A group of concerned students called for a boycott of the screening and created a group, Radicals Against Institutional Damage (R.A.I.D.). The group sent a letter signed by nine to key administration on campus expressing their views.I don't have to make this stuff up, this is the way the Perpetually Aggrieved roll. "Cisgender, white gay people." Whatever. Fifty years of gay lib has apparently led to institutions that have evolved, whether out of a sense of fundamental fairness, or out of exhaustion, or because there's scar tissue on the body politic, in such a way as to confer privilege on some parts of the BLTGQUINOA aggregation, but other parts still feel picked on.
“This film is discursively violent,” write the activists. “In a world where cisgender, white gay people have finally achieved “marriage equality” and many see the struggle as being over, it is reinforcing a hierarchy of oppression to invent someone who never existed and place them in a historically-based film with the express purpose of silencing more marginalized groups.”
The Film and Media Studies Department argued that their decision to screen the film does not condone its content. Rather it is an attempt to engage with the executive producer and possibly, an opportunity to question some of the decisions made in the film’s representation of minorities.
“For me as a scholar and queer person engaging with my environment it is essential to analyze and critique these representations in order to draw attention to what is at stake for queer folks and to engage with the stories that are being told and held as representative in mass media,” said Spanish and Portuguese Professor Naomi Wood.A hungry baby who has not yet learned words is also in the position of having to teach to justify the validity of his feelings. "Respectability politics" must be a new way for the Perpetually Aggrieved to impugn the traditional academic custom of informed disagreement. Apparently to analyze and critique is too difficult, when you're able to get away with saying "problematic" (translation: I don't like it but don't have a coherent explanation why not) or throw a temper tantrum. Good grief. Here's Reason's summation.
Others argue that this critical discussion justification is a front.
“Critical discussion is simply a way of engaging in respectability politics,” said first-year Amelia Eskani. “I think Colorado College should cancel the screening because the safety and well-being of queer and trans* students surpasses the importance of a critical discussion.”
R.A.I.D. questions the legitimacy and effectiveness of any critical discussion following the film.
“Inevitably, some students will have the burden of informing other students as well as staff and faculty about the problematic aspects of the film,” R.A.I.D wrote. “The conversation will, yet again, put queer students in the position of having to teach to justify the validity of our feelings, which is emotionally draining, difficult, and frankly, not our job.”
But students who demand safe-space protection from art that doesn’t quite live up to expectations are truly pitiful. They will never be able to interact with anyone outside the pathetic bubble they have created for themselves.On the other hand, all the usual identity politics nonsense about marginalized people loses its oomph when the freakazoids self-marginalize.