Acknowledgement Does Not Equate Demand

By Caroline Zimmerman ’24

Houghton College has given me so many good things in the short amount of time I have been here. I have found support, love, knowledge, and new perspectives within the walls of this institution. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met are pursuing and providing education here. As with any institution or organization, however, there are flaws not only in set stances, but also in the unwritten and inferred stances. Acknowledging the ways that Houghton College has unintentionally fostered harm for marginalized students should not be seen as a problem on this campus. Foremost, acknowledging pain that has occurred within any community—and working to stop the furthering of that pain—should not be seen as attacking an inherent part of that community. 

Although Houghton has been subject to various criticisms throughout the years, there have been several interwoven situations that have amassed more concentrated amounts of criticism this semester. The We Are All Houghton exhibition began conversations on Houghton’s role in the negative experiences LGBTQ+ students have endured while attending this institution. Some students used this conversational platform to further explore LGBTQ+ issues on campus, and with voices beginning to be heard more people began to speak and share. This was shown in many different ways, as it was not an official organization or group, but rather the responses of individuals to the We Are All Houghton exhibition. Some students began having more conversations with friends and those holding opposing views. Others took to more tangible forms of expression: placing small, rainbow-painted rocks around campus, putting pins on jackets or backpacks, or wearing apparel with symbols of queer pride. Several individuals also came together to paint the Spirit Rock on campus with the colors of the rainbow. Unsurprisingly, painting the symbol of queerness on a prominent and highly visible symbol of campus caused a great deal of controversy. 

As I speak to the intentions of these and similar actions I need to be clear that although I myself am queer and have talked to many other members of the queer community at Houghton regarding these instances, I am not claiming to be anything close to the singular voice speaking for the LGBTQ+ presence on campus. This would be an absurd claim, as people in the LGBTQ+ community are just as diverse in thought and motivation as in any other community. That being said, the painting of the rock was meant, to me at least, as a way to show queer existence. Not queer acceptance, affirmation, or the demand for systematic change on this campus. So many of the problematic aspects of our society as a whole are rooted in the lack of exposure to people outside of our own realm of existence. The dehumanization, separation, and tale of superiority that is ingrained within the privileged at a young age foster an incredible amount of hatred and justification for discriminatory actions. This is far more apparent to the people affected by these harmful perspectives on a regular basis, and can appear to be nonexistent to the opposite side. Over the past week especially, I have seen this play out. Queer students are frustrated over the countless situations and hardships we have endured while on this campus, and the people who have not dealt with these same issues see no legitimate reason for the school to endure or validate the concerns presented by the queer community. 

This ignorance has far too much power in smothering the voices of the marginalized, and this is the main criticism I see of Houghton. One of the biggest misconceptions about any group trying to further their own humanization/validation in their existence is that their motivations are large and antithetical to the people/group being addressed. The individuals who painted the rock rainbow had no expectation of changing Houghton College’s stance on homosexuality with their paint. The intention was to express themselves, to increase their visibility as a part of the student body, and to compel those who have tried to paint over queer voices in the past to acknowledge the existence of these people. Immediately after this, assumptions of motivation were wildly thrown around, with many people being easily convinced that the rainbow rock was a demand for the morally righteous Houghton to change its stances, accepting all sexual expressions. Although I personally know that this was not the point of painting the rock, this example is rather unhelpful as the intentions of the original rock painters were in no way public. So, I look to a less interpretive example. 

The We Are All Houghton exhibition has been extremely clear and public in their mission and intended effects. According to the website for this exhibition, “… the goal of the piece is to amplify the voices of students who have felt marginalized in regard to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity…” at Houghton. Providing a platform for those who have silently suffered does not equate demanding theological change from a religious institution. Acknowledging and elevating the narratives of pain from students on this campus should not be dismissed for attacking the institution’s moral stances. It should be the groundwork on which conversations take place. It should be accepted for what it brings to the table, and should be used as a resource for what can be done to strengthen and support the community. Houghton College may face many criticisms, and many of them may be unjustified. A platform that is explicitly designed to amplify voices of the marginalized should not be viewed this way, however. When one looks at something and interprets and spreads the idea that it is trying to attack an institution that person has a strong affinity for, the well intentioned platform loses credibility and much of its ability to make a difference. Instead of looking at We Are All Houghton or even the Spirit Rock’s painting and repainting as divisive existences meant to challenge the very ideals of Houghton College, the discussion these things were meant to begin is cut short. This leaves the same voices unheard, and the same pain invalidated. Please, simply acknowledge that pain exists on this campus, and that whether or not the administration and their stances had a direct hand in administering this pain, they do have power to change the way everyone reacts to these instances. The support given by the administration to marginalized students does not require them to change their stances. It only requires them to prioritize people and their experiences, and take steps to create a less hate-fueled and pain-inducing atmosphere for students of all backgrounds and identities.