Human Relations Commission

A Report Concerning Issues Associated with The 1992 CMU Day at Kennywood

April 1992

Introduction

This report and the set of suggestions incorporated in it are the result of President Mehrabian's request, and also a more informal request of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, that the Human Relations Commission look into plans, the planning process, and the issues associated with the proposed 1992 Carnegie Mellon University Day at Kennywood. We have interpreted our mandate broadly and have tried to determine what seems to be basic causes of perceived difficulties.

This report states what we have done. It also summarizes our judgment about the issues as we have come to understand them. Finally, it states a set of suggestions which we hope can be implemented by the interested parties.

Activities

The Human Relations Commission proceeded by listening to those we judged to be concerned. They were invited to present their views and to respond to questions from members of the Commission.

At the first hearing we invited Staff Council and some members of CMU Out. These groups are not mutually exclusive, and we understand that CMU Out is a collection of individuals rather than a representative organization. However, members of the groups, including those who may be associated with both, were given the opportunity to present their individual views and respond to questions from those present.

At the second hearing, we invited persons from the Pittsburgh (not CMU) Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Pride Committee (Pride, for short.) and Mr. Harry Henninger, President of Kennywood. Our view was that a basic source of the unhappiness with the idea of having a Carnegie Mellon picnic at Kennywood came from the belief that this particular park discriminates against gays and lesbians, and a major part of the evidence for this belief seems to have come from the denial of a pavilion to Pride and interactions stemming from that denial. We wanted to get these two parties together in a situation where views and charges could be stated and challenged, and explanations given.

Findings

The hearings provided evidence which we can summarize here. Some of these findings and conclusions bear directly upon the Kennywood issue and some have broader implications.

1. The Kennywood issue ought not be viewed in isolation, but should be considered within the broader context of discrepancies between the ideals embodied within our statement of assurance and the realities of life on our campus.

2. There is a widespread perception among our gay and lesbian community that Kennywood has practiced discrimination against them.

3. These perceptions are based upon various incidents and events that occurred in previous years. Some of these have explanations which appear to make them to be misunderstandings rather than discrimination, no matter how distasteful the event, but others may not fit into such a category.

4. Pride was denied a pavilion for a picnic by Kennywood last year on the basis of judgments that in an earlier year there were happenings which violated Kennywood's policy of trying to reserve the Park for entertainment and to exclude social and political causes and statements. Kennywood has offered a pavilion to Pride, with conditions, during the approaching season, but for one of the few available dates, which is different from the day requested.

5. There was a high level of frustration, and some perceived hostility by individuals, associated with the planning for the picnic on the part of Staff Council and its Committee. There have been charges from both sides concerning the actions and intentions of the other.

Progress

It does seem that the very process of holding hearings and getting sides together for exchanges produced some progress.

1. Kennywood appears to have changed some of its policies, and where policies may have already been changed they seem to be giving increased attention to better implementation. For example, expressions of affection between members of the same sex are supposed to be tolerated to exactly the same degree as those between members of the opposite sex. Since the meetings, informal contact between our own and the Kennywood security force have served to confirm this impression of progress and increased tolerance in practice.

2. Some events which were alleged to be discriminatory on the part of Kennywood turned out be otherwise. For example, the Park videotaped some gay and lesbian visitors during a day last summer, but Kennywood officials had seen a publication which stated that there would be incidents and demonstrations during that day and they have a policy of defensive videotaping whenever they are warned of such a possibility.

3. Both sides on Staff Council have achieved a better understanding of each other's position. The Commission judges that the level of tolerance has increased.

Impass

In regard to Pride scheduling a pavilion for a picnic at Kennywood, there is still a deadlock concerning the sign that can be displayed. Kennywood views the terms "lesbian, gay and bisexual" as a statement of a social or political cause and, hence, not admissible under their policy of reserving the Park solely for entertainment. Gays and lesbians, as well as members of the Commission, view these terms as legitimate parts of a name on a sign which would indicate the group who had reserved a particular pavilion.

Proposals

Given the above, it seems clear that Kennywood does not live up to the level of ideals incorporated within our statement of assurance. Pride cannot use its full name on a sign even with agreement on all sides that the pavilion and the Park are to be used only for entertainment and for no other purpose, because Kennywood believes that the sign itself would violate such an agreement. On the other hand, we judge that progress has been made as indicated above.

The members of the Commission have reached a consensus. We believe that it is important to accept the progress which has been achieved and to try to explore additional ways of encouraging our Campus and other organizations in our society to move toward increased levels of tolerance and acceptance of the ideals in our statement of assurance. Accordingly, we make the following proposals:

1. Staff Council should proceed to plan for and hold a Carnegie Mellon University Day at Kennywood this summer. Cancellation of plans at this time might cause a loss both of goodwill and the progress and better understanding that has been achieved.

2. We should plan for a session during late fall or early winter, at the convenience of the parties, to see whether we can make further progress. We propose using the good offices of the Human Relations Commission to involve Carnegie Mellon University members of gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities, and perhaps a wider group, and the management of Kennywood in another discussion.

3. Plans for a 1993 day at Kennywood, if desired, can be completed after the above session, or plans for an alternative outing might be started.

Conclusion

The Commission hopes that acceptance of these proposals, as well as good faith efforts on the part of all of the parties, will help build a CMU which is much closer to living up to our ideals.

The Commission plans to explore further ideas to make our own Campus a more tolerant place for our gay, lesbian and bisexual community with an environment more closely in conformance with our statement of assurance.