Glennalicious

« Miles and miles | Main | Road trip, Day 1 »

July 16, 2004

An Ambiguous Virgin Performing Services for the Master

Since I am new to this gig as a guest blogger, I want to fully exploit my virgin status to plead for patience in the face of my clumsiness, although I know most of the audience to be friendly. Here it goes …

After the death of my new air conditioner a little over a week ago, today was the big day: my compatriot, Kate, generously served as my chauffeur this morning to return the air conditioner and exchange it for a better one. It was a simple operation, leading to a long lunch afterwards at an Italian restaurant in my neighborhood where we ruefully reflected on a legal case that will impact us next fall. A ruling had finally been handed down by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the case of Brown University and the question of whether its graduate students had the right to organize a union as employees since they teach while doing their grad schooling (see current NY Times for full story, under “Education”). A little background: for several years, I have been involved in the unionization movement at Columbia University, my home turf, which culminated in a three week strike at the end of this spring’s semester. While the strike went into hiatus for the summer, we eagerly awaited a possible ruling on our own case before the NLRB in the hope that it would affirm that we are employees.

The whole argument, more or less, hinges on whether what graduate student teachers do is “work” or a “service”. Many moons ago, NYU grad students won the case that set the precedent determining grad students at private universities as employees (public universities, such the state ones, can unionize; they are covered by state law, not federal law—it’s a confusing place, this country, with all of these overlapping jurisdictions, but I digress even more …). Yesterday, the NLRB overturned that ruling; they overturned the NYU precedent, ruled against Brown and, ipso facto, ruled against our case. In effect, we lost—big time. We don’t fit the traditional model of master-servant relations that governs all paid jobs (yes, all of you with jobs are technically servants: who’s your master?). Instead, we’re students, and the “work” that we do is akin to reading a book: just a little bit more learning. I can only assume that part of the initiation into a professorship is a lobotomy so that I stop learning as soon as I begin to work, like, for real.

Okay, so my little success with the air conditioner was tempered, but did I let that rule my day: no way! As I ambled down Broadway leisurely completing errands, though, I heard an approaching voice behind me, incanting “Sir … Sir, do you believe in the rights of gays and lesbians to marry?” I turn—only slightly—to state flatly that I don’t believe in the institution of marriage at all, figuring such a revelation shut the book on that one. My dismissal, though, didn’t stop this voice from asking whether I—at least—supported the rights of gays and lesbians. At that, I took pause, looked at this earnest representative from HRC, and didn’t have a good answer. Of course, the answer to the second question is: “Yes, I do” (an ironic choice of words at this moment, if ever there were any). However, that answer was not the HRC representative’s point; she wanted to bully me into admitting that, certainly, in the end, after a moment’s thought, yes, I do support gay marriage. Still, I don’t, … or “kind of” don’t. In the great rush to city hall, I wonder: since when did we clamor for the state and institutionalized religion to bestow upon us an imprimatur of authenticity? Admittedly, the benefits accrued through marriage do make the project worthwhile for couples, such as expedited immigration processes, hospital visitation privileges, tax breaks of different sorts, and so on. I understand the “bennies” argument; it has tangible appeal.

Nevertheless, what I find troubling is marriage seems like the only future vision of queer relationships. It’s the exclusion set up by marriage that irritates me. I’m not sure that it produces equality insomuch as it sets up new norms, suggesting that those who don’t marry, for whatever reason, should not partake of the benefits banquet (there are the deserving queers and then there are the undeserving queers). Besides, I want to know why marriage was chosen as the way to achieve these benefits. Many of them could be won through various legal cases and different precedents, although no way likely could be the blockbuster of marriage making. Why not advocate for a project similar to the Pacte Civil de Solidarite in France in which a variety of households with different cohabitation arrangements gain tax breaks equivalent to those realized through marriage? In this program, primary relationships are recognized whether straight, gay, lesbian and beyond. If someone’s chief relationship is with friends or a distant family member (given that they live together, have intertwined their living expenses, and fulfilled other criteria), then they gain the perks, like hospital visitation and so on. Intuitively, I feel that HRC and such folks don’t offer such proposals because it liquidates the very identity they seek as ground, an ambiguity I would gladly live with so long as it produces more “freedoms to” in a world in which the trend is toward “freedoms from”.

Needless to say, the HRC rep didn’t have to hear my speech making (you all did, if you made it this far) because I did concede that gays and lesbians do deserve rights. At which point, she promptly pushed a clipboard at me and asked if I would like to bankroll my beliefs by having a monthly donation removed my account …

Posted by G at July 16, 2004 08:41 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.glennalicious.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/180

Comments

Posted by: Glenn at July 16, 2004 09:08 PM

Posted by: barry at July 17, 2004 02:48 PM

Posted by: PatCH at July 18, 2004 09:16 AM