Blogs and Stories
Yale's Conspiracy of Silence
That most of the great actresses who endlessly toured America during the 19th century bringing theater to the masses were lesbians and occasionally dressed as men. Just like Katherine Hepburn.
That the plague of AIDS was allowed to happen because much of the world hates us and most of the world knows nothing about us. They don’t know we are related to Washington and Lincoln.
I needed no queer theories, no gender studies, to figure all this out.
Why can’t we accept that homosexuality has been pretty much the same since the beginning of human history, whether it was called homosexuality, sodomy, buggery, hushmarkedry, or hundreds of other things, or had no name at all? What we do now they pretty much did then. Period. Men have always had cocks and men have pretty much always known what to do with them. It is just stupidity and elite presumption of the highest and most preposterous order to theorize, in these regards, that then was different from now.
Do you know that men loving men does not require the sexual act to qualify them as homosexuals? My American Heritage unabridged dictionary lists two definitions for homosexuality: the first: “sexual orientation to persons of the same sex; and the second: “sexual activity with another of the same sex.” In other words, it is not necessary, nor should it be, to have had sex with another of the same sex, to maintain that a person is homosexual. Why, then, do academics, indeed everyone, insist on this second definition over the first? This theory makes it all but impossible in many cases to claim a person as one of us.
Is Yale actually afraid to teach any of this? To actually name names out loud from Abe Lincoln to John Sterling to Robert Rauschenberg? And why is the History Department allowing history to be hijacked by the queer theorists just as the English Department allowed Paul DeMan and Jacques Derrida to highjack literature for the deconstructionists? That travesty found safe haven here at Yale too.
History is about people events more than it is about theory. We need to know specifically who our brothers and sisters, our ancestors, our own people, are and were! John Demilio has written an award-winning biography of Bayard Rustin, the trusted associate of Martin Luther King, which reveals that Rustin was homosexual. How many years did the world refuse to acknowledge that Jefferson had a black mistress? Such knowledge, when it was finally accepted, has invigorated black studies and given people of color a new pride in themselves and in each other, in their people, in their rightful place in America’s history.
Gays must have this! We must. We must if we are to endure.
I asked Peter Salovey recently why he thought LKI was closed down. Who was behind it? What was behind it? His answer was: “We’ll never know.”
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Here, here. Grow up, Yale!
Go read Chauncey's book, Gay New York.
Content aside, is the date at the top correct? Was the speech given today? Then it would make it April 24, not April 25.
Elihu and Eve, not Elihu and Steve!
I think you mean Bayard Rustin, not Bayard Ruskin. What do you mean assassinated? How about death from a ruptured appendix?
Larry, A couple of thoughts struck me as I read your heart felt article. First: There appears to be an inherent divisiveness in any struggle for acceptance ("he was one of us") which is ironic but completely understandable. Pride is a necessary step in the struggle for members of a group. The contributions of members of the group over time (History) is a way to develope that Pride, but it is only a step on the path. ML King had it right when he said that we should judge a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin. This can be easily expanded to a variety of minority situations (sex, orientation, race etc). Second: The Q word = the N word? It can be used by those within the group but not by someone outside the group regardless of context?
Lastly, I take your apology to be rhetorical since I do not see that you have anything to apologize for, perhaps Yale, but not you.
Heartfelt speech. I suppose YALE can accept/decline donations from whomever they choose but as a teaching/learning institute they can go straight to....
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
As a recent college graduate who is gay, knowing the history of the gay and lesbian liberation/civil rights movement is critical to our political movement and culture. My university started a small LGBT studies program within its' Women Studies department when I was a sophomore.
Yale's rejection of these endowments and removal of professors is shameful. However, Kramer's claims against LGBT studies, Queer theory, and even deconstructionism are misplaced. These claims sound like a man who is upset that post-modernism exists, that the LGBT movement has moved past pride, and that there are people that challenge his simplified view sexual identities and orientations in history.
The various queer and gender theories I came to quickly realize as relatively useless for a people looking to learn about our real history drowned us out completely. Yet, gay history courses will only reveals a portion of our knowledge of gay and lesbian life in society.I want a holistic view of what it means to be gay in our society. I want classes on politics, literature, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and history of LGBT people.
Finally, if you want the world to know about the accomplishments of gays and lesbians, a gay themed history course alone probably will not help, because in the end you will only be preaching to the choir of those already interested (mostly gay and lesbian students). One has to add our history to the text books and syllabi of courses not directly associated with gay themes to reach a truly wider audience.
I couldn't agree more.
I find it interesting that Kramer, a champion of the GBLT historical school of thought, acknowledges how queer the interpretations are...
"My American Heritage unabridged dictionary lists two definitions for homosexuality: the first: "sexual orientation to persons of the same sex; and the second: "sexual activity with another of the same sex." In other words, it is not necessary, nor should it be, to have had sex with another of the same sex, to maintain that a person is homosexual."
This strikes me as an odd point for one who argues for a clear cut, black and white method of study, and against an exploration of the grey areas, to make.
I was another Yale student who felt betrayed by the divisive factions of Yale's WGSS program. The best professor I had while at Yale, a man who taught from the Queer Theory approach, was not offered tenure despite an outpouring of support from the students.
My question for Mr. Kramer would be this:
You acknowledge that Yale has come a long way in terms of GBLT support since your personal struggles in the 50s. Why can't you accept that the recent queer theory classes and programs have helped US to accept and understand ourselves in these modern times?
I can understand your desire to protect the path of study that you believe to be of tantamount importance. I just don't see the need for a contentious view of these various approaches for studying what is virtually the same subject.
How do you define 'pride? You haven't mentioned the desperate need to teach our young that it is silly, needless, hurtful to believe the harshness society dumps on us causing us needless pain, and in some cases suicide.
In short, Pride means to me, never be ashamed of who you are.
Really? I mean....really? The 'facts' he discusses in his book? That so many major historical figures in American history were secretly gay and some of their most famous actions were driven purely by their homosexuality? I don't know if I buy that. Some of that may be true, possibly, but all of that together just seems a little....contrived, put together more for it's shock-value than anything else. Anyone else know more about this?
atwork,
Your comment reminded me of a book I read in grad school. John Boswell (who taught at Yale and died of AIDS-related complications in 1994) was one of the first gay historians to write about homosexuality. I have an old copy of his first work, "Christianity, Homosexuality, and Social Tolerance," that has the subject heading of "Social History" (as opposed to the reprints which are marked "Gay/Lesbian History"). My personal opinion of the text is that it tries to weave an entire tapestry out of a few threads. Boswell was so desperate (again, in my opinion) to prove that early medieval Christianity was completely tolerant of homosexuality that he makes several blind leaps of logic based on flimsy evidence. From what I can tell, this was much the same critique leveled at Tripp's book (which I haven't read).
I have to take exception to Mr Kramer and the gay community in general always outing famous names...with what often turns out to be...upon serious examination...spurious or downright far fetched evidence. Maybe it makes them feel vindicated or better by association but... too often I think it only hurts the gay community. There are too many "whack jobs" out there (and Mr. Kramer may be one) who are willing to out anyone on any evidence. Besides... many "straight" people have experimented once or twice. That doesn't make them members of the "gay community"
I hate to say this Larry, but I don't think Yale didn't accept your money becaus eyou were Gay but because your "theories" are outlandish to the point of rediculousness. I've heard your rant about Lincoln before as well as supposedly having "evidence" of Lincoln's Homosexuality, yet for some reaosn you won't release this for independant review...huh...funny how that works?
No one questions Queer History or Queer Studies, but people would howl if universities taught Nigger History or Nigger Studies. There is no difference, both are demeaning, derogatory, hate filled terms.
There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest many of our leaders and founding fathers were gay or bisexual. Lincoln clearly is a man tormented by his personal demeans, married to a woman tormented by demons of her own. Universities shy away from this because to acknowledge it would suggest we were not founded by White Baptist heterosexuals, which the GOP loves to tell us, but by a diversity of men with diverse sexual tastes and appetites.
I share your frustration. How can we ever get to the truth, not just about homosexuality, but about sexuality in general if we continue to pretend that what we believe should take precedence over what we know? The Earth is not flat and gay men are not queer - neither are they rare.
cowboylove --
You've just hit on why I consider the "gay history" movement (and for that matter, any of the myriad "minority history" movements) somewhat suspect.
You wrote, "Universities shy away from this because to acknowledge it would suggest we were not founded by White Baptist heterosexuals, which the GOP loves to tell us, but by a diversity of men with diverse sexual tastes and appetites."
Ignoring for the moment your belief that academia is a haven for the GOP (something which I'm sure would surprise the GOP), might not your claims be similarly motivated by political/social passions? Am I suddenly an anti-gay bigot because I question the "preponderance of evidence" presented by historians who patently have an axe to grind (see my post above on John Boswell)? Where can I see the "preponderance of evidence" that you mention? How much of "gay history" is actual fact and how much is just wishful thinking and political posturing?
One has to expect a certain degree of bias in any kind of historical writing, but in the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Given that we know so little about Lincoln (who never left us a private journal or other personal record), can we really judge with any degree of certainty something so personal about him?
Viva CUNY CLAGS!!
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/clags/about.shtml
Larry,
I am the one who needs to apologize to you, the crazy liberal who actually stood up and faced the government and hatred during those turbulent times of the late 70's and 80's. I was just starting to come out and was too young to truly understand the impact of AIDS and what impact it would have on my life. I was ignorant and thought you just a radical, crazy, extremist. Too crazy to represent me.
Now over time I have truly come to appreciate you for all you represent and have stood for. If someone else had had the gumption to stand up and say that they were gay or (queer) when I was young, (Rock Hudson, Elton John, Freddy Mercury,...) perhaps I wouldn't have had so many doubts and fears about who and what I was growing up.
These courses are a great way to reach out to confused young people and all people in general . I am surprised that you would insist that Yale do this program when you continually met with such resistence. Maybe the answer is to take your million and go to another more friendly educational institution even though you are a graduate from there and I'm sure one of the most controversial. (Was Roy Cohen an Yale Grad?) You can't shove "gay" down peoples throats, I thought you learned that long ago. I'm happy you're still here and that I have the opportunity to acknowledge you for all you have done.
It is within our own community that we still have a long way to go; your book FAGGOTS could have been written yesterday. Thank you for everything and keep up the wonderful work
My partner and I listened very intently to all that was said by the many wonderful speakers of this fabulous weekend, which there were many, including the speakers at the dinner. A common message seemed too emerged, which was the need to build an archive of the LGBT history as quickly and as in-depth as possible for future generations. It appeared that Yale was doing so with a sense of urgency with pleads to students and alumni to contribute that which was relevant to document the LGBT movement. In addition to this need to build an archive on the LGBT community, my partner and I became more informed to the need to teach others, especially those in education, an awareness of what the young still go through coming out and to protect the ones who might be labeled queer for just being different, thus forming the new now more inclusive LGBTQ. We felt that what Larry Kramer had to say was sorry for taking so long and scolding Yale for not getting it sooner.
Unfortunately, The Daily Beast doesn't present Larry's speech in the context of what else was said that evening. His comments discounting the value of queer studies and and even the word "queer" itself was especially antagonistic after the keynote delivered by Dr. Eliza Byard, Executive Director of GLSEN. I had the pleasure of attending the GALA dinner that evening, and I posted a few comments about it on my blog.
Is this post a parody ghost written by Christopher Buckley?
Larry, please. You are in danger of squandering what remains to you of the "street cred" you earned when you were the prophet in the wilderness of the AIDS epidemic. History needs a context, a subject, and a scope, and apart from the numerous limitations of your viewpoint, a "gay history" about how gay lovers do (or don't) inspire the "genius" of their gay male lover "bubbes," you need to understand why you are beginning to look ridiculous, even to the people who support some of your contentions. You overstate the problems with gender/queer theory, while your vision of history suggests you are in need of a crash course in historical methodologies. Finally, if you want to do something with your money to truly support the cause of "our" history, I have a suggestion: send a fat check to Joan Nestle at the Lesbian Herstory Archive.
I am fairly certain that Harvard would have been a better choice. Love you,Larry.
Michael
I give workshops on dating and relationships in the LGBT community throughout the US ( including Princeton, Penn State, NYU and other campuses). I have never been able to contact anyone at Yale to talk about doing a presentation.It's impossible to find out who is in charge of anything-it's like trying to reach the Vatican. It feels surreal--like one big closeted institution. Jim Sullivan
I think it's great that Kramer is speaking out about the awful term "queer." "Queer" is hate speech. We can't "re-claim" it because it was never ours.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.