Professors’ responsibilities curtail free speech rights
Dear Editor:
Re: “Should Wash. U. tolerate homophobic professors?” (Sept. 26)
I write to thank Jeff Stepp for the quality of his article in Student Life questioning whether students should be forced to support professors’ offensive political beliefs with their tuition dollars, and to address that article’s comments regarding David Horowitz and the Academic Bill of Rights.
Your article tangentially implies that Horowitz would allow essays written by Professor Katz in the name of “balance” to be protected as a free speech right of professors. Your article reads, “David Horowitz argues that campuses need more ‘balance’ in academic thought. But surely he cannot equate balance with bigotry, can he?”
There is some confusion regarding David Horowitz’s position on subjects like this. The Academic Bill of Rights does not address the use of university funds or space, but only abuses of students’ academic rights in the classroom.
I asked Sara Dogan, the national campus director of Students for Academic Freedom to reply to the question the Forum article raises. She wrote, “The Academic Bill of Rights is about intellectual DIVERSITY, not about ‘balance.’ We are very careful not to use the word ‘balance’ in describing out mission since it gives the misleading impression that we are aiming for a 50/50 split of ideas along political lines. This is silly, of course, since there are more than two views on almost every subject in academia. We instead ask that professors expose students to a “spectrum of significant scholarly views” on the subjects they teach.” As a reader of David Horowitz’s books, I can assure you that he would be uncomfortable with Katz’s views, and with the appearance of University support of them. You may remember that Horowitz stated in his Assembly Series lecture that he is a supporter of equal rights for everyone.
Professor Katz does not represent a “scholarly view” on “homophobia,” and does not have standing to comment on issues of sexuality outside of his role as a private citizen; there, he will certainly fail to impress anyone. Your article arrives at the right solution: to remove his Web page from the University site.
A group has already formed to address situations where professors forget that their professional responsibilities should curtail their rights as private citizens to free speech. We are now in the process of documenting these abuses by professors here at Wash. U., and will be partnering with the national group Students For Academic Freedom to pressure the University administration into enacting and enforcing policies against “political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.” Only students can force a university to live up to its non-discrimination and diversity policies.
I would urge students concerned with Professor Katz’s remarks to write to the chancellor and express their views.
Steven S. Hoffmann
Class of 2007
Katz article well written
Dear Editor:
I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your article “Should Wash U. tolerate homophobic professors?” in today’s StudLife. I have to say that I was pretty shocked to read it, as I’m in that physics class with you. Like you said, Katz can have whatever opinion he wants, but whether or not that opinion should be voiced on Wash. U. Web space is certainly something that needs to be looked at. I admire not only the fact that you wrote the article, but also that you called Katz to get more info and that you were careful to present his side of the argument. Well done. Looking forward to an interesting class tomorrow. Though I’m sure nothing will be said, I won’t be able to avoid thinking about it.
Ryan Collins
Class of 2006
Katz: Homosexuals still responsible for AIDS epidemic
Dear Editor:
Thank you, Mr. Stepp, for the wonderful things you said about my class (Physics 107). I get favorable comments (and unfavorable ones, too), but it is rare that anyone is as enthusiastic as you are.
But that’s not why he wrote his Forum article. He doesn’t like one of the essays on my Web site, “In Defense of Homophobia,” but he doesn’t say why he disagrees with it. In this essay (which Student Life might want to reprint-you’ve got my permission) I explain how male homosexuality is a threat to public health. It is responsible for the AIDS epidemic in America, which has killed over 500,000 people. Most of them contributed to their deaths by voluntarily engaging in homosexual activity or intravenous drug abuse, but a significant minority were entirely innocent victims-they got AIDS from contaminated blood or clotting factor, or from their spouses, or from their mothers’ milk.
He says my essay and opinions are discriminatory. We should discriminate between right and wrong. Behavior that created an epidemic that has killed over 500,000 people is morally wrong, in my opinion, and should be condemned.
He doesn’t like the fact that my essay appears on a University-sponsored Web site. The purpose of a university is to create and disseminate knowledge, and that requires freedom to publish the truth as one sees it. He is entitled to disagree, and to publish his views on his Web site.ÿI look forward to learning why he absolves homosexuality of blood-guilt for the deaths of the victims of AIDS.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
WILD performers disrespected blacks
Dear Editor:
As a black male, this year’s Fall WILD was particularly hard to watch. ÿThat’s not to say that I didn’t get “CRUNK,” sing along with all the lyrics, or have a good time.ÿJust to say that as I left the performance, I felt particularly demeaned by what I had just participated in. Lil’ Jon and Scrappy’s performance at this year’s Fall WILD was little more than a minstrel show. The general definition of a minstrel show is a variety show, in which white actors in blackface exploit black stereotypes for the purpose of entertaining an audience. This is done at the expense of black pride and dignity.
Aside from the lack of variety to their performance, the only difference between Lil’ Jon & Scrappy’s performance at Friday night’s WILD and a traditional minstrel show was that black performers, instead of white performers in blackface, actively participated in their own degradation. Repeatedly throughout the concert, Lil’ Jon and Lil’ Scrappy graphically played up stereotypes of the “over-sexed and intuitively violent black male” while at the same time disrespecting women.
Washington University should better screen which artists it chooses to represent the University at WILD. By paying for and promoting the Lil’ Jon and Scrappy performance, the University is directly responsible for its content. In choosing artists for future WILDs, the University should be sure that the artists that it chooses do not demean anyone, regardless or race, gender or any other facet of our multidimensional community. See: Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Common, The Roots, De La Soul…
Olufolajimi William Ige
Class of 2007
University charging Tulane transfers tuition disappoints
Dear Editor:
Re: “Hurricane transfers pay WU tuition” (Sept. 26)
I was pleased to learn about the University’s callous and petty decision to require full tuition to be paid by the transfer students from Tulane University who have come to our campus in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Actions like this combined with the recent closure of the night infirmary for students prove to me how committed the University is to saving money and cutting costs no matter the true expense-life and education included. These types of money-saving measures let me rest easy knowing that I can safely send my charitable contributions to organizations that have a real need and positive use for them instead of Washington University.
David Ulevitch
Class of 2004
When you eat, choose compassion
Dear Editor:
Re: “Is Wash. U. vegan friendly” (Sept. 26)
I was pleased to read Jessica Sommer’s article on the growing trend at Wash. U. of students seeking more vegetarian and vegan meals. Like students at Wash. U., college students across the country are showing compassion for animals and are leaving animal products out of their diet.
Most animals raised today for food are forced to live inside huge warehouses known as factory farms. These animals are routinely subjected to abuses such as beak-burning, branding and castration-all without any painkiller. Many are confined in spaces too small for them to turn around, lie down comfortably, or even spread their wings.
When we sit down to eat, we’re making a choice: either we can support cruelty, or choose compassion. As many Wash. U. students already demonstrate, a great way to choose compassion is to opt for the vegetarian meal.
Josh Balk
Outreach Coordinator
Media biases against Israel
Dear Editor:
Re: “Israel launches offensive strike on the Gaza Strip” (Sept. 26)
I am tired of anti-Israeli newspaper articles, subtle as they may be. I am tired of reading headlines that portray Israel as a militaristic dictatorship, whose sole purpose is to kill Palestinians. And I am tired of feeling like I am the only one who sees this.
Monday’s StudLife, along with the New York Times and countless other newspapers around the world, reported the news of the weekend with deceitful irresponsibility. For example, StudLife’s headline “Israel launches offensive strike on the Gaza Strip” is a true statement, but partial and disingenuous. Only in the blurb is it mentioned that Israel, in fact, responded to the unprovoked Palestinian firing of some 40 missiles into cities and villages inside of Israel. By reversing a timeline, it makes it sound like Israel decided, out of the blue, to be the aggressor.
In addition, Monday’s blurb stresses Hamas’ decision to abide by the cease-fire and Israel’s subsequent offensive. This lack of adequate background information is misleading and disturbing. No mention is given that it was Hamas itself that had broken its previous commitment to a cease-fire by firing rockets at Israeli cities. No mention is given of Israel’s inalienable right to defend its borders and citizens from foreign attack, just as England, Egypt, Mongolia, Sudan or the United States would have done if their cities were under attack. No mention is made of the support given by the U.S. State Department, whose spokesman Sean McCormack explained, “We understand the situation in which Israel finds itself…and we fully understand Israel’s right to defend itself.” No mention is even made of Hamas’ abduction of an Israeli citizen last week; hours after declaring the cease-fire, Hamas murdered Sasson Nuriel.
I sincerely hope that Wash. U. students are savvy and cynical enough to be able to examine the news with a vigilant eye.
Ben Yungher
Class of 2008
Unintelligent design?
Dear Editor:
One of the primary intellectual debates in the public sphere today concerns the logistics of teaching American youth the tenets of intelligent design as a competing theory to evolution. I for one was confused as to the scientific evidence which supported and provided for such a theory to serve as impetus for an in-school curriculum. So I did some research, and found an Islamic Web site devoted to the education of intelligent design. Usually when pressed, it’s difficult to get an answer from IDers to the question “How do you test your hypothesis?” Well, look no further, because a Mr. Harun Yahya has done just that, with no surprises in his conclusions.
Using two test subjects, a school of dolphins and the Internet (I am NOT joking), the experiment unfolds. Here’s the logic: The Internet, a series of interconnected sites, creates a system that disseminates information to masses in an infinitely more efficient way than, say, the Pony Express. Sites with many links (referred to as “nodes” help to further increase the efficiency of the dissemination of data. The efficiency of the Internet is reliant on these nodes. If a tiny percentage of site nodes are removed from the network, search times increase, load times are slower, and general havoc ensues.
Now to the dolphins. Groups of dolphins (called ‘pods’) have similarly interconnected communications, and designate female dolphins as “nodes” in the pod to ensure efficient data transfer amid the population. However, when a few dolphins are removed from this chain, there is no discernable drop in communication efficiency. Hence, God made it possible for dolphins to communicate, as there is no possible alternative explanation for why this complex intercommunication network exists. End of argument, now go home and think about what you’ve done.
Or is it that there is no reason to come up with an alternate explanation when you are already operating under the assumption that God made it all? With this particular instance, the ID argument is essentially the same as an evolutionist argument, except when evolutionists say “We’re not sure how/why” and then dig further, the IDers say “obviously God” and sit down, content with their intellectual victory. Is that the aim of proponents of intelligent design, to erase the great mysteries of the universe in one fell swoop? Should we stand idly by and let our ignorance supplant the advancement of scientific discovery, and hence the end of God?
Now, now-fear not, kiddies. There will always be a higher “why?” to be answered, no matter how much we discover about ourselves and our surroundings, and that is the true joy and majesty of God. And besides, where would the poor dolphins be without His help? Seriously though, let’s get some more concrete pedagogy behind our ideas before we start relaying said ideas to our children. For the love of…well, you know who.
Jon Rayfield
Class of 2003
Supreme ruler to Goodwin: well done
Dear Editor:
I wanted to congratulate Zach Goodwin on a very well-written and well-researched (and funny as hell) editorial in Friday’s Student Life.
Amrit Dhir
Supreme Ruler, Student Government Association
Emory University