yesterday was 7th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder
Sad to say that I didn't realize it until I saw it on buzzflash and americablog today . . . Thought this letter from Judy Shepard, posted on the Matthew Shepard Foundation's website was worth repeating . . . I'd never before heard the statistics cited regarding the rise in hate crimes near events that increase visibility of LGBT issues . . . interesting & disturbing.
A note from Judy Shepard
October 12, 2005
October 12 th 2005, is the seventh anniversary of my son Matthew's murder. His murder prompted unprecedented media coverage and focused the nation's attention on anti-gay hate crimes like never before. These past few weeks I have been thinking about what has changed - and what has not changed. What has been done to make our communities safe from violence resulting from anti-gay hate? I quickly learned my son's violent death was a fairly common occurrence. This prompted our family to create the Matthew Shepard Foundation and do our part to create a more respectful and caring culture free from hate. I have spent the past seven years traveling across the nation, speaking to schools, churches, anyone who will listen, to try and stem the tide of hate that is eating away at the fabric of our culture.
The number of hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people has not varied much during the last five years. They remain the third highest category after race and religion. However, it is apparent that there are certain changes in the 'environment' that do impact hate crime activity. In New York City, every July, anti-gay violence usually increases by about 8% as people respond to the outreach programs and the visibility of the Pride celebrations. After the Lawrence v. Texas decision and the premiere of additional gay identified television shows, anti-gay violence in New York City rose 52%.
It's clear that in some ways, our nation has become a more accepting place. We have witnessed the progress of gay and lesbian rights with the recent Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v Texas. We have seen our neighbor to the North - Ontario, Canada - acknowledge same-sex marriages. They have recognized that same sex couples are as deserving of the same equal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. We have seen gay adoptions increase. We have seen growing visibility, acceptance and understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in our families, in the corporate world and in our culture.
However, we must also remember that there has been scant progress in areas of legislation and securing equal rights for the gay community. We continue to fight for hate crime legislation that will include sexual orientation, gender, and disability, and for federal job protection based on sexual orientation. Yes, you can be fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender in 36 states of this nation. It is as if we are living in two Americas - one that tunes in to "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy" but turns a blind eye to the injustices gay and lesbian people still face.
It is evident that with progress comes the inevitable attack by those who are threatened by our work for justice and fairness. Visibility - whether in the media or being out of the closet if you are gay - can serve as an unfortunate catalyst. Those who are threatened by our community are threatened by these strides. In 2003, more than 30 cities and towns reported crimes against gays. The vast majority do not garner national headlines like my son's murder did. Sakia Gunn, a 15 year old lesbian was fatally stabbed in Newark, New Jersey on 5/11/03, F.C. Martinez, a Navajo, transgender 16-year old murdered in a bias motivated attack are two examples but the list goes on. We have so far to go, so much hate is out there. It must be acknowledged, addressed and erased before any of us are safe.
As we approach the anniversary of Matthew's murder it is appropriate to redouble my efforts to invoke a grassroots solution to this problem. It is a solution that begins with parents, educators, clergy and our communities as a whole. We have the opportunity to help our children understand and accept diversity before their school years begin and before hate can provoke violent actions. If we do our jobs correctly, it should never cross the minds of our children to harm someone, physically or emotionally, because of their gender, race, national origin, religion, disability or gender identity and expression.
Hate is a learned behavior. If a child is taught to hate and fear diversity, then the next place he or she expresses that hate is at school. Ten percent of all hate crimes occur at schools and colleges. Bullying in our nation's schools has resulted in countless acts of violence. The cycle continues until that child who is filled with hate becomes an adult citizen in your community and begins to teach others to hate.
Please help your children understand diversity without fearing it. Be an example of acceptance and compassion. The consequences of hate hurt everyone. It hurts not only the victim - it hurts their family and friends. It destroys the families of the perpetrators. Lives are lost, lives are ruined and lives are changed forever.
~Judy Shepard
7 Comments:
Such a powerful letter. Thanks for posting it.
Diversity is scary. We need to teach our children to face their fear of diversity; not that their fear is irrational. It isn't. Too many options are worrisome. Nothing justifies beating someone to death for the way the way they live their life makes you feel. We could teach them that, while acknowledging that diversity, complexity, multiplicity is a fearsome affair.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks Patry and Thomas for your comments.
If diversity is indeed scary, then I think you've (once again) hit the nail on the head -- we've got to learn to face the anxiety that encounters with diversity produce.
But I wonder . . . is it really intrinsically scary? To some degree, children already see the world through the lens of their parents' values -- though to a certain degree, too, their confrontation with the world may have an element of directness and spontaneity that our experience with the world lacks.
Just speaking from my own childhood memories, there was, at a certain age, a certain trust in the world which was shaken, profoundly, for the first time by a run-in with fundamentalist religion. Until that happened, though, I can remember being rather gregarious and more curious about things than afraid of them. Did I have any encounters with diversity, though? A few -- when I was in public school, I met kids from other socioeconomic backgrounds, other races. This is just a tiny example, but I remember once being in line with an African American girl who had her hair in a kind of intricate braids that I'd never seen before -- I can recall being fascinated by the braids, wondering how they were made, wondering what it felt like to have them, etc. I remember spinning a dradle with a Jewish friend of mine, delighting in the "Ha flakes" candy that a Chinese friend of mine brought back from a trip to China. I'm not saying any of this to suggest that I was some kind of great guy -- rather, I think these experiences suggest to me that the "natural" disposition toward otherness may just as well be curiosity, that fear isn't inevitable . . .
There is a period of time when (and regions of space where), say, skin colour is not a differentiator. For a long time children live in unawareness of differences which are very real and very important (though lamentable on these accounts) and there's some sense in keeping them innocent for as long as we can. (Some sense.) Once the difference does hit you, however, (whether black/white, man/woman, rich/poor) it scares the shit out of you. And then you no longer got your shit together. So you have anxiety. I think that's where we should build our bildung, really, one nail hit squarely on the head at a time, if you will.
I'm intrigued by the connection between authentic recognition of difference and fear . . . I'm not sure I buy it entirely, and I'm wondering whether a circular argument like the following is taking place in the background of this idea:
P) If it doesn't scare the shit out of you, then you haven't had an authentic encounter with difference.
C) Authentic encounters with difference are intrinsically frightening.
Difference is frightening to a lot of people, yes, but I'm just not convinced that it's an essential or "existential" (if you will) reaction. I think it is possible to have authentic encounters with difference that are marked not by fear but by, say, curiosity.
All this to say that I think the fear reaction is learned or taught as an aspect of enculturation . . . and it doesn't have to be.
But that's all well and good in theory -- one aspect of the point you're making, I think, is that we live in a world in which great numbers of people find diversity genuinely frightening -- who cares why. "Diversity training" which doesn't recognize and address this fact is bound to fail. Here, I'm inclined to agree with you (or at least my poor paraphrase of your position).
I think one question to ask here is whether diversity is in any sense "really dangerous".
I think the child learns (supporting your point) that at least some differences are dangerous and, learns, in a sense rightly, to fear them.
I think my point is almost a cognitive one. Given our limited intelligences, the introduction of many differences raises the level of complexity. I think, for example, that the sort of racist, nationalist, populism that we experience here in Denmark appeals to people who are genuinely afraid (and not altogether erroneously) that openness to other cultures (e.g., increased immigration) will radically change their relations to the power structure by making a great many of their political habits irrelevant. It is an introduction of unmastered differences into their habitat, dangers they are simply not fit to encounter.
I think homophobia rightly captures the real danger (for the homophobe) of no longer knowing "how to lead men", i.e., wield power, under conditions of increased tolerance.
But you're right that there is a circularity here. It might be resolved by getting children to face difference bravely (my idea) or to influence their formative experiences so that difference no longer appears dangerous (your idea).
If every difference were followed by a pleasant surprise, difference would always stimulate curiosity.
But I don't think nature frames the problem that way. We grow wary of difference on empirical grounds. It is not an error, I'm afraid.
Though my hopes lean with you.
Post a Comment
<< Home