What quickened this commitment has been the protests in Iran. The photos that have found their way past the censors have been both dispiriting and heartening.

I came across this article tonight that brought home again the cost of protest. The article is by Haideh Daragahi. It was the first line that reminded me of what the danger of not speaking up when one still has the opportunity as well as the danger of speaking up when it is illegal to do so.

The current turmoil in Iran is not a result of the alleged election fraud last June, but of thirty years of brutality, humiliation, and frustration.

I know that some in the “traditional” civil rights community (read “African American” civil rights leaders) reject the notion that gay rights involve civil rights. This is partly due, of course, to the profound influence of religion in the historical civil rights movement. We’ve seen the influence of religion on King.

We also examined the philosophical foundation of King’s thinking about civil rights. Now, some think that King would not include LGBTQ issues under the rubric of civil rights. Others think that he would take seriously his own words, “injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.” From my perspective, the answer to WWKD? – what would King do? – is as complicated as the question I asked at the end of the semester: would either Thoreau or King have tried to convince Socrates to escape from prison? There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

Here is a description from the Chronicle of Higher Education of a recent boycott against a hotel that was hosting a meeting of the American Historical Association because the hotel owner fought strongly against same-sex marriage.

Tension over gay-rights protests and a depressed job market set a dismal tone at the American Historical Association’s annual conference…

About 75 activists chanted “boycott” and cheered when Cleve Jones, the well-known gay-rights activist, said his message for the association was that “history is on our side.” In an interview, Mr. Jones said the association’s decision to hold a session on gay and lesbian history only “added insult to injury.” As for the scholars of gay and lesbian history, Mr. Jones said that he was sure they were “well-meaning” but that history would record only that they chose not to honor the boycott.