policy – Houghton STAR

The words “homosexual behavior” need to be taken out of the Community Covenant. Placing “homosexual behavior” within this context equates it to premarital sex and adultery. It is a vague statement which singles out lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) students.

Houghton College’s Statement of Community Responsibilities reads: “We believe that Scripture clearly prohibits certain acts, including drinking beverage alcohol to excess, stealing, speaking or writing profanely or slanderously, acting dishonestly, cheating, engaging in occult practice, and engaging in sexual relations outside the bonds of a Biblical understanding of marriage, including premarital sex, adultery and homosexual behavior” (emphasis added).

Equating “homosexual behavior” with premarital sex and adultery hyper-sexualizes LGBQ students’ lives. Recent Graduate, Wynn Horton, said, “By condemning homosexual behavior alongside these others we denigrate it in certain ways,” pointing out that it makes it sound only lustful and foolish. Premarital sex and adultery are both explicitly sexual acts, but “homosexual behavior” is not exclusively about sex. There is much more to a “behavior” than sex.

There are straight students kissing, holding hands, and snuggling around campus. Whether these public displays of affection are desirable is besides the point. The point is they are happening and no “rules” are broken. What does this mean for LGBQ students? The vagueness of this brings many questions. What does “homosexual behavior” mean? What about two men dating on campus, a lesbian student with an off campus fiancée, or, perhaps in the future, a married lesbian or gay couple enrolled on campus? Additionally, how will lesbian or gay alumni couples feel about returning for homecoming and reunions? In an attempt to answer some of these questions, Michael Jordan, dean of the chapel, said, “I want to be clear that the Community Covenant by itself does not restrict LGBQ dating behavior that is not explicitly sexual.” The issue, however, is that the language of the Community Covenant does not adequately communicate this and so these questions still raise doubts in the minds of LGBQ students.

The college’s Same-Sex Attraction: Our Community Voice document outlines community beliefs, acknowledges differing views, and says how people should be treated. It states “… we ask for [LGBQ] students to respect our perspective for the sake of our communal life together. This would mean being especially sensitive to public displays of affection.” While this document is progress, this passage further perpetuates the view that LGBQ students must hide in the “closet,” while their straight peers do not.

While the intention may not be to single out LGBQ students, it nonetheless does. By saying “homosexual behavior” and not mentioning heterosexual “behaviors,” the Community Covenant alienates LGBQ students from their peers. Jordan pointed out, “Statements about celibacy and chastity are of course problematic for all 18- to 22-year-olds, no matter their sexual orientation.” Yes, this is true, if the statement were about only chastity or celibacy. However, within their context, these two documents seem to be prohibiting more than just sexual relations, even if that may not be the intent.

The passage in the Community Covenant should be rewritten. Horton said the “passage could easily be rewritten to serve the college’s purpose while maintaining its loyalty to a Christian heritage.” He suggests changing the last part to “‘…and engaging in sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage.’” This simpler, condensed version still maintains the essential meaning, but does not single anyone out.

According to Kim Cockle, student life administrative assistant, to make such change to the

Community Covenant, requires it to be brought to the Student Life Council as a policy change, then taken to the faculty, and ultimately to the Board of Trustees. To stand in solidarity with their LGBQ peers, students should bring this amendment proposition to the Student Life Council, in the form of a petition or in person at a council meeting. It would still condemn illicit sexual relations for Houghton Students, but diminish the hyper-sexualization, clear up the vague language surrounding the issue, and improve the climate for LGBQ students on campus.

In case you have missed the recent headlines, one of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s final significant policy decisions, the military’s ban on women in direct combat situations has been lifted.
We as an editorial staff collectively say, “Finally.” We find compelling the case presented by the four servicewomen who sued the Pentagon and Panetta over the ban, pointing out that women have already in essence been serving in combat situations, and yet have not received formal recognition for their work and their sacrifices.

In an interview with Eyder Peralta for NPR, former Navy Lieutenant Carey Lohrenz said, “We have women in combat roles right now. We are just not able to promote them.” This denial of formal recognition and promotions has gone on too long, and Panetta’s lift of the ban is, in the words of Democratic Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a “great step toward equality.”

Others who read and commented on Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker’s New York Times coverage of the story don’t see it as such. A New York Times pick comment on their website by the username Harry from Michigan reads, “Next feminists will tell me that women can handle a man in hand to hand combat. How about we have women play in the NFL or any other pro sports…”
First, this comment villainizes feminism, a movement that has made and continues to make great strides in human rights issues for years. Next, to the dismay of Harry, we would point out that some women actually can handle men in hand to hand combat. There are many women who are more athletic than men, just as there are many women who are less athletic than men.

Veteran and Republican Senator John McCain has issued a statement supporting Panetta’s decision, and he added that, “As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units.”
Women will now have an equal opportunity to enter direct combat positions, but they do not expect any special allowances. In fact, the key is that servicewomen do not want to be treated any differently from servicemen.

Another online commenter on the New York Times article going by the username Keeping It Real wrote, “Why do American women want to be men? (Or is the real question, “Why are American women not allowed to be women?”)” New York Times pick commenter Academia Nut from Canada retorted, “Why would you limit a woman’s choice to be whatever she wants to be and is capable of being?”

Women have been moving into spheres traditionally occupied by men for years, and as Lohrenz said to Peralta, “We have women in combat roles right now… They’re on the ground in Iraq; they’re on the ground in Afghanistan. This is strictly formalizing and recognizing what their contributions currently are.”

The backlash from commenters such as Harry and Keeping It Real seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the blurring of lines between what is masculine and what is feminine that in the past have been more clear. They are focusing on the differences between men and women when the differences among men and women are much more significant.

This change in policy is not the first of its kind; New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland all already permit women to serve in direct combat. There is no word as to whether women have ruined professional sports in these countries yet.