https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/flyers-encouraging-lgbtq-suicides-cause-uproar-college-campus-n811911
There
is an old Chinese curse that states, “May you live in interesting times.” I’ll
always remember this because it was a student from China who first told me
about this maxim years ago when I began teaching at the college. When she
first told me about this curse, which I had noticed that she had alluded to in
one of her essays, I’ll admit that I was quite amused. The benign aphorism
seemed like more of a pleasantry than a curse. I reflected in my mind how, certainly,
the Chinese culture must live up to its reputation of being the quintessence of
civility and politeness if this is the most malicious curse of which the
Chinese could conceive. In fact, the student who told me about this curse was
the epitome of deference and politesse. I chuckled as I told her that this was
the most cordial curse I had ever heard. I remember that on her face grew her
usual, very reserved and demur smile, but this time, the very ends of her mouth
curled up in a way that revealed an uncharacteristic slyness. “You would be surprised,
Professor,” she replied, and this left me shrugging and shaking my head.
It
seems as though, until just recently, I was never truly cognizant of the
meaning or the power that this simple phrase wields. Lately, I find myself
reflecting on these words quite frequently, and what I’ve come to realize is
that my student was very wise. This epigram, which initially appears to be
innocuous, is actually deceptively sinister. In recent days, with the constant
bombardment of worrisome, infuriating, and downright depressing information
that is a sign of the “interesting times” in which we’re living, I’m not
ashamed to say that I often find myself longing for the days that weren’t quite
so “interesting.” Indeed, there is a myriad of incidents that have happened
recently that call to mind this ancient curse. One that comes to mind occurred
last month at a university in my hometown.
On
October 12, at Cleveland State University, the same day that a center for LGBTQ
students was to be opened on campus, a vicious flier was posted on a bulletin
board on campus. The picture featured on the flier was the silhouette of a man
hanging from a noose, and the flier contained various statistics of the high
suicide rates among members of the LGBTQ community. Boldly written in large,
rainbow-colored letters across the top of the flier was the phrase, “FOLLOW
YOUR FELLOW FA!@#TS,” insinuating, quite directly, that members of the LGBTQ
community on campus should follow the example of these statistics and commit
suicide.
Of
course, the fact that anyone would post such hateful propaganda on a university
campus is horrifying in and of itself, but what I personally found to be even
more alarming was the reaction of the university’s president, Ronald M.
Berkman. Rather than denouncing or condemning the fliers, Berkman seemed to
defend them. He claimed in a statement that the college “is committed to
upholding the First Amendment, even with regard to controversial issues where
opinion is divided. We will continue to protect free speech to ensure all
voices may be heard…” Now, I would just like to say here that I am an ardent
proponent of the First Amendment, especially at an institution of learning. In
my classroom, I encourage the expression of diverse viewpoints; however, I am
also a firm advocate of the words of African American writer James Baldwin: “We
can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my
oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” In my mind,
one person’s rights should never give said person the license to encroach on
the rights of another human being. In other words, freedom of speech should
never justify someone denying another person’s right to exist.
I
think that this is precisely what is so befuddling and appalling to me about
the rhetoric that the university’s president employed in this statement. In my
mind, the question of whether or not other human beings, whose lifestyles are
different from our own, have a right to live on this Earth should not be a
“controversial” issue wherein “opinion is divided.” My frustration and
disappointment were exacerbated days later when I tried to share my feelings
with a young woman who was once affiliated with the college. She quietly
listened as I told her about how horrified I was, not only by the incident but
by the way the incident was handled, and how my heart breaks for students that
have to be subjected to such discrimination in an institution of learning.
When
I finished, I noticed that she was looking at me rather disinterestedly. She
paused, drew a long breath, and proceeded with the words, “You liberals…” At
this point, I completely tuned out any other words that she spoke; any further
words were completely lost to me. That short utterance, in that moment,
illustrates a concept that has me completely puzzled in these “interesting
times” in which we’re living. In recent days, I often find myself
asking, “When did empathy and human decency become partisan issues?” In my
mind, these ideals are not political in any way.
I
could ignore this incident if this had been the only one of its kind that I had
experienced, but unfortunately, the politicization of compassion has been
ubiquitous within our current social climate. For instance, it seems that
lately, whenever I hear a story of human suffering, it is often followed by
statements, such as, “This is really going to trigger ___.” (Fill in the blank
with “liberals,” Democrats,” “leftists,” etc.) This is deeply
concerning to me, for I had always believed that another human being’s pain
should elicit sympathy in anyone with a heart, regardless of political
affiliation. What so many seem to associate with radical leftist values (i.e. empathy,
equality, inclusiveness, social justice, etc.) I’ve always simply believed to be
the hallmarks of human decency. Incidents such as this one do not move me
because I am “liberal” or even because I have friends who are members of the
LGBTQ community. They move me because I’m a human being.
Perhaps
the reason why this concept is so bizarre to me is because of the fact that up
until recently, I had never identified myself as being liberal or conservative,
for I’ve never been interested in politics; in fact, I’m still
not. I am embarrassingly apathetic about whether or not others
believe trickle-down economics is effective or what the government’s role
should be vis-à-vis business. I am, however, very profoundly concerned about
human decency and the well-being of humanity. I suppose this was the source of
my chagrin when I just could not get this woman to understand that affirming
another human being’s right to exist is not a partisan/political issue. (As a
side note, I should add here that just because fate so often likes to mess with
me now-a-days, this woman is very active in her local Right to Life Club. Yes,
I know; RIP irony. I think that we should bury it somewhere next to empathy,
intelligence, and human decency.)
As I
call to mind these recent occurrences, I can’t help but remember the student
who first told me about the Chinese curse. At the end of the semester, she
thanked me profusely for all of the time that I spent working individually with
her on her English. If I could have the opportunity to see her again, however,
I would actually love to thank her for the lesson she taught me. I would tell
her that I understand now how living “in interesting times” can, indeed, leave
one feeling frightened and uncertain, especially when the absolute tenets of
human decency have been suddenly called into question. In my heart, I can only
pray that we never veer so far from these tenets that we wake up one day to
find that human compassion has become just another partisan issue.
--
Daniella Rossi
