The Iowa City Mockjob?

On April 18, 2011, a student organization at the University of Iowa (UI) sent out a campus-wide email in which they repeatedly used a term more commonly associated with a different group of people.  For some reason, many people within the University (and the greater Iowa City community) responded by getting really, really upset.

Putting things in context
Two-and-a-half weeks ago, the UI College Republicans (UICR) chose to continue a tradition, dating back several years, of marketing a week-long string of recruitment events under the banner: “Conservative Coming Out Week.”  A campus-wide email publicizing said events included the following excerpts:

• “Conservatives in Iowa City it is now time to come out of the closet!”;
• “Friday: Wear RED Day! Come out of the closet and show your true colors!”
• “Should be a great week! Lets come out!” (emphasis mine)

In response, several people in the community — including, most notoriously, UI anthropology/women's studies Professor Ellen Lewin — criticized UICR’s decision to co-opt a phrase (i.e., “coming out”) that is widely considered synonymous with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights movement.

In reply to these criticisms, certain individuals affiliated with UICR have cried foul. For example, according to an Apr 21 article published in The Daily Iowan (DI):

John Twillmann, the chairman of the UI College Republicans, said that argument is faulty, because "coming out" is just a term that isn't copyrighted or owned by anyone.  "It's being open and honest," he said. "You can come out, come clean about many things, and we're coming out about being conservative."

In a guest opinion article published the following day, also in the DI, Natalie Ginty, chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, echoed Twillman’s basic argument:

Many have complained about the use of "coming out" in the title of the week. There is no patent placed upon the term, and making general assumptions about our beliefs is off base. The goal of "Conservative Coming Out Week" was for Republicans to be honest with their community to who they are: Republicans. I believe we accomplished just that.

Finally, in a third article, published in the Apr 26 issue of the DI, Ginty added:

"We're not insulting the community. It's purely about being honest with your community," she said. "They're [not] insulted by debutantes who use the words 'coming out' when they come out to society. Yet they're insulted by us. We're not trying to pick them out. It's just a clever title that we're going to use."

Embedded below is a video (courtesy of the DI website) that includes interviews with Twillman and Ginty, and addresses some of these issues in greater detail:




( Daily Iowan video feature )

Video in QuickTime format, click here for free player download

In reaction to these statements by Twillman and Ginty, I would say, first off, that they are absolutely correct in at least two respects: (1) the term “coming out” is not copyrighted, owned or patented by the LGBT community (or anyone else), so UICR has every right to use it; and (2) if, hypothetically speaking, it had been a student organization called the “UI College Debutantes” that had issued a campus-wide email featuring repeated usage of the term, “coming out,” then yes, I agree, the community would probably not have been insulted by this.

But my second — and far more salient — reaction to Twillman and Ginty’s statements is that they are completely glossing over the larger context of the situation.

The larger context, in my opinion, is that UICR is a student organization with explicit ties to a national political party that, by and large, campaigns and votes in direct opposition to the LGBT rights movement.  In other words, this is a case of a student group appropriating the language of a minority group that their parent organization generally works to denigrate and oppress.

Or, to put it a third way, whereas self-identifying as a “debutante” links oneself to a group that is completely neutral with respect to LGBT rights, self-identifying as a “College Republican” links oneself to a group that is generally perceived as antagonistic toward LGBT rights — it is this distinction that explains why certain members of the community (esp., those sympathetic to LGBT rights) would object to one group’s use of the term, “coming out,” but not to the other’s.

I have too much respect for the intelligence of these students and their advisers — and I’m not saying this to be cute, but in earnest — to believe for one second that they remain genuinely unaware of the loaded nature of using the phrase “coming out” in this context.  On the contrary, I believe that when the group first decided to organize a “Conservative Coming Out Week” at UI (beginning, I believe, in 2006), they were fully aware that doing so would be controversial and provocative.

A history of drawing heat
A closer examination of “Conservative Coming Out Week” (both past and present) only furthers my impression that at least part of the group’s objective is, to borrow a pro wrestling term, “draw heat” from (i.e., get a rise out of) those on the other side of the political aisle.  For instance, the above-referenced Apr 21 DI article states that:

The UI College Republicans faced some criticism in 2007 for hosting a capture the flag game called "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" as part of its second Conservative Coming Out Week. Two teams — the "illegal immigrants" and the "border patrol" — competed.

The same article references two additional events, both held in 2011, which have also invited controversy.  First, a so-called “Animal Rights BBQ,” held on Apr 21.  According to The DI:

The College Republicans have hosted similar cookouts in the past, which have mocked the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals by grilling a lot of meat (emphasis mine).

And second, an event held on Apr 20, which invited people to gather at the UI campus’ Pentacrest from 11 to 1 in order to: “Come pick up your Doctors' Notice to miss class for ‘sick of being stressed’, just like the Wisconsin public employees during the union protests.”  Commenting on the latter event, Ginty said:

"We're obviously somewhat mocking the union protesters in Wisconsin and how some of them skipped work to go to the Capitol and protest" (emphasis mine).

It is difficult to reconcile, on on hand, such blatant acts of provocation toward those who support certain “liberal” positions (e.g., amnesty for illegal immigrants, animal rights, and pro-labor/unions) with, on the other hand, statements by Twillman and Ginty implying that appropriating the term “coming out” was somehow not meant to provoke those who support LGBT rights.

Yet that is precisely what they statements are asking me to believe: that the group’s continuing decision to use the term “coming out” — despite all the controversy and offense that doing so consistently generates year after year — is “purely about being honest with [their] community” (emphasis mine). Forgive me if I choose instead to interpret these statements as disingenuous.

In public discourse, as in pro wrestling, context matters
Okay, so brumpelstiltskin must confess that the whole “coming out” controversy directly inspired the previous post about the “Montreal Screwjob” (of pro wrestling fame).  The original campus-wide email circulated by UICR just sort of sounded like something that a pro wrestling scriptwriter could have composed, and surely their appropriation of “coming out” is not a million miles away from Shawn Michael’s appropriation of the Sharpshooter (at least to the curious mind of a recovering WWF fan).  That said, in the aftermath of the Montreal Screwjob, Michaels and Vince McMahon didn’t proceed to gloss over the context or feign bemusement as to why Bret Hart and his fans got so upset with statements like: “There is no patent placed upon use of the Sharpshooter."

But, to be serious, this ridiculous and obscure analogy of mine also breaks down in the sense that — unlike the simplified black-and-white world of pro wrestling story lines, where Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were irreconcilable “opponents” of each other — in the real world, Republicans and the LGBT community are not enemies.  Sure, a majority of GOP leaders tend to vote in opposition to LGBT rights, but this does not mean that all Republicans oppose gay rights (or that all Democrats support them).  Indeed, I would be very surprised if there are not current UICR members who actually support LGBT rights, and were embarrassed by the email (not to mention other students who would have considered joining the group, but were turned off by “Conservative Coming Out Week”).

Which is why I feel “Conservative Coming Out Week” is such a shame.  In my opinion, all it does is perpetuate oversimplified cultural-political stereotypes and discourage bipartisan dialogue on substantive issues.  And yes, I also believe that if the goals of UICR are to recruit more students to their cause, and to feel more accepted in the community, then this particular approach ultimately works against their best interests.

All that said, UICR leaders are of course entitled to continue organizing “Conservative Coming Out Weeks” in the future. But if they do, I hope they won't act surprised if their decision is once again perceived as a deliberate act of mockery.

The Montreal Screwjob

On November 9, 1997, the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) produced a pay-per-view extravaganza featuring a main event in which one of the wrestlers defeated his opponent by using a “finishing maneuver” more commonly associated with a different wrestler.  For some reason, the wrestler who lost the match (and his fans) responded by getting really, really upset.

Putting things in context
Everybody knows that professional wrestling, generally speaking, is fake. Ah, but “generally speaking” is not the same as “always.”

Surely the most notorious instance of pro wrestling “breaking script” transpired during the main event of the 11th annual WWF Survivor Series — better known as the “Montreal Screwjob” — in which then-WWF Champion Bret “The Hit Man” Hart, put his title on the line against arch-rival, Shawn “Heartbreak Kid” Michaels, before a sold-out Molson Centre in Hart’s home country of Canada.

Michaels applies the Sharpshooter

As is typical in pro wrestling, a basic script for how the match would unfold had been agreed upon ahead of time by Hart, Michaels, and WWF owner Vince McMahon. Hart, who had recently signed a contract with the WWF’s principal rival, WCW — set to take effect one month after the Survivor Series — recognized that he would need to “lose” the WWF championship prior to leaving the company, but he and McMahon disagreed on the specifics of how this storyline should be written.

McMahon wanted Hart to "job" (i.e., lose cleanly) to Michaels in Montreal, but Hart refused: partly because he didn't want to lose the title in Canada, where he was considered a sort of national hero; but also because he and Michaels had significant bad blood towards each other — not just "on camera," but in real life.  As a result, Hart, Michaels, and McMahon mutually decided that the match would end in a disqualification — meaning that the title would not change hands — and that Hart would then willingly abdicate the title to McMahon the following evening on Monday Night Raw.

The specifics of the match script hinged on a scenario in which Michaels, late in the match, would lock Hart into the Sharpshooter — The Hit Man’s own signature submission hold — which promised to “draw heat” from the fiercely pro-Hart, Canadian audience. But then, after a few tense moments in this predicament, the agreement was that Hart would escape from the hold; and that, soon thereafter, three of Hart’s allies (his brother, Owen Hart; “The British Bulldog” Davey Boy Smith; and Jim “The Anvil” Neidhart”) and two of Michaels’ allies (Triple H and Chyna) would collectively interfere in the match, eventually resulting in a double disqualification.

This, at least, was the plan.

But in a shocking, real-life twist, McMahon and Michaels (along with other WWF higher-ups) met the day prior to the event and together crafted a secret plot to double-cross The Hit Man. As a result, what actually came to pass was that, when Michaels applied the Sharpshooter, referee Earl Hebner almost immediately waved his hand to declare the match over and Michaels the victor, even though Bret Hart had very clearly not submitted. In the video (embedded below), you can actually hear McMahon — who was standing immediately ringside — order the timekeeper to “ring the bell!” You can also see a genuinely astonished Bret Hart spit directly into McMahon’s face.



After spitting on McMahon, Hart would go on to destroy much of the WWF's ringside broadcast equipment. Hart's supporters were also livid, including many of the other wrestlers, some of whom threatened to leave the company as a direct result of McMahon's betrayal (at least one, "Ravishing" Rick Rude, did leave).  Another high-profile wrestler, Mark Calaway (aka "The Undertaker"), confronted McMahon after the event and demanded that he publicly apologize to Hart. Later that evening, when approached by McMahon backstage, Hart delivered a single punch to McMahon's face, knocking him to the ground and leaving him with a black eye.

Many fans in the audience were equally incensed; some threw garbage at McMahon, and others pushed Michaels, as they retreated to the locker room.  To this day, many wrestling fans around the globe have still not forgiven them.

But despite all the backlash, McMahon's plan had succeeded, and the damage was irreversibly done. As if deceiving Hart into losing his final match to his bitterest rival in front of his own countrymen wasn’t humiliating enough, the cruel and ironic culmination of McMahon and Michael’s scheme — which portrayed Hart as having submitted at the hands of his very own "trademark" maneuver — ensured that the ultimate insult would be added to injury.

---

If you're interested in learning more about the Montreal Screwjob, I'd recommend a documentary called Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows, now available on Netflix Watch Instantly.