Dear Mr. Berman, Mr. Pillar and Ms. Taylor:
I have been meaning to write to the producers of Star Trek since 1991, soon after I clipped the following article from The San Francisco Examiner.
Headline:Future Is Now For 'Star Trek' Gays
Subhead:
Sexual Orientation To Be Portrayed In Matter-of-Fact Way
Copy:
Gays and lesbians are about to go boldly where they've never gone before. They'll be portrayed as ordinary citizens of the 24th Century in the fall season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
Not as outcasts. Not as deviates. Not as eccentrics. Just as ordinary men and women living in a distant century when one's sexual orientation is a matter of total public indifference -- and isn't merely "tolerated" by the "politically correct." There'll be none of the "are they/aren't they" hand-wringing that accompanied a kiss between women on "L.A. Law." Just the occasional sight -- in between phaser blasts, interstellar chases and teleportations -- of two men or two women doing something, such as holding hands, that unmistakably says: "We're homosexual -- and who cares?"
"We agree that dealing with this issue is an important thing to do," said "Star Trek" executive producer Rick Berman. The syndicated program's fall season starts the week of September 23 and gays and lesbians should begin to appear sometime later in in the autumn season.
"Viewers will see more of shipboard life in some episodes, which will, among other things, include gay crew members in day- to-day circumstances," said the show's creator, Gene Roddenberry, in a statement published by The Advocate, the gay and lesbian journal.
Paramount Television's decision to portray gays and lesbians is the latest sign that the show, now in its 25th year, remains close to the political edge.
The show's politics reflect its historical roots. It was born as "Star Trek" in 1966, in the bright afterglow of President John F. Kennedy's "Camelot" -- a vision of a kinder, gentler society that was only half-realized by his successor's push for civil rights and a war on poverty.
A generation of baby boomers grew up watching the amiable crew of the starship USS Enterprise, a crew that, racially and ethnically, resembled idealistic 1960 visions of the "Family of Man." Although white males were still in charge -- Capt. James T. Kirk and the alien science officer, Mr. Spock-- they tackled science fiction versions of 60's issues, the smoking streets of Watts, the ICBM-rattling of superpowers, the brush wars in Asia and the eternal tension between logic, epitomized by Spock, and emotion, epitomized by ship's doctor Leonard McCoy.
Sexually, the old show had a pre-women's rights mentality. Its famed opening line -- "to boldly go where no man has gone before" -- seems like a double entendre, since Kirk seduced countless women on countless worlds.
But a hint of things to come appeared in one of the last episodes, aired in 1969 before NBC canceled the series. A woman who hated the social constraints placed on females used a gizmo to switch bodies with Kirk, much to his dismay. He got his body back in the end, but not before the show portrayed the woman's rage with a sympathy that is startling even today.
In 1987 the show was revived as "Star Trek: The Next Generation," with a new crew in a new century, and a new -- and prophetic -- vow to go where "no one" has gone before.
The above story, written by Examiner Science writer Keay Davidson, was published on September 15, 1991.
As a gay man who enjoys science fiction because it explores possible alternative futures and often features new perspectives on social issues, I was very pleased. After all, given the world that Gene Roddenberry envisioned, in which poverty and prejudice, hunger and war had been eliminated, gay people would obviously be present and free to express themselves without problems. How appropriate that we appear on "Star Trek" as who we might become in a future free of bigotry, rather than, say, on Matlock or some other show that didn't particularly interest me.
Unfortunately, Gene Roddenberry died about a month and a half later and it soon became obvious that you and Paramount were reneging on Gene's commitment and your own statements to the press. I was extremely disappointed by what I considered an act of cowardice and bad faith, but I had a busy life in which "Star Trek" could not be a priority and I never found time to write.
Then, last fall, I learned that "Star Trek: Voyager", the fourth television series set in the Star Trek universe, was going to premiere in January. I wrote to you, along with a number of other gay and lesbian people with whom I was in contact on-line, urging you to live up to Gene Roddenberry's unique vision of the future and your own promise to the large number of gay men and women who have supported and continue to support your program.
At the same time, I became involved in organizing the USS Harvey Milk Gay & Lesbian Star Trek Association and the Planet Stonewall Gay & Lesbian Science Fiction Association, two groups created to meet the needs of gay and lesbian Star Trek and science fiction fans on the internet.
Now, five months and at least fourteen episodes after the premiere of Voyager, there has been no response to our concerns.
As a result, the membership of Harvey Milk and Planet Stonewall are launching the Gay & Lesbian Star Trek Voyager Visibility Project in conjunction with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Our purpose is simple. We believe it is time for a positive, fully-developed, openly-gay or lesbian character to be added to the cast of Voyager.
Let me assure you that when we suggest gay characters on Voyager, we are NOT talking about men in dresses and high heels or demonstrations of the sex act. Gay characters would do nothing more or less than heterosexual characters are now shown doing; gay characters would simply be doing it with members of the same sex.
It would have been simple for you to show anonymous crewmembers or bit players in the background who hold hands in the mess or walk down the corridor arm-in-arm, who pause to kiss each other good-bye at the door to their quarters when one is leaving for a dangerous away team assignment, who occasionally mention an interest in a member of the same sex or a talk about a lover ... just like heterosexual characters.
However, in light of the fact that you never even bothered to do that much, it is time to move beyond this minimal level of anonymous inclusion and create a featured, regular gay or lesbian character.
Please undersand that we do not want a token character, whose only purpose is to be "gay" and do nothing. We want a fully-developed, dramatic personality that makes a significant contribution to the storyline, a character that would be an engaging character if his or her sexuality were never mentioned. While we want a positive character, we do not want a character that is perfect in every way. We want to see a person with as many interesting conflicts, flaws or imperfections as anyone else in the crew, but one who is also as admirable, attractive and heroic as any of his or her peers. We do not want to see a stereotype, nor do we want to see someone who is "gay" without ever actually having sex or getting involved in a relationship.
Surely, the writers, actors and production staff at Paramount are competent enough to carry this off in a creative, entertaining way.
We know all the reasons we may hear about why these policies can't be implemented. They are the same reasons given when Blacks first demanded more representation and better roles on television and when the subject of interracial romance was first addressed. They were not valid then and they are not valid now. I'm not buying any excuses from a hit show ... especially when it is simply the newest iteration in a profit-generating juggernaut.
The well-funded fundie fringe and right wing may mount the usual protests, but I'm sure your own research has demonstrated that your core audience is a group that believes in Roddenberry's view of the future, including the concepts of inclusion and tolerance typified by the catchphrase Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (IDIC). We know there are far more readers of science fiction, people who embrace new ideas and visions of the future (many of them gay and lesbian), who watch and support Star Trek than there are fundamentalist fans, who probably prefer to tune into the 700 Club and await the rapture. These people are far more likely to object to Voyager's portrayal of Chakotay's religious beliefs and the holographic bistro where Tom Paris relaxes than to embrace them.
The truth is that gay and lesbian people should have "our own series" on television by now --a program set in the gay community with gay protagonists and mostly gay characters. That will be a sign of progress. In the interim, we should at least see one gay character included in Roddenberry's vision of the future.
The situation for gays and lesbians today vis-a-vis their visibility on television is much the same as it was for Blacks in the Sixties.
Black people were completely invisible, except as occasional bit players who added "color", usually criminals, janitors and maids.
It was a breakthrough when minor but regular characters began to appear on shows with predominantly White casts. It was another breakthrough when the first shows like "Julia" and "I Spy" featured a Black main character.
Then, when the networks saw the success of Black comedy shows like "The Jeffersons" (which had to spin off "All in the Family") and "Cosby", it was boom times and Black actors and actresses and writers were finally able to demonstrate their considerable talent and take their rightful place on stage in this medium to tell their own stories in their own ways (as much as was possible in the White network power structure and with varying degrees of reality and success). Yet, although Black images are now ubiquitous, television has yet to capture the heart and truth of the Black experience.
Gay and lesbian people, Native Americans, Hispanics and Asians are just beginning to break through the barriers that have made them either invisible or idiotic stereotypes. We are all part of the fabric of this nation and there is room for us all on television.
It is past time for the American viewing audience to see gays and lesbians portrayed in a matter-of-fact manner. It is past time to refute the small-minded bigots we encounter on-line who say that the reason gays and lesbians aren't portrayed on Star Trek is that we have all died of AIDS or that science has found a "cure" for our "condition" and eliminated it.
Although Star Trek was never a children's show and should not be considered a children's show, the inclusion of a gay/lesbian character might also help save the lives of gay/lesbian youth who make up an appalling 30% of today's outrageous youth suicide statistics. They will finally see a role-model, an affirmation that they are NOT alone, a confirmation that there will be a place for them in the future. And the young heterosexual male audience may come to understand a little bit more about IDIC, rather than concentrating on photon armaments and warp speeds.
As Gene Roddenberry himself has stated, "Of course, there are gay and lesbian people on board the Enterprise." In David Alexander's recent biography, he recounts a dispute between Roddenberry and a writer whose script included a plot twist based on two characters who were closeted and subsequently revealed to be gay. Gene's position was that there would be no reason for gay people to be closeted in the 24th Century.
While I have a great deal of respect for the creative process and creative freedom of anyone who produces a film or television program, there is an issue here that is even more important. You have a logical, rational opportunity to promote inclusion and understanding --an opportunity and obligation that derives from the existing creative framework established by Roddenberry-- and you are backing away from it.
Please don't respond by trotting out "The Outcast", the TNG episode in which
Riker becomes involved with a member of an androgynous alien race who is punished by its society. While I might agree that this episode was intended as a positive metaphor for discrimination based on sexual orientation, it was very much flawed and subject to various interpretations. It was also only one episode. It would have been about a thousand times more effective to simply show occasional anonymous gay and lesbian human crewmembers over the course of even one out of the seven seasons of TNG.
I don't believe that the 1991 announcement of plans to include the regular appearance of "anonymous" but identifiably gay crew on ST:TNG came without a great deal of groundwork by writers, artists and other talent associated with the program as well as action by long-time fans within the gay and lesbian community. It is not unlikely that a number of the fans who made their concerns known to Gene and rejoiced at his response, like Gene, are now dead. Paramount's decision to renege on Roddenberry's public commitment is an insult to Gene's memory and the gay and lesbian fans who took the time and trouble to make their concerns known. Those of us in the gay and lesbian community who are still living --and any Star Trek fans who believe IDIC makes for good story-telling-- need to follow up with you regarding that commitment.
Despite our concerns, we wish you well in your new voyage into unknown territory. We simply want to be included in the adventure.
Sincerely,
Timothy D. Perkins
Director, Gay & Lesbian Star Trek Voyager Project Visibility
Co-Sponsored By Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, SFBA
USS Harvey Milk Gay & Lesbian Star Trek Association
Planet Stonewall Gay & Lesbian Science Fiction Association