In his Feb. 13 column, Jacob Denz ’10 took advantage of tragic events in the recent history of the University and the Anscombe Society, twisting them to score political points. I would like to respond to some of Denz’s more ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Ok, let's be clear about something. The only thing McGinley should apologize for is the inaccuracy of the FACTS in "Open Season," whose inaccuracy, incidentally, was not entirely McGinley's fault. But that's not the main point. What's so appalling about the negative comments here is that they conflate the factual problem with McGinley's bigger point about comparing LGBT issues with Anscombe issues. People may agree or disagree with his analysis, but there is certainly nothing for him to start apologizing about. He shouldn't have to apologize just for making that comparison. Anyone who is offended or put off by the comparison should simply consider it again, and perhaps agree to disagree.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
McGinley strikes me as extraordinarily insincere. His so-called apology after the Nava fiasco was total bull. I really don't believe a word he says... it's cold, calculated and void of any true remorse for his serious lapse in judgment. But, Brandon, third time's the charm... so try again in your next column to make a sincere apology not only about your remarkable gullibility regarding Nava but about your attempt to capitalize on the whole affair by evangelizing your brand of "traditional sexual values," and insulting the LGBTQA community.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Re: '10 If you feel unwelcome at some church (which is very unfortunate), there are several churches in the area which are very publicly "open and affirming" for LGBT people (and in fact have very "Christian" reasons for doing so), such as the Episcopal Church, UCC, and PCUSA. Just wanted to point out that churches are hardly homogenous in this area and if you are looking for alternatives to ostracism, they do certainly exist.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Aren't churches there for support? On campus there are bible study groups, chaplains, Christian singing all the time it seems in Murray Dodge, and countless churches in Princeton. Of course conservative doesn't have to mean religious (or Christian), nor does "traditional." But I'd like to point out that some of us feel distinctly unwelcome at church now because of the messages they preach, despite how we were raised. I suggest, if your moral code makes you feel uncomfortable with these issues, take advantage of the religious networks that some of us have been ostracized from.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Ric is right on. About everything. 100%. McGinley's columns remind me of something Prof. Singer once wrote: "Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." McGinley writes "For in founding these centers, the University has conferred legitimacy — and rightly so — on the issues and concerns that each represents. This, however, has only intensified the political marginalization felt by morally traditional students, who find it difficult to live out their commitments and properly defend them when faced with this unnecessary hurdle of legitimacy that the administration has removed from other interest groups." All I hear McGinley saying is that as a straight, white, christian male, he is upset that he's living in 2008 instead of 1948. Back in the good-old-days this "hurdle of legitimacy" was a 100-foot tall brick wall for LGBTQ, women, persons of color, jews, etc. Get over yourself, McGinley.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Often when a "traditional values" proponent writes something like this, the sense is that no one is providing for their needs. It's an utterly passive lament. So, I would like to point out that the centers to meet the needs of those more "radical" elements did not just spring up out of the goodness of the university's liberal impulses. They sprang up as a response to protracted agitation and negotiation by those who deeply felt the need for these supports. So, rather than deplore the lack of services to meet the needs of people who share your values, why not get to organizing, agitating and negotiating for the things you need? If there is popular support -- that is, if you can make democratic principles work for you -- you will probably get what you need. If yours is, rather, an idiosyncrasy or too-fringe movement, probably you will not. But, as a traditionalist, you presumably believe in market principles. Here's a test: let's see how that market functions. Now, get to work walking the talk.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To put it frankly, the reason there is an LGBT center and not a "conservative-values" center is that being LGBT is not a choice. Being gay is something that you're born with, something that's inherent, where as values whether traditional or non-traditional is something that is learned or taught by families. This goes for being LGBT, being a woman, a person of color or international—it’s circumstantial birthright and all have a history of prejudice and discrimination. I don’t remember reading old newspaper clippings of a straight white American male Christian being dragged to death from the back of a pick-up truck because he was a white male Christian. Or of being put into slavery or near-indentured servitude. Or of not having the right to vote. I have no idea what sort of discrimination or lack of a voice or recognition that you’re talking about. It’s not that people with traditional moral values should be ostracized on campus. In fact, there are several means where people of these traditions to meet: the several religious organizations, College Republicans, Anscombe, whichever. But the university cannot officially sponsor an organization like the Anscombe society not only because it is a non-secular institution, but because it has an obligation to be a safe, all-inclusive, open-minded and understanding institution of learning. The big elephant here in the room is that to be “morally traditional” is to be anti-gay, whether your club officially states so or not. And being gay inherently means having gay sex--please try not to argue otherwise. There may be an extremely small minority of students who are gay and choose not to have sex and an even smaller of which do so for “traditional morals”, but to restrict and deny oneself so because of being born a certain way is… there’s... there’s something wrong with that picture here. And it’s not the individual. To be sophomoric for just a bit, it’s fricken messed up and hypocritical, and can really mess a person up if they’re stuck in this sort of Catch 22--rumor has it that Nava may have been one of these people.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Rx721, I agree.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
In response to "Rationale," who writes: "To explain the example, the center would provide a place where people who are not sexually active could go to, since the LGBT center already provides a place for those who are (assuming you are talking about people with same-sex attraction)." I explicitly indicated that I was talking about a center for ALL sexually active students (straight/LGBTQ/whoever). Not a week goes by on this campus that I don't see a poster, guest-lecturer, or McGinley-esque piece in the Prince decrying the evils of premarital sex. It's easy to feel marginalized from my perspective, too. But I don't think my marginalization as a heterosexual, happily-sexually-active student even remotely compares to the marginalization of my LGBTQ friends and classmates. Ryan D got it perfectly right, and I'd refer you to his explanation. Also, I recognize that my tone was less than academic... I intended to be casual in my remarks since this is a comments thread not a formal lecture series. Apologies to anyone who felt they needed a center to be built in Frist as a result of my tone.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Is our campus really 'divided'? I'd say it's more of a spectrum with a hump in the middle.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Those of us students who are LGBT / good friends with LGBT know that the campus has a long way to go before all instances of discrimination are ended. Even self-proclaimed liberals often act awkward and uncomfortable in the presence of a gay person, let alone all of the more major issues of discrimination and their repercussions. The idea that conservatives might feel the same type of discrimination is definitely intriguing. At first it seems counterintuitive because of the political/religious/social makeup of our nation as a whole and because of the history of terrible discrimination against gays in comparison to a relatively happy, prosperous century for conservatives. I'm tempted to dismiss their claims of discrimination as unfounded and propagandistic, but maybe there is something to them. Is the mildly-liberal climate of most major universities such that conservatives are really unable to live their lives as they see fit? From my personal experience, I highly doubt it, but can some conservatives please speak up on the issue? I guess that being at a university is a time in which one's values should be challenged and talked about--in a intellectual, friendly, non-threatening way. Conservatives and liberals alike should have their values challenged so that they think about them and consider why they are what they are and if it makes sense, and then to change their values accordingly if they've come to a new revelation. I guess where I would draw the line is should gay people have to put up with people challenging their desire for the same-sex and interest in pursuing such desires? Nobody challenges straight people about their desires...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Brandon's suggestion to create a center for those who believe in traditional morals (not traditional sex, as Puh-leeze mistakenly quoted) takes on a rather unique perspective in today's society. This itself perhaps strengthens his argument, for from my observations, there seems to be quite a subtle bias in our culture that instantly dismisses traditional values as either homophobic, discriminatory, or bigoted. Without giving my opinion on whether or not such a program should be initiated on campus, I would like to say a few things in response to Puh-leeze. First, the issues you have addressed, like the center being useless for sexually-active students, not only fail to respond to Brandon's article in any way, but also have little to no relevance. To explain the example, the center would provide a place where people who are not sexually active could go to, since the LGBT center already provides a place for those who are (assuming you are talking about people with same-sex attraction). Second, your immature-sounding rant (e.g. "Come on, McGinley"), lack of reasoned argument, and reliance upon rhetoric (e.g. "anti-sex") probably hurts your cause more than helps. Lastly, people who have supported centers like our LGBT often used the argument that in the past, many cases of harrassment among gays and lesbians went unreported due to the fact that they would not be able to find support anywhere, and rightly so. Have you ever considered that the same may be true for other people as well?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I think there should be a conservative center to teach them to stop hating and discriminating.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Thanks for the response to Denz's article. I have a few issues, however, with the points you've made. You write about "the political marginalization felt by morally traditional students" and how such views are considered "countercultural" at Princeton. This is absolutely untrue. Princeton, as a whole, is a very conservative school. While many students are 100% accepting of LGBT students, the vast majority of students exist in a haze of semi-tolerance/semi-animosity/awkwardness. I would definitely say that LGBT students are, despite support from the administration, LESS accepted by the student body than conservative students. Also, the LGBT student center exists because these students are not accepted by society as a whole and need support in order to be able to deal with the animosity they will find both on campus and in the wider world. For conservatives, however, it's already a different story: a large percentage of campus self-identifies as conservative, and an even larger percentage of the nation does. The two issues aren't even comparable. (Many, certainly not all) conservatives dislike LGBT people because of who they are, whereas LGBT people dislike conservatives simply because they were discriminated against by conservatives. Conservatives are trying to stop LGBT people from living safe, healthy, happy lives in the way they legitimately see fit, whereas LGBT people don't really care how conservatives live their lives - live and let live.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
McGinley's article addresses a crucial point- the importance of a center on campus, something far-reaching and possessing a link to the institution, unlike student groups or other programs. In response to Puh-Leez, it appears as though the LGBT and Women's Center both sponsor activities that stray much from the intent of combating past oppression that has occurred in the past. These centers focus on representing a small minority group on campus whose needs would otherwise go unmet; This standard, too, should apply to the proposed center. What makes this issue different from a center for other special interest groups is that through the establishment of the LGBT center, the university has implicitly stated that sex and sexual health is something that to take seriously. Both the LGBT and traditionally conservative students do not feel appropriately represented in the campus culture, and they have certain needs for resources that should be met. A pro-sex center, however, would be unnecessary, as the popular opinion and funding support programs that take this approach. In response to fact check, the Madison program is not inherently conservative in nature. In fact, the group often sponsors left-leaning speakers along with conservative ones. Similarly, the program is not designed to provide the support and guidance that the Women's Center and LGBT Center do, and the assertion is tantamount to saying that the current centers are unnecessary due to the Center for Human Values having left-leaning programs.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Come on, McGinley. One of Denz's key grievances which you utterly ignored was your insulting use of the word "homosexual." I'm pleased that you've now chosen to use "LGBT" instead. Looks like you've learned something, even if you're too stubborn to admit it. And, McGinley, if you want a center for traditional sexual values (whatever that means) then I want a center for pro-sex students. After all, students attracted to the opposite sex don't usually go to the LGBT center for assistance in that regard. And if they're sexually active, they certainly wouldn't feel comfortable going to your proposed center. If we need a center for every group of students that feels marginalized, we're gonna need a new building. I think you need to recognize that the LGBT center and the women's center are established because those groups have historically been discriminated against. To my knowledge the only incident of the victimization of a member of a conservative group was the Francisco Nava incident. And that turned out to be a self-inflicted wound. Blind accusations and anecdotal evidence about professors and students treating you differently does not justify builiding you an anti-sex center. Far worse has happened to women and LGBT students.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
McGinley is right-on. The university pretends to uphold "equal protection" for all students, but it's hard to ignore the favoritism its showers on some groups - particularly the LGBT community. LGBT students are deserving of University support, no doubt about it; but not at the expense of students who hold opposite views. Aside from the student-run Anscombe Society, there is no institutional support for anyone who holds traditionally conservative views about sex. The LGBT office, a fully-funded branch of the Office of Undergraduate Students, has the institutional blessing, not to mention financial support, to sponsor a range of programs as polarizing as they are 'educational.' Consider what's on tap this afternoon (Feb 18): A lecture about gay sex that explores "a wide array of topics ranging from barebacking + public sex..." Or in April, an open forum on alternative gay lifestyles, where students can get information on "Bears, Cubs, Bois, Butches, Femmes, Twinks, Radical Fairies, Leather, BDSM, Drag Queens, Drag Kings, House Scene, Poly, or Dykes on Bikes." These programs are less troubling themselves than what they reveal about institutional bias at Princeton. If the University is willing to throw money at an LGBT center that preaches the compatibility of Christianity, Judaism and Islam with the gay lifestyle, or plugs students in with the local S&M scene, how can they reasonably deny an official center for "Anscombe" students? The LGBT Center has every right to exist and prostelytize; but an "Anscombe Center" should have an office in Frist right alongside it. Despite what Nassau Hall believes, not everyone at Princeton buys into the liberal consensus on sex. Let's make sure our University lives up to its great mission of fostering dialogue by supporting the marginalized viewpoint of so many students and staff.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
McGinley's core argument seems to be that there is no University-sponsored program or center for morally conservative students. While he will no doubt deny that the James Madison Program serves as bastion of conservative thought, this article suggests otherwise: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060313/blumenthal/5 If the article is factually correct, the Madison Program espouses traditionally conservative values with the open sponsorship of the Department of Politics and well-endowed right-wing foundations. This account contrasts sharply with McGinley's unbalanced portrayal of the campus' ideological atmosphere.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!