Rethinking Dumbledore

When J.K. Rowling outed Albus Dumbledore, there was a surge of Potter-mania the likes of which hadn't been seen since July 21, 2007. The response of those fans die-hard enough to respond at all was largely one of pleasant surprise. Most felt it explained a great deal about the enigmatic character, and were quick to search through their well-thumbed books for clues they'd somehow missed. And as Rowling herself wryly commented, "Oh my god, the fan fiction now!"

But while public opinion on Dumbledore's sexual preferences was generally positive, some of the responses had a sinister undertone of homophobia. Typical hateful slurs aside, one comment was truly disturbing: "No wonder he wanted to be a teacher."

Such a comment is not only unsettling, but also utterly ignorant. Dumbledore is arguably one of the greatest characters in children's literature, a lovable modern Merlin, and accusations of pedophilia tarnish this reputation with no logical rationale. It is simply wrong to equate homosexuality with child molestation. Homosexuality is not an abuse of one's position as an authority figure. It is neither the cause nor the symptom of deep psychological damage. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is all of these things. Yet there seems to be a tacit understanding of pedophilia as a largely homosexual practice. Why do we continue to associate these two vitally different terms, one referring to a normal sexual preference and one to a twisted fetish?

Perhaps this mistake is rooted in the biased, outdated conception of homosexuality as a deviation from the heterosexual "norm." Pedophilia certainly is a deviation from normal sexual practices; perhaps we subconsciously feel that two forms of deviance have some deep similarity. This belief is flawed on two levels. Even if we accept that homosexuality is a form of sexual deviation, the fact that it shares this broad definition with pedophilia neither equates nor correlates them. More importantly, homosexuality is not a deviation and there is no reason to accept heterosexuality as the only legitimate norm.

Or perhaps the association of pedophilia with homosexuality is due less to ideology and more to external influences—for instance, media coverage of child molestation by priests. These tragedies are generally framed in terms of their homosexual nature: a priest and his altar boys. But the convergence of homosexuality and child abuse in a few select cases does not mean that these two terms are usually connected, or that one causes the other.

We must also remember that the homosexual aspect of these cases was most likely given a disproportionate amount of media attention because of its shock value. A priest breaking vows of celibacy is bad enough; a priest doing so with children is morally repugnant and horrifying; but a priest doing so in a manner that goes against stated church policy makes an even more scandalous story. After all, the Catholic Church is hardly known for its acceptance and respectful treatment of gays.

Still, while the element of homosexuality makes these cases into a more drastic break with church ideology, does it really make the abuse any worse in an ethical sense? If priests or teachers abuse the influence they have over their young charges and inflict harm on innocent children, does the gender of the abusers and the abused matter at all? It is a horrific act whether the abuser is straight or gay, and it is truly disturbing that we, as a culture, would even take the gender of the victims into account. What should shock us is the child abuse itself, not the gender preferences of the perpetrators.

It's good that we are paying more attention to the sexual abuse of children. Hopefully, it will lead to methods for eliminating such abuse: effective ways to encourage disclosure, swift and appropriate punishment and therapy for the abusers, and ongoing efforts to end the use of children in the sex industry.

But this attention will accomplish nothing if people continue to hold illogical beliefs about the sinister nature of homosexuality. Some pedophiles will be gay. Some will be straight. These traits do not cause their disturbed and damaging sexual activities.

Moreover, suspicion of homosexuals who wish to work with children is not only ignorant, but also detrimental to our educational systems. If we discriminate against homosexuals by assuming that they have some tendency to child abuse, how likely are they to want a career in education in the first place? The public school system is already in need of more teachers who are qualified and skilled. The last thing we should do is discourage capable and committed individuals from teaching, particularly if such discouragement is due to an uninformed and deeply insulting assumption.

Dumbledore's coming out could be discussed in terms of his complex relationship with Grindelwald, his enigmatic past, or even, as some have jokingly remarked, his fashion sense. It doesn't have any bearing on his choice of a career. Rowling's decision to disclose Dumbledore's sexuality has sparked enthusiastic discussion but the phrase "no wonder he wanted to be a teacher" should not enter that conversation.

The author, a Spectator associate, is a Columbia College sophomore.