---

BY MARIA KHIM

In print | November 16, 2006

Over the past few weeks, the Coming Out Week chalkings have spurred dialogue across campus, with added controversy following the second round of chalkings. In response to the intense widespread reaction, an open discussion was held last Thursday that encouraged the sharing of opinions between students with a variety of perspectives.

As in previous years, Coming Out Week brought with it texts and drawings on the sidewalks of the campus that addressed various aspects of queer identity and sexuality. Unlike in past years, however, there was a second round of chalkings in retaliation to the first. This stimulated an intense debate that eventually called for a more structured and effective forum for further discussion.

“It wasn’t about opposing the chalkings or going against the queer community, but for me it was about letting others understand why I was upset and understanding also why the others were upset and the dialogue helped in that sense,” Jennie Hatch ’10 said.

The chalkings discussion was held last Thursday evening at the Friends Meeting House and lasted for several hours. The two faculty facilitators for the dialogue were religion professor Elliot Ratzman and history professor Bruce Dorsey.

Initially, students were divided into six small groups based on their opinions and reasons for attending the discussion. The students in attendance represented a wide range of perspectives, from those that emphasized that they were offended by the confrontational and explicit nature of the messages to others that were offended by the responses to the chalkings. Each group presented several opinions on which they had come to a general consensus, after which the floor was open to all students.

“There was a lot of Swattie-style Socratic dialogue that went on. It was much like a dispute in a family, where there was no true hostility or opposition present,” Ratzman said. “During the discussion, friends who disagreed responded to each other, even past the words.”

The ground rules laid out by the facilitators were premised on the assumption that the intentions of the participants were supportive rather than motivated by the desire to antagonize peers. The discussion provided a forum for the expression of opinions and personal anecdotes by the attendees.

Not only did students differ in their reasons for attending, but they also varied in what they took away from the event. Contrary to the negative feelings of frustration, disappointment and disagreement that may have originally driven some students to the discussion, many left with a greater understanding of the conflicting opinions that they had initially viewed as opposing to their own.

“I’m glad I went,” Anne Marie Frassica ‘09 said. "I went in feeling a bit insulted by what some of the chalkings had to say and confused by others, and I left feeling like next year I could look down with confidence that I would at least know that the chalking below my feet was the result of a very significant life experience — and that even if I didn’t get it, someone else did."

“Nobody could have left the discussion without the impression that there is still a lot of pain [associated] with being ‘queer’ even at a place as progressive as Swarthmore,” Ratzman said.

Other students admitted to having left the event feeling as though nothing substantial had been accomplished. However, the very same students also expressed that it was a great, enriching experience that broadened their perspective.

“It was a very educational experience on an individual level. I was able to learn in great detail the emotional and personal reasons behind the chalkings and how they were important to some people,” James Mendez Hodes ’08 said. “But although it was informative on a personal level, it was not very productive in that it probably will not change the chalkings for better or for worse, and some people will always feel offended, regardless of efforts to communicate.”

On that note, students urged each other to carry on the discussion and continue this positive effort to understand and support one another through other opportunities and events such as those organized by the Swarthmore Queer Union (SQU) and Queer-Straight Alliance (QSA).

“I am not sure this one meeting was enough to eradicate the problems of the misunderstandings between the chalkers and the readers.” Frassica added. “But I do think and hope that next year they will seem less controversial, as a manifestation of more clarity within the queer groups on campus and more understanding on the part of those who do not chalk.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »