“Is Gay the New Black?”: An Intersectional Perspective on Social Movement Rhetoric in California's Proposition 8 Debate

This essay charts a critical intersectional rhetoric as a means for understanding the articulation of a Civil Rights Movement (CRM) analogy in marriage equality campaigns. Analyzing the campaign against Proposition 8, California's version of the Defense of Marriage Act, I argue that the use of such analogizing elides difference, prevents meaningful and complex conversations about power and oppression, and makes visible the material intersectional tensions between and among communities of color and gay and lesbian communities and how these discourses further marginalize those that identify as queer people of color. Through criticism of campaign commercials, movement strategy, and the protest rhetoric after the proposition passed, I argue that CRM analogy discourse historicizes racism, privileges white gay identities, and exacerbates divisions that prevent coalition building.     

Conceptual change and killer whales: constructing ecological values for animals at the Vancouver Aquarium

Changes in the mode of presenting the killer whales within the aquarium required both marine mammal and interpretation staff to change their conceptions of the role and value of killer whale ‘performances’. The process of change that staff underwent is similar to, and can be facilitated by understanding of, conceptual change processes among learners of science. Similar constructivist strategies of conceptual challenge can guide the staff's interaction with visitors, as an attempt is made to help visitors see the ecological relationships of wild and captive killer whales.     

Philosophic Considerations of a Shift in Values

Worthy Aims that Miss the Mark: The Aims of College Teaching By Kenneth R. Eble San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1983, 187 pages, index, $15.95. reviewed by Richard Leahy.     

The 2012 Olympic Badminton Scandal: Match-Fixing,Code of Conduct Documents,and Women’s Sport

Abstract

At the 2012 Olympic Games, eight badminton players were disqualified from the women’s doubles tournament for intentionally losing matches in the group stage. The incident marks the largest mass disqualification of athletes from multiple countries for match-fixing at the Olympic Games in the twenty-first century. Significantly, it is also the first time that female athletes have been disqualified from a Summer Olympic Games for match-fixing not related to betting or gambling. This essay weaves together two interdependent arguments. First, it is suggested that the incident can be understood through the lens of three separate but interconnected issues: the history of match-fixing, the growth of code of conduct documents in sports, and the regulation of women’s bodies in sports. Second, it is argued that the athletes’ gender is a critical element of the incident. The primary aims of the article are to position the 2012 badminton scandal as a key moment in the history of match-fixing and to suggest that the incident is important for future research and policy creation.