TCAT buses throughout March. “Collaboration is really important. LGBT people are everywhere, so running everything separately is kind of silly,” Dean said. Dial applauds the center’s philosophy. “I fully believe that equal rights for sexual minorities will not be attained until women are viewed equal to men,” he said. But, Charles argued that when she tried to program with the center, they proved to be uncooperative. Last semester Risley ran a weekly program where students would get together and watch MTV’s The Real World. “I wanted someone to come speak about depictions of LGBT people in the media. The Real World seemed like a good start because there’s always ‘a gay,’ and this time the lesbian was psycho. They were supposed to get back to me after I called them but the program didn’t happen because I wasn’t contacted. They seem to like Risley a lot, but they’d rather work with us on their terms. I don’t want to deal with them anymore because I don’t like to deal with bureaucracy that’s not going to deal well with me,” she said. Soria also has problems with the structure of the center itself. “As a gay male, I just don’t identify with transgendered people. I think it’s a completely different situation. I feel that just because you understand same-sex desire doesn’t mean you’re going to understand the idea that someone feels they were intended to be a different gender,” a student said. Dial, however, feels differently about the place of the T in LGBT. “The needs [of sexual minorities and gender minorities] are similar enough that division is not healthy between the two,” he said. As for how effective the c
By wpengine September 10, 2002
The first of a week-long series of panel discussions to memorialize and analyze the events of Sept. 11th was held yesterday at David L. Call Alumni Auditorium in Kennedy Hall. The discussion, entitled, “The Impact of 9/11 on the International Scene,” was moderated by Isaac Kramnick, vice provost for undergraduate education and was attended by around 100 Cornell students and faculty members. Three panelists spoke on United States foreign policy and the best way for America to intervene in international affairs. The first speaker on the panel, Prof. Barry Strauss, history, spoke in favor of the war against terrorism and a possible war in Iraq. Also speaking on security and American unilateralism, Ben Anderson, former professor of government and Asian studies, introduced the term, “extraterritoriality,” the practice of one country imposing force in another country without abiding by the host country’s laws. Another panelist, Prof. Valerie Bunce, government, addressed U.S. hypocrisy in its relations with its allies. Later, audience members were given a chance to question the panelists and propose their own ideas. Kramnick began the discussion by introducing the upcoming week of events. “Our events this week will combine commemoration with analysis,” Kramnick said. Then, Strauss began the discussion with the United States’ war on terrorism. “Our government, representing the majority of public opinion has pursued the attackers to the ends of the earth,” Strauss said. The war in Afghanistan has not been carried out to its fullest and ground troops should be used, according to Strauss. However, Anderson criticized the United States’ use of military power throughout the world by citing the recent controversy over the country’s opposition to an international court. Anderson accused the U.S. of conducting a, “legal and global apartheid that would be threatened by a global court.” He argued that the positions of both unilateralists and multilateralists in the United States are no longer as clear cut as in the past. According to Anderson, there is hypocrisy in the U.S.’s intervention in countries hosting terrorists and its withdrawal from several treaties with other countries, including agreements about global warming and a ban on testing certain weapons. A member of the audience, Ramon Bejar grad believed that Anderson placed too much of the blame on the U.S. “I don’t think that there is an international organization that lacks hypocrisy,” Bejar said. However, the U.S. “must feel more like a citizen of the world than like the gang boss of the world,” Anderson said. Strauss also contended that the US must also alter its alliances with partner countries, making a smoother transition between the old ties formed during the Cold War and new agreements to combat, “Islamic fanaticism.” Strauss claims that the alliances formed between the US and others must be altered to adjust to the post-Sept. 11th world. Further addressing the nation’s relations with its allies, Bunce claimed that the U.S. has fostered renewed relationships with states such as Russia and Pakistan, whose domestic programs do not follow the U.S.’s ideals of democracy. “If you are a friend of the United States, then [the U.S.] does not care about your domestic program. We care more about being friends than about political issues and that might be a costly trap to fall into,” Bunce said. Another issue of security was America’s presence on military bases all over the world, Anderson said. Military bases are located in several unstable countries, according to Anderson and are more vulnerable to attack than ever, even from military regimes supposedly friendly with the United States. The discussion also shifted from the war on terror to the possibility of war in Iraq. “Should we go to war with Iraq?” Strauss asked, then answered, “Saddam Hussein is a suicidal megalomaniac. He hates America and wants to harm it.” Strauss claimed that Hussein would soon have the capability to work with outside terrorist groups, like Al Queda, to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. Prof. Maria Fanis, government, challenged Strauss. “I think that you are collapsing two wars into one by using the legitimate cause for the war against terrorism to justify the war we want to start against Iraq. In my mind these are two different wars,” Fanis said. Fanis suggested that forcing Hussein to accept the return of weapons inspectors might be an acceptable alternative. “It would be very hard to ensure security with an inspections team,” Strauss said. According to Strauss, Hussein has attempted to hide his programs for mass destruction and would do it again. Another important issue was raised by a member of the audience. Robin Messing, an employee in Olin Library asked the panel what would replace the principle of mutual assured destruction introduced during the Cold War. The idea behind mutual assured destruction was that if the United States were to launch a nuclear attack on Russia, then Russia would retaliate immediately in kind. Many believe this principle helped prevent nuclear war. “Who could we retaliate against? What replaces mutual assured destruction?” Messing asked. “I don’t think we have one,” Bunce said. “Any kind of balanced system I cannot imagine.” Archived article by Mackenzie Damon