Students on the Issues - The Laramie Project Sparks Debate on Values

The Laramie Project Sparks Debate on Values
By Jordan Osserman, 12th grade
2007 Role Models Today Writing Contest Winner
May 25, 2007

A few weeks ago, I watched my high school’s rendition of The Laramie Project, a play based on interviews conducted in Laramie, Wyoming, regarding the death Mathew Shepard, a local teenager brutally murdered for being gay. The characters in the play expressed a multitude of opinions on homosexuality, reflecting a microcosm of American views on the subject. The issues explored, however, extended far beyond the “gay debate,” examining the very core of what we consider our American values.

One theme central to the play was the varying ways in which individuals treat those perceived as different. Some characters felt that their small town needed to accept and embrace homosexuals. Others preferred more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; “alternatives lifestyles,” they felt, should be kept out of public view. Though none of the townspeople portrayed were violently homophobic, radical minister Fred Phelps from Topeka, Kansas, did make a cameo at the end of the show celebrating the murder of Shepard as a fulfillment of God’s will.

I think it’s safe to say that most Americans these days view the Phelpses of this country more as repulsive spectacles than as messengers of truth. After all, we are a nation apt to chastise those who utter intolerant words. Consider the backlash Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington faced when he directed a homophobic slur at co-star T.R. Knight or Mel Gibson’s press treatment after his anti-Semitic tirade. Clearly, we are offended by outright hatred. But are we really making any progress towards equality?

Indeed, for every celebrity the Anti-Defamation League demonizes for blurting out a prejudicial epithet, it seems that ten more states propose a ballot initiative on a gay marriage ban, that ten more “homosexual recovery centers” open up across America and that ten more legislators vote against including sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies.

Mathew Shepard’s death was mourned across the nation; newscasters flooded the town of Laramie after the murder, while thousands of sympathizers from California to New York offered their condolences through candlelight vigils and prayer circles. The country was outraged at the incident. But little changed once the pandemonium died down. A hate crime bill that included sexual orientation failed in the Wyoming state legislature, and the federal hate crime bill continues to this day to exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

The reason? As a nation, we promote artificial tolerance over genuine acceptance. We allow homophobes to sugar-coat their hatred through “pro-family” legislation, just as we give xenophobes a pedestal to promote anti-immigration policy. While we may repress loud intolerance, we allow the quiet markers of public prejudice to flourish.

Tolerance, after all, means nothing more than “putting up with” what we disagree with. It means bottling up our harshest hatred and expressing our bigotry through carefully crafted, politically correct rhetoric. It’s the “tolerant” ones who say they oppose gay marriage in the interest of “protecting tradition” and who promote racial profiling to “protect national security.”

In no way do I condone blatant hate. But I do feel that our focus on simply shutting up hateful individuals is doing us little good. Even the “live and let live” philosophy some promote encourages prejudicial conformity. Telling others to live their lives as they please, showing no interest in or acceptance of their unique backgrounds, does not create a climate of individual expression. Rather, it perpetuates conformity, creating a society in which gay partners remain afraid to hold hands in public just as Muslim women remain fearful of wearing their head coverings.

Instead, we must actively learn about and embrace those who we believe are different. We must practice acceptance. When we tolerate people, we divide them into groups and hope they’ll stay where they’re supposed to; when we accept people, we recognize the humanity in them that links us all. Obviously, beliefs will clash. The Jesus who provides salvation to Christians is little more than a wise man to Jews. But no matter what your religion, no prophet ever promoted the sort of prejudice running rampant today, and no god ever condoned the fate Mathew Shepard suffered.

Tolerance may be a nice in theory, but it does little in practice. By promoting acceptance, we can embrace our diversity, creating an America whose people are unafraid to express their individuality—an America where, as an attorney from the Human Rights Council said during the post-play discussion, The Laramie Project will be seen as nothing more than a period play.

SPONSORS

	©2003 Role Models Foundation, Inc., No part of this website may be used without the express permission of the author.