Mmmm, the sounds of summer. Crickets. The ice cream man.
Violent, homophobic rap lyrics.
On his latest release, “The Marshall Mathers LP,”
Eminem proudly raps: “I’ll stab you in the head,
whether you’re a fag or les/ Or a homosex, a hermaph or a
trans-a-ves/ Pants or dress/ Hate fags? The answer’s
yes.”
Oh, the hatred.
Eminem’s anti-gay lyrics have led the Gay and Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation to condemn “The Marshall Mathers
LP,” which has the most blatantly homophobic lyrics GLAAD has
seen, ever (www.glaad.org). Nevertheless, the album sold over 1.7
million copies in its first week, and continues to top charts and
delight Eminem’s young, impressionable fans.
There are those who will argue that laws governing the freedom
of expression dictate tolerance for Eminem’s lyrics and other
so-called artists who use their expressive talents to insult and
degrade entire sectors of society. Some even say that
Eminem’s lyrics are harmless and that he should be left alone
to rap freely about whatever he wants to.
I, quite frankly, fundamentally disagree.
This summer, I’ve heard one bigot too many invoke a First
Amendment right to expression and association to justify his or her
individual contribution to perpetuating hatred and division in
American society. Enough is enough.
Lately, gay rights have been a hot topic throughout the country,
with debates waging over everything from same-sex marriages to
homophobic rap lyrics to the Boy Scouts of America. And on nearly
every front, gay rights have been successfully attacked by private
organizations, individuals and even states. The time is long past
for Americans to examine gay rights within this country, so that we
can begin to dismantle the complex webs of hatred and intolerance
that have been successfully spun by neo-conservatives throughout
the nation.
Most recently, a pivotal Supreme Court case called into question
the right of the Boy Scouts of America to deny membership to gays.
Ten years ago, James Dale, a gay assistant Scoutmaster, was
summarily expelled from the Boy Scouts of America when the
organization discovered that he was co-president of a student gay
and lesbian organization at Rutgers University. After intense legal
battles, the case made its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court,
which in 1999 unanimously ruled that the BSA had violated a state
law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The BSA was
ordered to reinstate Dale (Chuck Sudetic, Rolling Stone Issue
844).
Unwilling to be defeated, the mammoth BSA appealed its case to
the Supreme Court, arguing in April 2000 that their First Amendment
free speech and freedom of association rights as a private
organization had been violated by the New Jersey decision. The Boy
Scouts also insisted that allowing homosexuals to participate in
their organization would interfere with the organization’s
message; in court, Boy Scout lawyer George Davidson stated that
homosexuality was contrary to the Boy Scout Oath, which requires
Scouts to be “morally straight” (RS Issue 844).
Yet, as legal commentator Kenji Yoshino argues, the BSA’s
court case was paper thin, plagued with contradictions and weak
attempts to cover up blatant discrimination (Yoshino,
www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/fl.yoshino.boyscouts.07.03). In
court,the BSA claimed a First Amendment right to convey an anti-gay
“message” that would be undermined unless they could
expel openly-gay Scouts like Dale. But prior to the Dale case, the
BSA had never articulated this message anywhere within the plethora
of recruiting and informational materials published by the
organization. For decades, the BSA had abided by a
“don’t ask, don’t tell” position on
homosexuality, probably because other major corporate sponsors,
such as the United Way, had threatened to cut their funding if Boy
Scout members were discriminated against on the basis of their
sexuality.
Despite all these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court in late
June sided with the BSA, issuing a 5-4 ruling upholding the
BSA’s “constitutional right” to ban gays from
becoming troop leaders. Suddenly, James Dale was legally removed
from the very non-profit organization which had nurtured him
through adolescence and into adulthood. Nevermind that Dale was a
model citizen, a Sunday school teacher, and among the 3 percent of
all Boy Scouts to receive an Eagle Scout Award, the highest award
granted by the BSA. In the eyes of the Boy Scouts, Dale’s
sexuality canceled out all his accolades and leadership qualities,
leaving him the victim of a zero-sum game.
Of course, with the BSA’s conservative track record, the
organization’s failure to recognize gay rights comes as no
surprise. According to Rolling, the BSA has, in its nine decades of
existence, “been resistant to cultural change, and proud of
it” (RS Issue 844).
Even more significantly, the BSA, as a non-profit,
volunteer-based operation, is heavily dependent on huge financial
contributions from conservative religious groups in order to
maintain its multi-million-member organization. Of all donors,
religious and secular, the reactionary Mormon Church remains the
single largest sponsor of Boy Scout troops in the United States,
and has repeatedly stated its commitment to withdrawing its support
from the Boy Scouts if gays are allowed to participate in the
organization on any level.
In 1993, Jere Radcliffe, the BSA’s top bureaucrat, stated
that “the BSA has always reflected the expectations that
Scouting families have had for the organization, and we do not
believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these
expectations.” His speech, which reached Scout executives
nationwide, was telecast over a satellite hook-up provided by the
Mormon Church (RS Issue 844). And it’s no coincidence that
Radcliffe made his heterosexist assertions right before he launched
the most aggressive fund-raising drive in the history of the
BSA.
Keeping in mind the fact that the Mormon Church spearheaded
intensive campaigns last spring to ensure the passage of
Proposition 22, which banned same-sex marriages in California and
invalidated such unions if performed in other states, it is not
surprising that the church continues to spread bigotry and hatred
throughout the nation, and to use its considerable financial
resources to pressure other organizations to do the same. The
predictability of the BSA’s actions, however, makes this
reality no less tragic.
Instead of promoting acceptance and understanding,
neo-conservative entities like the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts
of America are perpetuating intolerance throughout America, and
instilling such values in youth from a very early age. These values
are often reinforced by pop culture icons like Eminem, who abuse
their freedom of expression by using their words to perpetuate
hatred and discrimination against other social groups.
And while I am vehemently opposed to censorship, I do believe
that we as consumers must use our influence to clearly show our
intolerance for hateful, violent lyrics or actions. If we are
investors, we must be certain that our financial contributions are
not aiding any organization or individual who attempts to further
division and misunderstanding in our society.
Although they may seem an unlikely pair, Eminem and the Boy
Scouts of America are examples of two entities which can actually
play a positive role in bringing different people together: hip hop
and volunteer organizations. We must pressure such entities to
promote understanding and respect so that we may replace the
ignorance and malice prevalent today. It is up to us to ensure that
future generations are not so influenced by hatred.