Instigation Journalism: Tradition of Homophobia Continues at Texas A&M

The headline in the Texas A&M University Battalion read: “Underneath the noses of unsuspecting students, anonymous sex is occurring in buildings across campus.” But it could have easily read: “Underneath the noses of unsuspecting strait students, homosexual sex is occurring in buildings across campus.”

The article was written about anonymous sex that takes place on campus, but more specifically anonymous homosexual sex between men. The author of the article reports on “glory holes” in bathrooms on campus, and using online sites such as Craigslist to provide anonymous encounters. However, throughout the article the author only reports on homosexual sex between men, and there are no mentions of anonymous sex between homosexual women or heterosexual couples. At the end of the article the author urges the campus provide more security to protect the students from “seedy and illegal sex acts.”

It must be said that sex, of any kind, should not be acceptable in a public place. Consenting adults have the right to engage in any type of sex act in the privacy of their own home. However, engaging in sex acts in public is not safe, and it creates an uncomfortable environment. That being said, this article specifically focused on public sex between homosexual men. This was not investigative journalism, this was instigation journalism.

One of the most important criticisms that should be made about the article is that it is simply bad journalism. If only because Texas A&M was actually ranked by the Princeton Review as the most conservative campus in the nation, not the 8th most conservative campus in the nation. There was the interview with the anonymous professor who recounted a twenty year old story about “several males openly performing various sex acts.” It is perfectly legitimate to cite anonymous sources in an investigative story, however, this particular anonymous source only provided a story that at best may have provided historical context but no amplifying information pertaining to the current situation.

Craigslist is about as reliable a source for information and verifiable date as a Facebook or Myspace. Unless you can control for the entries on Craigslist that are fake, and the fact that the internet has become a significant meeting place for members of the gay community because of a lack of public meeting places, it is hard to consider any data verifiable. Also, one interview from an anonymous source does not provide a clear picture of the reason for the activities taking place.

Then there are of course the comments that have been posted about the article online. Tyler Newton, who insists that he is “100% heterosexual,” posted about his harrowing experience with the public sex problem on campus, while Ryan Clay posted about being “harrassed by the casanova in the next stall.” However, the majority of the postings online have been critical of the articles premise and have been supportive of the GLBT community.

Perhaps the most important reason why this article is bad journalism is because the article does not go beyond the surface perception. By only reporting on homosexual sex between men it reinforces a stereotype that gay men are more than promiscuous than the rest of the population. The article ignores the anonymous sex that takes place between strait couple in other locations, some of which may be considered even more public than a restroom.

The article does raise an interesting question that should be explored, and could be an example of worthwhile investigative journalism: are Texas A&M students engaging in dangerous sexual activities? This is a question that should be asked in the context of a conservative campus, a campus where sexuality can often be portrayed as acceptable only under certain circumstances. Are students of all sexual orientations receiving factual information about safe sex, even while a publication such as the Anthem publish articles critical of providing free condoms on campus. There are several questions that could be raised about the sex on campus.

Perhaps questions about should sexual assault on campus should be asked, such as the investigation by the Center for Public Integrity that found that a thick blanket of secrecy still envelops cases involving allegations of sexual assault on college campuses. Perhaps questions should be raised about whether or not students are given factual information about sexual transmitted diseases, or medically accurate information about reproductive health care such as abortion. Or perhaps the question should be ask why twenty-five years after Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students at Texas A&M are still fighting the same battles.