Deadline (59 page)

The newspapers also contain various 800 numbers to “get you in touch with other hot guys.” They contain pay-by-the-minute sex simulation 900 numbers. They tell you where you can go to see homosexual X-rated movies right here in town, and “meet new friends.” “All Boy’s Company,” advertised with a bare-chested young man, is billed as our state’s “largest male escort service.” It promises to provide you with “stunning guys as young as eighteen.” (Am I missing something, or is this not-so-thinly-veiled prostitution—which is illegal?)

I went to the librarian and nicely pointed out these materials to her. I explained I didn’t think the library was the place to distribute them. I’m a journalist—nobody’s bigger on the first amendment than I am. But when it comes to distributing phone numbers and addresses of those soliciting sex, it just seemed a bit outside the scope of services of a tax-funded public library.

The librarian seemed uneasy, but assured me “we have to carry these newspapers.” She gave me a complaint form to fill out and mail to the main library, which I did. Just yesterday I got my reply from Linda Colter, the director of libraries for Lytle County. Ms. Colter assures me “these publications provide important information for members of the gay and lesbian community and others interested in that community.” She points out, “A library’s collection mirrors society.” They will continue to make these newspapers available, in multiple quantities, at all our county libraries.

I’m delighted our libraries carry a diversity of opinions, including many with which I disagree. This is America. But the director’s statement, “A library’s collection mirrors society” isn’t entirely accurate. Society contains racism, but the library doesn’t mirror it by circulating the
Skinhead Monthly.
Society has organizations of pedophiles, but the library doesn’t pass out child molesting literature with phone numbers of available children. Society has drugs, but the library doesn’t pass out information on where to buy drugs in this city. Society has a lot of people, both heterosexual and homosexual, looking for younger and more attractive sex partners, but our libraries have never felt compelled to assist them in linking up. Not until now.

I think back to myself and my two best friends, growing up thirty-five or forty years ago, dropped off by our parents at the town library. I suppose they knew we could sneak a look at naked pygmies in
National Geographic
, but what would they have thought—what would we have thought—if the library put into our hands printed materials containing sensuous pictures and specific sexual propositions from men in the area, complete with phone numbers and mail boxes?

Carly, from whom I’ve learned a lot the last few months, helped me think this through. We talked about all the lonely confused young people looking for love and attention, paging through these newspapers. Flattered they’re “wanted,” or just curious, how many young people might go ahead and call one of these numbers? Carly thinks some will.

I understand, of course, that such newspapers exist, and anyone can pick one up in a gay bar. Fine. But most of us don’t send our children to gay bars. We
do
send them to the county library. As far as I know, the library doesn’t carry
Hustler
and child pornography, so perhaps this same responsible willingness to self-censor could be applied to these newspapers without fatally wounding the first amendment.

This isn’t just a homosexual issue. I would also object to the library passing out newspapers full of heteroerotic pictures, advertisements for escorts, 900 sex lines, and want-ad solicitations for heterosexual sex partners. Surely sexual propositions geared to the young aren’t appropriate just because they’re made by homosexuals, are they?

Realistic parents know that in a free society there will be any number of people wanting to sway and seduce our children. Many of us, though, will not think it unreasonable that our tax-funded county library refrain from serving as their distribution arm.

I realize that in the shadow of the political correctness that substitutes labeling and name-calling for intelligent dialogue, I will be dismissed by many as a homophobic puritanical bigot, or a religious nut. To be honest, that’s exactly how I’ve labeled people many times myself in this very column. I hope to refrain from such labeling in the future.

I finish with just one question for those determined to take the path of political correctness to its ultimate embrace of any and all forms of diversity. If today our tax-funded libraries say they
must
provide our children with newspapers containing erotic pictures, prostitution services and solicitations for sex partners, what will they feel they
must
provide for our children tomorrow?

Sue set down the newspaper, folding it almost reverently, then quietly got down on her knees.

The stocky man walked by Jake Woods’s car on Morrison, nonchalantly staking it out, watching who might be watching him. The steady foot traffic served more as a cover for his actions than a deterrent to them. The modern mind-your-own-business city people focused on their own concerns, and really didn’t care about the man leaning down to pick up a quarter he’d dropped. While he picked up the quarter with his left hand, his right hand slipped under the side of the Mustang, moving the device in his palm until it attached securely to the undercarriage. He put the quarter in his pocket and disappeared into the flow of pedestrians.

* * *

Three o’clock. Time for the multiculturalism committee meeting.
Jake was nervous. This time he had a few things for the agenda. He came at the last moment and sat by Clarence. There always seemed to be a seat or two open by Clarence.

Jess Foley started the meeting.

“We’ve gotten a number of letters saying we’re not being fair and balanced in our treatment of both sides of the so-called ’No Special Rights for Homosexuals’ campaign.” Jess waved his hand. “I know, I know, a lot of us object to the terminology. We’ve made that clear in our coverage, I think. When we ran that front page letter from the publisher against the proposal last week, it made some waves. We’d never done anything like that before, and a lot of people seem to have resented it, think it demonstrates a lack of objectivity on our part. My question is, can we find any good points made by the other side without compromising how deeply we feel about it? Anything to make us come across a bit more objective and balanced?”

There was an awkward silence, until Pamela said, “That’s like asking for a balanced view of the holocaust.”

Jake took a deep breath and jumped in.

“I’m glad you raised this issue, Jess. I agree we should try to be more objective on this thing. As for comparisons to the holocaust, don’t they trivialize the real holocaust? I mean, the holocaust wasn’t about whether those who do certain sexual acts deserve preference in employment and housing. It was about herding people into rail cars, dumping them at death camps, stripping them naked, and murdering them with poison gas. Am I missing something, or is this comparison totally out of line? If we stigmatize people as Nazis just because they don’t want to be forced to hire a homosexual as their church choir director, is that objective journalism?”

Several started to respond at once.

“Hold it, hold it.” Jess stuck his finger in the dam. “This issue has dominated our discussion the last two meetings, and I don’t want to get into it again. Most of us, myself included, have deep feelings against this piece of legislation. Fine. Let’s just try to get a little balanced coverage in there, if possible. Now let’s move on. What else have we got today?”

“Sorry, Jess,” Peter Sallant said, “but in the last month
homosexual
has appeared on the Forum page nearly a dozen times. The correct term is
gay.
That’s what the movement calls itself and that’s what we need to call it. Somebody over in Forum needs to watch it more carefully.”

Clarence asked, “How many of the dozen references were made in editorials or columns, and how many were in letters to the editor?”

“Some were in letters, the others were in a column … ironically, written by someone who’s a member of this committee. Jake, I have to say that column on gay literature at the library was incredibly bigoted and demeaning. I’d hope you’d be more sensitive than this. That’s the kind of article that stirs up violence. We’ve got a hate crime commission trying to get on top of this thing, and then you write a hate piece like that. Who knows what some homophobe’s going to do? Maybe bomb a library?”

Jake started to respond, but Clarence beat him to it. “Bomb a library? Give me a break, Peter. And ’hate piece? Lay off the guilt trips, will you? You’re concerned about the column’s effects, but you don’t seem to care whether or not it was true. Was
anything Jake
said inaccurate? Remember, he didn’t go out looking to write that column. He was just a father going with his daughter to the county library and he gets this stuff shoved down his throat … and hers. What’s he supposed to do? Show me just one thing in that column that was hateful.”

Clarence didn’t pause long enough for anyone to take him up on the offer.

“And as for
homosexual
, he shouldn’t be forced to use
gay
any more than you should be forced to use
sodomite.
”

He was looking at Peter, Pamela, and Myra. Several gasps surfaced, but Clarence went right on.

“Well, look it up, for crying out loud. That used to be the standard term. Okay, I can buy using
homosexual
which sounds pretty neutral. But to tell our reporters or columnists they have to say
gay
is totally out of line. And as for the letters to the editor, what are you thinking, Peter? Are we going to start censoring the public now? We can coerce ourselves to be politically correct—we shouldn’t but we can—but we can’t control our readers.”

Clarence looked around the room, astounded at the silence. “Well, can we?”

“We all know there’s a selection process as to which letters are printed,” Myra said. “If people use offensive and bigoted language, we’re responsible to screen it. We have no obligation whatsoever to print someone’s letter. Either we change the words or we don’t print the letters, as far as I’m concerned.”

“Now that this subjects come up,” Jake interjected, “I had a friend who was interviewed by the
Trib
maybe three months ago. He used the term
prolife
a number of times in the interview, but in the article,
prolife
was changed to
anti-abortion.
”

“So?” Myra looked at him and shrugged her shoulders.

“So … that’s not what he said. It was a misquote. It was wrong. Untrue. False.” Jake kept coming up with synonyms because Myra’s expression told him she wasn’t getting the point.

“Jake, you know it’s
Trib
policy not to use
prolife
,” Jeremy said. “We always say
anti-abortion.
That’s nothing new.”

“We do, but we weren’t quoting ourselves. We were quoting someone else. I’m not sure I believe we’re having this discussion. What right do we have to put our words in someone else’s mouth? And if we’re concerned about other special interests groups, how come we don’t try to be sensitive to prolifers?”

After a long pause, Jenny Mendez said, “Maybe because they’re not oppressed. For that matter, they’ve been responsible for a lot of the oppressing.”

“Now there’s a bigoted statement if I’ve ever heard one. At least you’re admitting we’re being unfair. We’ve singled them out, haven’t we? We’re retaliating against them because we don’t like what they stand for. They haven’t been oppressed as much as some groups, so we’ll make up for it by oppressing them ourselves, is that it? Not blatantly, just in subtle ways, semantics and terminology. We have these standards of fairness and we apply them to everyone except groups we don’t like.”

His discussions with Leonard and Clarence and Sue and his thoughts of the last months welled up inside Jake. Then he remembered something Finney had said in the letter that never made it to the
Trib.

“Didn’t I just hear someone say we should call a group what it calls itself? Fine. What do the prolifers call themselves? Prolifers. So why do we call them anti-abortionists? What do evangelical Christians call themselves? Evangelical Christians. So why are we always calling them right-wing fundamentalists and things like that? I just don’t get it. And for that matter, since this multiculturalism committee exists to foster fairness toward various groups, why are other groups represented while conservative Christians aren’t?”

“Clarence is a Christian, isn’t he?” Jess Foley asked. “And he’s conservative.”

Several guffaws suggested Jess had made an understatement.

“Sure,” Jake said. “But that’s not why you put him on the committee, is it? Isn’t he here because he’s black—I mean, African-American’? Whenever he’s represented a Christian position, at least since I’ve been on this committee, everybody gets angry and starts name calling. We’ve had, what, a half dozen sensitivity training sessions for reporters the last few years? I’ve been at three or four of them, but not once has anyone talked about being sensitive to religious people, people who believe in God, and church or prayer. Most of us are already much more sensitive to the other groups than to them. Why shouldn’t we learn how to be sensitive to them too?”

“Well, listening to you preach at us and reading your column recently, it’s pretty clear the right-wing fundamentalists now have
two
representatives on this committee.” It was Myra again, and she made no attempt to hide her disgust.