University President Cancels Drag Show Fundraiser, Claiming Drag “Discriminates Against Womanhood”

We’ve been hearing about drag shows ad nauseam lately, mostly in the context of “things not for kids that are inexplicably being peddled to kids.” In fact, the whole “kids” thing is pretty much the crux of the whole discussion: do what you want in your own time, but children don’t need to be exposed to a performance form that is inherently risqué.

But one university president took it a step further. Walter Wendler of West Texas A&M University cancelled a drag show that students had organized as a fundraiser for The Trevor Project and justified his decision in a blog titled, “A Harmless Drag Show? No Such Thing.”

Wendler’s position is pretty straightforward: drag caricaturizes women and womanhood, and as such has no place on a campus that “endeavors to treat all people equally.” He writes,

“Does a drag show preserve a single thread of human dignity? I think not. As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood. Any event which diminishes an individual or group through such representation is wrong.

. . .

Drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent. Such conduct runs counter to the purpose of WT. A person or group should not attempt to elevate itself or a cause by mocking another person or group. As a university president, I would not support ‘blackface’ performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates others—in this case, women—for any reason.”

Wendel cites the university’s values, his Christian beliefs, and even US legislation as guidelines that informed his decision and argues, quite pointedly, that “no amount of fancy rhetorical footwork or legal wordsmithing eludes the fact that drag shows denigrate and demean women—noble goals notwithstanding.”

I don’t need to tell you that this has caused quite the hullabaloo, but I’m going to anyway.

This decision has caused quite the hullabaloo.

The decision has been deemed unconstitutional by some, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) who said as much in a statement:

“As an individual, Wendler can criticize this particular drag show, or the existence of drag writ large. No reasonable person would argue that public university administrators personally endorse the views expressed at every event hosted by every student group on campus. But as a government actor, President Wendler cannot co-opt state power to force his own views on the WTAMU community.”

Students launched a petition on Change.org as well, which has at the time of writing over 10,000 signatures. Wendler has not yet reversed his course.

This story seems to have gotten a little lost in the sea of contentions surrounding drag shows, which is unfortunate. There’s a number of compelling threads within this single event, all of which I think are worthy of discussion. From a strategic standpoint, for example, Wendler may end up crippling allies that don’t want kids at drag shows by making the perfect the enemy of the good. Do we want drag shows on college campuses? Maybe not, but it’s not exactly the pressing issue at hand.

But most compelling, I think, is that, unlike most of the recent drag-related headlines, the question surrounding this conflict isn’t, “Is drag appropriate for children?” but rather, “What is drag?”

If we agree with Wendler’s estimation, then he’s absolutely right in his decision. But if we accept the argument of his detractors, that his characterization “is . . . an extremely distorted and incorrect definition of drag as a culture and form of performance art” and instead choose to understand drag in a context of history and self-expression, then Wendler is completely out of line.

No ceasefire can be called until we can agree upon an answer, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

But that begs another, possibly more significant question: why now?

How long has drag existed in its corner of the artistic world, undisturbed by and un-disturbing to the masses? I, for one, recall going to a drag queen bingo night when I was in college, and no one batted an eye. That was only in 2015.

So what changed in the past eight years? It’s actually nothing that secret: drag shows came out of the closet, as it were. It used to be that, like other inherently sexualized performance types, drag happened at later hours in adult-only venues. You know, where things like that belong.

And by “things like that,” I don’t mean “things that are queer.” I mean things that are inherently, indisputably, dare I say inescapably sexual in nature. Which drag IS. I’m not saying that to denigrate drag– drag is awesome. But it’s awesome in the same way that alcohol is: great for an adult’s night out, rather out of place in an elementary school.

But, for some reason, many drag queens (and their supporters) have decided to broaden their horizons and expand to new audiences, and they made the fatal mistake of involving children. Parents started asking questions, and instead of getting answers they were called bigots. So they asked more questions. And they were called more names.

And now we’re halfway down the hill, all of us wrapped up in a giant, ever-expanding snowball shouting insults at each other and demanding answers to questions that didn’t matter ten years ago, because ten years ago the line in the sand was still there. But now, because a handful of weirdos (and yes, I do mean a handful– I’m optimistic that there are more drag queens who know what they do ISN’T for children than ones who insist it is) wouldn’t stay in their lane, and now there’s a 15 million car pile up on the highway of life.

Don’t come at me for mixing my metaphors. Sh*t’s effed, why shouldn’t my figures of speech be?