Author: Former Student

Theory to Praxis: Public Health Policy to Increase STI and HIV Resources on Campus

Posted on by Former Student

To begin, I want to acknowledge that my interest in this subject began from learning about HIV/AIDS activism in GSS101 and in PBH395: Public Health & Film. I learned that HIV/AIDS activism was a movement where individuals, mainly from the lesbian and gay community, radicalized and advocated for expedited research on treatment and quality healthcare even through the stigma. Furthermore, I learned the impact of HIV/AIDS activism on healthcare and drug development, as well as the development of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to stop HIV transmission. However, a recent study on college students reported that 73% of students do not use condoms during sex and 43% of students have never received HIV testing (Stutts et al., 2020). Students who did get tested for HIV were more likely to be women, students at public schools, upper-year students, and students with higher HIV and PrEP knowledge (Stutts et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Davidson College is a private liberal arts college with a balanced student body in terms of gender and class year. 

When I first arrived at Davidson College, I heard about the free and confidential, monthly STI and HIV testing provided by the Mecklenburg County Health Department and Davidson Health Education Office. However, I learned this semester that this was no longer a service that was offered. Furthermore, while Davidson College offers a sexual health education course during orientation and resources (condoms, dental damns, lubricants, etc.) to improve sexual health behavior, it does not provide HIV education or resources, including education on and access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).  Thus, for my theory to praxis assignment, I would like to create a comprehensive policy to reinstate the free and confidential monthly STI testing clinic and implement health education and resources for HIV. 

First, Davidson College should partner with the Mecklenburg County Health Department (MCHD) once again to provide free and confidential STI testing to students. Currently, STI testing requires scheduling with a nurse clinic and paying $105 for a Gonorrhea/Chlamydia swab test, $35 for a Syphilis blood sample test, or $170 for a HIV blood sample test. Clearly, these costs may present a financial barrier to some students, and many students are not aware that MCHD offers free STI testing. Since at least one study has shown that college students do not use condoms often, STI testing is the crucial next-line of prevention. Thus, Davidson College should partner with MCHD once again to increase access and affordability of STI testing to all students, and at the very least, list MCHD as a resource to students.

Second, Davidson College should implement HIV health education and resources on campus. The HIV health education can take place during orientation to help students deconstruct preconceived biases and notions because HIV can be contracted by anyone who is sexually active. Furthermore, HIV health education should discuss PrEP as an effective HIV medication and prevention measure since students are not actively getting HIV testing. Access and affordability may be barriers to receiving PrEP, so it will be important to inform students of the Ready, Set, PrEP program funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services as some students may qualify for free PrEP medications. 

Overall I hope that this comprehensive policy can assist Davidson College from simply stating “Protect Yourself From STIs: 1 out of every 2 sexually active people have an STI by age 25” to enacting policies that truly improve student health and well-being.  

References

Stutts, L. A., Robinson, P. A., Witt, B., & Terrell, D. F. (2020). Lost in translation: College students’ knowledge of HIV and PrEP in relation to their sexual health behaviors. Journal of American college health : J of ACH, 1–7. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1757679 

​Free Community STD Testing Locations. (n.d.). MECKNC.GOV. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://www.mecknc.gov/HealthDepartment/CDControl/HIVSTDSurveillance/Pages/Community-Testing-Sites.aspx 

Ringle, G. (n.d.). FREE STI TESTING. Davidson. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://www.davidson.edu/media/937/download 

STI Testing Nurse Clinic. (n.d.). Davidson. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://www.davidson.edu/offices-and-services/student-health-and-well-being/health-services/sti-testing-nurse-clininc 

Ready, Set, PrEP. (n.d.). Ready, Set, PrEP: Find Out If You Qualify to Enroll for Free PrEP Medications. Ready Set PrEP. Retrieved December 7, 2021, from https://readysetprep.hiv.gov/ 

Feminist Mix-Tape: “Broken Glass”

Posted on by Former Student

Rachel Platten is an American singer-songwriter and is best known for her debut single “Fight Song”. While “Fight Song” is an empowering feminist song, I believe “Broken Glass” reveals feminist themes more clearly. Thus, I hope to convey the feminist themes through four sections of the song lyrics. First, the song starts with the following lyrics:

I’m on a highway full of red lights

I’ve lost so many long nights

Felt words that cut like knives

A highway is the main road that connects two major locations. However, motor vehicles on the road cannot progress to their next location on a road full of red lights. Similarly, in Towards Equality (1974), the Committee on the Status of Women issued “a report of over four hundred pages detailing obstacles to women’s progress” (India, 304). Thus, these lyrics are a metaphor for the obstacles feminists face in pursuit of equality and equity. Furthermore, such obstacles can take a toll on the mental and emotional well-being of the activists. Nevertheless, the song continues to the main chorus: 

I’m gonna dance on broken glass, ey

On broken glass

And I’m gonna make that ceiling crash, ah

That ceiling crash

The chorus breaks apart the phrase “glass ceiling,” which is a metaphor referring to the social barriers that prevent certain individuals, in this case women, from achieving success and ascending in the social hierarchy. Glass is invisible when viewed through a certain perspective. Likewise, Friedan points out in Feminine Mystique that there is a “problem that has no name…shared by countless women in America” (Friedan, 274). However, since Platten uses the first person tense, she acknowledges the invisible and intangible barriers. Thus, she acts upon her knowledge and rejoices when the glass ceiling crashes and breaks. Furthermore, the song also imparts these important and humble lyrics:

You know, you know it’s more than

More than just for me

While not explicit, Platten’s lyrics acknowledges “her classism, her racism, her sexist attitudes towards the masses of American women” unlike Friedan, as bell hooks might say (hooks, 2). These two lines emphasize that feminism is more than just the right to “freedom from intolerance…of only one particular group” (Lorde, 1). Rather, Platten describes feminism as the fight for equality and equity for everyone. Finally, the song mentions hope despite all the possible injuries that might be sustained:

Through to the other side, baby I’ll survive (oh oh)

‘Cause you know I’m a fighter (oh oh oh)

Through to the other side, baby I’m on fire (oh oh)

‘Cause you know I’m a survivor (oh oh oh)

The terms “fighter” and “survivor” may reflect what bell hooks calls “the special vantage point our marginalization gives us” (hooks, 16). Yet, it is also a limitation of the song because it does not explicitly reference the experiences of black, trans, and queer feminists, and Rachel Platten is also a white, cisgender woman. However, in the music video, there are a myriad of individuals from various backgrounds. In conclusion, “Broken Glass” is a song that highlights the foundation of feminism, and the music video addresses the limitation of the lyrics. 

Works Cited

Platten, Rachel. “Rachel Platten – Broken Glass (Video).” Youtube, 2 July 2019, https://youtu.be/b2390GAm4d0.

Book Review: “Giving a Voice to the Voiceless”

Posted on by Former Student

Christianity has an image problem—the image of being judgmental, hypocritical, and anti-gay. Homosexuality is one of the most relevant and pressing theological issues in the Christian community, especially in Christian colleges and universities. However, this discussion of homosexuality as a theological issue has neglected the well-being of individuals who experience same-sex attractions. The lack of compassion in discourse increases the marginalization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (LGB) and Same-Sex Attracted (SSA) individuals. Additionally, Christian denominations today divide by a progressive view of sexuality (PVS) or a traditional view of sexuality (TVS). A PVS postulates that “homosexual acts are not immoral or sinful…but like heterosexual acts, good or bad depending on context” (p. xix). A TVS postulates that “the Bible condemns same-sex sexual practice and romantic relationships…and blesses marriage between a husband and a wife” (p. xxi). Thus, Christopher Yuan wrote Giving a Voice to the Voiceless: A Qualitative Study of Reducing Marginalization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Same-Sex Attracted Students at Christian Colleges and Universities to establish a foundation to navigate through the tension between sexuality and faith and to affirm the possibility of holding a TVS while reducing marginalization (Yuan, 2016).

In Chapter 1, Yuan introduced the “what” for his research. First, Yuan described how college campuses have been criticized as epicenters for institutional oppression, including the oppression of LGB and SSA who report marginalization at Christian colleges and universities. This tension created two camps: one who believes that the only solution to reduce marginalization is for Christian colleges and universities to change institutional policies on homosexuality to a PVS, and another who believes that reducing marginalization does not require institutional policy change from a TVS. However, Yuan “decided to seek input [for solutions] from the very ones who feel marginalized, LGB and SSA students, thus giving a voice to the voiceless” (p. 3). In Yuan’s own words, “this study sought to discover other options for reducing marginalization of LGB and SSA students at Christian colleges and universities without changing policies that directly reflect the school’s biblical foundation and religious identity” (p. 3). Thus, Yuan entered into the research under three assumptions: (1) the Bible is the Word of God; (2) the Bible communicates a TVS; and (3) Christian colleges and universities need to reduce the marginalization of LGB and SSA students.

In Chapter 2, Yuan described the “why” for his research when he embarked on “biblical and theological study of issues related to compassion for the marginalized” (p. 10). First, he established that there are clear examples of marginalization in the Bible. He identified three individuals at a higher risk for marginalization in the Bible: the Sojourner, the Widow, and the Orphan. Sojourners were socially outcasted and perceived as threats, so they depended on the kindness and hospitality of native inhabitants because they possessed no tangible rights. Widows were unimportant and perceived as a liability to their husband’s family and society because their female status, dictated by societal customs and traditions, made them dependent on the support and protection of their husband or adult male. Orphans were powerless for the same reason as widows, and they were vulnerable to losing their birthrights. Second, Yuan highlighted passages from the Old and New Testaments to create the theology of compassion for the marginalized. He stated, “Memory of and gratitude for God’s grace are essential to a practical theology of compassion for the marginalized, even LGB and SSA people” (p. 23). Third, Yuan drew some parallels between the experiences of those marginalized in the Bible and LGB and SSA people today. LGB and SSA people are often social outcasts in a society that is predominately heterosexual, and they are more vulnerable to injustice and susceptible to oppression, such as verbal and physical attacks and homelessness. Thus, Yuan concluded that even in “unrepentant same-sex sexual practice,” LGB and SSA people deserve compassion and kindness (p. 29). 

In Chapter 3, Yuan provided an overview of the project description, research method, and data analysis methodology. There were two research questions Yuan wanted to answer for his thesis: “What are the experiences of Christian college or university LGB and SSA students? How can the campus climate at Christian colleges and universities be less marginalizing for LGB and SSA students?” (p. 31). As a result, Yuan reviewed prior literature and sociological and psychological research studies on sexuality to determine the best terminology and research methods to use for his field research. The research design was a fixed mixed methods research design that incorporated predetermined qualitative and quantitative aspects and emphasized qualitative findings. The research instrument was “an online [Qualtrics] questionnaire consisting of three sections: (1) demographic data; (2) LGB and SSA student experiences; and (3) recommendations” (p. 39). The first section contained 11 questions (10 quantitative, 1 qualitative). The second section contained 16 questions (7 quantitative, 9 qualitative) of which three questions were adapted from the UCLA Loneliness Scale. The third section contained four qualitative questions. Additionally, Yuan opted to use King and Horrocks’ three stages of thematic analysis: (1) descriptive coding; (2) interpretive coding; and (3) overarching themes, as his data analysis methodology for qualitative data. Descriptive coding involves identifying relevant material directly from the text, interpretive coding involves clustering descriptive codes into categories, and overarching themes involve generating theories to explain the relationship between the levels of coding. Finally, Yuan submitted his proposal and informed consent to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Bethel University. Upon approval, Yuan recruited a minimum of 30 LGB or SSA students and alumni who attended a Christian college or university that holds a TVS through an informal recommendation process. This process involved sending a Principal Contact Letter to administrators, staff, faculty, alumni, and students, who would forward the Potential Participant Letter containing the link to the study to qualified participants. 

In Chapter 4, Yuan “analyzed and evaluated the [quantitative and qualitative] data from the online questionnaire” (p. 40). The sample size was 80, of which 52 completed the full online questionnaire. However, the quantitative and qualitative data analysis included complete and partial data. When quantitative data were analyzed for demographics, all participants were young adults, students or alumni, who attended a Christian college or university that held a TVS, and the majority of participants were white males in the midwest. More importantly, Yuan identified three major findings: (1) a diversity among respondents who held a TVS and PVS and agreed with institutional policies; (2) a negative correlation between students who agreed with a PVS and agreed with institutional policies; and (3) a majority of respondents scoring high on loneliness. As mentioned earlier, qualitative data were analyzed as Yuan read over each response and applied King and Horrocks’ three stages of thematic analysis. From this process, Yuan developed three overarching themes, nine sub-themes, and twenty-seven interpretive codes. The first overarching theme was disclosure of sexuality, which contains two sub-themes—reason to hide and reasons to be open. The second overarching theme was experiences, which contain three sub-themes—classmates, employees, chapels and student programming. The third overarching theme was recommendations, which contains four sub-themes—institutional policies, campus climate, programming, and groups and mentoring.

In Chapter 5, Yuan drew from three primary sources: “(1) biblical-theological reflection; (2) related literature; and (3) data from [the] field research” to generate six conclusions and 34 action steps. The six conclusions about LGB and SSA students at Christian colleges and universities are: (1) they fall within a spectrum between what Mark Yarhouse, a clinical psychologist, called the “assertive advocates,” individuals who advocate for change to a PVS, and “sincere strugglers,” individuals who attempt to live faithfully according to a TVS (p. 98); (2) they generally feel lonely; (3) they hide their sexuality for the same reason as students attending secular institutions; (4) they experience a negative campus climate comparable to students attending secular institutions; (5) they expressed anger and frustration at Christian institutions; and (6) they expressed positive support. From these conclusions, Yuan stated that “marginalization of LGB and SSA students can be accomplished while holding to the traditional view of sexuality and without changing the institutional position on same-sex sexual practice” (p. 104). He described 34 actions steps within seven categories: “(1) clarity of institutional policies; (2) culture change campuswide; (3) culture change classrooms; (4) culture change dorms; (5) culture change programming; (6) community building; and (7) campus beyond” (pg. 104). Finally, Yuan conducted an exegesis of Mark 2:1-12, the story of Jesus forgiving and healing the paralyzed man who is assisted by his four friends from the roof. He urged individuals at Christian colleges and universities to be sacrificial friends and pallet bearers by implementing these action steps.

Overall, the greatest strength of Giving a Voice to the Voiceless is Yuan’s compassion because he is a culturally competent researcher. His compassion comes from his “firsthand experience as an SSA student, teacher [adjunct professor at a Bible college], and speaker at Christian colleges and universities” (p. 7). Yuan experienced marginalization for being Asian and effeminate, life as an openly gay man, challenges from distributing illicit drugs that cost him three years in federal prison, and restored humanity and hope through Christianity during and after prison. Thus, Yuan embraced his background and story, which enabled him to be culturally competent and empathize with LGB and SSA students in his research. 

A weakness in Giving a Voice to the Voiceless is the study design. Yuan compared results from previous studies of marginalization of LGB and SSA students at secular colleges and universities to his current field research. As a result, Yuan implemented a cross-sectional design during his analysis, but his conclusions may be compromised because he compared results from two different time points. 

Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading Giving a Voice to the Voiceless because I empathized with and gained a greater understanding of the marginalization experienced by LGB and SSA students. I appreciated how the book gave a platform for LGB and SSA students to be vulnerable with their experiences navigating through intersectional identities in sexuality and faith. While theological disagreements may be deep, something everyone, Christian or non-Christian, could agree upon is the need to reduce marginalization of and increase compassion for LGB and SSA. Therefore, this book is for anyone seeking to get educated and/or achieve those goals as the stories and specific action steps are inspired by the LGB and SSA students themselves. Additionally, this book is especially crucial for administrators, faculty, staff, alumni, and students at Christian colleges and universities, whose responses will have far-reaching consequences. As Yuan concluded in Chapter 5, I also hope that Christians would utilize these research findings to glorify God and create spaces that are “full of friends who are pallet bearers” to LGB and SSA individuals (p. 131). No longer should LGB and SSA individuals be paralyzed by fear and stigma. 

Bibliography

Yuan, C. (2016). Giving a Voice to the Voiceless: A Qualitative Study of Reducing Marginalization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Same-sex Attracted Students at Christian Colleges and Universities. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

“Same Love” — A Legacy of Perpetuating Gay Myths and Gay Liberation?

Posted on by Former Student

“Same Love” by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Mary Lambert was released in October 2012 on YouTube.¹ It “became the first song that explicitly promotes same-sex marriage to hit the Top 40 in the US.”² This song was primarily written to persuade voters of the State of Washington to approve Referendum 74, the legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage, as well as call out conservative Christians for their hypocrisy and intolerance on the matter. While the song served as a state (and later on as a national) anthem for gay marriage and equality, the song equally contains messages that ignore the social construction of sexuality and gender.

The opening scene lasts for approximately 40 seconds and depicts the scene of pregnancy and the birth of a biracial baby boy. This is intentional to emphasize the mainstream LGBTQ+ narrative that sexuality is innate — that “queer people are born that way” or are “eternal homosexual[s]”.³ The next few scenes depict the mixed-race boy riding bikes and playing outside with other boys, wearing attire associated with boys, and displaying assertiveness through romantic gestures, which all in contrast to girls running a lemonade stand, playing with dolls, wearing dresses, and displaying passiveness. These scenes perpetuate gender stereotypes and show gender being constructed by doing.⁴ 

Additionally, the lyrics at the beginning recounts Macklemore’s (Ben Haggerty) experience of questioning his sexuality. Within the lyrics, the idea of being gay was construed on the lines of gender stereotypes and that to be gay is to be good at drawing, to be good at organizing one’s room, and to be bad at sports. 

The following scenes show the mixed-race boy growing up and becoming keenly aware of sexuality such that he felt excluded from the church, a game of spin the bottle, homecoming dances, and formals. The song also speaks of the “man-made rewiring of a predisposition” through some cure through treatment or religion. This emphasis reflects the historically negative discourse of homosexuality through medical science and the church.⁵ Furthermore, when the song mentions hip hop and drops the phrase “that’s so gay” and the word “f*gg*t,” this was directing attention at the hip hop community as being a toxic place for homosexual expression. Thus, these scenes and lyrics reveal how places that hold power determine the morality of homosexuality. 

The chorus is sung by Mary Lambert, and repeats the sentiment that sexuality is biological and innate in the lyrics, “I can’t change.” Once again, this perpetuates the thinking that homosexuality is not socially constructed through history. From this point on, the biracial individual embraces his sexuality, gets married, and dies with his partner and lover by his side. 

Overall, this song is an appeal to logos, ethos, and pathos. In logos, the song accuses some Christians of forgetting that “God loves all his children” and “paraphras[ing] a book written 3,500 hundred years ago”. While some Christians believe that even if the Bible is written 3,500 hundred years ago it is still relevant, there is no denying that Christians have historically spoken heavily against homosexuality by drawing upon seven verses associated with homosexuality, commonly referred to as the Clobber Passages. 

In ethos, the song emphasizes God as love, and it concludes with a refrain from 1 Corinthians 13 that says “love is patient, love is kind.” Just as some Christians hold Biblical passages on homosexuality highly, the song draws on the ethos of the Bible. Additionally, the song makes comparisons between the LGBTQIA+ movement with the Civil Rights Movement, thereby drawing upon the same ethos that everyone has some inalienable rights. 

Finally, the song is an appeal to pathos, where we, as the audience, practice empathy. The music video visually portrays the story of a biracial kid navigating through his sexuality from birth to childhood to marriage to death. The lyrics reveal Macklemore’s (Ben Haggerty’s) personal journey towards understanding sexuality, as well as his compassion for his gay uncles and other LGBTQIA+ individuals. 

Overall, “Same Love,” as the title implies, suggests that love is the same, regardless of gender and sexuality. Despite reinforcing some gender stereotypes and myths about homosexuality, the song has a powerful message. In response to “till my uncles could be united by law,” the State of Washington passed Referendum 74 in 2012, and three years later, same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide through Obergefell v. Hodges. As the lyrics foresaw, a “certificate on paper isn’t going to solve it all,” but marriage equality is a “good place to start,” as is “Same Love” by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Mary Lambert to the liberation movement. 

Works Cited

  1. “Macklemore & Ryan Lewis – Same Love Feat. Mary Lambert (Official Video).” YouTube, October 2, 2012. https://youtu.be/hlVBg7_08n0.
  2. “Macklemore & Ryan Lewis (Ft. Mary Lambert) – Same Love.” Genius. Accessed September 25, 2021. https://genius.com/Macklemore-and-ryan-lewis-same-love-lyrics. 
  3. Abelove, Henry, Barale Michèle Aina, and David M. Halperin. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 1993. This citation is specifically referencing Chapter 31: Capitalism and Gay Identity by John D’Emilio.
  4. Bornstein, Kate. My New Gender Workbook a Step-by-Step Guide to Achieving World Peace through Gender Anarchy and Sex Positivy. New York, NY u.a: Routledge, 2013. 
  5. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books, 1980. 

Writing for Wear Your Voice | www.wearyourvoicemag.com