From: WillNich@aol.com
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: May Issue - The Letter

To be published in the May issue of The Letter - Kentucky's gay and lesbian
newspaper.

*********************

THE LETTERTORIAL

STANDING UP TO BIGOTRY

by David Williams, Editor

When should we confront homophobes head-on, and when should we ignore them?
 Is it worth our time to debate people whose anti-gay beliefs will probably
never change?  If we don't show up to discuss gay issues with a bigot, will
the public think we're afraid to stand up for ourselves?

It's a difficult problem with no easy solution.  Sometimes one tactic works,
sometimes another.  Each situation is different.  But what some gay and
lesbian students did at the University of Kentucky in April could be used
effectively in many different situations.

At issue was a panel on sexuality to which UK Lambda had been invited.
 Unfortunately, so was Ben Rich, a columnist for the student newspaper whose
anti-gay views are well-known.  When UK Lambda found out, they withdrew.
 Why?  Not because of Rich's homophobia per se, but because no previous
panels had been forced to deal with bigots (see our news story, this issue).

They might not have objected had earlier panels on religion, gender, and race
been asked to seat, respectively, an atheist, a misogynist, or a klagon.  But
when a known homophobe was asked to sit on the sexuality panel, it was a slap
in the face.  Rich's inclusion "was an issue of power and denigration not
forced on other racial, religious, or gender issues," argued UK's Jeff Jones.

Well put.  The group's refusal to participate shows a lot of gumption.  They
are to be applauded.  I wish my own confrontation with bigotry had gone as
well.

About the same time, Lexington radio host Sue Wiley invited me to a call-in
show on Ellen's coming out.  The only hitch:  she also invited anti-gay
crusader Frank Simon.  Initially I refused but agreed to participate after
she argued that our side needed to be heard.  Good enough.  I ignored the
idiot as much as I could and spoke directly to the audience.

But why is it that Kentucky's media keeps running to this charlatan every
time a gay story breaks?  When the Courier-Journal covers a Holocaust
commemoration, do they seek comments from people who think the Holocaust is a
Jewish plot?  Last summer when civil rights activist Rev. Louis Coleman
protested the lack of minority hiring for the PGA golf tournament in
Louisville, did News at 6 run to the Grand Dragon for a sound bite?

It's all in the ratings, of course.  Simon sells more cars; the Grand Dragon
can't sell used ones.

There are no set rules for dealing with bigots, but perhaps the best is to
save our energies for intelligent debates, which would exclude most of them.
 By responding to people like Simon, do we ensure their continued exposure?
 If we don't respond, will the media soon tire of them?

We don't have time for people like Simon and Rich:  let them gnash and wail
as they please.  Nothing was ever accomplished by debating a fool or a bigot.
 We've got better things to do.

END