Far from fostering “diversity”, the politics of identity segregate people into narrowly-defined groups and people outside those groups, fellow travelers aside, are assumed to be hostile and motivated by “hate”. The supposed necessity of those groups is thereby reinforced since the implication is that, since the rest of the country is actively or passively working against the identity group’s interests, only the group itself stands in the way of complete marginalization (or worse, as the rhetoric sometimes goes).

I think this is why one sees such shock and disgust with gay Republicans, feminist Palin supporters, and so forth. Homosexuals who define themselves primarily on other traits of their personality - belief in free markets, a vigorous foreign policy, or any number of other beliefs that form political beliefs - are routinely savaged for being turncoats, being “off reservation”, as it were, and assumed to be acting under “false consciousness”. That is to say that the assumption is that they don’t really know what’s good for them because they’ve chosen different priorities than those ordained by the identity group - the “gay” identity is supposed to take priority. Reading some Andrew Sullivan with an eye toward this dynamic might be useful.

To get back to your comment, I don’t think that what you’re seeing really has to do with the “reality on the ground” in Eugene or anywhere else. It’s the result of the politics of identity: us vs. them.

I wonder why, of all places, Eugene doesn’t stand out to the LGBTQ community in a more positive way. That is, if this general attitude is indeed representative of anyone (or the leadership quoted in the article). I always thought of ‘Berkeley North’ as being viewed as another ‘haven’ for the LGBTQ community.

Perhaps a case study comparing, say, Springfield, Missouri and Eugene, Oregon is in order? Not to point out the obvious so much as to wonder why, in a place like Eugene, this whole balloonism gets any sort of traction.

I think it’s indicative of the LGBTQA’s bunker mentality, mostly. Any homophobia, real or perceived, is seen as poisoning the entire culture, even at an institution where “diversity” and “tolerance” rival “the sports program” as the most important thing on campus. One suspects that this hyper-sensitivity to what amount to isolated incidents of possible bias serves as more of a raison d’etre for certain campus organizations than anything else. The attitude displayed by Garrison and McGraw is one that thrives on perpetual victimhood and mistrust of a world perceived to be inexorably hostile to them. I would hazard a guess that, to many people, a campus not 100% devoid of any conceivable sort of bias - and I include in that definition the lack of proper “celebration” of LGBTQ culture on the part of the student body - is an “anti-gay, balloon hating conserva-campus.”

On one hand, it’s hard to blame LGBTQ people for feeling that way; many of them have gone through some horrible things because of their sexuality. On the other hand, constantly playing the victim is a form of self-ghettoization and seems counter-productive to the “empowerment” that seems so central to “out” culture.

It may have been a dick move to set 300 balloons free into the stratosphere, but it is undeniably ballsy to do something like that in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses.

/His balls are made of pure brass
/when they bang together they play stormy weather
/and lighting shoots out of his ass.

I don’t get it.

Either way you look at it, this issue seems to be overblown.