RainBow week - Safe Space Campaign

Boston

As part of nexts week rainbow week, the LGBTRO in conjunction with the LGBTSoc will be running a "Safe Space Campaign". Not unsimiliar to the "Postive space" Campaign UCD ran in 2004. Basically Lectures, Tutors, general staff... ect will be incouraged to place banner in places of visibility, in
or about offices or buildings ect. UCD's campaign was highly contraversal in nature, with many differing view points on it. While I don't think it's appropriate for me to give my view on it here, I'd like to open it up to debate.

Attachted is a copy of the banner.

Edit, By request, the line up for next week.

Monday:

Class Rep LGBT Awareness Training - 5pm Maxwell Theatre, Hamilton Building;

Coming Out Workshops - 8pm, Arts Building Rooms 3070 and 3137

Wednesday:

Karaoke in the Buttery - 8pm

Thursday:

Straight Night "OUT" - 9pm, The Dragon, George's St.

Friday:

Pot of Gold Treasure Hunt - from 2pm, LGBT Soc Room, House 6;

Big Gay Pub Crawl - 6.30pm leaving from steps of the Dining Hall

Thirdfox

A bit off-post but I heard that there will be a rainbow flag flying over Trinity next week. Is this true?

Cause I've heard of people asking why weren't Christmas trees allowed in front square yet rainbow flags allowed on the mast.

Personally I would have thought they should both be allowed...

Boston

To my knowledge the LGBTRO is trying to get the flag flown, however I don't know if it's been allowed. About christmas trees, I don't know, did someone campaign for it? Probably a different person who gives the go ahead to something like christmas trees as well.

ApeXaviour

I don't understand. Are these banners supposed to indicate that the area immediately surrounding them are safe for gays? Isn't that rather demeaning?

Boston

Well, (And I'm not the LGBTRO) the idea is that member of staff puts them up in there office or in a tutorial or in a lecture hall or wherever. The LGBT student sees them, and as a result feels comforatable talking to the person, safe in the knowledge their not homophobic. Basically a "I don't hate you message".

Thirdfox

But isn't that operating under the assumption that people hate them in general? Or else wouldn't we also have I don't hate women, men, children, old people, disabled people, indigenous people, foreign people, animals, God, everything in the world posters?... etc.

Sapien

Thirdfox wrote:

But isn't that operating under the assumption that people hate them in general? Or else wouldn't we also have I don't hate women, men, children, old people, disabled people, indigenous people, foreign people, animals, God, everything in the world posters?... etc.

That's more than a little facetious. The answer, of course, is that this is being done for Rainbow Week, and by the LGBT representatives in Trinity. Their remit is clear and specific.

And it is more than "I don't hate the gays". It's "I care enough about my gay students feeling comfortable that I will put up this poster".

The LGBTRO put forward a motion to SU Council that the President be mandated to campaign to the proper authorities that the Rainbow Flag be flown during Rainbow Week. The motion passed overwhelmingly, and the President is, and all subsequent presidents are so mandated until such time as the Rainbow Flag is customarily flown every year during Rainbow Week.

ApeXaviour

Sapien wrote:

And it is more than "I don't hate the gays". It's "I care enough about my gay students feeling comfortable that I will put up this poster".

Cos sexuality is always a factor in academic matters?

I find this whole idea a bit ridiculous. Why are these necessary? If I was of another sexual orientation I think I'd find them quite patronising. Apart from that it would make people who don't have them up seem like homophobes.

It's exactly the same as having posters up: "this is a race tolerant zone". Implies other area's aren't whether you like it or not. Equivalently ridiculous

Crash

personally i think a lot of the welfare campaigns, especially those relating to LGBT issues, kinda have this whole "pampering" thing to them, which I personally find ridiculuous and stupid, and i kinda think (of course i cant answer properly but i feel that) i'd find it patronising.

Crash

also, as an aside, the Pres is mandated for this year and next year (our policies, unless renewed, only stay part of policy for two years i *think* - might be three) to campaign for the rainbow flag to be flown. so unless there were a referenda, it'll run out after that iirc. EduMyth can probably answer this better.

Sapien

ApeXaviour wrote:

Cos sexuality is always a factor in academic matters?

I find this whole idea a bit ridiculous. Why are these necessary? If I was of another sexual orientation I think I'd find them quite patronising. Apart from that it would make people who don't have them up seem like homophobes.

It's exactly the same as having posters up: "this is a race tolerant zone". Implies other area's aren't whether you like it or not. Equivalently ridiculous

I hope you are open to considering the possibility that, not being of "another sexual orientation", you are equally not in a position to understand the importance of gestures like this, or to extrapolate quite how they would make you feel.

Sexuality is not always a factor in academic matters, but it is important in any social environment. I will take it that you do not realise it, but there are people whose experience of college life is made less pleasant because of their sexuality. Do you dispute this?

The Safe Space Campaign is necessary because there are parts of college, faculties, schools, individuals, that are still hostile to gay people. If you do not believe that it is the place of the the LGBT Soc or the LGBTRO to attempt to remedy this, then what exactly should they be doing?

Why would someone refuse to display one of these posters if not out of homophobia?

As to the race analogy, if you think that tolerance of LGBT people is as advanced as racial tolerance, then you are naively deluded.

So why exactly is this campaign ridiculous?

Sapien

TheGrinch_000 wrote:

personally i think a lot of the welfare campaigns, especially those relating to LGBT issues, kinda have this whole "pampering" thing to them, which I personally find ridiculuous and stupid, and i kinda think (of course i cant answer properly but i feel that) i'd find it patronising.

Especially those relating to LGBT issues? Really! And what others? Mental Health? Disabilities? Any of these? What else?

Crash

Sapien wrote:

Why would someone refuse to display one of these posters if not out of homophobia?

i'd refuse to show one of these posters on the grounds that i find it morally wrong to be put in a position whereby if i were not to put up a poster, i'd be considered homophobic. do you disagree or agree with that?

Crash

Sapien wrote:

Especially those relating to LGBT issues? Really! And what others? Mental Health? Disabilities? Any of these? What else?

well disability campaigns lately have been a bit of a mess - not so much due to the campaigns but due to apathy and colleges lackluster attitude towards it.

Mental Health i unfortunately was busy during mental health week so didnt get a chance to see any of the events, talks or other things organised, so i'll withhold a view on it for the mo.

Sapien

TheGrinch_000 wrote:

i'd refuse to show one of these posters on the grounds that i find it morally wrong to be put in a position whereby if i were not to put up a poster, i'd be considered homophobic. do you disagree or agree with that?

I disagree. In fact I find it an idiotically circular argument. You have managed to find a way of making an initiative intended for the betterment of your gay colleagues into an act of persecution against yourself. Egoistical second-order thinking, and thouroughly unhelpful. Grow up.

TheGrinch_000 wrote:

well disability campaigns lately have been a bit of a mess - not so much due to the campaigns but due to apathy and colleges lackluster attitude towards it.

Mental Health i unfortunately was busy during mental health week so didnt get a chance to see any of the events, talks or other things organised, so i'll withhold a view on it for the mo.

But do you find them "pampering"? Or is it just the gays who are given too much attention?

ApeXaviour

Sapien wrote:

I hope you are open to considering the possibility that, not being of "another sexual orientation", you are equally not in a position to understand the importance of gestures like this, or to extrapolate quite how they would make you feel.

That's quite a good point. Not that I consider myself totally detached or anything. But the gesture I suppose would be appreciated (forgive me I'm not in my most articulate mood today). However, I still feel this particular "gesture" is misguided somewhat. You could achieve a similar desired effect with other, less absurd ways. Say.. a "no to homophobia ribbon" or something along those lines. More thought put into it..

Sapien wrote:

Sexuality is not always a factor in academic matters, but it is important in any social environment. I will take it that you do not realise it, but there are people whose experience of college life is made less pleasant because of their sexuality. Do you dispute this?

Do I dispute that? Yes and no. Aspects of their college life may be made less pleasant. These could be due to many factors, their own attidude, chance unpleasant experiences etc. (I don't claim to know all). However I don't see how it can have any impact on their academic life. Everybody has their personal problems (I'm not for a moment suggesting homosexuality/transgenger is a problem, but obviously in our less than perfect society problems can arise from it) that affect them and it's usually not brought into non-social parts of their lives. Lecturers offices etc are not known as homophobic ghettos, so why would you put them there? Why not in shoe shops, on aeroplanes or other irrelevant places?

If you do not believe that it is the place of the the LGBT Soc or the LGBTRO to attempt to remedy this, then what exactly should they be doing?

I don't question their intent, or their place. I question their means.

Why would someone refuse to display one of these posters if not out of homophobia?

I'd refuse on the grounds I've listed above (ie I think it absurd) and because I'd feel I was being unfairly pressurised into displaying one. Not something I respond to.

As to the race analogy, if you think that tolerance of LGBT people is as advanced as racial tolerance, then you are naively deluded.

You'd be surprised... I was in a taxi today. The driver just says to me out of the blue in a begrudging tone "look at the blackies over there, having the time of their lives". As far as I could tell they were merely standing at a bus-stop laughing. But yeah on the whole, racial tolerance is ahead of lgbt tolerance, solely because its movement has been going for a good 30 years longer. Yet to say they are not on at least comparable scales, I would say is naive and in your case probably a bit insular.

Sapien

ApeXaviour wrote:

However, I still feel this particular "gesture" is misguided somewhat. You could achieve a similar desired effect with other, less absurd ways.... More thought put into it..

Right. Like what? This is, to my mind, the simplest, and easiest way to illicit a positive response from the college staff. Explain to me how it is "absurd".

ApeXaviour wrote:

Say.. a "no to homophobia ribbon" or something along those lines.

They will be available from the Rainbow Week stand all week. Donations of 50c will be given to BeLonGTo, a youth group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender young people. I take it you will be wearing one?

ApeXaviour wrote:

Do I dispute that? Yes and no. Aspects of their college life may be made less pleasant. These could be due to many factors, their own attidude, chance unpleasant experiences etc. (I don't claim to know all). However I don't see how it can have any impact on their academic life. Everybody has their personal problems (I'm not for a moment suggesting homosexuality/transgenger is a problem, but obviously in our less than perfect society problems can arise from it) that affect them and it's usually not brought into non-social parts of their lives. Lecturers offices etc are not known as homophobic ghettos, so why would you put them there? Why not in shoe shops, on aeroplanes or other irrelevant places?

Okay, you're wasting my time now. Are you suggesting that matters of sexuality, tolerance and homophobia are irrelevant to the interactions of students and their lecturers, tutors or administrators? Do not so casually dismiss the concerns of the gay community. You clearly haven't put very much thought into this.

ApeXaviour wrote:

I'd refuse on the grounds I've listed above (ie I think it absurd) and because I'd feel I was being unfairly pressurised into displaying one. Not something I respond to.

The "pressure" is only to affirm that one has a positive attitude towards LGBT students. This "pressure" could only ever be felt in a negative way by one who, for whatever reason, would not want to do this. There is no principled objection to the campaign - only homophobia, and the bizarre, cynical belligerence that you and TheGrinch display.

Perhaps you should stop telling gay people whether or not they have significant problems, what they should do about them, and that they should be embarrassed by the ingenuous efforts of those amongst their number who are committed enough to try to change things.

ApeXaviour

Firstly I want to say I'm not liking your tone. I'd appreciate it if you could maintain a little more civility and rationale in your argument. We are not afterall arguing over eachother's ignorance but merely the method by which the ignorance itself is tackled. We need not get huffed..

Sapien wrote:

Right. Like what? This is, to my mind, the simplest, and easiest way to illicit a positive response from the college staff. Explain to me how it is "absurd".

I thought I had.

Sapien wrote:

They will be available from the Rainbow Week stand all week. Donations of 50c will be given to BeLonGTo, a youth group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender young people. I take it you will be wearing one?

If I see them and have 50c then yeah why not.

Sapien wrote:

Okay, you're wasting my time now.

Clearly..

Are you suggesting that matters of sexuality, tolerance and homophobia are irrelevant to the interactions of students and their lecturers, tutors or administrators?

Negligible would probably be a better term. But yes apart from an aspect of welfare. In interactions between students and lecturers/tutors/administrators sexuality is not an issue.

Do not so casually dismiss the concerns of the gay community.

I don't believe I have. Do you believe you speak for them as a whole?

There is no principled objection to the campaign - only homophobia, and the bizarre, cynical belligerence that you and TheGrinch display.

I'm glad to see you're not branding us as homophobic anyway. If it is so bizarre then why does it seem to be quite a shared view?
I've said already I don't have any principled objection against the spirit of the campaign. The method however I believe will only be counterproductive. Similar to the way positive discrimination can be seen to be counterproductive.

Perhaps you should stop telling gay people whether or not they have significant problems, what they should do about them,

Now that's quite unfair and uncalled for. I did nothing of the sort.

and that they should be embarrassed by the ingenuous efforts of those amongst their number who are committed enough to try to change things.

Sigh.. And this is what it breaks down to. I don't see the efforts as being ingenious.

Sapien

ApeXaviour wrote:

Firstly I want to say I'm not liking your tone. I'd appreciate it if you could maintain a little more civility and rationale in your argument.

Poor baby. Then let me take things out of the realm of tone and into the realm of explicit contention for you. I think that your objections are irrational and asinine, and that you have nothing but confused begrudgery to offer this discussion. Now, this may be a function of your inelegance of expression or your total inability to frame an argument, but nevertheless, that is the overriding impression.

ApeXaviour wrote:

Negligible would probably be a better term. But yes apart from an aspect of welfare. In interactions between students and lecturers/tutors/administrators sexuality is not an issue.

You are, quite simply, wrong. There are homophobic staff members out there. I am not aware of any instances of lecturers throttling their students, or of tutors hurling verbal abuse around campus. But prejudicial treatment, subtle hostility, unwelcoming behaviour? I suppose you imagine that it is precious of us to take such things seriously. That we should leave elderly academicians, set in their quaint ways, to their droning, harmless bigotries. Is that it? Homophobia in staff affects the college life of students. Take my word for it if you must. And more than this: staff should lead by example. Demonstration of intolerance of homophobia by staff will ramify in the attitudes of students.

ApeXaviour wrote:

Do you believe you speak for them as a whole?

Not quite. I have made it my business to become informed of matters affecting LGBT students in Trinity and other universities. I know many gay students. I am one myself. I am wont to talk and think about these matters even, amazingly, outside of the tawdry microcosm of discussion boards, in the real world, as it were. I think I have the right to comment with some authority?

ApeXaviour wrote:

If it is so bizarre then why does it seem to be quite a shared view?

A consensus of two. And not a particularly impressive two.

ApeXaviour wrote:

I've said already I don't have any principled objection against the spirit of the campaign. The method however I believe will only be counterproductive.

I can't see how. Here's how I see it playing out: The little posters will pop up all over campus. They will be a curiosity, a source of brief amusement perhaps. But, unavoidably, the ubiquitous presence will send the important messages that LGBT students should feel safe and welcome at all times and in all parts of college, and that intolerance has no place. So far, so good? And then what? Perhaps, just perhaps, a lecturer will, as happened in UCD, vocally refuse to display this poster. The lecturer will be asked why, and will answer either as you have done, in rambling non sequiturs and odd logical cartwheels, and will be dismissed as a nonentity, or will say something along the lines of "It's bad enough that I know you people are in this college, but..." (Quoth Gerard Casey, Professor of Philosophy, UCD - 2004). From the point of view of the colleges LGBT community, it's win-win.

Perhaps you could furnish us with your distopian predictions.

ApeXaviour wrote:

Sigh.. And this is what it breaks down to. I don't see the efforts as being ingenious.

Sigh indeed. I would never presume to say they were ingenious.

Enigma365

Lecturers offices etc are not known as homophobic ghettos, so why would you put them there? Why not in shoe shops, on aeroplanes or other irrelevant places?

When I lived in Canada last summer, there were many shops that displayed rainbow stickers in their windows to indiciate that they were gay friendly establishments.

Now, obviously I did not feel any less safe in shops that didnt have these stickers, but it was a comfort to know that people were willing to go to the extra effort to publically advertise the fact they were accepting of gay people.

Someone suggested "no to homophobia" ribbons - which actually will also be available during Rainbow Week. However I think the idea of these "safespace" signs is effectively to serve the same purpose as these ribbons. While gay people likely do not feel unsafe in any areas of college, they will be comforted to see that some lecturers and staff are willing to go the extra mile and publically advertise their LGBT acceptance. They wont see the signs and say "phew Im safe here", but they might think "cool- that lecturer cares enough about me to publically display his support".

Without for a second trying to be patronising, I think that it might be easier to understand the benefit of such a campaign if you are gay yourself. While I'm sure everyone posting here has no problem with gay people, the fact is that our society is far from perfect and many gay people still feel they have to hide their sexual orientation in many or all surroundings. There are for example, undoubtedly, a large number of students in Trinity who are completely "in the closet", for fear of what their mates and family will think of them if they were to confide that they were gay.

I think one of the purposes of Rainbow Week, and also of this "safespace" campaign is the long-term normalisation of those who are LGBT. If this campaign can help make gay people feel a little bit less "different" from everyone else and a little more accepted for who they are, then I do not see how this can be of any harm.

Finally, I want to say that I do not think that LGBT students have any more or less problems in their lives than any other group of students. I would hope that people do not think that we are making ourselves out to be victims or deserving of any extra attention. However, it is Rainbow Week and these are the problems that we can deal with this week, so why not.

rsynnott

Sapien wrote:

...illicit a positive response...

Tsk. (revenge for a similar thing some time ago )

Sapien

rsynnott wrote:

Tsk. (revenge for a similar thing some time ago )

(Quiet you!)

shay_562

i'd refuse to show one of these posters on the grounds that i find it morally wrong to be put in a position whereby if i were not to put up a poster, i'd be considered homophobic. do you disagree or agree with that?

I disagree. In fact I find it an idiotically circular argument. You have managed to find a way of making an initiative intended for the betterment of your gay colleagues into an act of persecution against yourself. Egoistical second-order thinking, and thouroughly unhelpful. Grow up.

...and within two posts, you've managed to prove The_Grinch's suggestion that anyone who refused to put up these posters on any grounds (and there's certainly an argument to be made against them that has nothing to do with homophobia) to be completely accurate and founded in reality, as opposed to "idiotically circular". All it took was the mere suggestion by two posters here that they weren't sure the posters were the best way forward to have you frothing at the mouth, lashing out with personal insults ("grow up") and being, in your own words, explicitly contentious. Pity the poor college professor who might dare to not put these posters up, for whatever reason, and has to deal with idiots like you who are willing to brand anyone who disagrees with them as homophobic right off the bat.

I'm sure that you're completely right, that there are plenty of homophobic professors and administrators at college, but to the best of my knowledge, we have an LGBTRO, as well as ordinary ROs, to deal with any case where they actually openly express predjudice in their teachings (which is as far as any RO can go, since thoughts aren't yet illegal). Is the purpose of these posters to weed out the ones that keep their homophobic thoughts to themselves most of the time? To try and goad them into saying something? Because if so, then it's not really about students and making them feel safe, it's about making sure everyone in college agrees with you and your viewpoint.

And if these posters are just about making students feel welcome, surely we need them for every single minority in college, so as not to make anyone feel unwelcome. After all, if we can find time to make posters for one minority, why not all? But then again, the posters don't actually do much, do they? What exactly is an office environment that isn't friendly to LGBT people? If I go to see my tutor and she doesn't have one of these up, can I expect speeches about fire and brimstone while she sprinkles me with holy water? Homophobic comments? Lynching? And if she has the poster up, is that any guarantee that any of these things won't happen? It seems to me to be mostly and empty gesture that's more about looking good and avoiding hassle (since you've already ably demonstrated what will happen to those who dare disagree) than about actually changing attitudes and dealing with the problems people face.

I will take it that you do not realise it, but there are people whose experience of college life is made less pleasant because of their sexuality. Do you dispute this?

In general terms? Of course not. But in academic terms, which is the only area this will actually effect? I wasn't aware that people were having difficulties. What problems, exactly, have been found, and why can't they be dealt with through normal channels (as I mentioned above) that are in place to deal with institutionalised homophobia? I'd like it if you actually offered some kind of real-life examples of when LGBT students might feel uncomfortable going to see a professor who didn't have these posters up instead of simply telling us that there are problems for LGBT students and posing 'rhetorical' questions daring us to dispute it.

Oh, and since you seem to be discounting certain posters' arguments largely on the grounds that they're straight and therefore don't have the same college experience, I should probably chip in that I'm gay, and a large part of the reason I think this 'safe space' campaign is a bit unnecessary is that I haven't yet had reason to feel unsafe (again, in academic terms), although I certain feel less secure now than I did before I saw this thread. And on one level, I do feel incredibly patronised by the concept that I need some kind of special poster to be able to go to a tutor's office or talk to a professor or whatever, whereas the straight students are fine on their own. It's creating a double-standard that doesn't need to be there, and that kind of needless segregation seems counter-productive to me.

Crash

First off i'd like to raise the question that, perhaps, on this forum, you're the only one persecuting yourself Sapien? it would seem that anyone who raises a view contrary to yours (as proven by your point re: people who refuse to put up a "safe space" poster) are seen in a black and white ideal. Just because i am not demanding this posters, and neither is apexaviour, does not make us homophobic. in fact, if you're going to even allege such a thing, i take great, GREAT offence at such an idea and if you really want to have a discussion about it, get in touch with me. i'm not exactly hard to find around college.

Sapien wrote:

They will be available from the Rainbow Week stand all week. Donations of 50c will be given to BeLonGTo, a youth group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender young people. I take it you will be wearing one?

on a lighter note, i got one for free - where will such a donation place be so i can drop my fifty cent in? steph gave a bunch of us a few last week i think to attempt to get people to notice em.

now on a more serious note - just to make things clear before i start this - i'm straight, i'm male, i'm age 19-25. i apparently fit the key demographic. if you want to base your views on my opinion on that, go ahead. Now...

Sapien wrote:

I disagree. In fact I find it an idiotically circular argument. You have managed to find a way of making an initiative intended for the betterment of your gay colleagues into an act of persecution against yourself. Egoistical second-order thinking, and thouroughly unhelpful. Grow up.

nope, sorry, you did. You turned the entire idea of such a campaign (which i'm neither for or against btw) into a for us or against us argument within in two seconds. Were i to be put in the situation where it was a case of "either wear the rainbow ribbon or be considered homophobic" (which was essentially the case you proposed) i would, without a seconds thought, not wear the ribbon. because if, if you want to put it in (ok, this is slightly extreme hyperbole, but still) "either stop being attracted to your own sex, or be persecuted" you're essentially talking the same kinda thing. Being forced to do something on the grounds that someone will look at you as lesser or wrong should you not do something that they demand is MORALLY WRONG. understand that? it goes against every fiber of my being and any time i have been put in that situation, i have turned around and done the opposite.

Sapien wrote:

But do you find them "pampering"? Or is it just the gays who are given too much attention?

i actually apologise for the use of the weird pampering. i would've meant to say patronising - as far as i remember i was trying to think of a different word cus Apexaviour had already used patronising.

Sapien wrote:

You are, quite simply, wrong. There are homophobic staff members out there. I am not aware of any instances of lecturers throttling their students, or of tutors hurling verbal abuse around campus. But prejudicial treatment, subtle hostility, unwelcoming behaviour? I suppose you imagine that it is precious of us to take such things seriously. That we should leave elderly academicians, set in their quaint ways, to their droning, harmless bigotries. Is that it? Homophobia in staff affects the college life of students. Take my word for it if you must. And more than this: staff should lead by example. Demonstration of intolerance of homophobia by staff will ramify in the attitudes of students.

i'm just gonna start this off with: "have you met most tutors?" - in a lot of cases, staff are assholes for one essential reason - they're assholes. they're academics who have been shouldered with the responsibility of looking after some stupid ass students random academic issues when all they want to do is their research and their bit of lecturing. for a fair number of lecturers and staff members, tutoring is an unwanted nuisance.

Sapien wrote:

Not quite. I have made it my business to become informed of matters affecting LGBT students in Trinity and other universities. I know many gay students. I am one myself. I am wont to talk and think about these matters even, amazingly, outside of the tawdry microcosm of discussion boards, in the real world, as it were. I think I have the right to comment with some authority?

fine, but you also seem to be attempting to talk on the behalf of us "straighties" (ok fine, its late and i kinda wanted to coin a new word) in judging both mine and Apexaviours comments as homophobic and close minded, when in fact you've straight off decided that you are going to ignore the explanations for our statements that we've written, and simply accuse both of us of being closeminded and homophobic, which you've essentially done.

Sapien wrote:

I can't see how. Here's how I see it playing out: The little posters will pop up all over campus. They will be a curiosity, a source of brief amusement perhaps. But, unavoidably, the ubiquitous presence will send the important messages that LGBT students should feel safe and welcome at all times and in all parts of college, and that intolerance has no place. So far, so good? And then what? Perhaps, just perhaps, a lecturer will, as happened in UCD, vocally refuse to display this poster. The lecturer will be asked why, and will answer either as you have done, in rambling non sequiturs and odd logical cartwheels, and will be dismissed as a nonentity, or will say something along the lines of "It's bad enough that I know you people are in this college, but..." (Quoth Gerard Casey, Professor of Philosophy, UCD - 2004). From the point of view of the colleges LGBT community, it's win-win.

I'd vocally refuse. in fact, i do believe i've had a similar discussion with comittee members of the LGBT in relation to the idea of StraightSoc (a joke, before anyone starts off on a mad rant) and also the idea of a SexualitySoc (less of a joke - i actually like the idea. i believe people of any orientation have issues that need somewhere to be dealt with and openly expressed, and so should be) but were the gay community within college to express views similar to yours, i'd vocally refuse straight off.

Shay_562 wrote:

Is the purpose of these posters to weed out the ones that keep their homophobic thoughts to themselves most of the time? To try and goad them into saying something? Because if so, then it's not really about students and making them feel safe, it's about making sure everyone in college agrees with you and your viewpoint.

i'd like to take the moment to actually agree (*GASP*) with someone here - in my mind, someone can be as homophobic as they want to. they can be as racist as they want to. hell, if they want to have paedophilic thoughts, let them at it.

It is the ACTIONS that count. i think thats something that needs to be remembered. if someone has the above feelings but is willing to control them, then fair dues to them.


Weird, over the past two days or so, i've been called sexist and homophobic. if it werent for the fact that the arguments on either end of these were both half baked and knee jerk reactions, i might start questioning myself.

Nietzschean

Whoa well that was some fun read, must say i'd tend to agree with Apex, Grinch and Shay there.

Personally I don't get the whole poster thing either for the reasons they mentioned...

I know this might sound odd, but i don't see the point in highlighting the presence of people of different sexual orientations in the college. I personally don't view them as any different and this sort of campain in my view looks like we should be singling them out for some sort of special treatment.

If the college was openly hostile to gay's then sure some proactive posters by staff would be sensible, but last time i checked this wasn't the case. If there is indvidual lecturers that are acting in an homophobic manner surely they should be single'd out and delt with. And i'd have to agree with the grinch's point there, its hardly the goal of the LGBT to root out homophobic's , if they are privately homophobic but don't act on this in regards their daily lives in the college i don't really see how its their business. People are entitled to their own views, and given that they probally grew up in an era of much less understanding of people of different sexual orientations i don't believe its sensible to expect all of them not to be homophobic(how ever sad it might be). This sort of poster campain reeks of forcing people to declare their position on the topic. If a lecturer is entirely homophobic but has no clue of the sexual orientation of his class or has never done anything that could be classed as a homophobic action within in college, is it right he be put under pressure like this?

Though not being gay I am open to any factual corrections other than Sapien randomly branding me ignorant for not agreeing with him.




On aside Sapien as pointed out there by shay and Apex your replies including personal insults are entirely uncalled for. If you can't have a polite discussion on the topic , I will just ban you.

Sapien

shay_562 wrote:

All it took was the mere suggestion by two posters here that they weren't sure the posters were the best way forward to have you frothing at the mouth, lashing out with personal insults ("grow up") and being, in your own words, explicitly contentious.

They were not mere suggestions. They were outright rejections of the concept of the campaign. One may very well have misgivings, but it is unreasonable to reject the idea as "ridiculous". Frankly (and you have robbed yourself of the position to condemn personal attacks), my commandment to "grow up" was in response to a particularly fatuous comment. If there is, as you say, "an argument to be made against them that has nothing to do with homophobia", I have yet to hear it.

shay_562 wrote:

Pity the poor college professor who might dare to not put these posters up, for whatever reason, and has to deal with idiots like you who are willing to brand anyone who disagrees with them as homophobic right off the bat.

There will be no inquisition. Nobody will be vetting offices for the absence of posters. The objections to this campaign come from an unduly negative interpretation of its intention. It is not designed to identify the 'phobes, but to comfort LGBT students. But once again - aside from the dearth of paper, a decent printer, and a few inches of wall-space, why would our poor professor so refuse?

shay_562 wrote:

I'm sure that you're completely right, that there are plenty of homophobic professors and administrators at college, but to the best of my knowledge, we have an LGBTRO, as well as ordinary ROs, to deal with any case where they actually openly express predjudice in their teachings (which is as far as any RO can go, since thoughts aren't yet illegal). Is the purpose of these posters to weed out the ones that keep their homophobic thoughts to themselves most of the time? To try and goad them into saying something? Because if so, then it's not really about students and making them feel safe, it's about making sure everyone in college agrees with you and your viewpoint.

What viewpoint is that? That Trinity college should be accepting of and comfortable for all LGBT students? Do you not think that everyone should agree with that? Do you not think the LGBTRO should actively and aggressively promote and assert that viewpoint? Are you really satisfied that the LGBTRO and Welfare Officer simply react whenever an instance of outright homophobia is reported. Should they not also work towards resolving the source of intolerance, through education, exposure, and thought-provoking initiatives? Should they not be proactive in their responsibilities? Or merely passive and remedial? How will change ever come about if those with the mandate wait around for bad things to happen?

shay_562 wrote:

And if these posters are just about making students feel welcome, surely we need them for every single minority in college, so as not to make anyone feel unwelcome. After all, if we can find time to make posters for one minority, why not all?

Oh come on! Think for a second, would you? The LGBTRO and the LGBT Soc have conceived and executed this campaign. Are you saying that they cannot do this validly without also campaigning for every other minority.

shay_562 wrote:

What exactly is an office environment that isn't friendly to LGBT people? If I go to see my tutor and she doesn't have one of these up, can I expect speeches about fire and brimstone while she sprinkles me with holy water? Homophobic comments? Lynching?

I'll leave you and your straw man alone, if you don't mind.

shay_562 wrote:

It seems to me to be mostly and empty gesture that's more about looking good and avoiding hassle (since you've already ably demonstrated what will happen to those who dare disagree) than about actually changing attitudes and dealing with the problems people face.

How cynical. Do you imagine your LGBTRO and LGBT Soc members to be the type of people to engage in such empty self promotion? I don't understand how the campaign could "avoid hassle", or how your perception that dissenters will be persecuted supports this.

shay_562 wrote:

I wasn't aware that people were having difficulties. What problems, exactly, have been found, and why can't they be dealt with through normal channels (as I mentioned above) that are in place to deal with institutionalised homophobia?

I'm sorry. I didn't read the part where it was announced that once this campaign is completed the RO and LGBT Soc will abdicate any responsibility to deal with the problems of their students. I had assumed that both could be done - that active campaigns to change attitudes could be carried out, and specific cases of intolerance dealt with.

shay_562 wrote:

I'd like it if you actually offered some kind of real-life examples of when LGBT students might feel uncomfortable going to see a professor who didn't have these posters up instead of simply telling us that there are problems for LGBT students and posing 'rhetorical' questions daring us to dispute it.

I used the example before of Gerard Casey, Professor of Philosophy in UCD. I assume it's okay to use an example from UCD. Now, I happen to know that Prof. Casey has had many gay students over the years - not just undergrads, but postgrads to whom he has been supervisor, working very closely with them for several years. These students knew long before the "Positive Space" campaign that he was homophobic. I take it that you will concede that this would have made their work with him uncomfortable, would have impaired their working relationships. Since the campaign, everyone knows that Casey is a caterwauling bigot. Of little comfort, perhaps, to his erstwhile students, but one can be quite certain that few gay graduates will elect to work with him in future. And if they do, they will know what to expect.

That kind of thing.

shay_562 wrote:

Oh, and since you seem to be discounting certain posters' arguments largely on the grounds that they're straight and therefore don't have the same college experience, I should probably chip in that I'm gay, and a large part of the reason I think this 'safe space' campaign is a bit unnecessary is that I haven't yet had reason to feel unsafe (again, in academic terms)

How nice for you. Trinitys LGBT Society is officially 23 years old, but it existed underground for many years before that. For nearly ten years it existed on the CSC books while homosexual sex between men was still illegal. Life for an openly gay student in Trinity when you were being born was tortuous and disheartening. Gay students were openly ostracised and ridiculed. Lecturers could openly denigrate homosexuality in lectures without fear of recrimination. But today, you enjoy a happy and carefree existence as a gay person in Trinity. How do you imagine this happened?

shay_562 wrote:

And on one level, I do feel incredibly patronised by the concept that I need some kind of special poster to be able to go to a tutor's office or talk to a professor or whatever, whereas the straight students are fine on their own.

You, it would seem, are lucky. There are LGBT students in Trinity who are not out. Who believe that if they were to come out they would loose their friends. There are entire faculties in Trinity where putative homophobia endures. I will guess wildly, and say that you are an Arts student. If you were, say, in Engineering, the idea that measures were necessary to combat homophobia would not seem ridiculous to you, or patronising. It is incredibly narrow of you to place your own embarrassment over this campaign above the welfare of your fellow LGBT students, many of whom, you must recognise, need help, and the assurances of the rest of the college that they will be accepted regardless of what their sexuality is.

Quite apart from the adversity with which you seem to have determined to meet this Campaign, out of your own sense of embarrassment at its necessity, I would adjure you to think about it a little more before penning the bileous response you are, no doubt, already composing. The LGBTRO and LGBT Soc are in a position of responsibility which behoves them to recognise the shortcomings within Trinity with regard to the students whom they represent. You may not need these interventions - others do.

Sapien

The Grinch_000 wrote:

Just because i am not demanding this posters, and neither is apexaviour, does not make us homophobic. in fact, if you're going to even allege such a thing, i take great, GREAT offence at such an idea and if you really want to have a discussion about it, get in touch with me. i'm not exactly hard to find around college.

I have at no point called any one of you a homophobe - let's just get that clear now. I will not spend the rest of this thread defending outlandish claims that I have not made - so please take the trouble to read what I write, rather than assuming that I'm an hysterical, petulant queen.

The Grinch_000 wrote:

You turned the entire idea of such a campaign (which i'm neither for or against btw) into a for us or against us argument within in two seconds.

I don't know what thread you've been reading, but it's certainly not one to which I have been contributing. If would care to look back, it was Apex who suggested that "it would make people who don't have them up seem like homophobes". I have been arguing that this is only a secondary concern of this initiative. The approach that so many of you have taken to this issue seems deliberately perverse and unnecessarily quarrelsome. Do you tend to refuse to wear dark colours to funerals? Is it morally wrong that you are expected to do that? Do you refuse to stand to the national anthem? Do you refuse to offer your hand to another when they gesture to shake? Is it not an imposition to expect you to cooperate?

The Grinch_000 wrote:

i actually apologise for the use of the weird pampering. i would've meant to say patronising - as far as i remember i was trying to think of a different word cus Apexaviour had already used patronising.

Well, the sentiments that that choice of words connoted may have been significantly responsible for the tone I chose in response.

The Grinch_000 wrote:

fine, but you also seem to be attempting to talk on the behalf of us "straighties" (ok fine, its late and i kinda wanted to coin a new word) in judging both mine and Apexaviours comments as homophobic and close minded, when in fact you've straight off decided that you are going to ignore the explanations for our statements that we've written, and simply accuse both of us of being closeminded and homophobic, which you've essentially done.

Once again: I have called no-one a homophobe! I have read all of what each of you have written, a courtesy which seems not to have been returned, because I am being accused of accusations that I did not make. If my actual statements are not salacious or sensational enough for you, kindly do not supplement them with your own inventions.

The Grinch_000 wrote:

I'd vocally refuse.

So let me get this straight. If you were a lecturer and you received an email asking you to display one of these posters, your first thoughts would not be that to do so would benefit many of your gay students who may be having a difficult time, but rather that the request is an unbearable imposition, and, no doubt, part of a clandestine plot to entrap homophobes? Do you not think that you have missed the point a bit?

Nietzschean wrote:

I know this might sound odd, but i don't see the point in highlighting the presence of people of different sexual orientations in the college. I personally don't view them as any different and this sort of campain in my view looks like we should be singling them out for some sort of special treatment.

LGBT students are different - in that they face certain kinds of problems that other students do not. These are not the only kind of problems that students can face. They are not necessarily worse than the problems faced by others. But the fact remains that being LGB or T comes with certain challenges. That is why special measures sometimes have to be taken. That is why the LGBTRO and the LGBT Soc. exist. That is why Rainbow Week exists. That is why campaigns of the "Safe Space" sort are carried out - by gay people, for gay people. No individuals will ever be "singled out" if they don't want to be.

Nietzschean wrote:

This sort of poster campain reeks of forcing people to declare their position on the topic. If a lecturer is entirely homophobic but has no clue of the sexual orientation of his class or has never done anything that could be classed as a homophobic action within in college, is it right he be put under pressure like this?

That depends. If that lecturer is a tutor to any students, then most certainly, yes. Tutors must be able to deal with problems brought to them by the students assigned to them. These problems may relate to the students sexuality, and the tutor must be in a position to help with equanimity and compassion.

I would opine that the same basic principle applies to all staff who have any contact with or responsibility to the welfare of students, but with some, I suppose, it would be less important than others.

Nietzschean wrote:

On aside Sapien as pointed out there by shay and Apex your replies including personal insults are entirely uncalled for. If you can't have a polite discussion on the topic , I will just ban you.

To this point, Nietzschean, I have been called ridiculous, patronising and an idiot. I don't see you leaping in to defend my honour. As such, if I am banned now, I will be forced to conclude that it is because you would rather not give me the opportunity to respond to your arguments.;)

My vehemence can be explained in some part, and aside from my perennially splenetic nature, by what I consider to be an unconscious insensitivity to LGBT issues demonstrated by many posters. This is not, I hasten to recapitulate, an accusation of homophobia. It is the complacency that arises all too easily in straight people who convince themselves that they live in a metropolitan environment which can hold no particular obstacles for their LGBT fellows. This is an attitude which is easy to develop when one is not immediately concerned with such issues on a day to day basis - and can lead to an impatience with what one might see as unnecessary protestations by gay people. We all know that Trinity is gay friendly, so what's the problem? The answer is that Trinity is gay friendly in relative terms. The presumption of heterosexuality is still deeply entrenched in the institution of the college, in its social structures, and its traditions. It is populated by thousands of young people who come directly from schools where homophobia is rampant and unfettered. It is situated in a state that discriminates against LGBT people in countless ways. And so it angers me when a well intended idea towards the improvement of the lot of gay Trinity students is dismissed on the grounds of obscure, twisted, moral cavilling, or, even worse, on the grounds that it is not even necessary in the first place.

Furthermore, I reserve the right to unceremoniously disassemble poorly constructed and unsound arguments. We're all grown-ups here.

Thirdfox

Hello there Sapien, I had posted a comment at the beginning of the thread and have been reading this debate(?) with interest.

It seems to me that you don't believe that you have accused anyone of being homophobic if they refuse to put up a poster but the statement below does cast shadows upon your assertion:

Sapien wrote:

There will be no inquisition. Nobody will be vetting offices for the absence of posters. The objections to this campaign come from an unduly negative interpretation of its intention. It is not designed to identify the 'phobes, but to comfort LGBT students. But once again - aside from the dearth of paper, a decent printer, and a few inches of wall-space, why would our poor professor so refuse?

I would almost certainly see that an innuendo that if you didn't put up a poster then you would be seen as (maybe not homophobic but at least LGBT intolerant etc.)

To answer your question why would someone refuse? A judge did ask an accused (who was charged with Offences Against the State i.e. terrorist activites) if you were innocent why would you choose to be silent?

Admittedly the right to silence is perhaps more fundamental than the right(?) to refuse to put up a poster (perhaps a right to freedom of expression). But the point remains that just as silence does not equate to guilt neither does refusal equate to intolerance.

Personally I would be more inclined for an e-mail informing students of this "safe space" campaign (which I personally do think is necessary) but this is mainly on the grounds of the paper we would save by doing this.

I am not homosexual and I do not see/experience any intolerance towards homosexual members in the college. I do agree with Shay by saying this poster will tend to alienate the community rather than integrate.

For example would people be comfortable with putting up posters saying "Black people are safe here"? This I believe implies that they are not safe elsewhere. Are we trying to say that LGBT people are not welcome in places where there is no poster?

Not trying to insult anyone, but this is just my view. :v:

alantc

This is ridiculous. If any of my lecturers put up a gay flag I would rip it right down. I don't go into College to have "tolerance" forced down my throat.

Barry Aldwell

People like sapien give everyone a bad impression of the LGBT society. I'm not gay, but if I was the behaviour of sapien on this thread would make me think twice before I approached anyone from the LGBT society, especially if I didn't want to run around announcing my sexuality to the entire college

But on the other hand, I can understand his attitude to a degree, if he has to deal with people like alantc every day. But it still doesn't excuse his behaviour on this thread

(I personally would be against the idea of flying the rainbow flag, in preference of flying the national flag. Everyone in Trinity lives in Ireland (I admire the commuting abilities of anyone who doesn't); not everyone in Trinity is gay)

EDIT: I find the impication that engineering students are more likely to be homophobic to be insulting

shay_562

What viewpoint is that? That Trinity college should be accepting of and comfortable for all LGBT students? Do you not think that everyone should agree with that?

Yes, I do. In an ideal world, everyone would agree with that. But there are plenty of people who don't, and as the_Grinch has already said, people can think whatever the hell they want, and should be free to do so without people trying to find out and judge what they're thinking. Given that you've already said that you hope this campaign will goad another professor like Gerard Casey into making homophobic comments, it really does seem more like a witch hunt for unsympathetic staff than something to help students.

How cynical. Do you imagine your LGBTRO and LGBT Soc members to be the type of people to engage in such empty self promotion? I don't understand how the campaign could "avoid hassle", or how your perception that dissenters will be persecuted supports this.

I actually meant that the professors would be sticking up the posters to look good and avoid hassle - it's an empty gesture on their part, not the part of the LGBT Soc/LGBTRO.

I'm sorry. I didn't read the part where it was announced that once this campaign is completed the RO and LGBT Soc will abdicate any responsibility to deal with the problems of their students. I had assumed that both could be done - that active campaigns to change attitudes could be carried out, and specific cases of intolerance dealt with.

Sarcasm aside, you haven't answered my original question - what problems, exactly, have people been having with their professors that they can't deal with through normal channels? And how will this poster campaign in any way alleviate these problems?

Now, I happen to know that Prof. Casey has had many gay students over the years - not just undergrads, but postgrads to whom he has been supervisor, working very closely with them for several years. These students knew long before the "Positive Space" campaign that he was homophobic. I take it that you will concede that this would have made their work with him uncomfortable, would have impaired their working relationships.

But again, channels exist for dealing with cases like this where somebody is making your working environment in college uncomfortable on the basis of your sexuality. In fact, with grad students who are being officially employed, I would have thought you could get the equality authority involved. Which means I'm still waiting for an example of when people are facing discrimination that can't be dealt with by the bodies in place.

But today, you enjoy a happy and carefree existence as a gay person in Trinity. How do you imagine this happened?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it had very little to do with SafeSpace posters.

There are LGBT students in Trinity who are not out. Who believe that if they were to come out they would loose their friends. There are entire faculties in Trinity where putative homophobia endures. I will guess wildly, and say that you are an Arts student. If you were, say, in Engineering, the idea that measures were necessary to combat homophobia would not seem ridiculous to you, or patronising. It is incredibly narrow of you to place your own embarrassment over this campaign above the welfare of your fellow LGBT students, many of whom, you must recognise, need help, and the assurances of the rest of the college that they will be accepted regardless of what their sexuality is.

TBH, I don't know if I'm an Arts student - since the Provost did his little axe job on the various faculties, my course has been kinda drifting in the middle. To the best of my knowledge, we're still a seperate faculty from Arts, but I'm open to correction. But leaving aside the whole argument of whether it's easier to be gay in Arts courses or not (and from talking to various people around the college and seeing the arguments about that very topic on the tcdlgb.org forums, it's not as simple as you make it out to be), I stand by my argument that it's patronising to have to single students out like this based simply on their sexuality. I wouldn't use the word 'embarrassing', nor would I accept your implication that I'm embarrassed at the necessity for this campaign. In theory, I'm completely behind the idea of helping people who are having trouble with their sexuality. I'm just not sure that this is the best way to go about it - a few posters stuck up around that place more out of a sense of duty than because of any real attitude change do not a safe environment make.

Sapien

Thirdfox wrote:

Personally I would be more inclined for an e-mail informing students of this "safe space" campaign (which I personally do think is necessary) but this is mainly on the grounds of the paper we would save by doing this.

You have completely missed the point - how would that work? An email from the LGBTRO saying "This college is a safe space for LGBT students". Simple as that? How pointless. The aim of Rainbow week is to elicit (:p ) positive responses from the college in general, to draw LGBT affirmative actions from entities in the college other than the LGBTRO and LGBT Soc, whose constant monotonous droning on the issue of gay rights is all too easy to ignore.

Thirdfox wrote:

I am not homosexual and I do not see/experience any intolerance towards homosexual members in the college. I do agree with Shay by saying this poster will tend to alienate the community rather than integrate.

Read what I have written above about complacency in LGBT friendly straight people.

Thirdfox wrote:

For example would people be comfortable with putting up posters saying "Black people are safe here"? This I believe implies that they are not safe elsewhere. Are we trying to say that LGBT people are not welcome in places where there is no poster?

In workplaces all over the country there are posters mentioning equality laws, relating to race in particular. The corridors of Intel in Leixlip are draped periodically with banners which outline the seven or eight criteria that anti-discrimination legislation cover, including gender, age, race and sexuality. About a year and a half ago there was a nationwide campaign in Ireland, consisting of billboards, newspaper, radio and television ads, which highlighted racism in the workplace. And - if anyone were to suggest a similar Safe Space campaign aimed at acceptance of racial minorities, or, say, Muslim students, do you imagine, even for a moment, any self respecting Trinner would object?

Barry Aldwell wrote:

I'm not gay, but if I was the behaviour of sapien on this thread would make me think twice before I approached anyone from the LGBT society, especially if I didn't want to run around announcing my sexuality to the entire college

Explain how my opinions, or the Safe Space campaign would make TCD LGBT Soc less attractive to someone who wouldn't want to advertise their sexuality.

Barry Aldwell wrote:

But it still doesn't excuse his behaviour on this thread

What of my behaviour needs excusing?

Barry Aldwell wrote:

I find the impication that engineering students are more likely to be homophobic to be insulting

If you are an Engineering student, then I'm not calling you homophobic, if that's what's worrying you. The fact remains, however, that the Eastward end of the college is noticeably less open to LGBT students. The disparity between the two ends may be shrinking, and I hope it is. Before you object, keep in mind that, not being LGBT yourself, you would not necessarily notice every homophobic comment made, and certainly they would not impact upon you in as lasting a way as it would your gay colleagues. Secondly, how much of a frame of reference do you have?

shay_562 wrote:

In an ideal world, everyone would agree with that. But there are plenty of people who don't, and as the_Grinch has already said, people can think whatever the hell they want, and should be free to do so without people trying to find out and judge what they're thinking.

Whereas I am of the opinion that it is the job of LGBT representatives to attempt to change attitudes such as these, even if they do not impact negatively on any LGBT students. Or, indeed, if they do not yet.

shay_562 wrote:

what problems, exactly, have people been having with their professors that they can't deal with through normal channels? And how will this poster campaign in any way alleviate these problems?

The Safe Space campaign will do some small part to alleviate problems which are too small, too nebulous and too silent to be dealt with officially. Try to think about this practically. It is primarily aimed at gay students who are having difficulty coming to terms with their own sexualities - who feel insecure in the college environment because they do not think they will be accepted. Perhaps they wish to come out but are afraid to do so because they fear the ramifications. The Safe Space Campaign would do some small part to assure these students that their fears are not as grounded as they might have thought.

This is all quite separate from the role of the LGBTRO to deal with instances of outright homophobia. It is a subtle, positive measure aimed at making quietly gay students more comfortable in their college lives. It is to assure students that, if ever they need to, they can speak with their tutors or lecturers about any issues they might have relating to their sexuality - bullying from classmates or other members of staff, homophobic content is coursework, areas of academic interest arising from ones own sexuality, etcetera.

shay_562 wrote:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it had very little to do with SafeSpace posters.

Please do not be quite so blithe - I was making an important point. The general atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people which is felt today in Trinity is due in no small part to the actions of the LGBT Soc and LGBT student activists over the past three decades - many of which were controversial and all of which were important. To say that the time has come for us to desist in the efforts which have been ongoing, and to which you owe so much, is selfish, arrogant and short-sighted. You may be satisfied with the level of equality that has been achieved, but there are hundreds of students in college who cannot be.

shay_562 wrote:

I'm just not sure that this is the best way to go about it - a few posters stuck up around that place more out of a sense of duty than because of any real attitude change do not a safe environment make.

Nobody is contending that it's the best way to do it. But that it is honestly believed to be a good way, and that it will do some good - of course. We are yet to find the best way. Perhaps, given that you and so many others here find this particular measure short of the mark, you could suggest other ways in which acceptance of LGBT students could be promoted in Trinity.

rsynnott

alantc wrote:

This is ridiculous. If any of my lecturers put up a gay flag I would rip it right down. I don't go into College to have "tolerance" forced down my throat.

You would have been great fun if you were around when House 6 became Mandela House...

Barry Aldwell wrote:

(I personally would be against the idea of flying the rainbow flag, in preference of flying the national flag. Everyone in Trinity lives in Ireland (I admire the commuting abilities of anyone who doesn't); not everyone in Trinity is gay)

As far as I know, the proposal was to extend the attempt to get the Irish flag flown to an attempt to get a range of flags flown...

Thirdfox

Sapien wrote:

You have completely missed the point - how would that work? An email from the LGBTRO saying "This college is a safe space for LGBT students". Simple as that? How pointless. The aim of Rainbow week is to elicit (:p ) positive responses from the college in general, to draw LGBT affirmative actions from entities in the college other than the LGBTRO and LGBT Soc, whose constant monotonous droning on the issue of gay rights is all too easy to ignore.

I didn't say the e-mail idea was a good idea but that it would be more economic and reach a wider audience - wouldn't that have more point in it than the posters? Are you suggesting that e-mails will not elicit responses from people?

Sapien wrote:

Read what I have written above about complacency in LGBT friendly straight people.

I did, and I do not agree with your statement that we "straight people" are "complacent" about equality promotion in the College.

Sapien wrote:

In workplaces all over the country there are posters mentioning equality laws, relating to race in particular. The corridors of Intel in Leixlip are draped periodically with banners which outline the seven or eight criteria that anti-discrimination legislation cover, including gender, age, race and sexuality. About a year and a half ago there was a nationwide campaign in Ireland, consisting of billboards, newspaper, radio and television ads, which highlighted racism in the workplace. And - if anyone were to suggest a similar Safe Space campaign aimed at acceptance of racial minorities, or, say, Muslim students, do you imagine, even for a moment, any self respecting Trinner would object?

I dare say that I do imagine that people would question the need for the singling out of Muslim students needing a "Safe space". Being a foreigner myself I would not like to see my ethnic group singled out and be deemed in need of protection. Please note that I said question the need, not object. I am simply questioning the need for this poster campaign too.

Your Intel example is interesting as it flows completely against your argument - Intel has listed a law that it intends to follow: it cannot discriminate on any grounds, be it gender, sexuality, race, religion etc. etc. but this poster campaign is singling out one group, surely this is a different scenario?


Let me say however that I do not believe that you are trying to insult me, us or whoever that has questioned the reason behind these posters but please try to understand our viewpoints too.

In fact your example of singling out Muslim Students in need of protection is a good example to see how that it would not achieve much positives and may bring negatives.

Perhaps a campaign asking people to talk to others who are LGBT may be a better method of integrating everyone and ensuring acceptance (and indeed celebration of diversity)?

Enigma365

Originally Posted by Thirdfox
I am not homosexual and I do not see/experience any intolerance towards homosexual members in the college.

I'm not saying that LGBT people suffer in any serious manner in college but the fact still remains that many LGBT people in college still do not feel that they can be open to everyone about their sexual orientation. There are also a fair amount who still feel they cannot tell anyone that they are gay.

I'm surprised by how much criticism this is getting. To me its no different to if lecturers were asked to put up a sticker saying "stamp out racism" during anti-racism week(if such a week exists). Would everyone here be equally opposed to such a measure?

John

I wouldn't put up an anti-racism, anti-homophobia or anti-anything sticker or poster. My views are my own (I just happen to be anti-discrimination) and I shouldn't have to advertise them or be judged for not advertising them.

Thirdfox

The above statement wasn't worded the best (the "and" should really be replaced by a word that expresses that I may not see this happening but I agree that this may/might exist). I apologise for my wording as it does seem quite strange (at best) and ignorant (at worst... hopefully )

I did not say I was opposed to the measure of creating a "safe space" for LGBT but that we should perhaps question the method of creating awareness... for example I gave an alternaltive solution of getting people to talk to others who were LGBT.

The main criticism is not aimed at what the intentions of the poster represent but the actual wording and method of delivery. I think people may have felt that the wording "safe space" implied that any prof./lecturer who did not put up posters were therefore creating "unsafe space" for LGBT students.

*edit: above statement means quote of myself in Enigma365's post... John got in there before I could reply

Enigma365

My views are my own (I just happen to be anti-discrimination) and I shouldn't have to advertise them or be judged for not advertising them.

I would hope that this campaign would not pressure anyone into doing anything. It should, in my opinion, be completely voluntary and nobody should be judged or derided for simply deciding they do not wish to be involved. I would not support this campaign if it labelled those who did not get involved as homophobes.

The main criticism is not aimed at what the intentions of the poster represent but the actual wording and method of delivery. I think people may have felt that the wording "safe space" implied that any prof./lecturer who did not put up posters were therefore creating "unsafe space" for LGBT students.

Well, I'm not directly involved in this specific campaign(it's a Students Union campaign, not an LGBT society one), but I think the chosen wording is not as important as the intent. I don't believe the campaign is meant to imply that areas without "safespace" signs are unsafe or that lecturers are homohpobic for not supporting the campign.

I mean there are days where ribbons are given out to support AIDS victims and daffodils are given out to support cancer victims. I dont think anyone assumes on these days that those who are not wearing ribbons/daffodils are unsupportive of the cause.

Pet

I would hope that this campaign would not pressure anyone into doing anything. It should, in my opinion, be completely voluntary and nobody should be judged or derided for simply deciding they do not wish to be involved. I would not support this campaign if it labelled those who did not get involved as homophobes.

That's the problem. People like Sapien WILL come along and make exactly that accusation. I agree with what the grinch said..People's views are their own, be they racist, homophobic, fascist, whatever. As long as they keep it to themselves, and as long as it doesn't affect their treatment of others, then there's nothing we can do about it.

I honestly think this safespace campaign is a terrible idea. It's singling LGBT students out, giving them "special treatment", instead of letting them be just like everyone else, which they are. Trinity College does not have a large homophobic contingent, unlike some other universities in Ireland. Okay, I've heard that UCC is quite homophobic in general, and if THEY decided to have a safespace campaign, then let them go ahead, it's obviously necessary. But I think we're doing just fine.

rsynnott

rsynnott wrote:

As far as I know, the proposal was to extend the attempt to get the Irish flag flown to an attempt to get a range of flags flown...

Council Notes:
The advent of Trinity Rainbow Week 2006, to be held in Week 5 of Hilary Term.

Council Recognises:
That the purpose of Rainbow Week is to draw attention to the importance of LGBT issues through high-profile events and a visible campaign on campus.

To This End Council Mandates:
The President to campaign for the flying of the Rainbow Flag on the college flagpole during Rainbow Week, in tandem with his previously mandated campaign to have the Irish Flag flown.

TheGrinch_000 wrote:

also, as an aside, the Pres is mandated for this year and next year (our policies, unless renewed, only stay part of policy for two years i *think* - might be three) to campaign for the rainbow flag to be flown. so unless there were a referenda, it'll run out after that iirc. EduMyth can probably answer this better.

The policy for attempting to get the rainbow flag flown will be in effect for the end of this year plus 2 full academic years. And yes, a referendum stays as policy until another referendum overturns it.

rsynnott

Pet wrote:

I honestly think this safespace campaign is a terrible idea. It's singling LGBT students out, giving them "special treatment", instead of letting them be just like everyone else, which they are. Trinity College does not have a large homophobic contingent, unlike some other universities in Ireland. Okay, I've heard that UCC is quite homophobic in general, and if THEY decided to have a safespace campaign, then let them go ahead, it's obviously necessary. But I think we're doing just fine.

Hmm. You still do hear a lot of homophobic comments in Trinity, you know.

Pet

And I'm fine with Rainbow week for entirely that reason. It will get people talking.

But the safespace campaign..how the hell is a member of staff even going to KNOW your sexuality? And if they do somehow, with psychic powers, know you're L/G/B/T, and treat you badly because of it, then they're ****ed, because you'd report them straightaway and they'd be sanctioned, perhaps even fired.

ApeXaviour

Sapien wrote:

Poor baby. Then let me take things out of the realm of tone and into the realm of explicit contention for you.

I asked nicely. My intent was to imply that if you chose to lower this "debate" further it would result in a banning (as Neitschaen has said). By lower I specifically refer to your lack of restraint. I have been completely polite to you. You have not returned the sentiment. I never referred to you as ridiculous (as you implied), I called the campaign ridiculous. I did not call you patronising or an idiot, though in the above case you have been exceptionately patronising. Consider this your last warning.

You have accused me of being inelegant and "totally inable of framing an argument". The former I've never congratulated myself on. Aesthetics of language however should not detract from credibility of argument except to the most overblown of readers. The latter is simply wrong unless you accuse shay and thegrinch of similar, as I have brought up many of the points they have.

I have similar misgivings about your debating technique. I see your argument as being clouded by your vehemence and emotional involvement. Your ability to associate even in the slightest with this widely held and valid opinion is clouded by your arrogance and pretentiousness. In the face of sound arguments you remain utterly obstinate.

Pettyness aside I'd like to attack this from a somewhat different angle, moving away from too many quotes and hence tangents. I have read all the posts up to now. Would I be right in thinking Sapien, that your main problem with my argument is that you don't see it as concrete enough? I haven't yet explained well enough to you why this is a bad thing for the lgbt soc? Okay so here is my argument in compacted form:
I see the campaign as over-zealous and in the end it will do more harm than good. How? By generating resentment against the lgbtsoc and hence hindering the impact of the good work they will do in future. Surely even with your immovable blinkers on you can see how this is happening already, here and now? Campaigns such as this will alienate it from a large portion of the gay community and the community at large. A militant attitude does not breed popularity and like it or not popularity is what the lgbtsoc needs in order to further the movement.

rsynnott

ApeXaviour wrote:

By generating resentment against the lgbtsoc and hence hindering the impact of the good work they will do in future.

\
It's nothing to do with the lgbtsoc. It's an SU campaign...

Crash

Whether it is or not, you know there is going to be a mental association between the two bodies rob.

ApeXaviour

Are you sure...

LiouVille wrote:

As part of nexts week rainbow week, the LGBTRO in conjunction with the LGBTSoc will be running a "Safe Space Campaign".

Enigma365

The LGBT society does help the Students Union to organise and run many of the Rainbow Week events.

However this specific initiative is exclusively a Students Union initiative, being executed by the LGBT RO and Welfare Officer.

The LGBT society in its current form, generally does not get involved in this kind of thing.

cuckoo

Chances are that it'll end up like the UCD campaign - the sociology department there was awash with the stickers (in UCD stickers were sent to each member of the college staff through the internal mail), the rest of the college did a collective 'huh? whatever....' and there will be a short lived witch hunt of any staff member who questions the campaign.

At least in TCD it'll be posters - the UCD maintenance staff were not happy at the stickiness of the stickers.

My 2c on this one is basically that i don't see my sexuality as a factor in any interactions i've had with college staff. Is the student charter still in force? If it has one of those broad sweeping, anti-discriminatory statements in it, then maybe staff and offices (eg student records) could display some sort of permanent sign that they support and follow the Charter.

But....i think the Rainbow Week is important. And, it'd be great if there was a poster campaign targetting students who casually use language that could cause offence. And, i think it's great that the sales of ribbons this year will benefit BelongTo rather than the old chestnut of HIV/Aids charities.

And, *yawn*, i'm tired of the assumption that the East End of college is a hot bed of homophobia and intolerence. Is it the smelly chemicals in the labs, or the equations in the lecture theatres that supposedly bring it out in science engineering and health science students? In my experience Hamiltonian classes are closer because of the sheer volume of time we spend together.

And, don't forget, the Hamilton is the home of the Glory Holes. :rolleyes:

Crash

Student charter needs updating - its fallen out of policy etc - i have a copy somewhere about but sure ask donal, he'd have his closer to hand.

also - dont forget susan, us Hamilton students just arent liberal enough to get with the whole "same sex" couple idea. i think i'll go back to my computer labs and pretend everyones heterosexual and live my college experience like that. sure, everyone else does apparently down there.

Cuckoo wrote:

And, it'd be great if there was a poster campaign targetting students who casually use language that could cause offence

i can understand the idea behind that, but i can see it ended up highly PC - i mean, people do use the words gay or fag in a derogatory sense, but most of the time its completely unrelated to the meanings of the word gay. its become pure colloquial slang. while tisnt exactly right, i doubt a poster campaign targetting people who call their mates "a load of gay fags" would be most effective - also cus i'd be kinda stumped as to what exactly a gay fag does that's different from what a singular gay or fag would do - but thats beyond my hamiltonian reasoning - think i'll leave that one for an arts students to answer - or the LGBTRO if he would be so kind as to shed light?

rsynnott

TheGrinch_000 wrote:

i can understand the idea behind that, but i can see it ended up highly PC - i mean, people do use the words gay or fag in a derogatory sense, but most of the time its completely unrelated to the meanings of the word gay. its become pure colloquial slang. while tisnt exactly right, i doubt a poster campaign targetting people who call their mates "a load of gay fags" would be most effective - also cus i'd be kinda stumped as to what exactly a gay fag does that's different from what a singular gay or fag would do - but thats beyond my hamiltonian reasoning - think i'll leave that one for an arts students to answer - or the LGBTRO if he would be so kind as to shed light?

Would people be happy to see slurs based on ethnic groups return? I'm sure people who say things like "as X as a jew" aren't really thinking of actual Jews; the point is, though, that it fosters an uncomfortable atmosphere. I personally don't mind the use of 'gay' as a pejorative term; I have, however, talked to lots of people who do mind it very much, and feel intimidated by its use.

Be.Fair

Hi Guys,

If this Sapien fellow is the SU LGBT Officer I think he's got a bit carried away with this dicussion, and should tone it down a little (no need to alienate perfectly reasonable people from rainbow week).

But, and I'm saying this in the general direction of Apexaviour and similar. Until recently, I was very unaware of the actual "abuse" homosexual people receive in a typical week/day/year etc. I think we are all aware of the rascist problem Ireland has, and I think we all agree, being reasonable people, that rascism is unacceptable.

I'd assume that the college itself would be a reasonably "safe" place for "minorities" be they, asian groups, black people, or indeed, homosexual people. However, if there are certain areas, and certain individuals that portray a homophobic or indeed, "anybad-phobia" towards these "minorities" the issue needs to be addressed by the college. And I think having an awareness week is a perfectly acceptable way to do this. And ribbons, posters and stickers are perfectly reasonable ways to publicise this.

However, I do agree that people should be allowed to stay neutral on this issue. Or choose not to buy ribbons, or wear ribbons, or put up posters. However, members of college staff, have an obligation to with hold the beliefs of the university its self, and to protect the students. So no, I don't think individual members of college teaching staff should be allowed to so "NO, I neither support nor reject this campaign, I'd rather play no part". Because I don't think the issue being raised is a matter of choice, or politics, or whatever. The war in iraq as a SU campaign is an example of something that would be acceptable for students or staff to play no part in. However, a matter of respect, acceptance and an antibigotry athmosphere is something that is black or white and must be supported - if you're not with us, you're against us.

I'll just go back to the point I wanted to make at the beginning. Until recently I thought prejudical treatment to homosexuals was something that happened very rarely, and very mildly, especially within college. But correspondance with homosexual students here, I have accepted that it does happen (infrequent however). If groups of people want to taunt others because of their sexuality, gender, race or religion, they have no place within this University.

The second issue is, we're all aware of ambigious meanings of the words gay/****/queer/etc. I have to admit, I've found it very difficult to discard this words as general terms of disatisfaction. (I'll let the feminists know now, I shall never offer the C--T word into redundancy!). I understand the view, their just words, they're not used to persecute homosexuals. I know, a lot of college people have an issue with the PC brigade. However, you have to remind yourself, if you were submitting an academic paper, would the terms "gay or ****" appear in it to describe obnoxious or unlikealbe people? (there probably would be no context, but let's ignore that). So I agree, these terms need to be abandoned from common, general usuage, just like the n- word has been (or should be).

Regards.