One of Sally Kern’s latest legal attacks on the state’s LBGT community would ensure parents here of the right to force their children to undergo the barbaric practice of gay-conversion therapy.
If state Rep. Kern’s House Bill 1598 is signed into law, Oklahoma would have state-supported child abuse codified into its statutes, another embarrassment to the state and the result of a Republican-dominated government.
Kern, 68, a Republican who represents a district that includes areas in Oklahoma City and Bethany, has spent much of her lawmaking career—she has been voted into office since 2005 and will be term limited in 2016—obsessed with finding ways to deny equality to and denigrating the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT) in the state. Her 2008 infamous comment arguing that homosexuality is “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam . . .” not only made her and the state open to widespread ridicule but also indicated the loopy depths of her narrowly focused agenda.
The country’s medical establishment has universally condemned gay conversion therapy, which is the process of trying to turn a gay person into a straight person. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, for example, oppose it. Many people in the medical, scientific and LGBT community agree such programs can be harmful to minor children and lead to suicide or longtime mental health issues.
Conversion therapy is based on two major fallacies: (1) That there’s something wrong with a person if they feel same-sex physical and romantic attraction, and (2) that it’s possible to simply “convert” a person into becoming heterosexual through methods like forced vomiting and electric shock to the genitals.
Conversion therapy is banned in California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Legislation to ban it is under consideration right now in Iowa and Colorado.
Kern’s bill, which was recently passed by a 5-3 vote in the House Committee on Children, Youth and Family Services, is also basically senseless because there is no ban on conversion therapy here. Her bill, which should obviously not advance in the legislature, is simply a mean-spirited political and religious attack that would actually change nothing here but would do even more massive damage to the state’s image.
The automatic pistol, it’s all right to have invented it, but it should have never been allowed outside the army, and then only in war time—Oklahoma’s own Will Rogers
This is a post about why as a full-time tenured college professor here in Oklahoma I’m against allowing students to carry guns on campus, and how I get personally terrified whenever there’s a school shooting spree incident reported widely by the media.
I will begin with a story. It’s a sad story. Are happy stories even worth telling? I make a lot of money. I own a very big house. I’m completely satisfied with my life. All my desires and future desires have been or will be surely realized. According to the late E.M. Forster in his wonderful novel A Passage to India, “. . . a perfectly adjusted organism would be silent.” I believe that to be true. I digress.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, I knew John The Student, who died way too young. John was a graduate student, and I was his main mentor. On the day John took his comprehensive essay exam to earn his master’s degree, he lost his words. He couldn’t find his words. John was a handsome and intelligent young man who wanted to become a professor one day. But for one moment on one day it went wrong for him. John apparently left the testing room distraught.
I will describe his telephone call to me shortly after he left the testing room with the tone of his words: Self-loathing and panic. But, at the time of the call, I probably wasn’t paying close enough attention. I simply explained to him that we could easily rectify the situation the next day, that he could retake the exam and that I understood he had lost his words and would gladly sign off on giving him another chance. I don’t think I even thought about it the rest of the evening, I thought he and I would just talk about it the next day, and it would be fine.
The next time I saw John he was in an intensive care unit at a hospital. He had been in a single-car wreck in a rural area many miles away from the Oklahoma City area the previous evening or earlier in the next morning after the test.
What happened over the next few weeks, and it does relate to the main point of this wordy post, is that John, as he entered rehabilitation as a quadriplegic, engaged me in a lively, intense, intellectual discussion about whether he should want or desire to stay alive or not. He asked, What would you do if you were in my situation? This is when words really matter.
After a few weeks or so, John died. Some of my colleagues attended the funeral with me. A university psychology counselor was brought in to talk with some of us in the English Department about John, and she used some good words on us. They were clever, sensible and beautiful words that were so brilliantly true.
But I think more about my words to John. I didn’t record them, of course, but this a truly honest recollection of the tone of my words to John:
Have hope, man. The possibility of spinal chord injury cures is in the news all the time. Research it yourself. (By then, he was using a voice-activated computer, even back in those days. He could listen to books.) Didn’t you tell me yesterday you thought you could lift your arm a little bit? You can teach from a wheelchair. Your mind is still there. You’re still sharp in THE MIND. Hope. You have a voice. Spinal chord injury research continues. Stay alive. I’ll wheel you in myself to next week’s poetry reading down in the Paseo. We’ll go together.
John’s main argument: “I’m not a man anymore.” Now those were his EXACT words, how HE put it. What he meant, as we talked about it more, is that he couldn’t feel much physically below his neck at that point and maybe forever. That was an important deal for him. He was a handsome young guy with probably a lot of desire, a not unusual occurrence among Homo sapiens, but now he couldn’t even feel that desire entirely as he used to or act on that desire in the ways he had done in the past. It was his main point, a perfectly logical point. In retrospect, I don’t think I listened close enough.
Perfunctory me in the tone of my words: But maybe later? A cure? Stay positive. Have hope. You have a lot to live for. The MIND. Well, I have to go now. The MIND. Remember, the strength and intelligence of your mind.
This by far was one of the biggest failures of me using words in my life.
I called him before one particular poetry reading, but he never answered his phone. Then he was gone.
This is an extreme case. But universities deal with words, and these words must be passed on to younger people trying to find their journeys, and people trying to find journeys are in transition, and transitions beam up moments of incredible emotion, of what’s possible or what’s not possible.
So I need to tell another story. Once upon a time, there were conservative lawmakers throughout the country, and especially here in Oklahoma, who wanted to make it so students could carry guns on college campuses and shoot it up if anything goes down. Backpacks filled with guns. Guns holstered around student shoulders. Glock is a name for a gun. What an awful sounding word. I hear it as gluuuh. Gluuuh. People want to argue about why it’s perfectly normal to allow students to carry guns on campus, and all I hear is gluuuh.
Do the actual bill numbers and their sponsors even matter year after year? Here’s the Facebook page about it. The larger issue is not the latest bill here or elsewhere about allowing guns on campus. Locally, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the Oklahoma Legislature and Gov. Mary Fallin approved a bill allowing students and other non-law enforcement officers to carry guns on college campuses. The National Rifle Association has made it the larger issue.
John was an incredibly sweet young man. He turned his emotion inward and despaired. But what about the student who turns that emotion outward and enters the abyss of violence, a student who rages, not cries, making one decision, one moment in time, just like when John, after freaking out over his M.A. exam, drove off never to be the same John again?
They may not look like it from the outside, but schools and universities are incredibly emotional places, and now here we are, the teachers, exposed each day in the dark shadow of the potential school shooter, the specter who haunts us as each incident unfurls year by year. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. Is it the shooter ghost? I don’t believe in ghosts, or do I? Is it a weight on our shoulders? Are we sinking under the weight? I don’t believe in figurative language in a reality sense or do I, do you? Can words physically “weigh” you down?
Those who want to arm our students argue they could protect life with their guns, take down that shooter, take him down, man, right between the eyes, then blow away the smoke off the pistol afterwards. They are heroes in the making, everyone. Thank you, brave madam, for saving the day. Is that the story we should believe in?
What about the story where a student encounters the walls and difficulties of life, and, on a whim, just like whims can whimsically happen, shoots his whimsically unarmed, goofy professor in the head. What if he doesn’t drive OFF like John, but drives IN to the campus fuming instead and armed in full compliance and encouragement of Oklahoma law and its brilliant lawmakers with a Gluuuh. Then he decides to go for broke.
Three years ago, for the first time in my teaching career, I started telling my students what we would do in case there was a shooter roaming my university’s hallways in our building. We would lock the door. Cover the door window. Move everyone into that corner. My students laughed initially. I’m known to use humor in my classes, but I shook my head. Everyone got quiet. This isn’t funny, people. Listen. This is for real. We WILL go to that corner of the room. I have a version of this conversation with my classroom students each semester now. I try to keep it light. But it’s not really funny, is it?
I support people owning guns for protection and/or hunting, but allowing guns on campus isn’t right as I try the best I can to prepare students for realities, walls and changes.
There are a couple of major takeaways floating around the local political scene after incumbent Dr. Ed Shadid’s huge victory over three opponents in the Oklahoma City Council Ward 2 election Tuesday.
Shadid avoided a runoff election by receiving 2,308 votes or more than 59 percent of the total ballots cast. The second-place finisher, Major Jemison, garnered 823 votes or just over 20 percent of the total. James Cooper received 678 votes or about 16 percent of the vote. The candidate who came in last, John Riley, who didn’t really campaign that much, received just 209 votes or about five percent.
The first takeaway is that Shadid has been vindicated, and that Ward 2 voters definitely want someone on the council that will ask tough questions and provide intelligent insights into major city issues, such as public transportation and how to go about building a new convention center under MAPS 3.
Shadid has been criticized in the muddle of local politics for asking city administrators and others on the council difficult questions. The city has now, for example, scrapped purchasing its originally planned site for the convention center because of its cost, an issue Shadid has raised repeatedly. In essence, Shadid, a soft spoken and prominent surgeon here, is speaking truth to power and getting results.
He is also backed by what one of his supporters described to me as a "loose coalition" of organizations, such as Change Oklahoma and informal, friendship-related and extremely strong connections between powerful advocates of progressive change outside of the state's Democratic Party.
Does this portend a wave of interested voters and citizens getting involved in issues on both the local and state levels by supporting progressives such as Shadid and protesting possible damaging actions, such as the now-withdrawn proposal to frack new oil/gas wells near and under Lake Hefner, one of the city’s main water supplies?
I would like to think this is true. Four more years of Shadid and his supporters speaking truth to power does have the potential to create a new model here for progressive growth and activism, but will it have to be outside typical party politics? This leads to my next point.
The second takeaway is that the Democratic Party has again shown how weak and inept it has become. I write these words out of sadness, not anger. Shadid, an independent, was the real progressive in this election, not the other candidates. City elections are supposedly non-partisan, but party affiliations can always make a difference in how people vote. For example, Oklahoma Mayor Mick Cornett is a well-known Republican.
It seemed to me that Cooper, in particular, was supported and endorsed by the state Democratic Party apparatus. He received endorsements from well-known Democrats, which included 2014 gubernatorial candidate and former state Rep. Joe Dorman, former state Rep. and state Sen. Al McAffrey and Freda Deskin, who lost a Democratic runoff election in her bid recently to become state Schools Superintendent.
Those endorsements didn’t seem to much help Cooper, who came in third in the election. I don’t know how much to read into this given the domination of Republicans in state government now, but it should be noted that even at this very local level Democrats seem to have failed again.
My argument is that Democrats here—and I’m not speaking of Cooper—need to become much more progressive and outspoken about progressive ideas. If you’re going to lose anyway, why not just be truthful? Practice these words: I’m a proud liberal.
Let’s hope four more years of Shadid on the Oklahoma City Council shakes up the local political scene even more. I truly hope his election means something larger for progressives.