Uninformed rhetoric used to describe dialog on homosexuality
A recent opinion article by Mr. O'Brien considers the status of the campus climate on issues related to "homosexuality" in light of Pride Week features. The rhetoric used to invoke this climate was telling, and in the end served to undermine his position.
Mr. O'Brien characterized the environment as "orthodox," which was meant to suggest an environment not conducive to the free flow of ideas so well articulated by former President Shapiro. Mr. O'Brien then uses "non-revisionist" in reference to theological positions seemingly excluded from representation in the Office for Religious Life—holding "orthodox" religious opinion as especially praiseworthy. It is at the point of his example of the "forthright" peer counselor for SECH that his argument falls apart. A peer counselor is not someone who is selected to forward her own convictions, but rather someone who is capable of instilling a sense of security and community necessary for respectful and productive discussion.
The pejorative invocation of "orthodox" signals the way we hold our beliefs, not our beliefs per se. An orthodox way of holding beliefs is one that considers them undeniable truth not in need of interpretation or discussion, a point Mr. O'Brien must agree with given his own usage. Therefore, if this prospective peer counselor held her beliefs in such an "orthodox" way, I dare say she should be selected for the position. Moreover, an Office for Religious Life in an institution of higher education must select chaplains that can relate to their population—one of people struggling with all sorts of identity issues, religious convictions not in the least. When we struggle with our relationship to G-d, our best help cannot come from someone who simply quotes passages from the Bible (since saying anything more is interpretation and discussion), but rather someone who can talk with us about it, maybe even provide us with the different takes on it put forward through history, including more recent ones.
A Princeton University Press book by Bayer (1987) gives an excellent account of the APA decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychopathologies. A reading will show how it was more than just gay rights activism that brought the change; indeed, there was considerable new scientific evidence, if ever the original listing was based upon such evidence.
We are left with only the insinuations of "reasonable arguments." Perhaps, in the end, that is all that can be offered of such a position. Amy Shuster Politics, GS
Unsubstantiated claims target LGBT with errant prejudice
The opinion piece by Mr. O'Brien in last Friday's Prince targeted gays and lesbians labeling them as "immoral" and "destructive of individuals and families." It was alleged that these vicious claims were supportable by "powerful" critical arguments. However, the author proceeded merely in ventilating unsubstantiated claims and engaging in blatant misrepresentation. I wish to point out the more glaring examples of this.
Firstly, Mr. O'Brien states that gay people's sexual acts (even when placed in a loving, monogamous, lifelong relationship) are nothing more than the "treating of the body as an instrument." Such a statement rests on the profoundly unhumanistic notion of "two-in-one-flesh" union (developed by John Finnis). This "theory" denies any weight to people's desires or emotional or physical needs. Moreover, to call it "subtle or complex" or even to call it a "theory" may be going rather too far. All Finnis does is state (without any obvious evidence) that a particular form of sexual act is "intrinsic" and therefore solely valuable. He then proceeds to deny, not just the moral right of sexual expression on the part of homosexuals, but the right of many disabled people to any sexual life, the right of straight people to use any form of contraception and the right of anyone, gay or straight, to masturbate. Masturbation, for Finnis, constitutes the most unnatural act of all. Too bad for the 95 percent of American men who partake in such "self-abuse"— Mr. O'Brien's may be on your case next!
Secondly, Mr. O'Brien misinforms his readers in suggesting that mainstream psychologists regard homosexuality as a "treatable disorder." In fact, as early as the 1950s, the UK Government's Wolfendon Committee (set up by a Conservative Government and which sat for about four years) stated that the evidence was against the notion that homosexuality could be characterized as a disease/disorder. Since the decriminalization of homosexuality in much of the world, massively more evidence has accumulated showing that homosexuality is neither susceptible to "treatment" nor that it is "diseased."
Thirdly, Mr. O'Brien's appears to under the illusion that the APA not listing homosexuality as a "disorder" since 1972 has been the result of some sort of gay conspiracy. If this was so, why nearly 30 years after this date has this decision not been reversed? Much like the creationists who wish to see Biology courses structured around their ideas, Mr. O'Brien appears to want the psychologists to structure their courses around his.
If Mr. O'Brien really wishes to enter into the spirit of rational enquiry he so praises, he should spend his time looking at this evidence rather than attempting to inflict his beliefs on others or resorting to the type of conspiracy theories so loved by bigots. David Erdos Policits, GS
On Israeli 'colonization' and the roots of middle-east crisis
In his Tuesday editorial Mr. Guyatt argues that the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not over Israel's right to exist or response to terrorism, but over land. Specifically, he portrays the conflict as arising from Israel's colonialist desire to protect and extend its settlements in the West Bank. I do not want to challenge this view here, but I will comment on a few other points he makes.
First, Mr. Guyatt compares Israel's settlements to the "massive programs of ethnic cleansing" carried out by Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan during World War II. This is simply unfair. The three aforementioned nations invaded other sovereign countries solely out of the desire to extend their territories and capture resources. This is not how Israel came to control the West Bank. The Six-Day War of 1967 was in response to the clearly belligerent moblization of Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordaninan troops along Israel's borders, as well as the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Israel launched the war as a pre-emptive attack to eliminate a grave threat to existence, not to realize expansionist ambitions as Mr. Guyatt implies.
Second, I believe Mr. Guyatt is correct in condemning the settlements. It's hard to see the reason for the settlements except that Israel wants to extend its territorry. It is probably illegal, as Mr. Guyatt argues, and it is certainly immoral. These arguments, however, don't justify his conclusion that the best solution is "dismantling of the 'greater Israel' . . . throughout the settlements of the Occupied Territories." As he notes, there are already about 400,000 Israelis living in the West Bank. Does he really believe it is feasible, not to mention moral, to relocate so many people into Israel proper? It is surely an accepted fact that the forced removal of thousands of people is never a justifable solution to a political problem. If Mr. Guyatt is serious about a two-state solution, he would do well to consider the possibility of a Palestinian state that incorporates the Israeli settlers, much as Israel absorbed many Arabs into its democratic framework.
Of course, I may have misinterpreted Mr. Guyatt's article. In that case, I invite him to respond and clarify. Frank Lee '04
Read More
Campus is isolated: Be the voice that speaks out
Wynne Conger“Although today’s encampment represents a significant and monumental stride in campus activism, the culture of the Orange Bubble must fundamentally shift in order to ensure long term change.”
Protesting for peace and justice
Nura Liepsner“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
Encampments are not ‘inherently unsafe.’ Princeton should not arrest or expel students for them.
Daily Princetonian Editorial Board“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
