The Identity of Identity Groups: Safe Space or Seeking Acceptance

Identity based student groups, (e.g. Black Law Students Association (BLSA), Women's Law Students Association (WLSA), and Outlaws (the LGBT group)) face difficult questions sometimes. On one hand, it's important that oppressed minorities to have a safe space in the school, but on the other hand, the groups are usually interested in advancing their group's position in the (in our case legal) community. This goal usually means having good relations with (and members who are) allies that support the cause but do not share the identity. At least within Michigan Law School, the groups have tended toward the latter, figuring presumably that the "allies" who want to be involved will not destroy the safe space. But I recently discovered that it's not always a given that everyone accepts this, though this sentiment usually stays hidden. (This is also separate from the question of whether a university funded identity group even has a right to be exclusive - the answer to which is likely technically no, but it's hard to imagine who would complain - if he/she wants in that badly, he/she is likely respectful of the group.)

I'm writing this post based on a series of emails and debate that recently occurred within the Michigan Law Outlaws. So, the background: two members of the group proposed an amendment to the group's constitution to create a new ally chair. Essentially, they felt that the group seemed too exclusive, and lots of non-LGBT people that would have been more involved were not - including either actual members who would have been more active or allies that decided not to be members at all. The constitution did already say that allies were a part of the group's mission, but in a very loose way, and the attitude was not inclusive enough for them.

Emails between various LGBT members of the group went back and forth and things got a little heated - many in the group could not believe that this sense of exclusion existed. At some point I decided, as an ally in the member camp, that I should give my perspective that indeed the exclusiveness was real. I am friends with most of the group members, and hang out with them socially a fair amount, so it surprised many people when I wrote an email pointing out that I did not feel connected to the organization. At some point someone even challenged my email's sincerity saying it was strange that I felt excluded while going to all the social events. In reality, I'm about the most likely straight guy to seek out Outlaws and be involved, yet I had only ever been to one meeting, and never considered running for the board because of this disconnect.

It was when I wrote the email that the venom really came out. I was told both privately and publicly that I basically shouldn't be a full member of the student group because I'm only an ally. Many people came to my defense as well and the email chain became really vicious, culminating in quite an eventful general body meeting. At the core of this discussion was the question of whether the group really only belongs to the represented community or whether allies can be a part. It's a tough question, but it seemed it was a small faction that wanted to be queer-only, and the Outlaws constitution was pretty clear on being inclusive.

Thinking about it, I can certainly see the necessity for a safe space, but many of the pro-exclusion people seemed to be doing it for bigoted reasons, really because they just don't like straight people. This is presumably why the feelings were hidden until they were exposed by the threat of a constitutional amendment and the heat of argument. I suppose the question of how problematic heterophobia is is similar to the question of whether it's possible for black people to be racist against whites - or for any "ist" can work against the oppressor. I'm not sure such an idea can exist. While it certainly felt bigoted, my stature in life was not harmed by the opinion, only my place in their group was questioned. Regardless, this sentiment seemed to be what the argument was about, which seems a lot less legitimate than wanting a safe space for its own sake. Most everyone else wanted the group to be and feel more inclusive.

Putting this in a larger context, we come to the question of the effectiveness of separatist movements in general. The point of the Outlaws group is to increase acceptance within the community. Separatist movements, however, exist to say that the members don't need the help of the dominant group to succeed. History has shown us that the coalition-building approach, reaching out to the dominant group for allies, has worked to a degree, in the Civil Rights movement, for example. Of course, I'd fail my critical race theory class if I didn't point out here that the movements succeeded only to a limited degree - essentially allowing the power of people of color to at best asymptotically approach that of whites, though a counter to that is that it's a necessary intermediate step. At the moment, the civil rights of the LGBT community have not progressed even as far as those of people of color, so perhaps lessons can be taken from the movements that preceded this one, and that is that recruiting allies and building coalitions works at least to get the law to recognize you as equal. I imagine this is why it seems like it's the method of the of the LGBT community outside the law school as well, rather than separatism.

A couple days after the brouhaha, a speaker came for the Federalist Society discussing the CLS v. Martinez case. He supported the exclusivity, saying that Outlaws should have the right to exclude just like CLS at UC Hastings should have the right to exclude people that did not share their beliefs, gays included. I believe that most people in Outlaws would find the parallel appalling, and again, it's not a perfect, since there's an oppressor-oppressed distinction, but the reasoning is similar, and that alone should give pause to the exclusive factions within the group, I think.

One more thing that makes inclusiveness even more important to a LGBT student group than a race-based identity group, for example, is the prospect of closeted folks. The mission of the group (again from the Constitution, but also it just makes sense) includes providing a space for closeted people to explore their identities and provide a place where they feel comfortable coming out on their own schedule. The problem is that if Outlaws is, or even appears to be queer-only, then anyone who attends is outing themselves. Already they have a concept called inlaws, who are people that are afraid to come to a meeting but want to be members. Perhaps if Outlaws encouraged more ally participation, there would be fewer inlaws, since they would no longer be scared to attend. That would certainly be better for that aspect of the group's mission.