Resolution 'short circuits constructive dialog'

I am writing in response to the letter published September 2 in the Arizona Daily Wildcat by the Executive Board of Directors of BGALA regarding the "Looking for Billy" cartoon.

In your letter, you state "There can only be one interpretation of this tasteless comic..." This statement is not true, if by what you wrote you were indicating there is only one possible understanding of the meaning of this cartoon.

The fact that there is controversy over the cartoon is sufficient evidence. If your meaning was there is only one permissible interpretation, then that is an entirely other, more disturbing, meaning.

It implies there is one correct and allowable interpretation. That thinking is the very logic used by extremist and others who feel they have "a lock on the truth."

Last evening I attended the ASUA session where a vote was passed condemning the publication of the cartoon. I spoke to let the Senators know there is in fact diversity of opinion about the cartoon and that open discussion of this very diversity is a thing to be championed in that it allows an issue infrequently addressed to be brought to light.

I urged caution in passing the resolution because I felt we had a rare opportunity to continue a useful and constructive dialog. For example, through this debate we have learned that apparently the Wildcat editor would have suppressed a cartoon featuring epitaphs used against some minorities (African Americans, Latino/as) while allowing the use of the epitaph homo. This is revelatory.

Further debate could have allowed us to discuss the frequency of and consequences for people victimized by hate violence. Sharing our experiences of terrorism, for that's what chronic hate violence is, just might soften some hearts and open some minds.

After last evening's vote, I congratulated BGALA Co-Director Jacob Rigoli for his presentation to the senators. As a past victim of anti-gay violence, I certainly understood his articulate argument.

I also spoke to Senator Rodriguez, a co-sponsor of the resolution, and for whom I now have a great deal of respect. Her professionalism was inspiring and she did not deserve the sensationalistic depiction attributed to her in the September 3 Wildcat article on the Senate session.

I nonetheless feel that the resolution, the nearly automatic condemnation of the cartoon, and the assumption that there is only one interpretation undermines collegiality, short-circuits constructive dialog and ultimately damages the "Queer" community.

Gerald Perry

Academic Professional

Head, Information Services

Arizona Health Sciences Library