As most people who have read any of my other community posts know, I go to Georgetown University in Washington, DC. Georgetown is a school filled with pride for its Jesuit heritage. Many Jesuits teach classes at Georgetown--often classes with some of the longest wait lists. There is a chaplain-in-residence in every dormitory, and more than one daily mass in the campus chapel. Now as a feminist, I've run into some issues with my school's Jesuit identity, particularly because they do not acknowledge the pro-choice student group on campus as a legitimate campus group; however, I love Georgetown and am proud of its heritage in most situations. Plus, the Jesuits are probably the coolest priests ever.
So, on Friday, it came to the attention of some of the students that an act of vandalism had taken place on campus. A statue of Mary on the front lawn of the school had been defaced. The face of the white stone statue had been painted black. Of course there was a facebook outcry, which I thought was necessary. It's ridiculous, in my opinion, when any school property has been defaced. Georgetown tends to be a very clean campus, and graffiti of any kind is usually cleaned up rather quickly. Two years ago after a very intense basketball game, Pitt students/fans vandalized our campus, and Georgetown quickly took action to remove or cover the graffiti. So, I was very happy to see that there was a public outcry about the vandalism of the Mary statue, because outcry generally leads to action by the University to clean up such things.
But then, the outcry about the ridiculousness of vandalizing the Mary statue became a blame game. One student in his facebook status about the incident asked where the school's Catholic identity had gone. One of his friends quickly replied that it had been "replaced by the gay identity." The first student replied that he couldn't argue, because it was true. Truth? Here's the truth: after multiple "bias-related incidents" last year (I airquote, because I think they should be called hate crimes, not incidents) involving LGBTQ students, one that ended up being taken to court as a hate crime (though later dropped ), students rallied for a change. The University, after much debate, decided to create an LGBTQ resource center that would work to aid students and hopefully serve as a deterrent to such crimes. The pope was not so happy with this, and some students, obviously the ones writing this stuff on their facebook, think that because LGBTQ students have a resource center on campus, they are somehow undermining the Catholic students. Because, according to their flawed logic, creating a safe space for LGBTQ students equates to destroying Georgetown's catholic identity, and as such, relates directly to the vandalism in question.
I'm really upset about this. I'm upset that anyone finds it remotely okay to say that people who identify as LGBTQ and allies are the reason that bad things happen at our school. If we just consider historically what has happened when a single people group is blamed for all of the bad things that happen in a country/community, we'll realize how messed up this is. That is, if you didn't already realize that this facebook status and comment pair was completely bigoted and hateful. We're on the verge of sex positive week on campus-- a week (sponsored in part by GU Pride) about what it means to be sex positive, and about fostering a conversation about sex positivity on campus. And though I don't think it will help the facebook-people in question, I think that some understanding of sex positivity and acceptance is what this campus needs. And the vandalism on Mary, and on facebook, needs to be cleaned up!
Cross-posted here
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vandalism, the blame game, and LGBTQ identity.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12084
I'm curious, was the face painted black to signify that Mary might have been a black person? Or did they just randomly throw a bucket of paint at it?
I wondered the same thing. A careful painting of the face may have been more of a political statement than vandalism.
Although, what it has to do with gay rights on campus is beyond me.
Unfortunately, the response from the students who believe that even allowing LBGT students to feel safe on campus is a rejection of Catholic tradition is not that unusual. Most feminists see this regularly - the idea that recognizing women's rights is an assault on men is as old as the movement.
Power doesn't like to lose.
Well, it kind of IS a rejection of Catholic tradition. Tradition that I think SHOULD be rejected.
I hate that many people always seem to automatically assume that religiosity and "the gay" (scary music) don't mix. IMO, this myth of inherent incompatibility seems equate a lack of morality with LGBTQ people, when in fact being gay has nothing to do with morals (just like being heterosexual has nothing to do with ones morals).
And actually, there's many queer-friendly churches & religious organizations, you just don't hear much about them because it's always the gay-bashing haters that seem to get all the attention.
I said it was a rejection of Catholic TRADITION, which it is. Catholic tradition for centuries has held that being gay is immoral. That's the tradition I'm rejecting. I'm not equating gay with immoral, they are.
As far as I know, although I may be wrong on this because I haven't seen the statue up close, it was just spray painted randomly--not crafted to look like Mary with a darker skin tone. But as you pointed out, either way it is vandalism.
I was thinking the same thing about the reason for the paint.
A lot of historians think Jesus (and therefore Mary) would have had much darker skin than usually portrayed in paintings and stuff. Technically its still vandalism either way, but I think there's a difference between vandalism for the heck of it or for hate, vs vandalism that is trying to make an interesting point.
... let's make that "every historian", shall we. You need not be an ungodly scientist to say that, and I assume it's not heresy(?). Because anybody who has read a just enough of the Bible to know that it takes place in Palestine and that Jesus and his parents were from that area would know that. Of course they are not "white". They would be brown/olive-tanned Middle Easterners.
A little off topic, but hey :)
I wrote about this earlier today so I'm interested to see the Facebook group to which you're referring. I'm in the Georgetown network, but I'm having trouble finding it. Can you post the link? Thanks!
Actually, I guess I didn't make this clear, but the facebook issue to which I'm referring was posted as someone's status and then subsequent comments on the person's status. Did you write about this for the Voice or here on the community site?
Vox Populi:
http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/02/23/paint-it-black-campus-statue-of-virgin-mary-vandalized/
I agree with Meghan Elaine. There is no need to make excuses or doubt yourself when discussing something that is offensive to you or a group of people. It does downplay misogyny. It is similar to a lot of the posts where people here use the word "rant" to describe a post that is usually the opposite - thought-out and intelligent, not just emotional and violent. And maybe emotion and violent speech are necessary at times - if you are saying it, you feel strongly about it, but our culture tells us that our outrage against sexist, racist, or other offensive language or terms bedroom furniture or ideas is "ranting" in a bad way - too emotional, coming from overly sensitive people.