WHAT’S THE MESSAGE?
As an African-American person of consciousness, living in
the city of Rochester, I am totally
disgusted by the art on the cover of your June 22 edition (“Public Displays of
Affection”).
As an educator, I will be using your cover to illustrate to
my students that racism is alive and well in Rochester.
The critical questions I will pose to my students are:
1) Why is the person of color unclothed?
2) Why is the person of color pieced together (an African
head, an African-American torso, a Latino arm)?
3) Why does the face of the person of color have distorted
lips?
4) Compare and contrast the Caucasian man’s appearance with
the appearance of the person of color.
5) What message do you think the illustration is seeking to
convey? Explain by referencing specific aspects of the illustration.
Perhaps members of your various departments would benefit
from a discussion centered around the above questions, so that in the future
such depictions could be avoided.
Furelise Smith, Hillendale Street, Rochester
IT’S NOT
‘AFFECTION’
“Public Display of Affection”
(June 22) was troubling on a number of levels. First, the title was misleading.
Men, as the article acknowledged, are not being arrested for public displays of
affection. They are being arrested for public displays of genitalia. This is a
huge difference, and City demeans
itself by employing the tabloid tactic of using a teaser headline at odds with
the facts of the story.
The article also
asserts that homosexual men are being singled out while heterosexuals are left
undisturbed. If heterosexuals are having sex in the woods and being left alone,
this does constitute discrimination. However, if heterosexuals are restricting
their activities to automobiles, which afford a greater level of privacy
(particularly with steamed-up windows), then maybe differential enforcement is
justified. There is no mention in the article of car-bound homosexuals being
bothered.
On an essential
level, however, I endorse much of the article’s argument and am grateful that
the issue was illuminated. Personally, I have no problem with adulterers being outed, be they heterosexual or homosexual. Adultery is
still a crime in New YorkState, although never prosecuted, and I don’t
think parks should provide sanctuary for those who commit it.
However, for single
adults the matter is entirely different. I fully agree with “Alex”
that the deputy who ensnared him was performing a far more morally
reprehensible act than the one “Alex” committed. If the sheriff is
countenancing these kinds of tactics, he is ill-serving the community. Using
policewomen to entice “Johns” is defensible, because prostitution is
always illegal no matter where it occurs. Sex in the park is illegal only
because of its location .So inducing someone to commit a normally legal act in
an off-limits area is unconscionable.
I don’t frequent
the parks, but I would be bothered if I did and encountered anyone having sex.
The advice to “get a room” seems to be applicable to those of any
sexual orientation. However, the proper charge would seem to be “disorderly
conduct.” Public sex is an offense against public order, but it should not be
treated as anything more. A “flasher” is guilty of public lewdness because he
deliberately imposes himself on an unwilling victim. The men targeted in the
parks were on public property but were trying (imperfectly) to avoid public
detection. The charge of “forcible touching” seems to be totally
unsupportable, if the article’s account is credible. The actual offense is much
lesser and should be recognized as such, not only by reasonable judges, but
during the original arrest process.
Brian Barry, Bradford
Road, Rochester
‘NEWCOMERS?’
In “Big Tent Blues”
(May 18), here is how you sum up the Rochester School Board candidates endorsed
by the Democratic convention: Jeff Henley is a “PenfieldHigh School teacher,” Cynthia Elliott is a “newcomer,”
and Tom Brennan is a “party activist.”
Here are the facts.
Henley first moved to Rochester last year, while Elliott has lived here
many years, and Brennan has served eight years on two elected local public
boards and has lived in the city for 10 years. You omitted all of these facts.
Be fair.
You clearly think
relevance and duration of experience are worth bringing up. Your resort to half
truth and omission of important facts (with obvious bias for Henley and against Elliott and Brennan) is the
kind of sly and sleazy journalism that undermines the credibility of those who
practice it.
Jean SosciaMastern, Massey
Drive, Rochester
The editor’s response: Masten implies that the label “newcomer” was used
solely to describe Cynthia Elliott; in fact, it was applied to all three
designees. Perhaps a better word would have been “challenger”; the reference
was to the fact that none is a current board member, yet each received the
party’s nod over incumbent Darryl Porter. The article makes no mention of the
duration of any of the three candidates’ experience.
We’ve made no
decision and as yet have no preferences among the School Board candidates.
We’ll be interviewing all of them prior to the primary — as we did Elliott
during her 2004 campaign for School Board.
SOMETHING’S SOUR IN
THE SUFFRAGISTCITY
Is this a city of its residents or a playground for
suburbia’s sprawling wealth? Every weekend, the trash left behind by meaty guys
with baseball caps and bar-hopping Barbies litters my
neighborhood streets. It seems when there’s a warm weekend, there’s a
monochromatic town that has lost its youth to the city’s hot spots. Giant
bubbles of segregation travel into my neck of the woods, only to surround
themselves in the same sterile stew with a new, urban backdrop.
I propose that we rename certain of these areas
“homogenous zones” and drop the pretension of “cultural
districts.” Do Hummers, public drunkenness, parking-lot peeing,
striped-shirt yuppies on cell phones, and an overall arrogant feeling of
entitlement equal culture?
A few weekends ago, I tried to integrate myself into one of
these “homogenous zones.” Like an ant in a bowl of sugar, I made my
way through a sweaty sea of “not me’s.” Although
Rochester is a virtual melting pot,
many local entrepreneurs fail to reflect its diversity in their establishments.
They would rather create an atmosphere that keeps “90210 patrons” in
and the “1462-Oh, no’s” out. So while I did find overpriced drinks,
watered-down beer, modern rock, and tight jeans, I was hard pressed to find
culture. What I did discover was the disconcerting tool of discrimination used
by establishments: the Dress Code.
Dress Codes, like the people who enforce them, are nothing
but disgusting deprivations, elitist and racist, thinly veiled by
respectability. Since creating environments that cater to a cookie-cutter crowd
isn’t enough, the proprietors take their prerogative a step further with
“dress codes.” (You never know when an uppity neighbor may get a hankering
for the bland and unimaginative and wander into your bar.)
To be told that my attire is “unacceptable” while
the dance floor is filled with young, lighter-skinned, under-dressed,
baseball-cap-wearing, Top-40 booty-grinders is not only insulting to my
intelligence and my music sense, but it’s just plain insulting. When one
dapper, albeit darker patron (yours truly) is refused entry to a neighborhood
establishment, it’s time for Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, and Emma
Goldman to rise up and take back this city.
I appreciate the clarification on where I should and
shouldn’t spend my money. That said, I am concerned about the next person, who
on some warm, summer night in Rochester
can’t patronize an establishment without forfeiting his or her hat, jacket, or
dignity. So I ask the proprietors of such culturally absent nightclubs: What
moral defense is there for such discrimination?
Corey Adams, Alexander Street, Rochester
WRITING TO CITY
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.
Our guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and
we ask that you include your street name and city/town/village. We don’t
publish letters that have been sent to other media — and we don’t publish form letters generated by activist groups. While
we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words
have a greater chance of being published. We do edit letters for clarity and
brevity. And in general we don’t publish letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces)
from the same writer more often than about once every two months.
This article appears in Jul 13-19, 2005.
