Homophobia, 2002, by Fran Wallace

From MemoryArchive

Who: Fran Wallace
What: Homophobia
When: 2002
Where: Toronto

Several years ago I had the fortune to be appointed as a volunteer on a Grants Committee for a large Canadian foundation which provides support to Ontario based organizations and projects. While I enjoyed the work tremendously and felt a great sense of accomplishment for the many good works we were able to fund, there is one application which haunts me.

Upon receipt by the Foundation, each application for funding is assigned to a staff member to review for eligibility and administrative completeness. Once the staff member is sure the application is viable, it is assigned to a Grants Committee volunteer who serves as the lead reviewer for the application. As the Grants Committee consists of about 12 - 15 members, it was the role of the lead reviewer to thoroughly assess the application and present its merits to the Committee. As you can appreciate the Lead Reviewer plays an important role in the application's success or failure.

One spring I was asked to be a lead reviewer on an application that would provide support services to gay, lesbian, transgender and transexual teenagers (hereafter called 'gay') living in the suburban areas of the Greater Toronto Area.

I don't particularly consider myself a very liberal person, however, I accept the 'gay' community and difficulties those living the life encounter. I was a bit uncomfortable being assigned as the lead reviewer, because I wasn't sure I would be able to be convincing about the need for funding. So I asked to meet with the group which was putting forward the application. I felt this would help me sensitize myself to the issues and help me present a more compelling argument at the grants meeting.

The group I met with was comprised of a number of organizations that had come together on behalf of the teenage population they would be serving. There were representatives from the Regional Health Unit, the Separate (Catholic) and Public School Boards, as well as other social service agencies that worked with the 'gay' population on a regular basis. The meeting went well and I came away a bit more sensitized to the issues and feeling positive about the application.

Prior to the Grants meeting, I was surprised to receive a telephone call from the Chair of the Grants Committee. He was phoning to see what my position on this application would be at the meeting later in the day. Whether I would recommend it for funding. He made it very obvious he didn't feel the application should receive funding and seemed incredulous that I would be seeking money for the group.

This was just a foreshadowing of what was to come at the meeting. When it came time for me to present the application, I began by trying to give the Grants Committee members a way of personally relating to a gay child. I used information provided by the Regional Health Unit and indicated that within the room, statistically 4 of us would have a child that was 'gay'. The Health Unit's statistic was doubted. One member felt that kids tend to experiment with their sexuality when teens and we shouldn't encourage them to the 'gay' lifestyle by providing a support service. Another member was concerned about the advocacy in the application -- he thought it was going to be used to actively convert otherwise straight kids into the 'gay' lifestyle. (In reality the advocacy element of the application was primarily there to minimize homophobia within the school environment.) Another member was concerned that some of the work would be done in the schools and there was no 'definitive' proof of support from the schools at a Board level (although Board reps were at the meeting I attended).

One Committee member sat through much of the discussion quietly, then towards the end decided to speak up. He indicated his brother is gay. He spoke of the incredible difficulties his brother encountered as a young man coming to terms with his sexual persuasion. And then he said, "I think my son may be gay. I don't want him to experience the same difficulties my brother did growing up." Given the hostility around the table, I found it extraordinary and commendable that this man spoke up.

No matter how much we tried (there were 4 of us who supported the application) to convince the group that being 'gay' was NOT a lifestyle choice, everything we said was ignored. Nothing I could say was being believed. There was this massive desire on the part of the Committee members to deny this application. Obtuse rationales for the decline were being used.

After the meeting, I had one Committee member essentially come up to console me. I was astounded to learn he didn't even read the application as he found the subject matter so repulsive.

All in all, I was horrified. If the application had been denied for legitimate reasons I would gladly have accepted the Committee's decision. However, in their contrived denial of this application they were being extremely discourteous to me personally. Nothing I was saying was being believed. Government statistics were being doubted. Assurances I offered - which had they been given in any other application would have been acceptable - were being ignored. I was so angry I almost quit the Committee. However, I decided that my liberal viewpoint was needed at the table (all of a sudden I realized I was far more liberal in my viewpoint than most of my colleagues). I also wrote a letter to the CEO of the Foundation and suggested sensitivity training might be something he could add to the next Foundation (education) conference.

The failure of this application still bothers me, as I wonder if a more articulate person would have succeeded. Or a person more familiar with 'gay' issues. One positive outcome of the exercise is that it gave me a tremendous insight into the prejudice 'gays' must experience in their day to day lives.

One final irony - the CEO of the Foundation is gay - and I doubt any of the Committee volunteers realized it.