So, I will admit that I’m responding to something I’m seeing blow up my Facebook feed, and odds are it’s blowing up yours too and the last thing you might want to deal with is another “Josh Ritter is awesome” or “Down with Josh Ritter” blog post. Well, tough luck, I’m doing one. You can just wait til the next one if you’d like, I really won’t be offended.
I’ll skip the summary as it’s no doubt been beaten to death. The first thing that I’m troubled by is that people seem to be thinking that Josh Ritter called them a bigot. He didn’t. He really didn’t. That would look like this: “The student body of Messiah College needs to work past their bigoted attitude.” What he said was that the policy was bigoted. As a point of fact, he said that the student body that was there was open to change and should continue to work towards changing the institution. So, really, where in that did you get that he was calling you a bigot? If anything, he was saying that the students are under a system that isn’t what it should be, he saw they were trying to change it, and should continue to do so. He was also surprised about it, which means from his interactions with the students he’s seen that the opposite is being lived there. Repetition for emphasis: he was surprised because he had interacted with the students and knew their opinions and was shocked to find their institution had a different policy. Sure, he asked for the student body to pursue openness and change, but he also said to continue to do what you were doing already.
What truly gets to me though is this discussion of “intolerance” vs. “tolerance”. I know Josh Ritter stepped it up using words like “bigoted and exclusionary”, but firing back a volley of “intolerant” is really not the greatest way to redeem the conversation. Frankly, in my eyes it makes you look silly and unable to rise to the occasion. I understand the impulse, but say what you mean. That’s what Josh Ritter did. He didn’t couch the issue in politically correct dialogue, he said what was on his mind. Is the policy bigoted? Sort of. I personally think “bigoted” is a little harsh, but not by much. It is, most certainly exclusionary.
Bigotry is literally disliking a group, behaviors, or what have you and believing that your opinion is superior. That means you believe that others are inferior. I don’t necessarily think that the rule that has been raised is bigoted, but it certainly comes pretty damn close. Those defending the rule are claiming that it’s just an issue of sex and that heterosexual intercourse is forbidden as well. While those two issues are stated side by side in the handbook, it is by FAR the opposite of the truth. It’s not that engaging in homosexual intercourse is forbidden, homosexual behavior is forbidden. This opens up gay and bisexual students to a higher degree of scrutiny than straight students will ever be under. For example, if you’re openly gay, that means that you cannot date anyone from your gender. You probably should avoid going over to their dorm to watch movies too, because that’s a whole other level of potential chaos, especially if you don’t have someone there to witness your side of things. Also, just in case there’s a doubt that the intention is towards all homosexual behavior and not just gay sex, read pg 159 of the handbook. It very clearly states that any patterns of homosexual behavior are not appropriate for Christians.
The handbook never clearly defines what should be considered to be “homosexual behavior” either. It just states that it will be determined on site by the authorities present. There are a series of appellate hearings you can go through, but then that brings you before progressively more and more of your peers, trotting out your perceived indiscretion and subsequently having to discuss your behavior with your crush before progressively higher levels of appellate boards. So your options if you’re gay and are caught behaving in a homosexual way is be subjected to someone’s interpretation of homosexual behavior, then subsequently subject yourself to other’s interpretations of homosexual behavior, with continuously finer grain inspection on your actions as a gay student with increasingly heavier penalties.
To say this is the same as what heterosexual students are subjected to by being prohibited from having sex is preposterous. An entire group of people have the potential to be scrutinized on a level that extends well beyond that of other groups. That’s discriminatory, and that’s where the argument of bigotry comes from. If the true heart of the situation was that students are prohibited from having sex, then the rules preceding it about extra marital intercourse would suffice. Instead, it singles out a group and leaves plenty of leeway for someone to decide something is homosexual behavior. This is truly where bigotry accusation really comes to bear. Homosexuals are a wide array of people, just like heterosexual people. What this rule is doing is trying to enforce heterosexual normative culture without looking like it.
Which isn’t to say that Messiah and those enforcing the rules have abused them. I personally never saw or heard of any group ostracized while there, but there is discomfort amongst some who came out during my tenure there. Amongst their close peer groups, things were fine, but because of the clause being relegated specifically to any behavior, there was some tension with what that meant and how much they could truly be themselves. On the whole, I found the faculty and students to be very accepting, which is why I wasn’t a fan of having the whole school labeled as bigots. For the most part, they’re not. It is like any school though, and there are no doubt those who are. I don’t remember anyone ever feeling like they were actually being singled out for being gay, but the policy did not make them feel very welcome. These are probably the issues that were left out of Josh Ritter’s sound byte, and simply responding by calling him “intolerant” is, well, we’ve covered that dead horse.
With all this said, it is a private college and a Christian one. The school’s formal response was right in expressing surprise that Ritter was shocked to discover their policy. Traditional definitions of marriage are very much understood to be the norm there. The school has the right to set and enforce whatever rules they deem necessary, and I don’t question that. Those who buck the Community Covenant should know full well what that means for them, and accept responsibility for making themselves accountable to it. While it doesn’t mean that the Community Covenant is right, it does mean that you do agree to live by those rules during your tenure at that institution. By no means is this college approaching anything Orwellian, either. The standards they have set are the standards they truly believe will make their students better people.
Which is one of the reasons I find the backlash from both parties annoying. Listen, Josh Ritter believes differently and is behaving in a manner he considers appropriate: no longer performing at the school. The school will take this the same way they did a few years ago when a student claimed he was expelled for being gay. (Which, was patently false, by the way. But the institution’s reasons for expelling him were sealed on their end, so they couldn’t defend themselves because they were protecting his records. They took it in the teeth defending his personal information, which is actually commendable.) The school will issue that one formal statement then take it in stride and not change. Eventually, the school will change, but I am doubtful it will at this time. You have to keep in mind the school is beholden to donations and it’s board of directors to run, and they are all rather set in their collective way of viewing the world. The standard will not shift until they do.
So, there’s my $.02 on the matter. If you’re looking for the sound byte form to streamline my opinion and string me up for it: I agree with Josh Ritter, but it’s still Messiah’s prerogative to let things remain the way they are.
WiZ 