Scarves

by Nick Miller Kauffman

I'm (still) watching Annual Conference business via webcast, where they just concluded business dealing with a query on decorum, questioning the appropriateness of rainbow and black & white scarves (the former expressing support for LGBT people, the latter supporting a literalist biblical interpretation).  The query was returned, but as I watched the discussion, there were a lot of comments that mentioned both scarves in the same breath.  I think it's important to distinguish between them.

I do not wear a rainbow scarf at Annual Conference (excepting one evening last year).  I actually agree with the sister who compared them (and the black & white scarves) to "gang colors."  I appreciate their intent and am a big fan of shows of solidarity, but I suspect their effect is more isolating than inclusive.  I surely don't think they should be banned, I just don't take part in that particular demonstration.

But we shouldn't compare rainbow scarves to black & white scarves.  The former are intended as a show of support for an oppressed and silenced group; they are a stand against a majority.  The latter are a direct response to the former, which means they are worn in opposition to the display of solidarity with an oppressed minority.  Those with a literalist biblical interpretation may themselves be a minority, but they are certainly not silenced.

In the same way, a White Student Union would be different from a Black Student Union.  Flying a "straight pride" flag would be different from flying a "gay pride" flag.  I am not the biggest fan in the world of rainbow scarves in our particular context, but the black & white scarves seem downright malicious.  Rainbow scarves are a disenfranchised group standing up and demanding they be counted.  Black & white scarves are a powerful group reminding others of their power.