How exactly does a law firm earn the distinction of perceived homophobia? For some time citizens of Colorado have squabbled over both community standards and the unintended consequences of affirmative action. The result in 1992, via initiative petition, was a proposed amendment to the state constitution that read, "Neither the State of Colorado . . . nor any of its agencies . . . shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall . . . entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim minority status, quota preferences, or claim of discrimination." This amendment passed 52%-48%.
Nine days later, the cities of Denver, Boulder, and Aspen; the Boulder Valley School District; and nine individuals filed suit, including a preliminary injunction prohibiting the amendment from taking effect before court review. After a District Court ruled the amendment unconstitutional, Colorado appealed. In April 1995, partly because of the efforts of Rex Lee, a partner in the firm and former solicitor general of Colorado, Sidley and Austin accepted the State of Colorado as a client. Thus, "LAMBDA -- The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Organization of HLS" organized a boycott -- 340 students pledged not to accept employment with Sidley. Those for whom a boycott was insufficient could protest, providing entertainment for College freshmen on their way to lunch.
"Lawyers Aren't Mercenaries" was not the only patently false sign visible at this affair. Those with the patience to read a moving placard could learn that "Supporting Amendment 2 = Doing Violence Against Gays & Lesbians" or that "It May Be Just a Job For You, But For Gays and Lesbians it's a Matter of Survival." Passers-by with short attention spans could simply accept that "Sidley Sucks." A keen ear could hear up to 60 advocates at once chanting "Undo Two" or "Hate For Hire" or the more imaginative "One-three-five-seven: Rex Lee won't go to heaven." Lazier listeners had to settle for piercing whistles and the horns of approving motorists who were responding mainly to a "Honk For Gay Rights" roadside sign.
We should first acknowledge, though, that one can advocate treating gays without regard to their sexuality, yet still elucidate a legal position against affirmative action without any contradictions of logic, much less pangs of conscience. To be against a law which asks for special considerations is not necessarily to be against those it is intended to benefit. Some protesters claimed the position of the defense to be "morally reprehensible." Ignoring for the moment the social conservatives who would guffaw at the idea of homosexuals as moral arbiters, consider the even more preposterous idea that a legal position can be so beyond the pale that even arguing it is immoral. Even the lawyer who tried to extract millions from McDonalds for its scalding coffee was not necessarily immoral -- he was just doing his job by presenting the case before the law. I asked some of the protest leaders whether it would be immoral to defend a murder suspect if one knew for a fact that he was guilty. Of those questioned, nobody thought this was wrong, although all were quick to point out that they would sense a duty to protect the suspect against the all-powerful State, which is itself the defendant in the Amendment 2 case.
Class of '99, if you do not like protests, at least get used to them. Bullhorns, esoteric signs, Left-wing freaks assembled on Widener Steps; ever since Republicans took over Congress, the disenchanted have turned out in full force. Some Strategic Offense Society veterans came fashionably late to the Amendment 2 protest and even more fashionably transvestite, holding pink balloons and blowing whistles toward the window of the basement conference room, gleefully unaware that protesting has become, of all things, banal. Of a dozen Union diners questioned at random, four sensibly refused to be interviewed. Four had no idea why students might be picketing, while two presumed it had something to do with Columbus Day. One saw the promotional posters, but claimed to have no opinion on the subject; her friend had an opinion "that can't be quoted." A suit-clad L3 on his way to an interview lauded the "wonderful expression of free speech" that the protest represented, before crossing the picket line without any incident. His friend, also in suit and tie, would not interview with Chicago-based Sidley, but "it was more of a passive decision. I decided not to consider firms in the Midwest."
One must admire their magnanimity in giving up potential job prospects; nay, in depriving Sidley of their inherent genius. "There is sort of a price tag involved if you take out one firm," a law student noted. But "people from Harvard have enough options to survive." Perhaps Sidley will have to make do with Yalies. This is a sufficiently frightening prospect that the firm has already made cosmetic concessions, instituting benefits for "domestic partners" of its employees and taking on AIDS cases pro bono. Some objectors to Amendment 2 signed up for interviews not to apply for work, but to present their political case to the interviewers -- who promptly told them that, as repeated by loudspeaker, even the workers "vehemently oppose(d) acceptance of this case."
T his, then, was a noble victory of sorts for the sixty active picketers and the 340 petition-signing boycotters; all the more fortunate that their job circumstances allow them such a luxury. Victory was especially sweet for the group of fourteen Harvard Law School professors who, according to a press release, "have signed a letter in support of LAMBDA's efforts." Why stop there, though? One of their own, Professor Alan Dershowitz, spent his summer vacation defending Orenthal James Simpson on murder charges. By DNA evidence, the probability is less than one in a million that Simpson was innocent, yet the defense team of which Dershowitz was a part helped acquit him with cynically race-based closing arguments. Take a stand against domestic violence; boycott Dershowitz's class. After all, "Lawyers aren't mercenaries."
SOS's stunning debut combined elements of visual artistry (a bedsheet unfurled to reveal the poetic slogan "30 Years of Family Values, 0 Years of Truth") and aural delight (actors in drag blowing on whistles) in an elegant celebration of Professor Harvey Mansfield's tenure here.
The Harvard community owes an immense debt of gratitude to Oppenheimer et al. for exposing the "hateful" views that Mansfield and Visiting Lecturer George Will harbor against the homosexual community by presenting them with the "David Duke Award for Faculty Excellence" and the "Heinrich Himmler Award for Social Vision." We are certain that Will and Mansfield have come to respect the homosexual lifestyle after being humiliated in front of their class.
Society needs people like Oppenheimer and his group to protect the public from itself. SOS is the intellectual version of federal poultry inspectors -- were it not for SOS warnings, the public would be unaware of the dangerous ideas entering the realm of civilized discourse. Frustrated and angry with the government, voters sent an army of conservatives to Capitol Hill last November; SOS is the voice of reason that will steer government back to a more rational course.
We thank SOS for coming to the aid of Michael Sandel, the third instructor of the course, who is internationally renowned for his liberal political philosophy. Apparently SOS believed that Sandel was no match for the combined intellect of conservatives Will and Mansfield. It is almost certain that more students will subscribe to Sandel's liberal philosophy now that SOS's indirect endorsement has raised the intellectual stature of his arguments.
Furthermore, we congratulate SOS on the timeliness and originality of its actions. In the past, those of Oppenheimer's political persuasion have used a wide variety of tactics to draw attention to their causes. They have been known to abstain from eating for several days or even sitting in the same place for very long periods of time (much to the Harvard administration's dismay). SOS drew on the attention-getting genius of the problem child, surprising Harvard administrators who had never heard of a "protest" within a classroom.
After the curtain closed, Oppenheimer published an editorial in the Independent that was so brilliant that most of his Harvard classmates could not understand it. So skillful was Oppenheimer's use of irony that two naive Harvard first-years were compelled to write a response complaining about the historical inaccuracies of the piece. So overwhelmingly literate was Oppenheimer's article that another Harvard student failed to realize that the author was a member of SOS, even though the fact was mentioned in the last paragraph.
More important was the Independent's decision to publish the piece. Their equal opportunity editorial policy creates a new forum for persons previously excluded from the realm of intelligent discourse -- those who violate college rules on free speech. We urge other campus publications to adopt this policy so the student body can be enlightened by the opinions of those who deface public property or use physical force to further their ideological agendas. We welcome the unique opinions of those like Oppenheimer as a welcome diversion from the boring debates about affirmative action and welfare reform that languish on editorial pages outside Harvard.
We were equally delighted by Harvard's decision not to discipline the performers. SOS's show three weeks ago demonstrated that no forum is sacred, and we are sure that administrators would not want to incite the group further with the threat of discipline -- Oppenheimer's tactics are far too progressive for frail alumni, who would fall into shock if their genteel gatherings were interrupted by ebullient protesters in drag. SOS must be a source of inspiration for University administrators who pride themselves on tolerating unique forms of expression. Now, when confronted by their colleagues at Yale, Stanford and Berkeley, Harvard administrators can whip out photos of the protest and say, "We're more tolerant than you!"
Oppenheimer's performance in Government 1091 marks a major milestone in his career as an activist. The former director of the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard wrote in the Independent that in the past, the SOS founder had restricted his activism to "non-violent, non-affrontive [actions]" -- mainly tearing down Association Against Learning in the Absence of Religion and Morality posters and threatening an AALARM member late at night over the telephone. We are glad that administrators have allowed Oppenheimer to hone his protest skills at the expense of the Harvard community.
In the media blitz following the Government 1091 performance, we were saddened that many students criticized SOS's tactics. We were equally disappointed that other liberal student groups and professors did not rise to defend SOS. We were also dismayed that the campus media forced SOS members to rationalize their actions. As Oppenheimer perspicuously told the Crimson, "I feel like there wasn't a violation [of the speech code] because the whole concept becomes questionable . . . people advocating the abolition of civil rights for a whole segment of the population and then they attack us." SOS members told the Crimson that they were "outraged" and "scared" that campus attention had focused on their actions rather than those of Mansfield and Will. We feel your pain.
Oppenheimer told the Crimson that SOS is planning other performances in honor of dining services personnel and other union workers that will involve a new dimension -- food. We are sure the proletarians are glad that bourgeois Harvard students care about them.
Three weeks ago SOS joined an international fellowship of activists who advance ideas at the expense of others. While theirs was a small transgression, it was a significant step worthy of membership in our group. SOS proved that at Harvard the rights of others can be temporarily laid aside when a group has a pressing need to correct some injustice.
Y our creed, our creed, is becoming increasingly characteristic of protest in the 90's -- if you don't like the federal government, blow up a building; if you don't like technology, maim its creators; if you don't like a professor, invade his class. Regardless of how bizarre your ideas may be, the press will welcome you into the arena of civilized discourse if you provide the impetus.
Welcome to the club!
The Unabomber, for the Freedom Club
(Curtis Chong '98, a staff writer for The Harvard Salient, served as the Unabomber's representative in the writing of this article. Mr. Chong does not necessarily represent the Unabomber in all repects, and does not necessarily condone the sending of explosive devices through the U.S. mail.)
M y parents were not part of the counterculture, never saw the flower children, and did not participate in (and probably would not have approved of) the sexual revolution. The death of Kennedy did not shake them, the civil rights movement did not move them, the Great Society and the Vietnam War to them are quirky detours in the progress of America. They lived in China. They missed the Sixties. And I missed it with them. I thought that America had gone through enough therapy to deal with and forget the chaos of the Sixties and the divisions it created between those who experienced it and those who did not -- that is, until I saw on television youngish-looking panelists complaining about how the older-looking panelists are complaining about them.
For this reason, I was glad to see Eric Liu's Next, a slim volume misshelved at the Harvard Book Store under the category "Literary Criticism." It is more like literary catharsis. It is the attempt of twentysomethings, postboomers, to explain themselves. "But as William Safire has written, 'post identifies a time only by what preceded it.' Next, on the other hand, looks forward."
I was not impressed by those words. Books which purport to look forward, to correct misconceptions, to define something new, are difficult to write, and often insipid to read. The least productive thing for Xers to do is to whine that they really are not that whiny at all. Fortunately, the majority of the essays in Liu's anthology do not make the mistake that most X-defining books do: the essays do not, in the main, try to refute the charges leveled at them by the boomers. If they do deal with the common stereotypes about their generation, it is only because they are interested in these perceptions themselves. They are not trying to prove anything. They simply are. The essays are introspective and self-indulgent, and rightly so.
Liu's idea of an anthology is a simple stroke of genius. He has edited a collection that defies any generalization. The authors are "black, white, Asian, Latino, straight, gay, liberal, conservative -- and, each of [them] independent." Naomi Wolf, whose commencement speech for Scripps College is printed as an essay here, is criticized by Cathy Young for following the hard-line feminist vigilance that restricts women more than it liberates them. Paul Beatty writes in slang and has great fun with profanity, while Eric Liu's style is correct and conventional. Stephen Beachy is rhapsodic and fantastic, while Ian Williams is gritty and down-to-earth. It is much too easy to take cheap shots about how the authors represent the diversity of America, but they do. That is, after all, part of the point of the book.
What is most admirable about these essays is their honesty, an honesty that betrays a certain indifference toward the reaction of the potential audience. Beachy, for instance, describes the intensely personal experience of living with AIDS and facing the eventuality of death. He is not expecting sympathy from the audience; he is not seeking understanding from the readership. He does not mind telling us about how he and his boyfriend are busted for stealing vitamins in order to stave off the creeping advance of death -- "some E, some C, some garlic extract" -- in a tone at once distant and familiar. It is almost as if his candor makes his desperation less pathetic.
Some essays are less moving in this regard, not because they are any less sincere, but because their sincerity is so corny. One may find the imitation of the boomers vaguely distasteful, but one cannot blame David Greenberg, who truly finds himself in the shadow of the Sixties, for trying to disprove the Xers' image of nonchalance. Jenny Lyn Bader laments the disappearance of the hero, or his (or her) replacement by the more attainable and less inspiring "role model." She sighs, at times far too facilely, that we should perhaps return to a time when less is known about heroes, and more is done about exhorting individuals to perform heroic deeds. These authors reflect a simple fact of life for those whose parents stood at the hot gates and fought in the warm rain: "Collectively, we're all frustrated by the achievements of the sixties. Whether we realize it or not, we're in its shadow." But Greenberg knows that such "a generational Oedipal complex" is natural, and ordinary, "so long as we see that each of these selective interpretations retains some truths and omits others, perhaps an inevitable result of the anxiety of influence we feel toward the time." It is nothing, in other words, for boomers to make hay out of.
Perhaps the best written and most intelligent essays in this collection are those written by feminists. They are thoughtful, unconventional, and assertive, without being dull or paranoid. This, I have to admit, comes as something of a shock after reading the work of feminists like Catharine MacKinnon. The feminists in Next are surprisingly diverse. Paula Kamen, the tamest of them all, argues that feminist theory has strayed too far from its constituents to be relevant to their lives. Karen Lehrman and Cathy Young explore the new sexual power of women and how that new power can be used to further a fulfilling life, both professional and sexual. But the boldest essay is surely that by Lisa Palac, editor of Future Sex magazine and producer of Cyborgasm, who is unabashed about her quest to make erotica as entertaining to women as it is to men. Her reaction to pornography is not modest embarrassment, or adolescent titillation, and least of all fulminating indignation, but rather something much more ironical and relevant: "Boy is this stupid. Everything is bad, bad, bad: lame script, lousy acting, garish lighting, crippled disco soundtracks, anachronistic garter belts, and repulsive leading men." A firm believer in the tenet that "if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself," Palac started her own "sexographic" publications. Now here is a feminist who is infinitely more powerful -- and far more formidable. The Right cannot make fun of her as easily as they can mock MacKinnon, Dworkin or Okin, because she is infinitely more fun.
Next succeeds because it shows that Xers are fun and relevant. They are not pathetic slackers who have moved in with their parents and are working at Burgerama, constantly complaining how bad the world is to people who have earned honors in Sociology at So-and-So State University. It is not whiny, it does crave favor. It does not define, it exposes.
Y et, reading Next, one can see that the Xers are reflexive, and resilient; they have a healthy dose of cynicism and a wonderful sense of irony, but also a certain idealism about what they want out of life, qualities which make their youth whole and complete.
And so it is that after reading Next, I do not at all mind turning 20.