It is not worth my time to write anything substantial about the “not gay” chant that continues to follow the Good Old Song. But I feel compelled to at least express my sadness, fear and disgust at what I heard on Thursday night at Lighting of the Lawn, and throughout my four years here.
It is not worth my time, though, because you can read about it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, courtesy of The Cavalier Daily. Or here, here, here and here, from outside sources. It is even mentioned on the Good Old Song’s Wikipedia page. And, most recently, we received a statement from University President Teresa Sullivan and our provost, Thomas Katsouleas.
This is, frankly, disgraceful. The fact that after so much conversation, years of action and an uphill battle to make the LGBTQ community feel comfortable at the University, our president has to release a statement on “not gay” after Lighting of the Lawn in 2015 is incomprehensible.
So, why is it that since the conversation began in 1999 (and possibly earlier), we are unable to move away from one of our most horrendous traditions?
What do the select people who choose to alienate the LGBTQ community have to gain by claiming the University is “not gay?” (Something that is entirely untrue.)
And, most importantly, how can you justify making me — making us — feel like we do not belong here, that this is not our University, especially at an event that is supposed to bring the whole school together?
The only argument that seems to support the chant is freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is a beautiful, powerful and rare right, so who am I to take that away from you; but what value does it have if you waste it on offending so many people with something as trivial as “not gay?”
In the New Yorker’s “Race and the Free-Speech Diversion,” Jelani Cobb states: “The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another.”
“Not gay” is an attempt — though weak and childish — to bully the marginalized, and assert dominance over a community. It also begins to encroach on the freedom and safety of those who identify as LGBTQ. It seems as if the “free speech” argument is an admission that the only good thing you can find about something is that it is not illegal. Given that exceptionally low bar, think of being asked to do away with “not gay” not as an infringement of your First Amendment rights, but as a request to exercise basic respect and common decency.
During the great “not gay” debate of 2007 (a year when Student Council had a Good Old Song ad-hoc committee), Alex Cortes was the only student to pen an article that supported the chant. If this article were to be released today, the reaction would be immediate and harsh. Even then, Cortes issued an apology, although he upheld his views against homosexuality. That is fine — that is why we have opinions, and free speech and free press — but he also recognized that the chant is not courageous, funny or cool.
To echo the 1999 article by Rob Walker, it is not okay to say “not gay.” A rhyme that simple is easy to remember, so please — for my sake, the sake of the LGBTQ community, and so that The Cavalier Daily never has to run another article about the Good Old Song — sing it right.
Thomas Pilnik is a fourth-year in the College.
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 15 hours agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 3 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
