Looking for the truth behind Billy

Wildcat File Photo Arizona Daily Wildcat Zach Thomas

But in retrospect, it wouldn't have mattered if I had.

During the past 48 hours, we've read and heard from a myriad of students, faculty, staff and members of the Tucson community calling the comic "tasteless" and "homophobic" along with some calling for cartoonist Jeremy Olson's dismissal.

We've also heard from readers who called that resounding outcry a cruel misunderstanding of the strip's true message: a poignant social commentary on the intimacy taboo faced by many American males.

Clearly, the contested strip was perceived by different people in different ways, one offensive and one intended.

For those of you who missed the cartoon, it depicted two insects apologizing to one another, hugging and then being shot by another insect yelling, "Homos."

And it wasn't funny - not, at least, in the manner of conventional comic strips. Nor do I believe it was meant to be.

When I first read the strip Monday morning, I did not understand its intentions nor its implications. And that remained true when I met with leaders from the University of Arizona Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Association. However, having had the chance to speak with the cartoonist and others, I am confident that the underlying social commentary portrayed in "Looking for Billy" justifies its inclusion in the Arizona Daily Wildcat.

This, however, does not detract from the outrage and hurt felt by many of our readers. It is never the Wildcat's intention to offend needlessly, but rather to inform, to entertain and, perhaps most pertinent of all, to provoke thought.

The roiling debate sparked by this cartoon and its accompanying critical letters and phone calls indicates something more to me: the desire, no, the necessity to broach issues long swept under America's carpet.

Although it was not intended to do so, Monday's comic strip brought to the forefront of discussion the widespread discrimination, and, yes, violence faced by gays and lesbians on a regular basis. As a liberal, heterosexual male, I cannot hope to comprehend the true extent of this ostracism - nor can I get inside the demented mind of a bigoted homophobe. But as often-ignored social facts, these issues need to be part of any cohesive campus conversation on diversity.

It is not funny.

Nor were Tim Wernette's thoughts on a young student's suicide included in a letter to the Daily Wildcat on Sept. 24, 1997. The coordinator of diversity education in the Employee and Organizational Development Department of UA Human Resources, Wernette wrote:

The apparent suicide of Matthew Whaley, a UA senior, is tragically typical of how we socialize men in our society.

Many of Matthew's friends were shocked because he didn't seem to be depressed or having a crisis. Males are taught to "be tough" and "don't cry," so many boys and men keep their hurt and pain inside until it erupts in destructive behavior. We laugh at men who won't pull over and ask for directions when lost, but the tragic consequence is that it is not "masculine" to be vulnerable and ask for help.

. . .

Homophobia (fear of homosexuality or being perceived as gay) keeps many men from being affectionate to or nurturing one another. Isn't it sad and ironic that Matthew belonged to a fraternity, and yet he couldn't reach out to his "brothers" for support?

And this certainly isn't funny.

Nor did Jeremy Olson mean to be, as his cartoon almost mirrors Wernette's comments.

To me, the ideas behind Monday's contested comic strip are the sort that should be addressed within the pages of the Arizona Daily Wildcat - not only in the Perspectives and Comics sections, but bridging into other areas of the paper as well.

Intentions aside, though, the fact that there were two (if not more) distinct ways to read Monday's "Looking For Billy" is troubling. We will redouble our efforts to provide clarity of content while not infringing on the creativity of the Wildcat staff - be they reporters, editors or cartoonists. As for not having pre-read the disputed comic, it is impossible for any one person to personally review each item included in a daily newspaper. However, I have confidence that this controversy will drive the Wildcat staff to exercise greater scrutiny and read from more than one angle.

Regarding the contested strip, I urge you to find a copy of it and decide for yourself: Was it offensive, incisive or perhaps a little of both?

Zach Thomas is a journalism senior and is editor in chief of the Arizona Daily Wildcat. He can be reached via e-mail at editor@wildcat.arizona.edu.