WHEN I found out the members of the University were aiming to create a "gay frat," my gut reaction wasn't good. Another minority group segregating themselves through the fraternity system is exactly what we don't need. But further consideration reminds me that I fell into the common fallacy that corrupts our idea of racial and sexual minorities: that they are parallel. The distinction between the two is what legitimizes the formation of a fraternity aimed at homosexual interests and not racial ones.
Gays and Asian-Americans, for example, share many characteristics. Both are numeric minorities. Consequently both have faced prejudice based on their differences. Racial and sexual distinctions are both indelible, innate qualities rather than personal decisions. And then there comes a significant point of departure. Racial groups are distinguished only by an aesthetic quality: skin color. In contrast, gays and lesbians share a common interest, though still an inherent attribute that distinguishes them from the majority: attraction to members of the same sex. This distinction is a valid point to rally around.
In an ideal world, we would all be colorblind. Making racial, not to be confused with cultural, distinctions benefits no one and is the most basic root of discrimination. But making people absolutely blind to sexual preferences is not only implausible, even in utopian terms, but irrational. It is ignorant to say that our sexuality changes our humanity, but it is a valid and significant part of our identities.
"Out on Rugby" President Anthony Whitten said one reason for a gay fraternity is to "create an environment where queer men could feel comfortable within the Greek system." A system which Whitten said can be seen as "heterosexist." If the problem with mainstream fraternities is prejudice, then segregation of sexual identity is not the answer. That simply is not acceptable. However, when it comes to a certain comfort level, even an elimination of ignorance would justify the formation of a gay fraternity.
Our sexuality is constantly a factor in our everyday interactions and for most is the driving force behind most social interactions. "Out on Rugby" proposes to become a social fraternity. This group is not working toward an all-gay a capella group or basketball team, which would be invalid venues for segregating people by sexuality. The common interest includes relationships with people, which is relevant to sexual orientation. Therefore in this particular realm, sexuality is a legitimate foundation to build a group on.It is not necessarily problematic that gays do not feel completely comfortable in a mainstream fraternity. Being gay should by no means be a bar to joining a fraternity due to feelings of discrimination. Fraternities, after all, do have purposes that do not involve romantic interests. In some instances, other personal attributes would surely supersede sexual identity when it came to choosing where to pledge. Whitten points out that not all gay men will even want to be part of the group. Being gay guarantees no absolute solidarity.
Unfortunately, Whitten's other reason for wanting to form "Out on Rugby" -- to "diversify the Greek system" -- isn't a likely possibility. Fraternities are nominal members of an umbrella organization, like the IFC, but have limited interaction with each other. The only real way to "diversify" the Greek system would involve intra-fraternal heterogeneity. Though Whitten wants to be open to straight men too, the chances of any joining are probably slim. "Out on Rugby" could draw straight men and women to larger functions, but again a dissimilar stance on a significant interest could deter many. For example, girls out looking for romantic interest probably don't want to party with guys with whom they stand no chance. But then again, perhaps, "Out on Rugby" will call to women and straight men who want to party in a desexualized environment.
Despite the possible counterfactuals, "Out on Rugby" is valid for its service to the gay community alone. The choice of a fraternity even is superior to that of a CIO because it treats homosexuality as merely social difference rather than a political stance. It is not in ignoring difference, as we should with race, but in recognizing the nature and limited scope of that particular difference, that will end prejudice of sexual orientation.
(Kimberly Liu's column normally appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
