If Jennings Were Aware of Harry Hay’s Support of Pederasty,
did he have a duty to denounce this man who inspired him?
did he have a duty to denounce this man who inspired him?
I have now both skimmed (online) and read (a hard copy of) Zomblog’s post (which John linked yesterday) considering whether Kevin Jennings,Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools (AKA ”safe schools czar”) knew about the involvement of Harry Hay, a pioneering gay activist who inspired him, with the North American May Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group which promotes sexual relationships between adults and teenagers.
There are two issues which come to mind.
First, did Jennings ever countenance Hay’s involvement in NAMBLA? And from everything I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a bit & not just this article), there is no evidence that he did, none whatsoever.
Second, when Jennings offered effusive praise for the aging Communist, was he aware of his involvement in NAMBLA? And if so, should he have made clear to denounce that involvement when he praised the man?
Here, the answer is not so easy. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest he was aware. Jennings included a chapter from Stuart Timmons’ 1990 book, The Trouble with Harry Hay, in an anthology, Becoming Visible, which he compiled and edited. Timmons’ book includes a section on Hay’s support of NAMBLA. Zomblog suggests he must have read the entire book, but I wondered if it were possible someone had alerted him to the chapter and he read it without reading the entire book (as I often do when I find a section in a scholarly book relevant to my dissertation).
A second piece of evidence is that Jennings lived in New York in 1994 when an issue du jour in the gay community was Hay’s “very public spat with major mainstream gay organizations over their planned decision to ban NAMBLA from marching in the ‘Stonewall 25′ pride march in New York on June 26, 1994.” Considering, Zomblog writes, that this
spat was a hot topic in Jennings’ professional and personal circles, it seems extremely likely that he at least became aware of it at the time. Which means that a full three years before he gave his speech praising Harry Hay, Jennings again knew of Hay’s defense of NAMBLA.
I agree it seems likely he was aware of Hay’s support of including NAMBLA in the parade. But, likelihood doesn’t mean certainty.
There are other very troubling things about Hay that come out in this article, his aforementioned Communism, his belief that gay culture was superior to straight culture, his contempt for mainstream American society. That such a man would inspire Jennings suggests the Obama Administration official picks strange heroes, but it doesn’t mean he supports their every action.
You can’t convict a man on circumstantial evidence. And while it appears very likely that Jennings did know about Hay’s support of pederasty, would that knowledge obligate Jennings to qualify his praise for the man when he acknowledged how he inspired him?
I’m not so sure. We all find inspiration from imperfect men (and women). On this blog, I have praised Larry Kramer, a rabid left-winger and Reagan-hater, for his leadership on a number of issues in our community. To be sure, he just misrepresents and maligns Republicans, he doesn’t countenance the sexual abuse of minors. I love and respect my rabbi despite her politics. Many of my friends are far from perfect.
We all have such “idols” and such friends. Just because we admire, respect or love one person doesn’t mean we agree with everything she says or countenance everything he does.
That said, I think Jennings should issue a simple statement saying his past praise of Hay was for the man’s pioneering role in the gay rights’ movement, but not for his advocacy of sex between men and boys. Or some such. And while it would be nice if he went as far as Zomblog suggests, and retracted his “earlier praise,” he needn’t go that far.
All that said, given all we know about Harry Hay, it troubles me greatly that Jennings has advanced so far in our community without ever qualifying his praise for a man who long held extremely radical beliefs and regularly promoted illegal activites.
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I guess we really shouldn’t be surprised anymore. Liberals have ALWAYS sided with the worst pieces of human garbage in history. If they bugger children, criminalize prosecute and/or murder opponents, violate laws, violate human rights, violate human decency, enslave people etc. why so much the better.
The absolute worst part is that they’ll climb up on their high horses and claim how much better and intelligent THEY are than the ignorent, wretched Proles who dare to oppose any of it. Anybody else who doesn’t agree are just “racists, sexist, bigot homophobe chickenhawks. We’re the ones who just aren’t right.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that liberals idolize the aforementioned wretched filth because that’s what they wish to engage in. They want to sexualize children, violate the US Constitution (ala Zelaya), criminalize opponents (ala Bush, Cheney, Rush, Hannity, Libby, Beck, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Savage etc. etc. etc.). They’re doing it now.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2009 @ 3:01 am - October 16, 2009
In addition to supporting pederasty (either because he was a pederast himself, or because he was a nostalgic former catamite, or possibly both), and also being an actual Communist, Hay also seemed to be pretty enamored of the 19th-century Urning / “third sex” model of male homosexuality, as evidenced by his tendency to find elevated spiritual meaning in effeminacy, drag, and camp.
In other words, Hay’s personal vision of “gayness” enthusiastically celebrated the notions that homosexual men enjoy diddling boys, and that we’re political subversives, and that we’re women trapped in men’s bodies — all stereotypes that many modern gay men (including, I assume, Mr. Jennings) have expended quite a lot of energy in combating.
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 16, 2009 @ 5:18 am - October 16, 2009
^^^
Mainly I just wanted to put out some mythology-geek bait with “catamite”!
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 16, 2009 @ 5:19 am - October 16, 2009
However Dan, this isn’t a court of law and no one has said that there was a crime committed here by Jennings with regards to what he knew about Hays. The circumstantial evidence may be thin for those proceedings, but it isn’t for both politics and the “believability test” to the average American. While I don’t really care about the former, Jennings is definitely failing the latter.
I don’t believe that Jennings was ignorant about Hays’ involvement with NAMBLA. I do not accept that a man of his position can praise someone like Hays without strictly qualifying his remarks. I cannot support someone with such poor judgment at the very least holding a position of public trust. He needs to go.
Comment by John — October 16, 2009 @ 7:03 am - October 16, 2009
Ahh….
Agian with that “If” word
If Truman was alread in peace talks with Japan before the 2nd Atom Bomb…
If Reagan knew all about sending guns to Iran…
If Bush knew about 9-11…
If Cheney is really the devil…
If Clinton never really had relations with Monica…
If Obama is a socialist….
Its so easy to condem when you deal in the world of speculation.
Comment by gillie — October 16, 2009 @ 9:39 am - October 16, 2009
Re: the “if” word.
If Japan was not sufficiently serious about peace after massive fire bombings and one Atomic bombing….
If Reagan had asked Jimmy Carter to handle the Iran policy……
If 9-11 was a Soros deal to make Bush look bad……
If Cheney was Mother Theresa in drag…….
If Monica had bitten Clinton’s willie off…….
If Obama were not a cold puppet for statism……
If gillie/Tano could get their thoughts straight and make a point………
If “hope” and “change” had any particular universal meaning…….
Comment by heliotrope — October 16, 2009 @ 9:53 am - October 16, 2009
#5: “Its so easy to condem when you deal in the world of speculation.”
gillie, how is that an insult? Liberals are terrified of the word “if” because they would sooner snack on broken glass than honestly answer a reasonable hypothetical question. The problem with hypotheticals is that when answered honestly, they reveal one’s true character and principles (or lack thereof).
That’s why Tim is so perplexed by the reaction he gets to his passionate crusades to prove that Jennings DIDN’T know what he most likely DID know. He thinks that his opponents are rejecting his arguments because we are just on a witch hunt against Jennings or that we’re too immature to credit any insider knowledge he may actually have of the publishing world. But that’s not it. What I reject is the sham of engaging in a “what did Jennings know and when did he know it” debate with someone who would have the same opinion even if they were ultimately proved wrong. So, Tim, if you’re reading this, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from reading your comments, it’s pretty clear that even if it turned out you were wrong and Jennings had full knowledge of Hay’s NAMBLA involvement when he praised him, your position on the matter would remain unchanged–Jennings should not be fired and shouldn’t be condemned for praising Hay for the specific things he admired about him. Am I right? If I am, there’s no point in debating the evidence about Jennings’ knowledge at the time he praised Hay because I suspect that if you were being honest, you would defend him anyway. I acknowledge that I could be wrong about that, but that’s certainly my impression. But this is why “if” questions are so important and why liberals like gillie reject them. Those pesky “if” questions threaten to expose the sinking depths of their immorality.
Comment by Sean A — October 16, 2009 @ 10:43 am - October 16, 2009
Rudyard Kipling:
IF…..
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!
Comment by heliotrope — October 16, 2009 @ 11:38 am - October 16, 2009
I’m not much of a poetry fan but this one by Kipling is definitely one of my favorites. Always makes me think of Dad and the talks we used to have…
Comment by John — October 16, 2009 @ 11:42 am - October 16, 2009
At first I thought you were talking about players from Western Carolina U.
http://www.catamountsports.com/genrel/011205aag.html
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - October 16, 2009
Sean I am not trying to “insult” anyone.
I am merely pointing out that by using the word “if” you can say absolutely anything and never have to apologize for what is behind it.
When used this way, its the ultimate cop-out that lets you say tin foil wearing things, but can still claim you are not insane.
heliotrope gets it!
Comment by gillie — October 16, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - October 16, 2009
You know, gillie, what makes you so amusing is how you offer your juvenile little taunts, but fail to address the points of the post to which they’re attached.
I guess you do provide entertainment in these threads.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 16, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - October 16, 2009
If gillie weren’t a complete retard, he could make coherent points.
That works.
Comment by V the K — October 16, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - October 16, 2009
I went to look up “ad nauseum” on dictionary.com and it linked me here…
I suppose your main issue now that you see nobody cares and nothing is going to happen to try and maintain some sort of moral high ground.
The main assertion at this point is that Hay’s NAMBLA fiasco in 1994 was so well known that there is no way that Jennings could not have known about it, and therefore is obligated to completely denounce it.
I’ll grant you it probable that he knew about the issue. I would also suggest that it’s probable he knew this entire man’s history and what he had done for the movement. Again, Jennings was VERY DIRECT in quoting EXACTLY what he admired of the man. Your assertion that it’s his responsibility to go through the entire life of every man he ever met in the gay rights movement and discount every negative thing ever is unreasonable. Like it or not most gay rights leaders, operating for the past 80 years or so have sordid pasts. I don’t condone any of it, but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore. Maybe you can write Roger Ebert and the entire academy to come out publicly and state they only gave Sean Penn the Oscar with the understanding they don’t condone relationships outside of marriage.
This is really the argument you are making here. Jennings won’t address this again, and you will drone on and on about the gay community and the left being complicit in child molestation. Meanwhile, I’ve already seen all but the hard core crazies completely give up any sort of meaningful conversation in these threads, since it’s just met with mostly ad hoc.
I appreciate John addressing the point of “he had to know!” but really, you can’t have it both ways. You want him to be a very good academic scholar who is knowledgeable about everything going on around them politically, reading every book on their subjects, knows all the people, and is (by all normal standards) a good scholar. But you also want them to be intellectually stupid enough to follow Marxist and leftist philosophy, which in itself is a lazy path of learned parroting of academic lines. Which is it?
I can tell you from my experiences with academia, that professors, teachers and the like are usually people with big egos and some intelligence, but a high degree of laziness. Considering this administration, many in the gay rights movements and academic standards, I think it’s entirely possible he had no knowledge of it. Or he might have had knowledge of it, and made a speech about WHAT he admired (which I think is what he did and you’re crucifying him for). But saying now, without real proof he knew, that he should come out and apologize AGAIN, is unreasonable.
The fact is, he’s already apologized. This is over to most reasonable people. If he needs to come out and make a public apology every time you find someone in his entire lifetime with a bad rapsheet sets a very dangerous precedent. Obama isn’t held to it. Jennings won’t be held to it. And again, he won’t say a word because he knows it will just go away, and the people on this blog who hold onto it just fit their now accepted stereotype of crazy right wingers.
I’ll concede to you he might have known about Hay. Although I think given the intellectual laziness of most on the left he also may not have. What you want won’t happen. And by continuing to cling onto it, you just make yourself look more part of the fringe and get lumped in with birthers and conspiracy nuts. In turn you lose readers and participants on this blog who don’t want to get called names and put down because they disagree with the authors or rabid posters who troll the site. What is this the 7th post on this subject? Notice the amount of people who even read or comment goes down and down….
Maybe you guys can take a page from Sullivan and keep posting about Sarah Palin until nobody reads anymore, huh?
Comment by Tim — October 16, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - October 16, 2009
#12
What points?
“If” He knew of such and such, than he should be fired.
OK
But we don’t know.
All we can do is guess and say things like “ifs” and “maybes”
THen you hide behind those words so you don’t have to take a stand.
Yet commentators accept what you type as fact and ignore the “maybe” and “if” then say that he (and all liberals) support buggery.
Comment by gillie — October 16, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - October 16, 2009
Erm, who said anything about “buggery”? The question has been whether Jennings supports (or condones or excuses or rationalizes) sex between adult men and young teenage boys.
But now that you’ve mentioned buggery — I find myself wondering what would happen if Jennings were to publicly express admiration for Bill Weintraub?
Weintraub being the granddaddy of the “Frot Movement,” and also a cantankerous, personally disagreeable, and sometimes foul-mouthed disparager of anal sex, referring to its practitioners as “buttboys” and “shit fairies” and whatnot.
Mind you, he’s never called for the re-criminalization of anal sex, but has merely urged (in his own rude and rather fanatical way) that gay men should go on being gay and enjoying mutual j/o and “frot” and blowjobs, while voluntarily abstaining 100% from anal sex, which he regards as disease-spreading and emasculating.
On the other hand, despite being a pre-Stonewall gay activist and having impeccable left-wing credentials, Weintraub has never, ever been an apologist for Man/boy sex — the worst he’s done is to have spent a decade or longer on his “Just Say No to Buggery” crusade, admittedly with very salty language directed towards gay men who disagree with him.
But I can guarantee you that he’s far more of a radioactive pariah within the Gay Establishment than Harry Hay ever was!
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 16, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - October 16, 2009
There goes the main defense I’ve seen online by Jennings supporters then.
Tim, I refuse to believe that you are this dense. You know very well that there is a HUGE difference in most people’s minds between support of pedophilia and one having a revolving door on their bedroom. Both may incite disgust but the visceral level of this is not the same between the two. Why? Simple. Pedophilia isn’t just about sex, it’s about power over and crushing the innocence of persons that most of us recognize lack the capacity to fully care for themselves. In addition, most people recognize that we have a duty and responsibility to protect children in our own families and generally speaking children in society at large. Milk or anyone else have a parade of willing adult bed-partners is simply not looked at the same as pedophilia.
Finally, contrary to what you are saying here Jennings made no attempt to qualify his 1997 remarks praising Hay.
Your reading skills fail you, Tim. I never said any of this and you are drawing this from nowhere but your own overactive imagination.
If you will recall I set his politics aside in viewing this, which is why I rejected the initial charges against him even though I oppose him politically. I haven’t a clue if he is Marxist.
Comment by John — October 16, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - October 16, 2009
Yes. Unequivocally yes.
…And qualify (or even self-censor) our praise accordingly. All it takes is a little wisdom and decency.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 16, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - October 16, 2009
Tim, you just can’t stay away, can you?
Anyone remember this stinging declaration, that hurt all our feelings so much?
ROFL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 16, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - October 16, 2009
Sorry, here is the real link:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=17432#comment-490794
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 16, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - October 16, 2009
One more thing:
“Pederasty”, my ass. I know that’s the Greek / technically correct word for molesting young teenagers. But let’s not pull our punches, OK? With NAMBLA (and Harry Hay’s defense of them, Jennings’ defense of Harry Hay, etc.), we are, in fact, talking about men who sexually molest young teenagers, and/or who support the normalization of sexually molesting young teenagers.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 16, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - October 16, 2009
#14:
“I went to look up “ad nauseum” on dictionary.com and it linked me here…”
Yeah, specifically to the comment sections where you’ve sworn in an all-caps frenzy never to return.
“I suppose your main issue now that you see nobody cares and nothing is going to happen to try and maintain some sort of moral high ground.”
We don’t have to “try” to maintain the moral high ground with people who don’t think a man’s well-publicized support of NAMBLA is a deal-breaker for praise of any kind.
“The main assertion at this point is that Hay’s NAMBLA fiasco in 1994 was so well known that there is no way that Jennings could not have known about it, and therefore is obligated to completely denounce it.”
Yes, that and the fact that most of Jennings’ supporters don’t think he has an obligation to denounce it even assuming he did know.
“I’ll grant you it probable that he knew about the issue. I would also suggest that it’s probable he knew this entire man’s history and what he had done for the movement.”
So? What difference does it make? Your position remains the same whether he knew or not.
“Again, Jennings was VERY DIRECT in quoting EXACTLY what he admired of the man. Your assertion that it’s his responsibility to go through the entire life of every man he ever met in the gay rights movement and discount every negative thing ever is unreasonable.”
Nice strawman. Yes, Tim, that would be unreasonable, and that is why NO ONE here has taken such a silly position. Assuming Jennings knew about Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA, he should not have praised him for ANYTHING. The support of NAMBLA is a deal-breaker.
“Like it or not most gay rights leaders, operating for the past 80 years or so have sordid pasts. I don’t condone any of it, but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore. Maybe you can write Roger Ebert and the entire academy to come out publicly and state they only gave Sean Penn the Oscar with the understanding they don’t condone relationships outside of marriage.”
Strawman. Part 2.
“This is really the argument you are making here. Jennings won’t address this again, and you will drone on and on about the gay community and the left being complicit in child molestation.”
Which you and Jennings have made exceptionally easy for us. So, thanks!
“Meanwhile, I’ve already seen all but the hard core crazies completely give up any sort of meaningful conversation in these threads, since it’s just met with mostly ad hoc.”
“Meaningful conversation.” Translation: (1) cast reason aside and assume Jennings knew nothing about Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA; and/or (2) agree that it’s perfectly fine to praise a NAMBLA supporter for the wonderful things he’s done (other than support NAMBLA), provided you’re very specific about it.
Try the Huffington Post for this kind of “meaningful conversation,” Tim.
“I appreciate John addressing the point of “he had to know!” but really, you can’t have it both ways. You want him to be a very good academic scholar who is knowledgeable about everything going on around them politically, reading every book on their subjects, knows all the people, and is (by all normal standards) a good scholar. But you also want them to be intellectually stupid enough to follow Marxist and leftist philosophy, which in itself is a lazy path of learned parroting of academic lines. Which is it?”
Neither. If he knew about Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA when he praised him, I want him to resign from his position as “Safe Schools Czar,” whatever that is.
“I can tell you from my experiences with academia, that professors, teachers and the like are usually people with big egos and some intelligence, but a high degree of laziness.”
SHOCKER.
“Considering this administration, many in the gay rights movements and academic standards, I think it’s entirely possible he had no knowledge of it.”
So you’ve said. Nobody cares. Your position that he did nothing wrong remains the same.
“Or he might have had knowledge of it, and made a speech about WHAT he admired (which I think is what he did and you’re crucifying him for).”
Yes, Tim. We know you don’t think it’s a big deal if he knew. Also, no surprise that you’ve used the term “crucify,” since clearly you regard Jennings as the martyr and victim in this scenario.
“But saying now, without real proof he knew, that he should come out and apologize AGAIN, is unreasonable.”
Once again, you think it’s unreasonable for there to be ANY consequences if he DID know.
“The fact is, he’s already apologized. This is over to most reasonable people.”
The fu*k it is. It’s over to IMMORAL people, Tim.
“If he needs to come out and make a public apology every time you find someone in his entire lifetime with a bad rapsheet sets a very dangerous precedent.”
Strawman. Part 3. In 3-D!
“Obama isn’t held to it. Jennings won’t be held to it.”
Correct. Thanks to moral relativist enablers like yourself. Tell us something we don’t know.
“And again, he won’t say a word because he knows it will just go away, and the people on this blog who hold onto it just fit their now accepted stereotype of crazy right wingers.”
Crazy right winger. Translation: people that still recognize the existence of objective right and wrong and can tell them apart.
Comment by Sean A — October 16, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - October 16, 2009
Like it or not most gay rights leaders, operating for the past 80 years or so have sordid pasts.
Which demonstrates all that needs to be known about the gay community’s attitudes, behaviors, and belief systems.
Put bluntly, the gay community, exemplified by Jennings, lionizes a man who not only aided and abetted pedophilia, but openly advocated for it, linked it to being gay, and pushed endlessly for it to be legalized.
I don’t condone any of it
No, you just defend it, support it, endorse it, and call the people who disagree with it and criticize it self-loathing.
but maybe you could spend your next post condoning all the people who liked the movie MILK since he was a whore. Maybe you can write Roger Ebert and the entire academy to come out publicly and state they only gave Sean Penn the Oscar with the understanding they don’t condone relationships outside of marriage.
These people gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and have been tirelessly defending his behavior. I think it’s been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only thing that constitutes a crime in Hollywood is a failing of allegiance to Barack Obama.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2009 @ 11:26 pm - October 16, 2009
If it wasn’t for all of those eeeevuhl people, NDK, you wouldn’t have a gay community to feel superior to. And if it wasn’t for a group of slave holders who believed that all men were equal, none of us would have a country to argue about any of this in.
Comment by Jody — October 17, 2009 @ 3:21 am - October 17, 2009
And if it wasn’t for EIT, we’d not have a west cosast to worry about.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 17, 2009 @ 10:59 am - October 17, 2009
If it wasn’t for all of those eeeevuhl people, NDK, you wouldn’t have a gay community to feel superior to.
You’re right; if instead, the gay community had supported people who advocated and practiced responsible behavior, it might be something of which to be proud instead of one in which Communism, pedophilia, irresponsible behavior, antireligious bigotry, and outright stupidity are celebrated and praised by its leadership.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2009 @ 7:27 pm - October 17, 2009
Which is about as non-sensical as being pissed off because you don’t have different grandparents.
Comment by Jody — October 19, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - October 19, 2009