David Scondras

September 1996 [Articles]

Double standards

Must gay people earn the right not to be attacked?
by Michael Bronski

Michael Bronski is the author of Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sensibility (South End Press, 1984) and is the editor of the recently released Taking Liberties: Gay Men's Essays on Politics, Culture, and Sex (Richard Kasak Books, 1996); he can be reached at mabronski@aol.com.

The news that former Boston city councilor David Scondras had been brutally beaten by a young man accusing him of, shall we say, indelicate behavior in a movie theater shocked much of Boston's gay community and has exposed some surprising divisions within it.
Part of the problem with discussing the Scondras story is that no one knows what happened. Scondras himself has yet to make a public statement; most of the information we have comes from the report of the young man's father. This is what we know so far: Scondras met the 16-year-old in the lobby of the Sheraton Boston and offered to get him into a film at the Cheri Theater across the street. The young man accepted. Some time later, after Scondras either told the young man he was gay or groped him (depending on whom you believe), the young man punched Scondras, who fled into the lobby. The boy followed and continued to hit Scondras, kicking him in the head and torso when Scondras fell to the ground. The beating was stopped by the Cheri's security officials, who called the police. Scondras drove himself to Beth Israel Hospital, where he was treated for multiple hematomas on his abdomen, injured kidneys, a broken nose that was impacted into his cranial cavity, a skull fracture, and a jaw broken in three places.
A probable-cause hearing, to assess whether there is enough evidence to charge Scondras with sexual assault, is set for October 25. Scondras has indicated that he is considering filing charges against the young man for assault and battery.
What is astonishing about the whole affair is not that the two sides are telling different stories -- of course they are -- but that the gay community can't agree on how to respond. Given the ferocity of the attack, a unanimous condemnation would seem to be in order. Yet an article in the Boston Globe -- headlined SCONDRAS CHARGES DIVIDE GAYS -- indicated that for many gay men, the real issue was not anti-gay violence but gay sexuality and the behavior of gay public figures. This was even more apparent in Bay Windows' coverage. DAVID SCONDRAS ALLEGEDLY GROPES UNWILLING 16-YEAR-OLD IN THEATER ran the headline, followed by "Former Boston city councilor counters that he is the victim of brutal bashing." Somewhere along the line, an alleged incident of sexual misconduct became more important that the reality of a brutal beating. What happened?
The implication of these stories is that Scondras brought the beating upon himself through his sexual behavior. And the sexual controversy surrounding the story is heightened by the age difference between the former city councilor and his attacker: Scondras is 50, the young man is 16. Boston City Councilor Albert "Dapper" O'Neil went so far as to denounce his former colleague as a "pedophile." But despite O'Neil's colorful language, this is not pedophilia; in Massachusetts, 16 is the legal age of consent. What is surprising is that this homophobia is being echoed throughout the gay community itself.
Rather than condemn a public gay-bashing, some community spokespeople are actually making excuses for the basher and hinting that the former councilor may have deserved what he got. Neil Miller, a local gay writer who seems to be speaking for many in the gay community, was quoted in the Globe as saying that "Scondras bore some responsibility for the boy's rage if he propositioned someone so young." He also denounced the violence, but his comments can be read as justifying the "homosexual panic" defense for gay bashing -- a "defense" that the gay legal establishment has been battling for more than a decade.
At the root of this misguided overreaction is a fear that the allegations against Scondras implicate all gay men. Miller, citing sexual scandals involving US Representatives Gerry Studds and Barney Frank, contends that when gay public officials become involved "in the seamy side of sex," the gay community suffers. "While I feel pain for David," he says, "I also feel angry. Why can't our public figures behave?"
Michael Greene, president of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights Lobby, echoes this sentiment in the same Globe article: "As community leaders who are openly gay public officials, we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard of public scrutiny." But the problem with this "higher standard" is that it is always a double standard; once again, gay people are being judged differently than heterosexuals. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former US senator Bob Packwood are two examples of public figures accused of sexual harassment in recent years. They have not been punished for their alleged actions. Why should gay public figures or elected officials be held to any other standard?
The bottom-line question in this whole affair is whether David Scondras deserved to be sent to the hospital. Even if Scondras groped the unwilling young man -- which he denies -- did he deserve to be beaten? Or hit a few times? Or even once? For any self-respecting gay person, the answer must be a resounding "No." The proper response to unwanted (and nonviolent) sexual contact is to say "no" -- or "fuck you" -- and walk away. Even if Scondras acted stupidly or unethically, he did not deserve to be attacked. Period.
What does it say about our culture that violence is so easily accepted as a response to so many situations? What does it say about our gay culture when some are so willing to blame a gay man for acting sexually -- albeit, perhaps, carelessly or insensitively -- rather than focus on the evil of anti-gay violence? The reality is that whether Scondras was beaten for an unwanted touch or simply for saying that he was gay, this was a clear example of gay bashing. Violence against gay men and lesbians occurs when we transgress the boundaries of permissible public visibility established by heterosexual society. It happens when we hold hands in public, when we dress too femme or too butch, when we "look" gay, and -- yes -- when we make stupid mistakes. What would the gay community's reaction have been if the young man had been 18, 20, or 21? What if he had a history of assault and battery, or gay bashing, or hustling? What if Scondras were now in a coma, facing irreversible brain damage, or dead? Would any of these circumstances make the violence against him any more or less justifiable?
Why is this even a discussion?
The gay community's defense of anti-gay violence, of a double standard for gay people, stems from the fear that the overtly sexual actions of some gay people -- be it Barney Frank enjoying the attentions of a hustler, the Lesbian Avengers' "bed float" at Pride this year, Queer Nation kiss-ins, or David Scondras cruising a hotel lobby -- will harm the cause of gay rights and gay freedom. Have we become so defensive, so worried about conforming to the restrictions of the heterosexual world, that we cannot see the simple truth? Freedom that we win by not annoying straight people, by being "better" than straight people, by essentially denying our sexuality, is no freedom at all.