Many years ago in a university sociology class, I heard a short lecture and Q&A session by a homosexual man. He described his life, his relationships, his treatment by family and others, and whatever else we wanted to ask.
At the time, (1) homosexual sodomy was a crime in Pennsylvania, (2) most competent psychologists considered homosexuality to be a curable disorder, (3) every major religion (and most Americans were church-going) considered homosexual sodomy to be an abomination - "crime against nature" was an often-used expression, (4) Police would often cruise around known homosexual hangouts and harass homosexuals who were hooking up, and (5) it was not unheard of for gangs of high-schoolers to beat up "fags" for sport.
To say that his presentation made much of the audience "uncomfortable" would have been an understatement. A few of us stood up to tell him in no uncertain terms that he was, by his conduct, condemning himself to eternal damnation, an assertion that he accepted with equanimity.
There was no shouting, no demands that he shut up and leave, or that he commit seppuku.
Would a contemporary university class listen respectfully to a guest speaker explaining why, based on the latest scientific evidence, s/he believes that human life starts at conception, and that any taking of that life is tantamount to infanticide?
How about someone explaining why the Confederate battle flag is an honorable reminder of certain people and principles that have been regrettably lost due to the defeat of the confederacy (presumably slavery would not be included as regrettably lost).
How about someone explaining why homosexuality is a biological absurdity, having nothing to do with "sex" as it has been defined for millennia, and amounting to nothing more than creative masturbation?
Would the student body of any American university tolerate a guest presentation debunking that school of "climate science" that predicts catastrophic global warming? Pointing out fatal flaws in the current iteration of the Theory of Evolution? Explaining, statistically, why the African-American community is primarily responsible for its dismal lack of economic progress, by condoning bastardy?
A university is a place where one should be prepared to hear thoughts and viewpoints that are unfamiliar, disputed, and even viewpoints that make some people in the audience uncomfortable. As long as the viewpoints are expressed in a respectful and scholarly way, it is NOT LEGITIMATE to try to silence them. The appropriate response in a University setting is to respectfully rebut the disputed points, either in that forum or in some other forum - God knows there are enough of them in existence now.
A University CANNOT expend its valuable resources attempting to discover and quash any stray statement or thought that any student perceives as racist, sexist, bigoted, or otherwise discomfiting. Thought crime is not a crime.
There seems to be an attitude on today's University campuses that viewpoints that make people uncomfortable must be silenced, violently if necessary. Is it necessary to say, "This is bullshit"?
At the time, (1) homosexual sodomy was a crime in Pennsylvania, (2) most competent psychologists considered homosexuality to be a curable disorder, (3) every major religion (and most Americans were church-going) considered homosexual sodomy to be an abomination - "crime against nature" was an often-used expression, (4) Police would often cruise around known homosexual hangouts and harass homosexuals who were hooking up, and (5) it was not unheard of for gangs of high-schoolers to beat up "fags" for sport.
To say that his presentation made much of the audience "uncomfortable" would have been an understatement. A few of us stood up to tell him in no uncertain terms that he was, by his conduct, condemning himself to eternal damnation, an assertion that he accepted with equanimity.
There was no shouting, no demands that he shut up and leave, or that he commit seppuku.
Would a contemporary university class listen respectfully to a guest speaker explaining why, based on the latest scientific evidence, s/he believes that human life starts at conception, and that any taking of that life is tantamount to infanticide?
How about someone explaining why the Confederate battle flag is an honorable reminder of certain people and principles that have been regrettably lost due to the defeat of the confederacy (presumably slavery would not be included as regrettably lost).
How about someone explaining why homosexuality is a biological absurdity, having nothing to do with "sex" as it has been defined for millennia, and amounting to nothing more than creative masturbation?
Would the student body of any American university tolerate a guest presentation debunking that school of "climate science" that predicts catastrophic global warming? Pointing out fatal flaws in the current iteration of the Theory of Evolution? Explaining, statistically, why the African-American community is primarily responsible for its dismal lack of economic progress, by condoning bastardy?
A university is a place where one should be prepared to hear thoughts and viewpoints that are unfamiliar, disputed, and even viewpoints that make some people in the audience uncomfortable. As long as the viewpoints are expressed in a respectful and scholarly way, it is NOT LEGITIMATE to try to silence them. The appropriate response in a University setting is to respectfully rebut the disputed points, either in that forum or in some other forum - God knows there are enough of them in existence now.
A University CANNOT expend its valuable resources attempting to discover and quash any stray statement or thought that any student perceives as racist, sexist, bigoted, or otherwise discomfiting. Thought crime is not a crime.
There seems to be an attitude on today's University campuses that viewpoints that make people uncomfortable must be silenced, violently if necessary. Is it necessary to say, "This is bullshit"?
