Seeing Milk, teaching Milk, celebrating Milk

Yesterday afternoon, I gave my last exam of the year; my History 24F (Introduction to Lesbian and Gay American History) class drew the lucky (or unlucky) slot of being my “final final”. After the test was done, I went with those students who were able to join us for an early evening showing of “Milk” at a nearby theater. They’ve been a particularly wonderful group this term, and I wanted to take in this important film as a class. (Thanks are due to Laemmle theaters, for selling me discount group tickets, and to Stephanie and Taylor, two of my students who work there.)

If I hadn’t wanted to see it for the first time with my GLBTQ class, I would surely have gone to see “Milk” as soon as I could have; I waited impatiently for last night, knowing that it would be so much better to take it in in the company of so many young people whom I love and admire. I was not disappointed.

Much has already been written about the film, and about Sean Penn’s magnificent portrayal of Harvey Milk. The supporting cast — especially Emile Hirsch, Alison Pill, and James Brolin — is superb, with nearly every actor bearing an uncanny resemblance to his or her real-life counterpart. And though I had shuddered when I heard that Gus Van Sant was directing this film, as I normally don’t enjoy his style, I loved this movie. Just as another director I don’t like much, Spike Lee, was able to get out of his own way and produce the brilliant and near-perfect “X”, so too Van Sant never gave us the sense that we were supposed to sit back and watch his genius at work. He gave us a wonderful, deeply moving, timely and immensely inspiring film.

Let me say, of course, that everyone who has not seen “The Times of Harvey Milk”, the 1984 Oscar-winning documentary about Harvey, ought to see that. Van Sant clearly drew inspiration from that film (and some archival footage as well), and it helped strengthen the picture. I’ve shown “The Times of Harvey Milk” to many classes over the years, and could probably recite most of the film by heart. (Now that I think about it, there are perhaps no other films ever made — documentary or otherwise — I’ve seen as often!)

Like a great many people, I feel as if I have a personal stake in the story of Harvey Milk. I was eleven years old, and in the sixth grade at Carmel Middle School, when he and George Moscone were assassinated. I had heard of Moscone; my family, living on the Monterey Peninsula, had many connections to what all my life we have called simply “the City.” I only vaguely knew who Harvey was; I was an unusually politically aware eleven year-old, however, and had done some precinct walking against Proposition 6. (As the movie shows, Prop. 6 was the measure that was defeated in November 1978 that would have banned gays and lesbians from serving as teachers). Harvey had led the fight against Prop 6, and as a result, I knew his name, but somehow hadn’t grasped that he was a San Francisco Supervisor.

I learned about the shootings at lunch time from one of the cafeteria supervisors who was listening to an AM radio. After lunch, I had an English class with Mrs. Moro. We were reading “Z for Zechariah”, but we didn’t discuss the book that day. Mrs. Moro turned on her own radio, and we sat and listened to the terrible story as it unfolded on that sunny, cool, Thanksgiving-week afternoon. I was only a one year-old when MLK and RFK were assassinated. The Milk/Moscone murders were, in a very real sense, my first experience of the madness and violence of the adult world. Just days earlier, we had learned about the People’s Temple massacre — but I connected that in my preteen mind to the South American jungle. I knew where San Francisco city hall was, having visited that most beautiful of California public buildings for the very first time only a few months earlier. Thus, these killings seemed much closer to home, and much more personal.

I thought of my eleven year-old self last night, as I sat in the theater with students who, for the most part, would not be born until a decade after the 1978 shootings. I thought of how I had been teased and called a “fag” so often, not least because I had sported a “No on 6″ bumper sticker on one of my PeaChee folders at school. And I thought of what an extraordinary privilege it was to be one of the very first professors in the country to offer a course on Gay and Lesbian History to community college students. (At the time I developed the course eight years ago, only City College of San Francisco among the JCs had a class already in place.) I teared up at that thought as the opening title sequence began, and stayed on the verge of tears throughout the movie. (Those who know the story very well will understand that the moment that I cried the hardest was not when I saw the assassination, or the funeral, or the Prop 6 triumph — but when I saw the great teacher and politican Tom Ammiano in a cameo, reprising something he had done as a much younger man.)

Though some headed home, a hardy dozen or so of us went out for Mexican food last night after the movie. I sat and talked with these teen and twenty-somethings; though we chatted about parents and romances and finances and grades, many also talked about what they had done and were still doing to fight Prop. 8. High on emotion from the film and the relief of being done with finals, there were some teary moments. (Margaritas may have contributed to that intensity and I didn’t bother to check IDs to see who was of age for drinking.) I made a brief and inarticulate toast to Harvey’s memory, to my students, and to the larger movement of which we are all, in some very real sense, a part.

When I have children, I will of course love them and support them wherever they find themselves on the sexual spectrum. But I will also make sure that they grow up aware of this most recent and most contentious of civil rights struggles. It is good and right that they learn the names of Rosa Parks and Dr. King and Malcolm X and Cesar Chavez; it is good and right that they learn of Harriet Tubman and Susan B. Anthony and Fannie Lou Hamer. But they will also learn of Harry Hay and Del Martin, James Baldwin and Franklin Kameny, Barbara Gittings and Harvey Milk. God willing, they will learn those names in whatever school they attend. But should their private or public education fail them in this regard, they will damn well learn those names — and the stories behind those names — from their daddy.

Until my children are here and ready to learn — and even after they come — I’l be doing my best to teach those too-easily obscured stories to as many young people as possible. Films like “Milk”, in their power and their spectacle, make the job of telling these stories so much easier.

11 Responses to “Seeing Milk, teaching Milk, celebrating Milk”


  1. 1 AKA Louisa (Luisa)

    I’m so mad I missed it. I am seeing it Saturday.

  2. 2 andrew

    this made me tear up a bit.

  3. 3 Camassia

    It’s funny, now that you mention it I realize I have no memory of being aware of the Milk/Moscone murders at the time they occurred. I remember my mother trying to explain the Twinkie Defense to me after White’s trial, and her being unhappy about it, but even then I don’t think I understood the significance of the victims. Actually, reading about the 1984 documentary was probably what filled me in on those events.

    By the way, I’m impressed that San Francisco was “the City” as far away as Carmel. I’d always assumed that was limited to places within commuting distance.

  4. 4 Hugo Schwyzer

    My family also has a ranch in southern Alameda County, Camassia, and a lot of connections to the East Bay (Oakland and Piedmont). So the “City” is closer than Carmel, in that sense.

    I was glad they left the White trial and the White Night riots all but out of the movie. The Twinkie Defense just riles me up like nothing else.

  5. 5 Robert

    Why? There was nothing wrong with the twinkie defense. (There would be something terribly wrong with the media’s version, but nobody actually made that defense.)

  6. 6 Antigone

    Could someone expound a little about what the “Twinkie Defense” was?

  7. 7 Lynn Gazis-Sax

    Dan White killed Moscone and Milk in a manner that would normally suggest some deliberation (brought a gun, took a route into the building that would allow that gun not to be detected, shot them). His defense basically argued that he wasn’t in his right mind, and so he was convicted, not of first degree murder, nor yet of second degree murder, but of voluntary manslaughter. The result was a sentence considerably shorter than what he would have gotten if he’d been convicted of a more serious charge.

    The defense was mocked as the “Twinkie Defense” because part of the evidence produced involved White’s consumption of junk food. There was a strong feeling in the gay community that such a defense would have been less likely to be accepted had one of the two victims not been a prominent gay man - the first openly gay supervisor (the other, of course, was the quite heterosexual mayor). Hence, the White Night riots.

    In fairness to the “Twinkie Defense,” Dan White probably was not, in fact, the most mentally stable person in the world, given that he did eventually commit suicide after getting out of prison. On the other hand, lots of people with similar emotional problems still get convicted of first or second degree murder. So the gay community had reason to feel shafted. Also recall that in 1978, San Francisco (despite even then being one of the most gay friendly cities in the country) had only had the one openly gay supervisor - Milk - and California had an intensely contested ballot measure that tried to bar gay people from teaching in school (and lost), so, a considerably less gay friendly environment than now (even with the loss of Prop 8). White had been a police officer; the gay community already felt cops were hostile to them, and White the ex-cop getting away with a diminished capacity defense exacerbated that conflict (hence police cars were targetted in the riots that followed White’s trial).

    I had just arrived in California for college at the time, and took part in campaigning against the initiative to bar gay people from teaching as soon as I got here. I remember where I was when I heard about Moscone and Milk being killed - student health center at Stanford - though I didn’t know much about either one yet.

    I’ve seen Moscone’s grave - a plain flat plaque on the ground, identical to the ones surrounding it (Milk was cremated). My husband has a piece about Milk, Moscone, and White somewhere on his Tales from Colma site (http://www.notfrisco.com/colmatales/) - Moscone’s buried in Colma, a little town near San Francisco that houses many graves of San Francisco residents (cemeteries are sort of the town business in Colma, as they’re not allowed in San Francisco).

  8. 8 Hugo Schwyzer

    Technically, it wasn’t about twinkies. It was about the notion of “temporary diminished capacity” (something California later ruled invalid as a defense). One of the many claims Dan White’s attorneys made at his trial was that his junk food addiction had been one factor (to be fair, not the only factor) in his diminished responsibility for the shootings. The media, somewhat inaccurately, labelled it the “twinkie defense”.

  9. 9 Hugo Schwyzer

    Hah, Lynn said it two minutes earlier and twice as well.

  10. 10 Robert

    That’s not the claim that White’s attorney made.

    The Twinkie Defense, as presented by the media (and Hugo, apparently) is that his eating of junk food, specifically Twinkies, had contributed to his whacked-out state of mind; the Twinkies made me do it. An absurd defense, well worth the condemnation heaped on it, if someone actually made it.

    The actual Twinkie Defense, as presented by White’s attorney, was that White was in an abnormal state of mind. One of the “proofs” of this abnormal state of mind was the fact that White, who was normally a health food fanatic, had been eating all kinds of junk food, including Twinkies, something he would never do if he was “himself”. Arguably an untrue defense (I have no opinion, since I didn’t know the man) but not an unreasonable one.

    Not “Twinkies caused me to be crazy”, but “I am crazy, and one of the proofs of that is that I eat Twinkies even though I normally only eat healthy food.” No causal power was attributed to the Twinkies.

  11. 11 Antigone

    Thanks for the clarification Robert, the “twinkies made me crazy” made me think that lawyer would be so Rule 11ed it wouldn’t be funny.

Comments are currently closed.