So the question that came to mind for me was; while being black in the 1960’s was difficult enough, what effect did being a gay man play in his role as an effective leader of the civil rights movement? Did it earn him further persecution, not just from whites of the time, but from his peers as well? Did it detract from the real focus of his cause or did it help him to elevate its importance? When I began this report, my thesis seemed to adequately reflect my intent. But as I became more familiar with Rustin’s early life, I felt compelled to introduce the highly contentious element of choice as it relates to homosexuality.
I could not ignore the research that lead me to preclude that Bayard Rustin made a clear choice to be, not just gay, but openly promiscuous as well. I will examine several examples in this paper that clearly illiterate that this decision caused his participation in the civil rights movement to take a very different path than it might have otherwise. First, let me support the thesis by legitimizing my main premise; that homosexuality is a choice. Second, allow me to illustrate specific occurrences where his choice caused his path in the civil rights movement to be altered.
And third, we can discuss whether these alterations influenced his overall effectiveness as a civil rights leader. In conclusion I hope to produce an honest dialogue and in this dialogue conclude that, whether for good or bad, Bayard Rustin’s choice to live as an openly gay man influenced his effectiveness as a contributor to the Civil rights movement. Homosexuality is a choice! My intention is not to turn this report into a dissertation about being homosexual, whether by birth or choice. But I do think that a good paper requires a firm foundation, so to that end I will begin here to build mine.
A good deal of today’s research points to the belief that homosexuality is a genetically inherent trait. Yet, conservatives pose a strong argument for choice. The only consistency I have found is that advocates on either side of the argument can interpret the data to fit their cause. Case and point: the interpretation of scripture. A strong argument used by those who see homosexuality as a willful and sinful choice. I quote Leviticus 20:13 from the King James Bible. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
From a Christian Liberal study entitled Homosexuality and the Scripture the author writes, “Correct Hebrew translation: “And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them. ” And goes on to say “it can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur. Culturally, a woman’s bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there.
Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. ” [ (Lighthouse Ministries 2002) ] But from “Literal Translation of the Holy Bible” a translation which its authors claim to be based on Jay P. Green Sr. ‘s Interlinear Greek-Hebrew-English Bible, quotes Leviticus 20:13 as this. “And a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing, dying they shall die; their blood shall be on them. [ (Olive Tree Bible Software 1998-2010) ] Because I am no Scholar of Greek and Hebrew language, I must accept the interpretations presented here by faith.
And therein lies my problem. When it comes to interpretive theory or scientific data I am convinced only of the fact that the proof was designed to justify the beliefs of its author. And there are plenty of authors on both sides of this argument. There are, of course accounts involving personal experience. Here I pose the question, what accounts are presented as truth and which are presented as justification? Is the account an honest portrayal of what the individual truly believes to be true for them or is it filtered through guilt and a desire to be justified in their decision.
One of the most honest accounts of a person’s acceptance of “queerness” that I have found comes from the journaling of Gayle Madwin, the founder of QueerbyChoice. com. Gayle writes, “5/19/99: I turned queer on approximately April 8, 1992—I didn’t think to write down the day until a month or so later, so I’m not positive which day it was, but that’s my best guess—at the age of 15. For me there was absolutely never any doubt that it was a choice. It was an incredibly mind-opening experience, and I doubt that I’ll ever make another choice quite as brilliant and life-changing as that one. [ (Madwin 2009) ] In another more middle of the road personal discussion “Eve” writes “Is Homosexuality a Choice? Does it really matter? ” In referring to the above mentioned website QueerbyChoice. com she views their message as one that “is all about throwing away the labels, acknowledging that sexuality is fluid and forever changing. What you like today may not be what you like tomorrow, or 10 years from now… that no matter how heterosexual or homosexual you are, there is always someone of either sex that you could fall in love with, or be attracted to.
Maybe you’ll never meet them, maybe you overlooked them because they weren’t what you usually go for biologically, but they’re there. ” [ (Eve 2001) ] There are those also, that go to extremes to justify their sexual choices, such as the representatives of Apostolic Restoration mission, who’s interpretation of some forty scriptures of the Bible to reflect Divine justification of homosexuality, such as Leviticus 20:13 illustrated above, conclude “The bottom line is, God created each of us with a sexual orientation.
To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to “re-create” itself. ” [ (Lighthouse Ministries 2002) ] Of the examples I’ve researched the gays most comfortable being gay reflect Danny’s words as he wrote in the AVERT publication “Young Gay Men Talking”, “”You should do what’s comfortable for you. If you feel that you’re ready to face the world and let them know your sexuality, great! Go For It! If (like me) the wash of feelings jars you in ways that don’t seem to fit with the rest of your nature, that’s Ok too.
It’s your life and if you choose to stay in the closet forever, well that’s cool too! I may never come out to anyone or I may do it slowly, one person at a time. But I do know that, whatever I do, I’ll do as me. The choices are mine to make. But many of us think that there are all sorts of good things about beginning to talk to people about your feelings. It’s a relief, you feel like you’re accepted for who you are, you find new friends, and you realize there are other people who have felt like you. It isn’t easier when you “come out”, but you do feel better about yourself. Frankham 2010) As you have, I’m sure, come to understand, I believe homosexuality to be a choice! You might think that I have no legitimate right to that claim. And, while I have cited the often conflicting research of others, I can also relate my own personal dealings with the subject. I was molested at the age of 8 by a boy twice my size and two years older. It was an event that would shape my ideas about sexuality as well as my choices. Five years ago I wrote this about my young life: “I started kindergarten a year late because I was so frail and sick from asthma.
I remember I felt weak and isolated. I had to be cared for continuously by my parents. I feel so sad now that I was such a burden to them. I’m still a burden. I guess some things never change. ” [ (leMaster 2005) ] And about the molestation; “’we spent the night in his parent’s camper in their back yard. He was two years older than me and much bigger. He asked me to perform a certain sex act. ‘I don’t understand what he means. What is he doing? ’” What I remember about that night is that he convinced me that this was ok.
I didn’t want to lose his friendship or his protection; if I close my eyes I can still smell the musk. [ (leMaster 2005) ] This incident left me confused about my sexual orientation for many years. Homosexual encounters provided me with the sense of empowerment and belonging. I found a way not to be that worthless little boy. At least for awhile, until the quilt set in. This was the secret life I lived, while to my peers I appeared normal. I dated. I played sports. I had sex. Today I can look back clearly because I no longer lack empowerment and belonging.
But up until 30 years ago fear and inadequacy drove me to choose homosexual relationships to feel loved and empowered. We all make choices and those choices shape our lives. The choices I make today are different than those I made thirty years ago, but one thing remains the same for me and for us all. Our choices are made based on the sum of our experiences; our loneliness, our guilt, our despair, our love, our laughter, our contentment. We are all born pure; a blank slate. What’s written is up to us. Now, Bayard Rustin was a Quaker and from this upbringing he drew his pacifist beliefs.
Not the first sentence one would expect to open the discussion of a person’s views about why they chose to be gay. But, if anything should be said of Rustin, it’s that he was anything but conventional. John D’Emilio writes of Rustin, “Rustin was wildly controversial in his lifetime. He had been a member of the Young Communists League in the 1930’s. He refused the call to defend his country after the United States had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Segregationists, of whom there were many and the anti-Communists, of whom there were even more, always had ammunition to fire in Rustin’s direction.
Rustin repeatedly found himself the target of the FBI, local police, conservative journalists, State Department officials, and anyone else beating the drums of patriotic fervor during the cold war decades. ” [ (D’Emilio, The Invisable Man 2003) ] To add to his controversy, he chose not just to be gay but very publically so and though I can find nowhere where Rustin speaks publically about why he was gay or shares his specific feelings about his gayness, I believe the following statement is made clear through his actions; he was a very sexual man who often could not control his passions.
He was open about his sexuality and never apologetic. A theme common to every aspect of Bayard Rustin’s life. And though his pacifist colleagues supported him through this persecution. D’Emilio writes, “it was not so for his homosexuality. Police locked him up. Judges humiliated him in the courtroom. Newspapers exposed him. Worst of all, friends, mentors, and close allies repeatedly abandoned him. [ (D’Emilio, The Invisable Man 2003) ] If Rustin could choose to repeat his past and review his decision to be openly gay, what would be different?
If you asked Rustin this question he would very quickly add, “Nothing”. Rustin was unapologetic with respect to any of the controversial personas he represented. But how would his history have been recorded differently. In fact up until recently history barely recorded Bayard Rustin at all, which is difficult to understand, given his immense contribution to highly notable activities such as the March on Washington, where Martin Luther King uttered the words, “I have a dream. ” John D’Emilio identifies three reasons for Rustin’s obscurity in the pages of our history.
First, Rustin was a communist. Second, Rustin was a pacifist and Third, Rustin was a gay man. [ (D’Emilio, Remembering Bayard Rustin 2006) ] He was born to a mother who herself was just a child. He was raised by his Grandmother Julia, an activist herself, whom he believed to be his mother until he was eleven, at which time he learned his real mother was a woman whom he had known as his sister Florence. [ (Brimmer 2007) ] Rustin grew up poor, yet was raised rich in values. He made no excuses and shoved aside anyone who stood as a barrier to what he believed to be his right.
He graduated high school at the top of his class in 1932. While in high school he was a star athlete and superior musician. He went on to Wilberforce College and continued to excel in music and theater; He began crisscrossing the country as fist tenor for the elite Wilberforce Quartet. [ (Brimmer 2007) ] Bayard Rustin, it would seem, purposefully chose characteristics that the world saw as a deficit, just so he could boldly and unapologetically overcome them and lead others so oppressed, successfully, against what he saw as an unjust society.
In the following examination of three significant events in Rustin’s life, a common thread emerges. The choice to be gay fit how Rustin lived his life. He made conscience choices that represented him as a minority in so many aspects of his life and he lived his life proving to others likewise oppressed, that each deficit could and should be overcome. On a couple of occasions prior to 1953 Rustin was arrested in parks for having sex with men. In Pasadena, Calif. , in 1953, he was again arrested for having sex with two men in a parked car, an incident that sent him back to jail for 60 days.
The Pasadena arrest devastated his political career. Even his closest friends and comrades, some of them, turned on him with a real fury. Because of the gay sex charge, Rustin was fired from the FOR staff. FOR stands for Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), a pacifist organization founded in 1914 by an English Quaker and a German Lutheran. [ (Rustin 2003) ] Even after this charge Martin Luther King took Bayard Rustin on as an advisor in 1956 and found his experience crucial to the success of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955.
But it was why, during the Montgomery boycott, Rustin had to operate virtually as a secret agent, whispering his advice to King, and why, in Washington in 1963, he had to conceal the full extent of his leadership. He was all too vulnerable to political attacks, and there was nothing he could do about it. [ (D’Emilio, The Lost Profit: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin 2003) ] In the early half of 1944 Rustin surrendered himself to federal Marshalls and began serving a twenty-seven month sentence for refusing to cooperate with the selective service system as he refused induction into the armed forces during WWII. (D’Emilio, Remembering Bayard Rustin 2006) ] Rustin was sent to a Federal prison in Kentucky at a time when the penal system practiced segregation. I examine this incarceration here because it changed Bayard Rustin. He was a black man. He was viewed as a non-patriot. And his expression of himself as a gay man in this circumstance created a brutal environment from which Rustin could not emerged unscathed. In Queer Ideas, John D’Emilio writes, “During his incarceration he was physically attacked by white southern inmates for his challenge to prison segregation.
He was resented by guards because of the perceived moral superiority he projected. He was despised by just about everyone – including himself – for the sexual desires he could not suppress and which brought him disgrace…Yet he came out of prison not broken, but toughened, not weakened but determined, the courage he displayed earlier (in his life) now so magnified that he knew he could face anything. ” [ (CUNY Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies 2003) ] God knows what we need even if we must suffer hell to obtain it.
Rustin would need this toughness again and again as he faced persecution in his stands for civil rights. If he had not been a man quick to profess his gay nature and able to suppress his nature, would he have received what God had intended and developed the qualities that would serve him so effectively as an advocate for civil rights? Bayard Rustin was the principal organizer and driving force behind the 1963 March on Washington. Yet, as we read history he is barely mentioned, if at all, until recent years. After the event he was prominently featured on the cover of LIFE magazine.
So why is Bayard Rustin not remembered with such prominence? During the formative planning process a committee was formed, of which Rustin expected to become the director. A meeting was held by the six primary members, the “Big Six”, to include Martin Luther King, Roy Wilkins from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Whitney Young, National Urban League; A. Philip Randolph, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and James L. Farmer, Jr. of the Congress of Racial Equality. (Ross 2007) ] John D’Emilio recounts the conversation through Rustin’s recollection like this, “He’s got too many scars,” Wilkins said, Randolph asked him to explain, and Wilkins trotted out the whole list of handicaps – the jail sentence during World War II, his association with communism during the 1930s, and, above all, the arrest in Pasadena. “This march is of such importance that we must not put a person of his liabilities as the head,” Wilkins told him. Randolph polled the others. Farmer defended Rustin’s abilities.
Never able to face down Wilkins, King hemmed and hawed. Finally, Randolph seemed to acquiesce and said that be would assume the role of director but, naturally, would choose his own assistants. Wilkins knew Randolph had outmaneuvered him. “You’ve got it, Roy,” [ (D’Emilio, Remembering Bayard Rustin 2006) ] So, in what could have been the pinnacle of his civil rights accomplishments, Rustin’s choice to be, not just gay, but openly and promiscuously so, and his choices to be radical in his stands, relegated him to a behind the scenes remembrance in the annuals of history.
Bayard Rustin is to be admired. Never did he compromise or apologize for what he believed to be right for him, for how he believed he should be treated and especially not for how he believed the world should treat each other. His life was identified with one minority status after another, from being black to being communist to being gay. Rustin appeared completely confident in his convictions and is described by D’Emilio as arrogantly so. [ (CUNY Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies 2003) ] So, the question has been answered.
Bayard Rustin’s choice to live as an openly gay man influenced his effectiveness as a contributor to the Civil rights movement. Is being gay a choice? With Rustin, does it really matter? His actions surrounding his sexual identity were a choice and in just a few abbreviated details of the circumstances in his life I find it impossible to conclude that it did not affect his effectiveness as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement. The paradigm is this. That as a gay man his effectiveness was both enhanced and defeated.
To what degree one balances the other, history is just now beginning to tell. Annotated Bibliography D’Emilio, John. The Lost Profit: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin. (New York: Free press a division of Simon and Shuster), 2003. The Author, John D’Emilio is a professor of history and of Gender and Women’s studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He uses extensive research and personal interviews with surviving friends and colleagues of Bayard Rustin to create a true profile of what he defines as a “man without a home in history”. William L.
VanDeberg states in his review of “The Lost Profit” “D’Emilio has done his homework. Utilizing personally collected interviews, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance reports, and documents from some two dozen archival collections, he provides readers with a detailed chronology of his subject’s personal and ideological evolution”. [ (VanDeberg 2005) ] This source, along with other sources were chosen because the author presents a true picture of Bayard Rustin’s contribution to the civil rights movement, both good and bad, positive and negative, without bias due to sexual politics.
The author relates his views on Rustin as an important figure in the movement for non-violence and intelligent strategy in the civil rights movement while also relating the persecution and ridicule Rustin’s political and personal patterns caused. CUNY Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies. Queer Ideas, The David Kessler Lectures in Gay and Lesbian Studies. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY, 2003. The authors in this collection of Kessler lectures has provided a forum in which the details of my subject, in this case Bayard Rustin could be shared in the full context of being a homosexual.
The City University of New York Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies was founded in 1991 as the first university-based research center in the United States dedicated to the study of historical, cultural, and political issues of vital concern to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals and communities. It is in the context of this lecture that John D’emilio, whom I have found to be not only an expert on Rustin but an obsessed historian.
As a forward to his lecture on Rustin in this text D’Emilio writes “ I have cared passionately about everything that I have researched and written, but for the most part, I have been able to write history from a comfortable distance…. Not so with Rustin. He’s there when I wake up in the morning and when I go to bed at night…” (CUNY Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies 2003). What better environment for intellectual disscussion than that created by the editor of this text or by he lecturer himself would there be for me to find a personal and emotional insight to the experiences afforded to Rustin as a gay activist for the civil rights movement. This text will contrast with others I will use in this thesis such as “We Are One: The story of Bayard Rustin” which presents Rustin’s story through Bayard’s own words and archival photographs and “A Time on Two Crosses: The collected writings of Bayard Rustin”. * Bibliography Brimmer, Larry Dane. We Are One: The Story of Bayard Rustin. Honesdale: Calkins Creek, 2007.
CUNY Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies. Queer Ideas, The David Kessler Lectures in Gay and Lesbian Studies. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY, 2003. D’Emilio, John. “Remembering Bayard Rustin. ” OAH Magazine of History, March 2006: 12-14. —. “The Invisable Man. ” The Crisis, August 2003: 32-35. —. The Lost Profit: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin. New York: Free press a division of Simon and Shuster, 2003. Eve. “Is Homosexuality A Choice. ” Gay and Lesbian Issues. March 1, 2001. http://www. suite101. com/article. fm/glbt_issues_life/59951 (accessed March 29, 2010). Frankham, Jo. “Gay and Lesbian Information. ” AVERT Averting HIV and AIDS. February 12, 2010. www. avert. org (accessed March 30, 2010). leMaster, Mark. A journaling of my life. Therapy journal, Defiance: unpublished, 2005. Lighthouse Ministries. “Homosexuality and The Scripture, Biblical Study: What the Bible does and doesn’t say. ” Apostolic Restoration Mission. 2002. http://www. apostolicrestorationmission. 4t. com/id27. htm (accessed March 12, 2010). Madwin, Gayle. A Journal. ” Queer by Choice. 2009. http://www. queerbychoice. com/gayle. html (accessed March 12, 2010). Olive Tree Bible Software. Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. Olive Tree, 1998-2010. Ross, Shmuel. “March on Washington. ” Infoplease. 2007. http://www. infoplease. com/spot/marchonwashington. html (accessed April 10, 2010). Brother Outsider. Directed by Bennett Singer and Nancy D. Kates. Performed by Bayard Rustin. 2003. VanDeberg, William L. “Book Review of “The Lost Profit: The life and Times of Bayard Rustin”. “
