USC-Upstate closing their Gender Studies Center

USC-Upstate is closing their Gender Studies Center. I apologize for my tardiness in reporting this story, since I left town right after the huge hoopla broke out on my Facebook feed. In short, plenty of locals believe it was a waste of money and a good cost-cutting measure.

Others disagreed, and decided to protest.

This action was widely regarded as an act of retribution. From reporter Alison Piepmeier at Charleston City Paper:

On the afternoon of Mon. May 12, Interim Senior Vice Chancellor John Masterson explained to select faculty members that the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies at USC Upstate will be closed starting July 1, 2014.

Given the fact that USC Upstate has faced homophobic threats and retaliation from the General Assembly, both for its reading program that offered the book “Out Loud: The Best of Rainbow Radio” (a decision the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies had nothing to do with) and its decision to book the satirical play “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less,” some faculty do not believe the elimination of the center is simply coincidental, especially since their budget for programming is $500 a year. “In my personal opinion it’s an act of retribution,” one faculty member told me.

We’re in a moment when the legislature continues to attempt to enact budget cuts for CofC and USC Upstate for books they’ve offered their students, books that present characters and nonfictional accounts addressing — among many other things — LGBTQ people and topics. The nation — indeed, the world —has been paying attention to the homophobia and sexism that our legislature has clearly and unapologetically voiced.

In addition to the book USC Upstate offered in the fall semester, in the spring the Center had the Bodies of Knowledge Symposium, an academic conference they’ve been holding since 2007. This is a conference that is based on current research in Women’s and Gender Studies, and they’ve always featured evening entertainment for participants.

This year when the conference offered a satirical one-woman play called How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less, Rep. Mike Fair (R-Greenville) called them out. Rep. Fair, a Christian fundamentalist who leads the legislative fight for creationism, has been very open about his homophobia. “It’s just not normal and then you glorify … same-sex orientation,” he told Greenville TV station WYFF. “That’s not an explanation of ‘I was born this way.’ That’s recruiting.”

State Sen. Kevin Bryant got even more specific, telling The State [newspaper], “If they’ve got extra money sitting around to promote perversion, obviously they’ve got more money than they really need.”

After Fair and Bryant raised a stink, the school’s administration cancelled the performance. At the time, Tammy E. Whaley, assistant vice chancellor for university communications at USC Upstate, said that the move was actually an action in favor of academic freedom: “The controversy surrounding this performance has become a distraction to the educational mission of USC Upstate and the overall purpose of the Bodies of Knowledge symposium.”

Photo of USC-Upstate demonstration at left, from GoUpstate.



The Center for Women’s and Gender Studies has been an important entity on the USC Upstate campus. A faculty member told me that the administration is now “removing the only element of the campus that responds to the needs of marginalized people.” The center offered a host of services to faculty, staff, and students, from professional development opportunities for women in academia to a space on campus where students — from sorority members to trans activists — were welcome.

“To say I’m disgusted is an understatement,” a faculty member told me. “The center was a sign of a positive and progressive workplace for faculty and staff and a safe haven for students, gone now with no input from the faculty, staff, and students it served.” Indeed, almost every faculty member I spoke with referred to the center as a safe space.

The demonstration was on May 21st, headed up by students (and local atheist activist Peggy Dellinger! Woo-hoo! Friends of the radio show!).

From GoUpstate:

USC Upstate’s Center for Women’s and Gender Studies featured programming on a variety of topics, including race, sexual orientation, feminism and religion, and it was women who took center stage during Wednesday’s protest of its closure.

“The center was closed without consulting the women faculty,” said Jennifer Parker, associate dean for arts and sciences. “This was a decision that did not involve the collective voice.”

The protest was in response to last week’s announcement by University of South Carolina Upstate officials that cuts to programs and administrative changes would be made to save $450,000, including closing the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies. The cuts would be effective July 1. Closing the center would equal $45,000 in savings.

Protesters first gathered at the fountain in front of the administration building, then moved to the quad behind it. They held signs that stated, “It’s not a good time for women at USCU” and “Closing CWGS = $45K, promoting peace, justice and opportunity for all = priceless” and chanted, “No more margins. We want the center.”

Parker said she was not attacking Chancellor Tom Moore, but asked that he rethink the closing of the center.

“It was a huge blow to the women on campus,” she said. “I hope he reconsiders this decision.”

The Petition is here, if you'd like to sign it.

Proposed SC State Health plan won't cover abortion

...unless the mother's life is in danger. Rape and incest are A-OK, and if by chance you should be a victim of one of these (includes minors), you will be forced to give birth.

Yes, nothing but COMPASSION from the Republicans.

From the Columbia STATE:

South Carolina’s state health plan would not pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest, according to a budget proviso unanimously approved by a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.

The proviso, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, would only allow state taxpayers to pay for an abortion if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Lawmakers have tried, and failed, to pass this proviso for at least two years. The proviso would only apply to people covered by the state’s health insurance plan. But it has come to represent the broader abortion debate in general, sparking passionate debate in the House and Senate while slowing the budget process.

“We’re focusing on the rights and the liberty of an unborn child, and I can’t understand why the life of a child that’s a victim ought to be terminated,” Bryant said.

But critics say barring abortions in the case of rape or incest only victimizes the mother.

The three exemptions in the state health plan -- rape, incest or life of the mother -- mirrors the policy of the federal government health plan, commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment, named for former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois.

Since 2009, state taxpayers have paid for 19 abortions. Seventeen of them were fetal deaths and two were to save the life of the mother, according to the state Budget and Control Board.

Sens. David Thomas and Mike Fair, both Greenville Republicans, also voted for the proviso. The next step is to pass the full Senate Finance Committee before it reaches the Senate floor.

Besides the garden-variety misogyny involved in forcing a 12-year-old raped by her father to give birth, what really gets me is: these same Republicans claim they are all about saving money, and how much money has all this pro-life political wrangling cost us, compared to a measly 19 abortions? How many working hours have been wasted on this noisy grandstanding to the right-wing base?

Basically, they like to fuss about saving money when they have nothing else to say. They don't mind spending our money arguing endlessly over stuff THEY have chosen to raise hell about. As we have previously established, David Thomas keeps collecting that pricey pension while still in office (that he claimed he didn't believe in), so regardless of what happens, he'll be just fine. He loves to take away the rights of others, all while giving himself more, more, more. No wonder he is such a successful politician.

Mike Fair, we have singled out here before. His entire political career is mostly based on abortion.

WHY are we stuck with these jokers, again? (sigh)

Mike Fair predicts House ultrasound bill will pass SC Senate

At left: South Carolina state Senator Mike Fair, often to blame for these kinds of things.



Below, more on South Carolina's forced-ultrasound bill. (I first blogged on this here, and Cara of Feministe commented further here.)

~*~


Greenville Sen. Mike Fair predicts House ultrasound bill will pass SC Senate
February 4, 2009

COLUMBIA -- A Greenville senator who chaired a committee last year that forged a compromise on the issue of ultrasound and abortion said Wednesday he believes the newest tweaking of the law by the House will pass the Senate.

Sen. Mike Fair's comments came a day after the House Judiciary Committee passed and sent to the floor a bill that would require women seeking an abortion wait for 24 hours after getting an ultrasound test before undergoing the procedure.

About half the states have 24-hour waiting rules, legislators say, but South Carolina would become the first to time it starting with an ultrasound.

Critics say the legislation is an attempt to intimidate women seeking an abortion and that it would require two trips to a facility, something that will especially pose a burden for poor women from rural communities. Supporters say that the waiting period, even if it requires two visits, is warranted because of the serious nature of the decision.

"It's a reasonable thing to do to require 24 hours," Fair said. "I choose to believe we could pass that."

Fair said the 24-hour wait is something both he and Sen. Kevin Bryant of Anderson, another senator negotiating the issue last year, favored but that the political environment at the time would not support it. Also on the committee negotiating last year was Sen. Linda Short, a Chester County Democrat who did not run for re-election. The Senate currently has no female members.

The compromise last year requires women to wait an hour after an ultrasound before proceeding with an abortion. The intial legislation required that women seeking an abortion be shown the ultrasound image, even rape and incest victims. The resulting law requires women be told they have the option of viewing the ultrasound.

The 24-hour bill is expected to be debated on the floor of the House next week.

Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments

They finally figured out a way to sneak them in. They are now "historical" documents and are included solely for that reason.

Of course, this begs the question: the Catholic or Protestant version of the Ten Commandments? (I bet I know the answer to that one!)

Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments

By Tim Smith • STAFF WRITER • May 23, 2008 • GREENVILLE NEWS

COLUMBIA -- The Senate passed a bill today that would allow displays in public buildings of the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer as historical documents.

The bill, without the Lord’s Prayer amendment, already passed the House and now returns there for legislators to determine whether they agree with the Senate’s change. If they agree, the bill goes to Gov. Mark Sanford.

Passage came with one prominent opponent. Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell said the Lord’s Prayer amendment is "constitutional quicksand" that will draw a court challenge and unnecessary legal fees.

"There are at least five different versions of the Lord’s Prayer," he said. "I have no problem personally with the Lord’s Prayer being publicly displayed. But the courts have spoken pretty clearly about where they are on the separation of church and state and these documents."

The bill would allow public bodies, including schools, to display a set of 11 documents lawmakers say help make up the nation’s foundation of law and government. Included are the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation and Martin Luther King’s "I have a Dream" speech, as well as the national motto, "In God We Trust."

The documents must include language included in the bill that explains each document’s historical significance.

"The historical documents bill passed by the Senate is a win because it will help to further educate people about the documents that formed the foundation of our country’s history and provide deeper meaning to the great and rich history that we have in this country," said Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens, who shepherded the issue through the Senate.

"It will also be a great tool for history, civic and government teachers to use in their classroom."

Martin said afterward that a number of senators were nervous about including the Lord’s Prayer but did so out of fear of what voters would think if they voted against it. The amendment was proposed by Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat.

"Some people felt like there was no way they could go back home and explain why they voted against the Lord’s Prayer," Martin said.

Sen. Mike Fair of Greenville said the bill is "sound." He added, "It’s not religious. It’s historical."

Parts of the Lord’s Prayer, Fair said, was referenced by an early governor of Georgia in removing a provision for debtors’ prison.

However, McConnell, the only senator voting against the bill, said if the Lord’s Prayer is left in, the bill will be overturned by the courts.

"I cannot vote for a bill when all of the advice from the lawyers leads you to the presumption that it is unconstitutional," he said.

"The taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill for all of this. If we had stuck to the documents that have been pretty much court tested, we would be fine. But we expanded it beyond that. And I believe it will cause the package to explode in the courts."

Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County Republican, disagreed. "It’s true that the Lord’s Prayer wasn’t included in some of the test cases," he said. "But the condition of the test cases is whether the item is placed into historical context. I think they made it where we have a good shot at maintaining the constitutionality of it."

Thomas said he doesn’t mind the bill being challenged because it could expand the documents that can be set in such displays.

What else qualifies? What else might we get put on display? (I see no foreseeable end to the Bible verses.)

And if this is challenged in the courts, I don't want to pay for it. Do I get a choice?