Katz: keep your hate at home
Dear Editor:
Professor Jonathan Katz is bigoted and misinformed. The year is 2005, and the fallacious notion that AIDS is a “gay disease” died in the 1980s with the Reagan administration and leg-warmers. AIDS is an epidemic that affects everybody-heterosexuals and homosexuals, blacks and whites, rich and poor-and it is a far-reaching question of medicine, science and humanity. Katz’s unwarranted spew of homophobia is not only offensive to homosexuals and those who have been touched by AIDS, but it also insults the intelligence of the responsible individual who considers complexity and ambiguity in lieu of essentialism. This is not a question of “right and wrong,” Professor Katz, it is a question of ignorance. A University-sponsored Web site is an inappropriate venue for such pseudo-intellectual diarrhea, and hyperbolic sentimentalities of “homosexual blood-guilt” are as ridiculous as they are prejudiced. Katz’s self-righteous defense of free speech rings hollow: this is an academic setting, and although one might have the right to post such abhorrent views on one’s Web site, the inflammatory nature of this diatribe threatens the rights of students to learn in a safe environment. Stick to the subjects you know, Professor Katz-I guess that would be physics-and keep your hate at home.
Laura Binder
Class of 2007
Students equally guilty of intolerance
Dear Editor:
I find it unfortunate that recent contributors to Student Life make the same mistakes as Professor Katz. As a scientist, Katz is erroneous in accepting any correlation between homosexuality and HIV as causation. His views are discriminatory and hopefully they will be relegated to the margins of history. However, students advocating Katz’s censor are equally guilty of intolerance. The University setting is designed to foster and protect radical opinions, including those opinions that incriminate the institution. In this fashion, a diversity of views is preserved and furnished to society for the education of policy. Katz, not unlike linguist turned activist Noam Chomsky (MIT), is within his rights to exploit his public position. If we remove Katz’s Web site we’re also obligated to close University forums open to pro-gay rights faculty. Silencing one professor’s voice is akin to silencing all faculty speech, a scary proposition indeed.
Scott Rowe
Class of 2007
To Katz: come out and discuss views
Dear Editor:
Professor Katz, I, along with many members of the University community, strongly disagree with your views. Instead of trading petty and unsupported barbs through the newspaper, let’s bring this discussion into a more suitable format. I invite you to meet me for a public discussion of these issues.
I propose the following format: a brief opening statement by each of us, followed by a moderated exchange of questions. After that, we should open the floor to questions and statements from the rest of the community. I’m certain that we can agree on an impartial moderator, and a time and place for the discussion.
I respect anyone who is willing to defend their opinion with credible facts and logical reasoning, and I’m certain that as a university professor you will not shirk that responsibility. You placed your opinions in the public domain, and it’s time for you to defend them.
Lawrence Wiseman
Class of 2007
You’re the reason we’re dying of AIDS
Dear Editor:
Hi, Dr. Katz. My name is Tom, and I’m gay. As a gay man, I feel as though it is my personal duty to let you know that you are part of the problem. You are part of the reason as to why so many gay or bisexual men in America are dying of AIDS and are passing HIV onto unsuspecting spouses and children.
Yes-you. You defend homophobia vehemently in the article posted on your website, perhaps blissfully unaware of the effect that those words and ideas have on closeted men at this university and all over the world. It’s because of people like you that many gay men in this country-especially minorities-are forced to be on the “down low,” horrified of their sexuality, but unwilling to live celibately. They have unprotected sex with men in private and go home to sleep with their wives, possibly transmitting any number of STDs. It’s because of people like you that men are afraid to go to their own doctors for an HIV test, missing the diagnosis until full-blown AIDS has developed, and potentially infecting dozens of people without even knowing it. It’s because of people like you-people who espouse hatred, condemnation, and ridiculously misguided religious dogma-that the AIDS epidemic is growing dramatically in women.
Because of the relentless focus on gay men with AIDS, many think that only homosexuals can get infected. I hate to burst your bubble, but AIDS is no longer a disease of gay, American men, Dr. Katz. According to the CDC, 14 percent of those living with AIDS in 1992 were female. By 2003, this percentage had grown to 22 percent. Furthermore, according to the Global Health Council, 96 percent of all people with HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa and an additional 45 million people in impoverished countries could become infected with HIV in the next five years. It’s about time you stop blaming me and start taking responsibility for fostering a society that allowed this to happen.
Tom Giarla
Class of 2007
Katz’ logical fallacies are transparent
Dear Editor:
Mr. Katz’s poorly-developed condemnations are embarrassing to the academic and social dialogue of this university. Not only are his ideas supported by a weak base of reason, but his failure to distinguish group members from the whole of a group is a surprising misstep for a Washington University professor. Please consider the following.
Mr. Katz urges us to “discriminate between right and wrong,” then cites that AIDS has killed over 500,000 people, clearly his proof that homosexuals are “wrong.” Were only homosexuals responsible for spreading AIDS, then these 500,000 would be nearly all homosexuals, and rest assured Mr. Katz would have no problem. The spread of HIV/AIDS is a global epidemic blind to race, sexual orientation, religion, or socioeconomic status.
Mr. Katz further argues that homosexuals should not be absolved of their “blood-guilt for the deaths of the victims of AIDS” because, well, these deaths are obviously their fault. This rhetoric is so backwards it’s staring itself in the face laughing at its own absurd claims. I’m sure Mr. Katz hates all Germans because the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust. He must loathe all Christians for their involvement in the Crusades, and, without a doubt, he despises Americans for their slaughter of countless Native Americans, Japanese, and Iraqis, not to mention their systematic institutionalization of slavery and racism in this great nation. Wow, Mr. Katz, that’s a lot to hate.
The logical fallacies you present are as transparent as your credentials for social commentary. You cannot focus your hatred for the actions of a group into hatred for the individual. Try to see the good in people. Do not judge people by the actions of those who came before them, or you may be surprised at how quickly those passing judgment come to be judged themselves.
Matt Zinter
Class of 2007
Katz: I will not surrender my right to free speech
Dear Editor:
In a democracy, if one disagrees with someone, one doesn’t try to censor him. Rather, one presents one’s own arguments, and tries to convince the reader that one is right. Censorship is the tool of those who fear they are wrong.
Student Life has this week (Sept. 26 and 28) presented four letters, articles or editorials advocating censorship of my web page, “In Defense of Homophobia.” The editors, in particular, should know better. But none of these writers explained why they disagree. Perhaps they actually agree with me, but are frightened of the truth. If you think I’m wrong, explain why, and try to convince the undecided. If you don’t do that I (and they) will conclude that your arguments are too weak to stand examination.
I didn’t surrender my right of free speech when I accepted a professorship here, and I won’t surrender it now.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
How can you hate my Uncle John?
Dear Editor:
This debate regarding Professor Katz’s “In Defense of Homophobia” essay just makes me incredibly sad. I don’t know how else to put it.
To me, the controversy created by this essay isn’t an issue of freedom of speech, or of conservative vs. liberal perspectives. This is a matter of pure hatred. And when I am reminded that such hatred exists, even on our campus, it makes me sick.
One of the people in this world whom I love the most is a gay man. He is my mom’s best friend, my godfather. I have known him literally for my entire life. And in these 21 years, practically no one has loved me and supported me and my family as much as this wonderful man, my “Uncle” John, has.
When I was in high school, Uncle John was “wed” to his long time partner, Patrick, in a beautiful, loving commitment ceremony outside Philadelphia. It was more genuine and meaningful than any wedding I’ve witnessed. John and Patrick have been in a monogamous relationship for as long as I can remember. Neither of them have AIDS, nor will they ever contribute to the spread of the disease.
My dictionary describes homophobia as “fear or contempt” for lesbians and gays, and the subsequent “behavior based on such a feeling.” Never mind whether or not Mr. Katz’s essay is well-argued or wields accurate statistics-it’s still very much based in the idea of contempt. This is simply apparent in Katz’s statement, “I am a homophobe, and proud.”
Mr. Katz, how can you hate my Uncle John?
Sarah Baicker
Senior Scene Editor
Class of 2006
Katz’ online ‘Mein Kampf’ puzzling
Dear Editor:
I would like to applaud Jeff Stepp for having the courage to write an editorial criticizing his professor’s views on gays and lesbians. Mr. Stepp risked a lot to bring this issue to the attention of the university community, and I for one am grateful that he chose to do so.
After perusing Dr. Katz’s university-sponsored “Mein Kampf,” I found myself wondering why he chooses to remain in such an oppressive politically correct environment. I’m sure that he could easily find an appointment at a university that lacks a non-discrimination policy for gays and lesbians where his views would be celebrated. I’m sure Bob Jones University would be thrilled to have him in their physics department. I hear they don’t even allow interracial dating.
Peter Cabrera
Ph.D. candidate
Good approach to Scientology
Dear Editor:
Re: “Is Scientology full of it?”
Given what I’d heard and read about the doctrines of the Church of Scientology-alternative psychotherapy, evil galactic warlords, past lives, and founder L. Ron Hubbard himself (“99 percent of what my father ever wrote or said about himself is totally untrue,” said Hubbard, Jr.)-I felt a bit justified in feeling that the St. Louis Church of Scientology next to campus is slightly…creepy. Surely the presence of such a controversial new religious movement next to Washington University, this bastion of academia and truth, I figured, was the result of some elaborate joke, or, at worst, an unhappy coincidence.
I didn’t expect to have any epiphany about Scientology before reading the article in Monday’s paper, “Is Scientology full of it?” And I didn’t. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have good things to say. It’s not too much surprise that the Church would be pushing its own products and programs, or its members should demonstrate their psychotherapeutic devices of questionable legitimacy, but that’s not necessarily an excuse to see what Scientology, from the words of Scientologists, is about. No, Sarah and Jake have dared to side with neither trendiness (“Oh, well, if Tom Cruise endorses it…”) nor precipitate criticism (“Good God, what the hell were we thinking?”). I shouldn’t be surprised that Scientologists would be, apparently, friendly and inviting-these are still human beings, of course, not caricatures of slick-talking snake oil salesmen or hooded acolytes chanting cryptic phrases from the Necronomicon-despite the wide consensus that they are a cult that has, it seems, done less for its members than it would purport.
I won’t be an apologist for the Church of Scientology. Scientology and Hubbard have yet to be validated by most. But nowadays, when religious views so often seem to lie at those frightening extremes of hard-line dogmatism, condemnation of faith, or outright apathy, it’s nice to see that we can still venture into the shady lands of new practices and religions-and even those of old ones-bearing open minds, ready to try to understand the things we’re quick to ridicule.
David Song
Class of 2009
The ‘infamous’ Katz’s Deli?
Dear Editor:
Re: “Kopperman’s,” Stepping Out, Sept. 26, 2005.
Katz’s Deli is described as “infamous.” I question this adjective as a description of a deli that serves “great” corned beef and “fresh kosher” rye. “Infamous” immediately creates a shady or bad reputation perception. Roget’s offers: Infamous, shameful, abominable, disgraceful, unspeakable, contemptible, heinous, base, atrocious, discreditable. Do any of the above relate to Katz’s Deli? If so, I shall refrain from patronizing the “infamous” Katz’s Deli.
John Keeney
Richmond Heights