SPEAKER 1: OK. So the first question is, in my personal experience, different LGBTQIA+ alum that I've talked to, they have a wide range of opinions on what Cornell was like for the community when they were a student. Can you please explain what the environment was like for a member of the LGBTQIA+ community during your time at Cornell? 

SPEAKER 2: Sure. I would say that it was both the best of times and the worst of times. In terms of the best of times, the campus provided an opportunity for many of us who had never felt empowered, in terms of our queer identity, to come out. I actually came out my freshman year on campus, and there were support networks. 

There was a support group that I participated in. There were groups like the Coalition. It was called the "LGB Coalition" at the time. And so for somebody like myself that had come from a very conservative background, that was an unprecedented opportunity to connect with other people like myself and feel empowered to come out. 

But the wider national and international environment was still very, very different than it is today. We were very much in the throes of the AIDS crisis, and so that had a severe impact on the community because we had to fight on that front. There was a lot of prejudice on that front. And we knew loved ones who were struggling with the virus and who ultimately died. And so we were dealing with a life or death situation, literally. 

Kind of a microcosm of what we're all experiencing with COVID today but very concentrated in our community. And then in terms of the wider political environment, it was much, much less accepting. When I came to campus, we still had a Republican president that had followed another Republican president that couldn't even say the word "AIDS" in public. And so in terms of the national environment, it was still not at all accepting of our community. 

Towards the end of my four years, I graduated in '93, the incoming-- the Democratic candidate Bill Clinton initiated a conversation on gay rights because of his pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. And that created a substantial backlash in society in terms of wanting to do violence against the community because there were people that were very unhappy that that conversation was being had. 

I will conclude by saying that I'm speaking mostly about the L, G, and B components of the community. We were at a time where the T part or the other parts of our community were not recognized. In my title, as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Representative, I did not have T in my title. It was a different time. 

And I have known people who have since come out as transgender individuals. And even though they felt comfortable being queer on our campus, there were still impediments to being openly transgender. And so in that sense, too, there was still progress to be had at that time. 

SPEAKER 1: OK. Thank you. So the next question is. 

SPEAKER 3: How did you-- can you hear me? 

SPEAKER 2: Yes, but not as clearly. So maybe speak up a little. 

SPEAKER 3: How did you become the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Liaison at large? 

SPEAKER 2: I signed up for it because there was an unchallenged seat. It was a very public-facing seat, and we were still in an environment where a lot of people were not comfortable being a public face of the community. And so the seat was simply empty. And so rather than let it go empty, we, the community, decided to fill it and I stepped up to do that. 

I also saw an opportunity to use the mechanisms of the assembly to bring forward issues that were of concern to our community, which is what the seat is supposed to be about. And that previously had not happened in the same way, and I wanted to change that. And so that's how it occurred, but it was not a competitive election. 

SPEAKER 1: OK. The third question is, what was your reaction when the first two resolutions demanding the establishment of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Living Learning Unit were vetoed in 1993? What were the next steps you took as a result of the vetoes? 

SPEAKER 2: So the resolution for the establishment of the unimaginatively named Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Living Learning Unit came as a result of a series of incidents on campus that were promoting violence against the community. There were a series of chalkings that occurred. Again, this was in the backdrop of the 1992 presidential election where we had a Democratic candidate promoting gay rights. 

And the campus was plastered with chalkings promoting violence and death towards LGBT people. And to worsen the situation, there was absolutely no response from the University. There was no condemnation. There was no attempt to immediately remove the chalkings. There was nothing. And so as a result of that, the leaders of the community got together to figure out, how are we going to respond to these threats of violence? 

How are we going to create a safe space so that students have solidarity against what's obviously an environment that is calling for violence? And so a bunch of us authored the resolution. The resolution-- and I'm sure you've seen the documents because they're in my archive. President Rhodes issued a veto calling for more study of the issue, and so we did just that. 

We conducted a campus poll to see how the campus felt about it. Frankly, we considered that to be offensive because we did not think that our rights should be put up to public vote. But nevertheless, in order to cross off the boxes and check the T's and dot the I's, we went ahead and we did the poll. And it was completely-- 1/3 was for it, 1/3 of the campus was against it, and 1/3 had no opinion. 

We also had debates on the campus during that time where we debated the pros and the cons. We were widely panned in the conservative media at the time, which claimed that we were trying to obtain special privileges or benefits to ourselves while being completely deaf to the reality that violence had been called for against our community and it needed an equally forceful response. So those were the primary activities that occurred. 

And then as you know, there was a second resolution that was put forward, again calling for the creation of a unit. That also passed and then that was permanently vetoed by President Rhodes who claimed-- I'm sure you've seen the letters at the time, that we did not want to be going in the direction of creating this special housing for different groups of people. 

Of course, he went ahead and did just that in subsequent years with other groups. But that hypocrisy aside, that's what ended up happening. And even though the resolution failed, it did start certain seeds germinating, right? Because from that came an alternative proposal to create the-- I don't know what it's called today, but it's the center, the-- [AUDIO OUT] 

SPEAKER 1: Were you cut off for a second? 

SPEAKER 3: I think we lost Joe. 

SPEAKER 2: Yes, I think I was, for some reason. I'm not sure why. It changed my default. Can you hear me again? 

SPEAKER 1: Yes, I can. 

SPEAKER 2: Yeah. So we did get one positive benefit-- or output from that whole debate, which was the establishment of the LGBT Center. I think that persists to this day. But obviously, that was a crushing defeat for the community. And so from that point, the proposal died and laid in an archive until a student in Wallace, a couple of years ago, rediscovered that archive and decided to get that proposal past the finish line, almost 25 years after its initial proposal. 

SPEAKER 3: All right. The next question is, what was your reaction when the first-- no, sorry. What was your reaction when you found out the Loving House was approved over two decades later? 

SPEAKER 2: I burst into tears, almost like I want to do right now. [CLEARING THROAT] It was an effort that many students poured their hearts and souls into. It was so important to have a strong and powerful response to the calls for violence, and it was crushing to see it get defeated. 

And time passes by and I've gone on to do other things in the world, but you never forget those formative years. And there was always just that little gap in my heart that said, well, what if? What would have happened? How might life have been different or better for students if that had been passed, right? 

And then, of course, we had President Obama come into office and there was a time when we thought that wheel of progress was going forward and that we were really getting to a place of full acceptance of society. And those concerns kind of crept further into the background until Donald Trump got elected. And then it almost came full circle because, all of a sudden, our community was being targeted again, right? Just like it had been 25 years prior. 

And so when I heard that the proposal was brought back forward and that this time it was passed, it was like it finally came at the time when it was most needed. It finally came full circle because that wheel of progress doesn't just necessarily go forward, right? It can go backwards, too, and that's what we've seen in the last five years. 

There's been, unfortunately, a lot of backwards progress. And if we are not ever-vigilant, we can lose those rights and those rights in society that we have won and that have been so hard won over the last 25 years. And so to hear the proposal come forward again-- [AUDIO OUT] I don't know what's going on-- [AUDIO OUT] I don't know what's going on with my camera, I apologize. 

SPEAKER 1: That's OK. 

SPEAKER 2: So I've seen that proposal come forward again. To me, I felt like I was hit by a-- no idea, the video keeps going off. That has never happened to me before. It goes off. Let me see under Video Setting. Can you hear me now? 

SPEAKER 1: Yes. 

SPEAKER 2: OK. For some reason, it wants to keep-- microphone. So let me turn it off again. Still hear me? 

SPEAKER 3: Yes. 

SPEAKER 1: Yes. 

SPEAKER 2: OK. I don't know what's going on. Let me try this. All right. Let's see if that sticks. You can hear me OK now? 

SPEAKER 1: Yes. 

SPEAKER 2: All right. So just to go back to what I was saying, so I feel like I was hit by a thunderbolt because, all of a sudden, something was being proposed that had first come 25 years ago. It died. And now, when we really needed it more than ever, all of the alumni of that era kept-- I mean, they were overjoyed to hear that this was happening. 

Because it wasn't just me. I mean, there was a whole bunch of us that worked our hearts out on this topic. And so it was just incredibly empowering to see it happen. So do you hear my voice coming and going or going to different microphones? 

SPEAKER 3: Your voice is fine. We just can't see your picture. 

SPEAKER 2: You cannot see my picture. 

SPEAKER 1: We see it now. 

SPEAKER 2: OK. Let me try getting out and coming back. 

SPEAKER 3: OK. 

SPEAKER 2: And see if that fixes the issue because I have never experienced this before. So I'll be right back. OK? 

SPEAKER 3: OK. 

SPEAKER 2: All right. Let's see if that's any better. That's just weird. OK. All right. But I think I gave you a good enough answer. 

SPEAKER 1: The next question actually happens to touch based on a bit of what you said because we were reading a Cornell Daily Sun article that had you quoted as saying, "To hear that 25 years later, in the age of Trump, this has come full circle, to me, it brings an incredible sense of closure." I know you touched a bit about this. But in regards to specifically when you say you feel "a sense of closure," do you mind elaborating on that, if that was a personal sense of closure, sense of closure for the LGBTQIA+ community at Cornell at large? If you could just say a bit more about that quote. 

SPEAKER 2: It was a closure for both. Personally, like I said, I felt I left unfinished business. My time ran out. I graduated. And there was just not the same impetus in subsequent years to implement this. And so from that sense, I felt that the work hadn't been completed. And I saw lots of good come later in terms of the LGBT Center and everything, but it wasn't the same. 

I knew that that need still existed. And maybe the need receded a bit during the Obama years and then came roaring back during the Trump years and made me wonder more than ever what would have been. And so to see it happen, it just-- [AUDIO OUT] --the chapter on that. 

And then in terms of the campus itself, just having something resurrected from 25 years ago because it became relevant again and to have a current generation of students have some of the same needs and see the same solution was, I thought, incredible as well. And so from that perspective also, I felt that Cornell's LGBTQ community had finally been served in the way that it had deserved after all this time. 

SPEAKER 3: Right. The next question is, there were multiple options presented for where to place the Loving House. What are your opinions about the location of the Loving House? 

SPEAKER 2: So I think that the location is fantastic. I apologize about the-- because I know it may screw up your recording, and I'm so sorry about that. But I have never had the camera just blink on and off randomly. I think the location is fantastic. I think it is a dedicated space, which-- [AUDIO OUT] Our proposal was actually to have it in Clara Dickson Hall. 

I think which would have worked well as well, but there were some limitations. Also, in fact, the idea behind Clare Dickson was in response to some of the criticism we got that students would have special privileges because they'd be able to live with their boyfriend or their girlfriends because it wasn't-- they used to keep men and women separate on the campus and in the dormitories. 

And so to address that ridiculous concern, we said, OK, we'll use the single rooms in Dickson as the way of doing the program. But my understanding is that the current proposals were doubles, so that's no longer an issue. And so I thought that it was just-- it was wonderful. 

SPEAKER 1: OK. The next question is, what would you like to see from the Loving House and Cornell as a whole group going forward? 

SPEAKER 2: I would like to see it last forever. I would like to-- I would love to see a dedicated funding source to make sure that that continues to have the programming that it deserves. And ideally, if there was any programming related or any funding related to that could help LGBTQ students that have necessity that may not be able to afford their tuition. If there was some kind of a scholarship program, I think that that would be wonderful also. 

I went to Cornell on full scholarship and-- almost full scholarship. I worked college work study and had some loans also, but I would not have been able to attend Cornell without that financial generosity. And so if there was anything like that that could help students, I think that would be amazing. But most important is to make sure that there is a dedicated funding source that can enable it to do the programming and to provide the space that students need when they sign up for the house. 

SPEAKER 3: All right. Last question is, do you have any plans to have a role in the development of the Loving House as time goes on? 

SPEAKER 2: I would love to have a role in the development. I mean, that will be up to the students and the new residence hall director and how they would like to include alumni. But to the extent that there's opportunity, it would be-- [AUDIO OUT] 

SPEAKER 1: It appears you were cut off when you said "it would be," and then it cut off. 

SPEAKER 2: How about now? 

SPEAKER 1: You're good now. 

SPEAKER 2: OK. I've used a million-- I've done a million Zoom meetings, and I have never had any problems like this. So I don't know if it's the Cornell platform or what. But-- [AUDIO OUT] 

SPEAKER 1: You got cut off again after saying "but." 

SPEAKER 2: Well, I'm going to try to use the microphone that it wants me to use, which is on this thing. I didn't really want to wear this device. But it says that it's completely unable to detect my camera, so let me try plugging it in again. That's so irritating. I was-- [LAUGHING] Can you hear me still? 

SPEAKER 1: Yes. 

SPEAKER 3: Yes. 

SPEAKER 2: All right. Well, we're going to have to make do the best we can, I guess. But, yes, I would love to continue to be involved. The students, the residence hall director, the RAs will have to decide how they want to keep alumni involved. And I have a feeling it wouldn't be just me. I think that there would be other alumni who were also involved in the original effort that would love to continue their involvement. 

And so I think having a partnership between the alumni and the students would be a wonderful thing and a great way of partnering students with alumni for other opportunities out in the world. I mean, I live in DC. I work in politics. I would be happy to help connect students that are part of the program in ways that might help their career or come to campus occasionally and provide some programming. Any of that would be amazing. So, yes, I would love to do that and I know that other alumni would as well. 

SPEAKER 1: Awesome. Well, that's all the questions we have today. So I'll turn off--