Conservative center's critics are missing the point
Regarding ‘Letters to the Editor,' (Tuesday, March 11, 2008):
I appreciated Hal Parker '08's beautifully worded and consistently confused letter to the editor. But there was very little substance under all that style. Judging my ...(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.
I don't dismiss it. I just wonder why you think anything aligned with western tradition is ok. Not too long ago, western tradition justified slavery, racism, sexism, maltreatment of children and animals, imperialism, etc. So, you can't simply say that because something is aligned with western tradition it's definitely good stuff. You have to give the underlying principles and arguments to support your claim.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You've missed the point. If you really want to dismiss all of western philosophy, the tradition upon which the University system was founded, then go right ahead. You won't find yourself in much company.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Pot calling the kettle black. @Nice Try Who?: hmm... someone posted a comment without putting together a full treatise on the topic and is told that he/she didn't properly justify his/her claim? Fair enough criticism I suppose... except for the small problem that you, yourself, made a highly unjustified claim and then told us we should believe you solely because you are aligned with western thought. But you didn't tell us how it is so perfectly aligned with western thought, why we should care even if that were the case, and what underlying premises and argument support your claim. Don't forget, for a very long time racism, sexism, classism, anti-semitism, etc were all said to be aligned with western thought. Also I would bet that the person posting under "@Al-Falsifa" used a biological argument in order to counter the ridiculous claim that homosexuality is wrong because of the spread of STDs and the slowing of population growth.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I find it amusing that "Nice Try" and "O No you Didn't" think they can take the high ground so easily, and without justification. Sorry guys, if you want to be condescending and employ personal attacks, you have to be *correct*. What the previous poster wrote was not mere name-dropping. The points he/she made are arguments that need to be reckoned with, not dismissed. The idea that people's lives and bodies have real purposes is a very strong one, and while not supported by your biological reductionism, it is in line with a lot of western philosophic thought.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Al-Falsifa: How do you know what the intended purposes of anyone's body parts could be? You assume that (1) there is a "purpose" (2) that everyone's analogous body parts have the same purpose based on their structure or appearance. But homosexuality has been around for as long as heterosexuality in the human species. Some of our close primate relatives also engage in homosexual sex. So we have evolved to be able to do both and derive pleasure from either or both depending on our own personal psychological dispositions, development, etc. In short, you don't know what you're talking about and "oh no you didn't" has you totally figured out.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Al-Falsifa: You just name droped Kant and utilitarianism and used a latin phrase without adding anything to the discussion. Let me guess, comp-lit major?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
If you take the stance that morality is strictly derived from reason (Kantian view point here), you can easily deduce that homosexuality is immoral through the fact that homosexual sex is using body parts not for their intended purposes...ie, unnatural. Of course, there are several counterarguments here which would place preeminence on pleasure over purpose. And even from a utilitarian point of view, where homosexuality has created a net negative utility for society (at least ours) through AIDS, other STDs, and stunting of population growth among other things. Of course with the religious argument, you can basically make up anything you want and justify it ex nihilo.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You know what, Brandon... your response lacked the seriousness about traditional moral values that I have come to expect from you. But because I am a far better person I will forgive you. But I'm watching you... so don't let it happen again.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Haha...oh geez. One 3am post with a little jab and look what it buys me. Oh no, it's 5am now - who knows what I'm going to say? You have to admit, though, it is a little odd that someone could recall that rather unimportant article. Either way, I didn't mean any offense, obviously - just a little fun after those two really long, really serious posts. See, in between harassing LGBT students and imposing my moral values on everyone around me, I find time for a bit of humor. (That was a joke, too. Really.)
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
hey Brandon! What's with the name-calling?... doesn't that go against everything you stand for? Calling your political foe "weird"? It's a sad day for people who respect everyone's human flourishing or whatever.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Hey "Me Again" aka Brandon... as an avid reader of the craziness that goes down in the Prince oped pages, I actually *remembered* that column and didn't have to read through all the other garbage. That might actually be sadder than what you originally thought. But that's how it is.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Balance, Eh? I have to say, I admire your commitment to your cause. You are so fixated on Tom and myself that you actually searched the archives of this newspaper in order to find the most incriminating sentence possible in all of my articles since September 2006. That's dedication. That's also a little weird. Of course, if you had wished to be intellectually honest, you would have noted that the tone of that article (and this sentence in particular) is primarily humorous. I was poking fun at myself. But still...wow...I am impressed.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Something you all have overlooked: If a chastity fort is built, I guarantee people will try to have sex in it for the epic lulz. For this reason, and for this reason alone, I support the building of a chastity center.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Tom wants "balance" where he perceives "imbalance"? Next thing you know, he'll be asking for a Men's Center and a WASP Center. Oh, wait a second... I see what's going on here... Tom longs for the 1950s version of Princeton! Come to think of it... Brandon longs for the good old days too ("When I saw a recent Point poll asking which decade I would most like to live in," Brandon wrote last year, "being a good conservative traditionalist, I dutifully chose the 1950s.") Seems to me that instead of working on this Chastity Center thing, Tom and Brandon should be engineering a time machine. The rest of us prefer 2008.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Tom: Good of you to finally recognize Sara's argument. But you're still missing the crux of the matter. The University sponsors LGBT, CAF, and Women's centers for the reasons you've finally acknowledged, and once those groups are established, the leaders of those groups (not Shirley T. or the trustees) get to determine how to do what they do. The LGBT center website says that the group is "by, for and about" LGBT students, meaning that any so-called "chaste" gay student can freely join, make their views known and work on events consistent with those views. The trouble seems to be that none of these unidentified chaste gay friends of Anscombe have decided to invest their time in the LGBT center. And that's not the center's fault. The University does not set LGBT center agenda... that's up to active members of LGBT. So, no, the university does not take a position on sexual ethics, and it certainly shouldn't start with a chastity center. And I'd add that it's pretty ridiculous for you to play the victim card... I mean, look at yourself... you're class prez., Tom.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Nope. We don't need another separate "safe" space for anyone. What we need is an environment that promotes mutual respect for differing choices and opinions. University sponsorship of groups such as the LGBT guarantees two things: 1) A "safe" space for a few privileged segments of our society that feels marginalized, persecuted, etc. 2) The continuation of unnecessary divisions and dissension on the campus. By favoring the LGBT and a few other groups, the university is marginalizing many other students and perpetuating unnecessary divisions. While the university should allow such student-organized groups, it should provide the same space and funding to all such groups. To do otherwise is to advocate on behalf of those few that it funds. Rather, the university should spend its billions on promoting true tolerance and understanding through free and open dialog. BTW, true tolerance is different than what is normally passed off as tolerance. True tolerance assumes disagreement and diversity rather than conformity.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Pro-Sex and @Brandon, you make an interesting point. Is the logical conclusion for Princeton’s center “habit” an institutionalization of pretty much everything? Would it perhaps be better if there were no centers at all, so as to avoid such an odd (but certainly consistent) conclusion? Yet however rigorous this line of thinking may be, we all know that we are stuck with a few centers that now can’t be undone. So we must ask ourselves – what to do now to make the situation as fair as possible? Well, we should at the very LEAST create balance where we see obvious imbalance. Is there, as Pro-Sex suggests (perhaps facetiously) a great gap in university resources that leaves desperate heterosexuals out to dry? Well … I don’t think so. Any person who really wants to live a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle on campus is fully serviced with condoms for free, university subsidized contraceptive pills, Sex Jeopardy, and the advice of a SHA whenever you need it. I think all reasonable observers can agree that slavering heterosexuals are not underrepresented at University institutions. This is not the case for traditionally minded students, but we will get to that in a moment. Sara has raised some valid arguments for establishing and maintaining the LGBT Center as an institution on campus, such as the horrible treatment some gays have received at the hands of bigots and hate-mongers. Point taken – it seems reasonable to say that LGBT persons need a space on campus where their personal dignity can be affirmed and they can be protected. But this is NOT an argument AGAINST a center for traditional familial and sexual ethics, but merely an argument FOR an LGBT Center. Once we have an LGBT Center, we have a new situation. No matter what the merits for the establishment of the LGBT Center in the first place (and they may be very valid, even if they might open the floodgates of centers as discussed by Pro-Sex), the LGBT Center’s current and unfortunate ideological commitments have rendered the University unbalanced. With the LGBT Center, Princeton now affirms a progressive sexual ideology, and institutionally silences its counterpoint. This is unfair, and should be rectified, not because there is some sort of terrible victimization of traditionally minded students (enough Nava jokes already, we all agree he was a bit "off the wall") but because unfairness should never be tolerated, especially at a place like Princeton which prides itself on open-mindedness and diversity. Hence we suggest a center of traditional familial and sexual ethics. It would immediately correct the imbalance caused by the unfortunate ideological leanings of the LGBT Center towards promoting a progressive sexual morality, and would do nothing to counteract the legitimate role that LGBT Center fills, as described by Sara. Everyone would be happy, the sun would still rise, condoms would still be free, The Pill would still be subsidized, and traditional familial and sexual ethics would finally have their fair institutional space.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't buy your objections to Sara and Gorilla for a variety of reasons. But I'm also interested in how you would respond to Pro-Sex's objection. You have yet to address the question of where this sexual center establishing would end. Why wouldn't heterosexual people who enjoy having premarital sex with people of the opposite sex get a center? They can't pick up the Prince these days without seeing some Anscomber denouncing their "hook-up culture" wrongdoings. So shouldn't they have a support structure, too, to help them weather the Anscombe storm that attacks their way-of-being? Well, I don't think either chaste students or pro-sex hetero students need a center for the many good reasons listed by Sara and Gorilla which you didn't adequately deal with. But what's your take on that?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@500 Lb. Gorilla is right, as well
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Interesting points by Ms. Gorilla. I would like to address her misconception about my sentence which says that, at the LGBT Center, "moral foundations of sexual behavior are eschewed." I should have made this more clear. I did not mean that the LGBT Center eschews THE moral foundations of sexuality. That is not my argument and leads to some of her later discussion. What I should have written is that the LGBT Center in practice does not consider morality to be a LEGITIMATE foundation for sexual choices and identity. But there are many students on this campus who do not accept this primary presupposition: that moral compunctions should not have a place in the discussion of sexuality and identity. As for the accusation that "McGinley or the supporters of this proposal for some chastity center are none too comfortable with gays, period." First, the argument for the new Center has almost nothing to do with homosexuality (more on this later). Second, although I hate to use the typical "well I have a Black friend" platitude, the question has been asked. I can't speak for anyone else, but one of my best friends (and favorite people) in high school was gay. It always kind of funny when we would get a sandwich after school and just us two would travel in his car with the gay pride sticker on the back. The point is, the argument for the new Center has nothing to do with the moral worth of LGBT individuals, and to suggest that those in favor of the Center are homophobes and then say QED is both logically problematic and counterproductive for discussion. In fact, the Center's role and message would, I believe, enhance the LGBT community's comfort level on this campus. The goals and opinions of the Center would not be coterminous with those of the Anscombe Society, as some have assumed. The Center would only provide support and services with regard to abstinence and its related issues. The populations served would be large and varied: currently abstinent students who wish to remain so, sexually active students who would like (because of morality, practicality, or any other reason) to forgo sex, heterosexual or homosexual couples who would like to remain in monogamous relationships or same-sex attracted students who would like to live lives of chastity. And I don't think that's a complete list. The Center would serve several constituencies, including those within the LGBT community, that have particular issues with regard to sexuality and identity that are not currently served. So, in regard to Gorilla's two reason's why the Center would be a negative influence, first, it would be institutionally distinct in nearly every way from the Anscombe Society. (Although I'm affiliated with it, I'm not going to defend the Society against the charges in the post, as they're tangential to the point at hand.) Second, I don't really understand why, if the conservative movement writ large at Princeton is well-organized, that means there shouldn't be this Center. None of the listed groups have any stake in the Center (except the tangential relationship with Anscombe) and the LGBT Center has all the resources of Princeton University at its disposal. I hope that, once again, I've clarified some things. Sorry about the poor wording that caused some of the confusion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
500lb Gorilla, if only you had as much gravitas as your weight suggests...you're just going through all the worn out, dated criticisms of Anscombe, long discredited by constructive dialogue over the past few years. The claims you make are mostly factual matters, and can easily be disproved. The rest are insults and personal jibes, which have no bearing on the arguments in question.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I appreciate the fact that Brandon McGinley put some time into his post instead of dropping the usual phrases like "human flourishing", but with his mention of the fact that "the LGBT Center [is a place] where moral foundations of sexual behavior are eschewed", it is no secret that neither McGinley or the supporters of this proposal for some chastity center are none too comfortable with gays, period. This is the same group that has linked to articles like "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" on the Anscombe website. I am personally interested to know whether McGinley, Emma Yates, Tom Haine, et al. have any gay friends, especially any who are not self-hating. How would you feel if you were told constantly that your condition for loving someone eschewed the foundations of moral behavior? How would you feel if people who never had sex of any kind in their life were out to call your love a mental illness? I know that the response to this is going to be, "she's not addressing our arguments!" but there is a 500-pound gorilla in the room here, folks, and it's the perplexion and disgust these militant virgins show towards gay people. I mean, Christ, these guys even throw their own man (Nava) under the bus, calling him mentally ill, once he pulls his stunt. That said, I think that people have done a good job of showing why there's no real positive need for this crazy idea for a chastity center, but I don't think there's been enough discussion of why it might be actively bad. Two things to think about: • What the hell does a chastity center do? The leadership of Anscombe has shown little ambition to provide game nights or anything similar to the event they had in Dillon last weekend to keep people having fun, not sex. If you look at the kinds of events Anscombe has hosted or sponsored, what you get are events like Richard John Neuhaus speaking on how secularism is an evil religion. You get events like "Modestly Yours", the widely unpublicized conference that Nunan reported on last year where you have Catholic speakers come in and explain how the family exists to teach children about God. And if not under the auspicies of the group but under the name of their namesake, this August, you have the conference "Anscombe at Princeton", featuring many of the thinkers these guys like, and showing that the project of these groups is hardly the well-being of chaste students, but rather the promotion of Elizabeth Anscombe's philosophy into the public sphere. There is little compelling reason to believe that a chastity center will due anything new besides these proselytizing events. I mean, at least if you don't like the gays at Princeton, they don't try to build a philosophy around their sexuality and package it as health. • Second, this whole chastity cause is far better organized and well-funded at Princeton than most people recognize. The institutional overlaps between Anscombe, The Witherspoon Institute, First Things Magazine, the James Madison Program, and Opus Dei are rather striking, and the following article documents the astonishing amount of money that flows into the coffers of the James Madison Program and other right-wing institutions in the Princeton area. If you wonder how these guys are putting on conferences and inviting speakers who command honorariums, here's the proof in the pudding. What is the LGBT Center's budget, anyway? The Right at Princeton already probably outspends them, and it's not as if supporters of the LGBT community have posh fellowships awaiting them in the James Madison Program, First Things, or the Witherspoon Institute from which to continue their sniping after graduation, either. Now, I'm off to find some bananas. 500 lb. gorillas have to eat a lot.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Q: I find room to disagree with your belief that coming out is mandatory, and should nearly be forced on people with same-sex attractions. It's partisan to tell a gay person that they have no choice but to come out. You have to respect the freedom of people to make their own choices, and I think the LGBT Center might even make it harder for a gay student who doesn't wish to make his feelings public, for any number of legitimate reasons.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Are you kidding me? You seem to have no idea how large Anscombe is, along with the broader segment of chaste students on campus. For a student group, it has a very large number of group officers and a very large email list of supporters.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
As to your chaste friend's dilemma: Anscombe already exists on campus. Why is there an LGBT Center, rather than simply an LGBT group--demand. Simple, plain demand. The LGBT community on campus is large enough that it merits a space in Frist. The chaste group--not so much.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Just wanted to respond to two of the good arguments against the new Center. First, Sara presents the very common assertion that, because African-Americans, women and LGBT individuals have undoubtedly faced decades of discrimination and worse and abstinent individuals have not, then the new Center is not necessary. I think, however, that this misapprehends the original reason that the LGBT Center was created. I do not think the quotes in the 4:07 response disprove this point. The fact is, the fundamental and noble reason for the existence of the LGBT Center is not historic discrimination, but the fact that LGBT students on this campus certainly have particular needs that require particular types of support and services. Homophobia certainly plays into this, but only in its particular relevance to this community, not to, say 1970's San Francisco. I do not argue that chaste students face the exact same issues as LGBT students, only that they also face particular issues and needs that require particular types of support and guidance. Princeton09 ably argues that LGBT issues are unique in their importance, but I would argue that many of the phrases used in that comment can also apply to chaste students. Consider this example, which will require abandoning the construct which states that issues of sexuality and sexual identity are primarily if not exclusively functions of gender: A young heterosexual man, who had committed himself through high school to abstinence until marriage, comes to Princeton. His commitment is so important to him that he considers his chasteness an important facet of his identity as an individual. At Princeton, his roommate is having regular sex and his friends speak openly about their supposed sexual exploits. As for relationships, he has trouble finding women who he is certain share his convictions, as this is quite a sensitive subject. And so, in the necessarily progressive and permissive atmosphere of a university, he begins to question his abstinence, he begins to question his sexual identity. Is chastity still a noble goal? Is chastity even a socially acceptable goal? He questions his psychological, personal and moral foundations. He is going through an identity crisis. This student, originally basing his abstinence in moral beliefs, would not, as some have argued, find refuge in the LGBT Center, where moral foundations of sexual behavior are eschewed. The new Center would provide counseling and support for him. It would not advocate for a certain moral outlook, but would be accepting of the possibility that morality and ethics can effectively serve as foundations for sexual decision-making and sexual identity. And so, what I am saying is that, while LGBT and abstinent issues are clearly not the same, they are at least complementary, just as the LGBT Center and the new Center would be complementary. I hope that this clarifies our position and I hope that respectful debate can continue on this topic. And I'm sorry for how long this is, but the arguments and issues are sensitive and cannot be distilled into sound bites.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Regarding previous posters' statements about how chaste students constitute a group on campus deserving of their own center: the LGBT Center exists to provide a typically harassed and oppressed group with a support network and services that it would not be able to otherwise readily achieve. Regardless of how much Tom Haine and company would like to think of this world as debauched and transgressively liberal, it is still difficult for homosexuals, much less transsexuals, to find support in coming out. Without the LGBT, those who avail themselves of its services would find it significantly more difficult to achieve the support it provides, particularly in a society that is still institutionalizes a relatively conservative ideology. The comment that “differences in sexuality take a certain amount of precedence” is clearly misguided; the very difficulty of homosexuality is that it is not a matter of superficial detail like skin color or bone structure. The LGBT community needs a place where it can find support and friendship and feel comfortable talking about shared experience, even when being a part of this community has no external signs and no physical manifestations. So, while the University has provided the Carl A. Fields Center, Haine cannot attack the LGBT as being any less valid (and it is perhaps even more important). But, if the LGBT gets such treatment, why shouldn’t the so-called “chaste community”? Why can the university support ”promoting a progressive and libertine sexual ideology of a post-gender world where anything goes”, but not the institute of marriage? Because society implicitly already supports marriage. Practicing religious communities, of which there are many on campus, promote these same ideals. Even Anscombe’s appeals to Aristotle (for the atheists in the crowd) as a non-religious exemplar of chastity invokes a longstanding philosophic tradition—the norm, not the exception. Anscombe would have us believe that because they are in the minority on this hook-up campus, they represent a repressed group. Hardly. Tom Haine would likewise have the LGBT discourage its members from acting on their “wrong” desires—since clearly, even if being gay is totally cool, having gay sex is a part of what he perceives as a “libertine sexual ideology”. His message is, “It’s okay to be gay, just don’t act on it.” The fallacy of this argument would become clear, should Anscombe apply this philosophy to itself: “It’s okay to be chaste, but let’s get it on.”
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
the LGBT center website also says that it is "by, for, and about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, and ally members of the Princeton University community." So, any LGBT person who chooses to be chaste can of course become a member and leader at LGBT... it's for *you* too! Maybe LGBT programming leans left because the students that end up attending/organizing/making good use of LGBT center events lean left too. Chaste students need to stop whining... and if they are LGBT they need to become more active in the LGBT community if they want to be heard.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I am perplexed as to what Tom Haine and 4:55 PM mean when they speak of a postmodern view of sexuality. I do not think there is strong evidence that the LGBT Center encourages people to be promiscuous, and if by "postmodern views of sexuality" you mean "some people are attracted to others of the same sex, and I can't deal with that", then ...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Again, I am not doubting that (a) there are resources on campus for African American students, or (b) that there is a history of violence against LGBT people in the broader society. My claim still stands, though, that there is no center analagous to the LGBT center that black students have as a resource. The Fields Center supports all kinds of different diversity-related issues, and is not a "Center for African American students." Your last point about the LGBT mission statement is just a restatement of the issues in contention: no, I would not go so far as to accuse the LGBT Center of being "full of lies," but I do discern a difference between what the LGBT Center sets out to do and what it actually does in practice. It's their promotion of the liberal/postmodern view of sexuality that bothers me, not the fact that they create a safe environment for students, etc.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
(1) the Carl A. Fields Center is meant to have programming to support African American students. (2) Here's a refresher on violence against LGBT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people (I know wikipedia isn't the best source, but it's midterms week and I don't have time to do research for you.) (3) This is what the LGBT center says: "The LGBT Center works to create a safe and supportive academic environment through educational opportunities and advocating for the needs and concerns of LGBT students... Our goal is to enhance the Princeton University campus community and to ensure the advancement of our students’ academic pursuits by creating an open and affirming environment void of homophobia, heterosexism, and gender bias." So... either the center's website is full of lies, or it's doing something quite different than you think it is.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Sara: good conservatives and good liberals can both agree that violent or threatening behavior against any group of people is both intrinsically wrong and also harmful to society's social health. But I'm just not so sure that this is the main reason behind the LGBT Center's existence. It might be an ancillary reason, but I really don't think it's the main one. After all, I think it's fair to say that African Americans have endured much more actual violence than LGBT folks in America, yet the University does not have an official center for black students. No, the University suggests by its institution of the LGBT Center, that differences in sexuality take a certain amount of precedence. This is a debatable point on its own, but what's important is the precedent the University sets when it dubs sexuality a category worthy/needy of institutional support. I think that's what Tom's on about here.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
What do you mean chaste students aren't subjected to violence? Why just a few months ago a conservative Princetonian was jumped and beaten up by two hooded liberals! It's because of incidents like that that we need a Chaste Center on campus
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
People get made fun of for lots of things... unfortunately that's the way people are. I get made fun of for being politically active, for instance. There's a difference between slurs that have a history of being used in a threatening, demeaning, violent manner (i.e. the n-word or f-word) and the kind of teasing you're referring to, however regrettable it may be that you are being teased.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"The LGBT Center institutionalizes a progressive ideology not by offering support for LGBT-oriented people and combating bigotry (which everyone should do) but when it promotes progressive sexual and familial ethics and lifestyles." Talking openly and honestly about gay sex has a political slant? That's an interesting viewpoint.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sara Viola: Anyone who says chaste students don't experience frequent ridicule obviously does not spend much time around chaste students! We do! I've heard (and experienced) all kinds of incidents where students are made fun of for not hooking up, etc. Additionally, while I'm not trying to minimize the discomfort the Holder/Whitman slurs, I'm not exactly sure it's fair to call them "attacks." LGBT people are not being attacked on the street, and we have to consider the possibility that these slurs might have been created by drunk students, or students using inappropriate terminology merely for the purpose of pranking other students...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sigh: Is there an anti-chaste slur associated with a history of discrimination, assault, torture and murder?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Sarah Viola: Oh, but we have.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sick and Tired: Princeton 09 is 100% correct. The reason why the LGBT, Carl A. Fields, and Women's Centers all exist is that they serve groups of student that have in the past and continue to be discriminated against, marginalized, and demeaned in both subtle and blatant ways. If you think people really are tolerant of the LGBT community, I urge you to read the comments posted by our peers dismissing objections to the use of an anti-gay slur as just a joke: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/15/20099/ Chaste students have never experienced that.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Not all self-interested groups need support, have trouble finding one another, feel persecution on a regular basis, both overt and inert (the attacks in Holder and Whitman should remind you of this!), and battle confusion; LGBT issues are such that there does need to be a center until people can act responsibly and start thinking outside of the heteronormative box.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dear Pro-Sex: Sure. You can have your center; and so can everyone else if you follow the twisted logic of the LGBT and university. That's why this whole thing is ridiculous. Why does every self-centered interest group deserve a center? The solution? Get rid of the LGBT, or at least stop funding it with university money. Otherwise, let's have a whole bunch of centers that further divide this campus.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Ernst’s claim that Francisco Nava is “mentally ill” was inappropriate, no matter if it was the main point of his letter or not. Nava is clearly very troubled. But unless Nava has been diagnosed with chronic depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or a similar illness by a licensed psychiatrist, no one has any business slapping that label on him. Furthermore, it is completely untrue that “only someone who is mentally ill could have inflicted that kind of harm on himself and other people.” People do bizarre, harmful, self-destructive things every day without being mentally ill.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Tom, If you get a "chastity center" can I have a pro-sex center? Before you say that I don't need it because the LGBT ctr is already pro-sex, I'll just mention that I am heterosexual. So I need institutional support for my particular sexual choice: being a woman who likes to have sex with a man. Why should I be left out?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Also, Re: van Landingham: You've completely ignored Ernst's point--Hal Parker made a very offensive inference in his claim that "conservatives have no one to fear but themselves." The accuracy of the "mentally ill" claim is secondary here. What's important is that Parker offended a lot of people with that remark
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
No, I think it's quite fair, though perhaps medically approximate, to refer to Nava as mentally ill. I think when Ernst said that, he meant that only someone who is mentally ill could have inflicted that kind of harm on himself and other people.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!