• About the Center
• Programs & Services
• About the Carriage House
• News & Events
• OUTlines
• Library
• Community Resource Guide
• Become Involved
• Interactive
• Room Reservation
• Alumni
• Prospective Penn Undergraduates
• Make a Donation
• Suggestions
• Contact Us
• myLGBTC
•  
• 

Wrestling with Hip-Hop & the Homophobe

I am a hip-hop fanatic. I grew up with it in my home. Before cassette tapes completely displaced records Chubb Rock, Kid-N-Play, K-Solo, and Salt-N-Pepa were played in my household on a phonograph! The phonograph was classic. It was far from those high-tech turntables that Jam Master Jay used. On our record player, it was one album at a time.

Once cassette tapes completely took over the music market, my step-father blasted EPMD and Eric B. & Rakim in his ‘86 Buick. In later years my brother bought Wu Tang Clan and Bone Thugs ‘n Harmony into the household much to my mother’s dismay. When compact discs emerged and I had some disposable income of my own I bought Mase (yes I did), Nas, and DMX. Now in the computer age of MP3s and file sharing, I listen to the latest Rocafella production, G-Unit anthem, or Southern crunk music that I can click and download (legally of course). I am officially a hip-hop junkie.

After a year working at the LGBT Center as a work study student, my hip-hop fanaticism has taken a blow. Some of the music moves me a little differently than it did when I listened to it in my pre-straight-but-not-narrow days. I do not laugh the same way I did when I hear Eminem’s joking word play, “hey it’s me/Versace/whoops somebody shot me/and I was just checkin the mail/ get it? checkin the male.” I bob my head in the affirmative when I hear Biggie instruct people on the ten crack commandments, “Seven /keep your family and business completely separated.” Then I cringe in preparation of the offensive concluding statement to the seventh crack commandment, “money and blood don’t mix/like two d***s and no b****h/find yourself in serious s**t.” Before I only noticed supreme lyrical fitness. Now I notice a dreadful toxin called homophobia (there is sexism too, but it deserves its own article).

I own Biggie’s Life After Death as well as Eminem’s Marshall Mathers LP. How can I consider myself an LGBT ally and still support such offensive content? The difficulty I have is that some of their lyrics are quite insightful. I love crack commandment number six, “That god damn credit/dead it/ you get a crack head paying you back/ just forget it.” I am humored when Eminem mocks American society under the Clinton administration, “I’m sorry there must be a mix-up/ You want me to fix up lyrics/ while our president gets his d**k sucked?” I chuckle when he mocks parents saying, “Get a sense of humor/Quit tryin’ to censor music/This is for your kids amusement/But don’t blame me when little Eric/ jumps off of the terrace/ You should’ve been watching him/Apparently you ain’t parents.” What if I stop buying the albums altogether? Am I still a hypocrite if I listen to their music on the radio or borrow a friend’s copy?

If you want some cookie cutter solution that solves the apparent inconsistency between advocacy and music consumption in hip-hop, I can not provide one. Life is full of inconsistencies because people are human, and thus fallible. As an individual I can provide a human response to how I reconcile directly or indirectly supporting the homophobia that I sometimes hear in hip-hop.

Hip-hop music is not an inherently homophobic art form. All hip-hop artists do not suffer from homophobia despite the fact that some hip-hop lyrical content has become more expressively homophobic over the years. I will completely stop listening to hip-hop when and if the genre becomes one and the same with homophobia. For those artists that I listen to but occasionally show their ignorance I borrow an analogy from Penn’s recent guest Jesse Jackson. My music consumption is much like the digestive system. I utilize the nutritious parts and excrete the waste. When an artist’s musical waste exceeds its musical nutritional value it must be removed from my diet. For you economic geeks, when the marginal cost of consuming an artist’s music exceeds its marginal benefit it is no longer efficient for me to consume that artist’s music.

As an ally to the LGBT community I hope that my actions speak louder than the offensive words sometimes spoken in the music that I consume.

~Alex Breland

French Propaganda

It is well know that Europe is more accepting of homosexuals than the United States…or at least it was to me before I left for Lyon, France this past August. I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect when I arrived, though. What I found was more than I had anticipated. The concepts of gender and sexuality are seen in completely different lights in Lyon. They are less of a social construct and more open to interpretation and reinvention…I’m not implying that homosexuality was everywhere or that I never encountered adversity to the issue; however, the atmosphere was, in general, a much more accepting one.

I think my first experience with the queer world in France was observing the relationship my host mother had with our upstairs neighbors. They were two younger men, living together, who were unfortunately having some relationship problems. Every so often my host mother would go and have tea with one of the men and talk for hours about how she understood how hard it was to have these problems in a relationship and how easily she could relate to him. She would come back from his apartment each time reciting the same phrase, “No matter how different we are, we all desire only to be loved.” (She said it in French, of course). I think the first few times she did this, I was amazed. Many straight women her age in this country would never think to try and console this man, let alone sympathize with him. The sheer fact that she could look beyond the fundamental differences between her relationship with her husband and his relationship with his own husband was amazing to me.

The next thing that really stood out to me was the fact that in Lyon, there is no “Gaybor-hood”, let alone many gay clubs. At first I thought this was horrible. How could a city that seemed so open have no niche where these people could feel safe, amongst themselves? Then I realized something, they don’t need to hide in a specialized neighborhood or clubs, because they are welcome everywhere. You walk into clubs and bars to see gay couples and straight couples existing and socializing side by side, enjoying themselves and not focusing on who’s kissing who. Also, in Lyon was the first time I ever saw two men holding hands in a university setting. I don’t even remember anyone looking at them, questioning why or if they were together. I was forced to think what the reaction on Penn’s campus would be to such a spectacle. I think these two men, if transported thousands of miles west over the ocean to Penn’s campus, would certainly turn a few heads, and it saddens me.

Another difference I noticed was the dissimilarity in advertising and popular culture in France. Coming from a culture where everything is so geared toward gender and heterosexual couples, it was a real change to see the media in France detached from these two issues. Sure, tampons are still geared toward women, in dresses, with lots of pink surrounding them, but besides that, the techniques are totally different. Nearly nothing is geared toward body image, or “the perfect_______.” Fill in what you may.

So what’s the point of all this French propaganda you may ask? I’m not exactly sure. One thing I can confidently say is that it changed me. I can no longer sit back and watch people blatantly be homophobic, or mock others because of their differences. Having lived in a society that, for the most part, could care less about who falls in love with whom, I can’t help but want to see that mentality, that change, come to my own country…and I long for the day when everyone can share this aspiration.

~Nikki Riley

Linking Oppressions

A month into the new semester and I am tired. I’m tired of reading articles and typing papers. I’m tired of looking for jobs and creating cover letters. I’m tired of not getting enough sleep and of not having enough money. And I am tired of having the same conversation over and over with people I think should know better. African-Americans, who have a history of being discriminated against on the basis of their skin color, are reluctant to recognize the commonalities between the oppression they face and the oppression LGBT people face.

I am not saying that Black people and gay people are the same, but if people are willing to take a serious look at the issues, they are likely to see the same ugly face of hatred staring at them from racists as they do from homophobes and heterosexists. Black people with whom I have had conversations typically say that the two groups cannot be compared because you can visibly see that someone is Black and you cannot tell that someone is LGBT. There is growing evidence that scores of people are routinely harassed because of real or perceived sexual orientation signifying discrimination for LGBT people can be based on appearance.

What frustrates me is Black people so easily recognize and are very vocal about the injustices we have endured and yet refuse to see how LGBT people face some of the same injustices. Black people have been denied jobs for being Black just as LGBT people have. Black people have suffered physical attacks for what someone perceived as the inappropriate way to look just as LGBT people have. Blacks have been denied housing in certain areas based on their appearance just as LGBT people have. Black people have been denied the right to marry the person they love just as LGBT people have. To deny the reality of these injustices is to simply deny the humanity of an entire group of people.

Denying that LGBT people are actually people is one of the major reasons I believe homophobia is so widespread. In essence, homophobic people feel that the problem is one of behavior, not personhood. Religious people cloak it in the language “love the sinner, hate the sin”. For Black people, this may be particularly true given the prominence the church has in the community. As long as homosexuality is associated with a behavior and not a person, no one has to take responsibility for the hateful things that happen to LGBT people. No one has to be held accountable because LGBT people have brought it all on themselves. The individual homophobe is absolved of her/his/hir obligation to treat her/his/hir fellow human beings with respect and the government is absolved as well from its obligation to protect the rights of all of its citizens.

Black people who know firsthand what it is like to be denied basic rights have a blind spot when it comes to LGBT issues. Individuals and institutions alike are no less rabid in their attempts at dehumanizing LGBT people as they were and sometimes still are in dehumanizing Black people. When everyone begins to realize this, we can get on with the business of fighting hatred and injustice instead of each other. When everyone begins to realize this, I will probably still be reading articles and typing papers. I probably will not be looking for a job and I won’t need a cover letter. I probably will still not be getting enough sleep or have enough money, but I won’t be drained from these conversations because people will know better.

~Donique McIntosh

OUT & In-Focus: Roberto Rivera-Amezola SW’96

As I waited for Roberto to arrive, I couldn’t help but think about what kind of questions I would ask. What if what I had in mind was completely inappropriate? My mind seemed restless. Fortunately enough, it wasn’t long before he walked in. Roberto gave off a sense of tranquility and vigor. It didn’t take us long before we were comfortably conversing like two acquaintances, trying to get to know each other. Talking to him felt like talking to a brother, a Mexican hermano.

Born in El Paso, Texas, Roberto was never really interested in the Mexican culture as a child. His mother, who was Mexican and who had come to this country as a teenager, put emphasis on his learning English, fearing that in the United States he would find only disdain and contempt for being Mexican. It would take him some years before he could come to accept and embrace who he was, his past, his culture, and his familia.

After College, Roberto undertook a journey to Micronesia, where he taught high school English. This experience would become so enriching and fulfilling, that it led him to go back to school to attain a degree in social work. During his years in graduate school at Penn, he became involved with the LGBT Center in an informal way. At the end of his Penn years, he was obtained his MSW. However as it turned out, education was still Ro-berto’s passion. There was, and still is, nothing he enjoys more than interacting with children.

Because of my curiosity and eagerness to get to know Roberto better, I decided to ask what he had done about it. His countenance, however, remained the same, as if he hadn’t finished his thoughts and was just catching his breath. Almost immediately he responded that he decided not to give up on his dreams; he was certain of what he wanted – to work with children.

Nowadays you can find Roberto teaching fourth graders in the Philadelphia School District. He works in therapy with children and enjoys his role to the fullest. Yet, his achievements as an educator go beyond the classroom. He is board member of the Gay and Lesbian AIDS Education Initiative (GALAEI), which is a non-profit organization located in Center City. GALAEI brings services, aid, and help to the Latina/o gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. As Roberto explains, though, he did not ask to be part of the board. A few years back, the former board president asked him to join. However, he wasn’t ready for such position back then. It took him some time before he accepted the offer when he realized he was fully prepared for the challenge.

When I asked Roberto how he embraces his Latino heritage, given his active involvement with the Latino community, he responded quite frankly that he is no longer ashamed of it – in fact, he is proud. He admits, though, being a Mexican-American is not easy as you are neither one nor the other. You are simply a hyphen.

~Suhail Torga

Virtual Closets

The very nature of our work at the LGBT Center as resource providers and a support network for sexual and gender minorities constantly pushes us to find answers to many of the challenges that society presents our community. One of those is how do we reach out those still trapped behind closet doors? How do we find and support the ones who need us most?

Sure, there are ‘safe spaces’ that offer confidential meetings but even on a campus as big as Penn’s the term “confidential” sometimes has very little meaning. In the closet, where secrecy is rule number #1, trusting a total stranger, who can now identify you by sight, to not to share your secret just compounds the anxiety of not being out.

Most of you understand that delicate place between self-awareness and public proclamation. I myself remember navigating the complexities of Penn to find a safe and private way to explore my budding sexuality. At that time, I found safe space in the positioning of the LGBT Center. I could safely enter a building, which housed other student services, sneak up the stairs and find my way to the third floor hideaway of the Center’s old home.

Now, freestanding in the heart of one of Penn’s main residential sections, the Center’s locale no longer offers that same cover. For many, to walk into the red brick building is an outing of its own kind and is a step beyond what they are ready for. Even to meet at ‘safe space’ events in other remote locations of campus still exposes one to the potential visual identification.

It is no surprise, then, to find that many of Penn’s not openly LGBT identified students do much of their community building on-line via chat rooms and web sites. The anonymity and access of such networks are unmatched. There, one can ‘meet’ new people, discuss important topics and seek advice from peers on just about any and everything without being out. Undoubtedly, this is a technological resource that could be harnessed to our advantage as support and service providers. Lo, it seems to be the answer to that persistent question of how to reach the silent, unidentified masses. But how safe can you make the closet?

Many of the virtual communities that offer anonymity are often un-moderated and unrestricted. This poses a danger within itself as the potential for misinformation and abuse is high. Even in the best of circumstances, one has to foresee the potential negativity of developing these types of virtual resource centers. Would we then be expanding the closet? Making it easier for one to not come out because all their needs are met, virtually all, through the internet?

There is much to be said for the human experience. And while many can argue technology has allowed us to experience one another and the world in a whole new way, it in no way negates nor circumvents the very realness of human contact. In developing new technology and exploring its greater possibilities we must look to enhance our reality and the human experience by finding ways to make the real world a safe space, and resist the urge to seek the comfort and anonymity of our virtual homes.

~Ninah Harris

Unbifurcated Garments, Unbifurcated Activism?

Recently, I was struck by an article regarding a movement of men wearing dresses and other “unbifurcated” garments for acceptance. The fact that 100 men marched from the Guggenheim to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in kilts, skirts, dresses and other various unbifurcated garments did not surprise me. I will admit that they did it in February did give them a certain level of respect in my eyes, though. Yet, what struck me was a statement made by one of the marchers: “We’re not transvestites, homosexuals or cross-dressers.”

Usually, a quirky article that my mom sends me makes me laugh or smile while lifting my head from mounds of books, but this just left a sour taste in my mouth. I agreed with the topic of the march and the idea there are men who are fighting for their right to wear various unbifurcated garments without stigma. However, I am shocked by their apparent need to stigmatize other groups to achieve their goal. In my opinion, it comes down to a question of who is to benefit and who is the target of these actions.

I have had a similar opinion of the recent gay marriage debates. I agree with the idea that marriage should be available to all with the legal ramifications it implies, but I wonder whom we are stigmatizing at the same time. Questions can be raised about actually asking for the title ‘marriage’ or just the equal legal protections that could be provided through civil unions, but the question of othering groups still remains. Are there groups being ignored or shunned in the current movement for equal marriage rights for LGBT people? Is there a group or party we will leave in the dust as LGBT people gain the right to marry freely?

Although not stated as such, Senator Rick Santorum mentions some of the aforementioned groups rather bluntly in regard to the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision when he said “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” It begs to be asked, then, must a new stigmatized group be formed as one becomes more accepted in society? If LGBT marriage is passed, will LGBT people claim that polyamory is just too far? A response I often get when posing this argument is that they do not even have a place at the discussion; that LGBT rights and the right to polyamory are not the same issue. But then again, that’s what has been said about LGBT equal marriage rights and other issues like race and ethnic discrimination, sexual discrimination and even the Male Unbi-furcated Garment Movement.

Are rights a slippery slope that become so divided and misguided that groups like the Male Unbifurcated Garment Movement must stigmatize others to gain their way? That LGBT people stigmatize others in pursuing our own agenda? I feel this question is raised sometimes between lesbian and gay people in regard to bisexuals and LGB people in regard to transgender issues. The question I feel must be asked, though, is what is our goal? Are we even that different from the Male Unbi-furcated Garment Movement? Looking for acceptance and lives without stigma assigned by society?

The matter for me, as both a homosexual and a kilt wearer, is moving not in divergent directions and stigmatizing other groups to help gain respectability through the sexualized and gendered Other. Instead, using our masses of various sexual and gender deviations as a rallying point to say, “we’re not that different.” As separated groups, each movement may be passed off or questioned motivationally but as a unified front fighting for a reexamination of what it means to be sexualized and gendered in our society it is harder to disregard one group as stigmatized by the others.

From this point of view, the ideas of feminism, queer activism, and even the Male Unbifurcated Garment Movement can be unified under one banner to move toward equal treatment not due to their actual or perceived gender and sexuality but by that which a person chooses to display. But until then, remember those who are left in the dust while some are able to march on with accumulated rights after decades of fighting. And once we’re comfortable with what we’ve gained, don’t be surprised when those whom we stigmatized on our way to acceptance are holding rallies and using our logic for their own equal treatment.

~Phil Cochetti

I-Links!

Intergenerational Links (I-links) is a group that was created to address the fact that too many queer women of younger generations don’t know any bi, queer, transgender, or lesbian women of older generations (read: over 30). It creates a place where queer women of different generations can get to know each other in a relaxed atmosphere. Some of the more recent I-Links events have ranged from playing Pictionary to conversation over cookies and hot chocolate during finals. The I-Links planning committee is made up of Erin Cross, Elise Betz, Jeanne Stanley, Ninah Harris, and me.

When I first heard of I-Links I thought it was a great idea and it made me realize that I had never given much thought to the idea that there are generations of young queer women who don’t know any older queer women. I’ve been lucky in that I’ve known queer women of various ages all my life. There are enough gay people in my family that we occupy a table all by ourselves at family functions. Let’s just say that you could probably use my family to argue it’s all genetic. Anyway, the point is that I never really realized how lucky I was to grow up with people I could look up to — people who were like me. I-Links, however, is not a place where we all sit around and talk about what a shame it is to grow up without role models. I guess that’s just the underlying reason for getting together. It is a good excuse to meet people. I would never call it a support group, as it is more about having fun. It’s about getting a chance to talk to and have a good time with people you probably never would have known otherwise.

The next I-Links event will be a trip to a see the Penn women’s basketball team at the Palestra [33rd St between Spruce & Walnut Sts] after a pizza dinner on Friday, March 5 – dinner at 5:30p and game at 7p. Our special guest will be head coach Kelly Greenberg!

If you would like to be on the mailing list so you can find out about I-Links events you can either e-mail me at <karriemo@sas.upenn.edu> or call the LGBT Center 215-898-5044.

~Karrie Moore

Civil Right or Moral Wrong?

A same sex marriage debate that promised to be non-biased while debating the civil rights component of the “controversy?” Sounded like a promising idea, but how fully free of bias it was is debatable. However the event, “Civil Right or Moral Wrong,” sponsored by Fox Leadership, Allies, and PennForum was thought provoking and brought out a great audience of over 100 attendees. Debra Weinstein, a Penn Legal Studies professor and civil rights attorney, moderated the event, joined by Rogers Smith, Political Science professor and Larry Frankel, the ACLU’s Legislative Director on the pro side and William Devlin, founder and former president of the Urban Family Council and Octane Faith, and Peter Sprigg, director of the Family Research Council of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies spoke for the anti-marriage side.

Having been in Rogers Smith’s “Civil Rights, Civil Liberties” class two semesters ago, I was ready for a knock-out argument. He made powerful arguments for same sex marriage as an issue not only of constitutional rights, but an important part of reevaluating past legislation and applying it to current and future times. Smith argued that although there was a constitutional argument for same-sex marriages, he felt it would be a more effective way to resolve the issue if society came to a democratic consensus about the issue, and not rely on court mandate. In analyzing the past restrictions and laws pertaining to marriage, Smith remarked that prior marriage laws were part of the system of subordination, often relegating people to second class citizenship, and it was important for our nation to analyze these patterns and see if these laws were applicable for our future. He concluded, “I believe we should not bet on the prejudice of the past…not on out fears…hate… but on our families, caring, and love.”

Bill Devlin spoke next, taking the microphone in a manner reminiscent of Phil Donohue in a revivalist tent. His argument was based on an anecdotal account of his life. He began by saying, “Heterosexuals have literally destroyed marriage for over a generation,” through divorce, cohabitation, domestic violence, and premarital sex. It was promising, and I hoped he would say, “So let’s give the queers a chance at it, maybe they can improve it!” However, I was mistaken, as Devlin argued the institution of marriage should not be “redefined” once again to include same sex partners, as he felt redefinitions only weakened “the sanctity of marriage.”

Larry Frankel then spoke to the audience of his “almost perfect” marriage of 25 years with his partner, which, although not legally recognized, was a chance for him and his partner to stand up and declare their love to one another. He asserted that “the world is a better place when we realize that two people regardless of their gender get up and say I do,” and argued against Devlin’s claim that redefinitions of marriage were weakening it, as marriage has been a term with a history of redefinition, and always has and should be flexible. He also said that although it would be nice to have consensus about the issue, LGBT folks shouldn’t have to wait, and the best way to move ahead is with legislation.

Peter Sprigg then entered the debate by speaking of “so-called same sex marriage” and asserted it was the business of the state to regulate marriage because of marriage’s “true” purpose is to bring together a man and a woman to reproduce and rear children. His arguments bordered on offensive and were based on cited “scientific data” that was never cited, as he claimed children of heterosexual two-parent couples were the most prosperous, successful, healthy, etc. He claimed “homosexual” (which seemed to be his umbrella term for all LGBT folks) couples were “intrinsically infertile,” leading to their automatic exclusion from marriage, but to exclude non-reproducing heterosexual couples was to draw “arbitrary lines” around people’s rights. Sprigg left the audience with a bang up closing, “Same sex marriage is thus an oxymoron,” and “We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual relations whatsoever,” and finally saying that such unions should not be “encouraged in any way.”

Rebuttal proved to be a heated and though-provoking portion of the night, as the speakers fielded audience questions and spoke to each other’s arguments. Smith countered Sprigg by asserting same-sex couples often rear children, and thus would be contributing to his assumed aim of marriage, which was then rebuked by Sprigg who claimed kids needed a mother and a father and the “circumstances of the natural family.” Frankel reminded us that although there was no right to marry in the law, there was the right to be treated equally, and a division of church and state. Sprigg came back with, “homosexuality is harmful” and claimed it was associated with a “whole range of pathologies,” to which Frankel stood up and said, “I hope I am a living example that being in a same sex relationship is not harmful.” Thank you Mr. Frankel, thank you. He also reminded us of the Supreme Court’s prior decision that separate is not equal. Smith then stole the wind from Sprigg’s claim about pathologies, putting forth, “any pathologies we see are due to the pervasive prejudices” and conditions society has relegated LGBT folks to living under as a hated and discriminated against people.

The night ended with final comments from the speakers, including Devlin giving out his cell phone number and an invite to the audience to have dinner with his wife and himself to see how a marriage “really works;” Frankel reminding us there was plenty of evidence that LGBT families can raise great kids, and being LGBT didn’t disqualify a person from being a good parent; Smith pointing out so many of the arguments against same sex marriage were based on religious ideology or flimsy science has been disproved; and Sprigg with a final, “It’s a better choice not to engage in homosexual behavior.” All in all, Frankel and Smith shone as articulate, concise, and knowledgeable debaters, whereas Devlin came across as a storyteller relying on emotional appeal with a factually flimsy and often offensive sidekick Sprigg.

All that’s left to wonder is how many people will actually call Devlin’s cell phone and have that dinner date with him and Nancy…I know I won’t!

~Amanda Nordstrom

QPenn 2004 Preview

We’re off to another QPenn this year. What was going to be a tamer week this year than last has turned out to be quite an exciting and packed list of events. The activities speak to our theme, not directly, but its presence can be felt. The planning committee decided on this year’s theme—As Queer as Apple Pie. The idea was that recently LGBT Americans have made strides in many aspects of American life and society. As such, we wanted to stress the idea that America’s diverse background and history has had large input from its LGBT members. The goals that the LGBT community is striving for and the recent developments in our favor are similar to quests and fights made through our county’s past. Indeed, LGBT Americans are doing something quite American—fighting for their rights. Playing off the phrase, as American as apple pie, we decided that this year’s theme would speak to the idea that being LGBT is in many ways being American. The two communities are not exclusive but largely overlapping.

There has been much talk of how we can change this year’s QPenn and make it as unique as those of years past. Some exciting ideas have come forward in planning. One important decision was to bring back a community service project. We hope this event will not only help our community but also stronger bonds at Penn. We have events targeted for the entire Penn community from grad to undergrad, student to staff and faculty, and alumni to the community-at-large. The list of speakers and other events is ever growing. Exciting talks focus on racism and the LGBT community, LGBT body issues, what it means to be queer now, and more. We hope to look at our community’s past, become serious about its present, and look forward to the future.

As a testament to the supportive Penn community, over 150 organizations have signed on as cosponsors or friends. We hope this QPenn will not only be well attended, but that the impact of QPenn on campus and the community is felt. With that said, if you can’t even come to any other event, we hope that you’ll at least come to our town hall on Friday April 2, 2004. We want this to be a chance to get feedback, both positive and constructive, about QPenn and the Penn’s LGBT community. So join us for some apple pie, and let us know what you think. Hope to see you at QPenn from March 26 through April 2, 2004.

~Eric Boschetti