THERE has always been a lot of talk about eliminating the "not gay" chant from football games because it is thought to be offensive to some students. This interjection in the "Good Ol' Song" after every touchdown and fieldgoal is actually not a bad thing and shouldn't be abolished.
Two weeks ago, Student Council released a report in which they set forth a plan to get rid of the "not gay" chant from football games. The report claims that a majority of students find this issue to be a problem at the University. Consequently, Council will attempt to inform everyone next fall about the offensiveness of the chant in order to discourage its continuation.
Herein lies one problem of this strategy. Most students who partake in the chant are not doing it to offend anyone. They do it for a sense of unity, fun and tradition. These singers are very similar to kids singing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," at Christmas time, who throw in lines not originally included in the song. For instance, after the line, "They never let poor Rudolph play in any reindeer games," children add "like Monopoly." The kids don't harbor spite toward Parker Brothers or toward reindeer for that matter. Such parenthetical phrases are just fun to sing.
Similarly, the chanting of "not gay" at football games is not a malicious act. The people who partake in it mean no ill will towards homosexuals; they say it for the fun and unity that comes with celebration of another score by their team. There is something shared when two people are swaying back and forth, arms interlocked, singing a song after a touchdown or fieldgoal and both people yell out "not gay." It sounds crass and insensitive, but this sense of unity cannot be overlooked. It is not worth eliminating the chant when only a few participants mean to be malicious. Furthermore, with the social context and burgeoning disfavor with the chant, few will admit that they enjoy adding "not gay" to the "Good Ol' Song," even if their intentions are merely harmless.
|
The "not gay" chant is generally a form of non-violent self-expression. This sounds vaguely like the First Amendment of our Constitution, guaranteeing "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Sexual expression is not alien to the University; consider "Proud to be Out Week." During this time, students chalk the sidewalks, listen to talks and openly express their views on homosexuality. The "not gay" chant and "Proud to be Out Week" are two sides of the same coin: peaceful assertions of one's sexuality. If the student body in general can set aside a week for homosexuals to assert their sexuality, it can allow another group of students to harmlessly comment at football games. It is hypocrisy to silence one and let the other continue.
While the Student Council committee conducted admirable surveys of the student body regarding the "not gay" chant, their near-sightedness caused them to ignore the greater issue of consistency. Concerned with silencing sexual speech, other offensive aspects of football games have been overlooked.
During the National Anthem, many students yell "Hoos" where it should be "whose broad stripes and bright stars" instead. Others moan "O" before "oh say does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave." Both of these acts are unpatriotic and disrespect our nation. Like flag desecration, these additions undermine the struggles of our fathers, grandfathers and forefathers.
Veterans more than likely attend our football games. It's not surprising if the groans during the national anthem offend them and lower their opinions of today's Wahoos. But still there is no Council committee investigating students' and veterans' feelings on these parenthetical remarks.
Picking only on the innocuous "not gay" chant is not just confounding, it is inconsistent. Our governing body's attempt to silence this chant is an outrage in a country that places a premium on freedom of expression. Allowing one group to employ their rights and then condemning a similar group for using the same rights hinders freedom. There are only two options: Do away with all such interjections and nullify one facet of our cherished diversity, or let everyone demonstrate equally. Conformity will be thrust upon us unless we, as a University that espouses tolerance, accept those who continue the "not gay" tradition.
Council should not impose its views or the views of any majority or minority. It should create an environment where people are willing and able to express their own opinions. With this in mind, when Council begins its campaign to educate students next fall, although it lacks legal authority over our tongues, the weight of its influential pressure will surely suffocate our voices. If you are one who casually shouts, if you never chimed in, even if hearing "not gay" causes your blood to boil - don't stand idly by and watch fellow students lose their right to participate in whatever they choose.
(Scott Killian is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 14 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 5 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
