Campus reacts to Katz’s words
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 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, and 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 apparent simply in Katz’s statement, “I am a homophobe, and proud.”
Mr. Katz, how can you hate my Uncle John?
Sarah Baicker
Class of 2006
A moral position?
Dear Editor:
I was shaking my head over Professor Jonathan Katz’s views on homosexuality. I had trouble understanding how a scientist could arrive at a view that has so little to do with the facts of the matter. But then I ran into the phrase “homosexual blood-guilt.” Not exactly a scientific term, is it? As I understand it, this phrase comes from loose translations of Leviticus 20: 13. This has nothing to do with rational thinking or rational argument about AIDS and homosexuality. It has nothing to do with holding human beings (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) morally responsible for their actions. It has to do with-yes, Professor Katz does have the right word for it-homophobia, which is not a moral position at all.
J. Claude Evans
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Another view on stem cells
Dear Ms. Rothstein:
I read your recent column concerning stem cell research in Missouri. I commend you for taking on such a difficult and controversial subject.
Unfortunately, it appears you have been misinformed in several areas regarding Sen. Bartle’s stem cell stance and with the subject of embryonic stem cell research in general.
Should you do a future story, I would be glad to present a perspective that contributors to your article did not share.
Todd Scott
Chief of Staff, Sen. Matt Bartle
Homophobia: a misnomer
Dear Editor:
A “phobia” is, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”.
Refusal to acknowledge homosexuality as a morally valid “alternative lifestyle” choice is NOT such a fear, and those who refuse to do so ought not be labelled “homophobic.” The term is properly applied only to those who have an irrational fear of homosexuals.
Surely there is room in the public discourse for those who do not believe in the moral acceptability of homosexuality. The self-contradictory nature of the pervasive axiom of university politics, which holds that “everything is acceptable except those who do not accept everything,” should be readily apparent to all. One cannot demand moral acceptance of homosexuality while condemning those who do not accept it.
The Bible condemns homosexuality (as well as fornication and adultery) in both the Old and New Testaments. For many, this is reason enough to reject homosexuality (as well as fornication and adultery).
Antipathy to homosexuality is nothing more than discrimination based on behavior, which is routinely practiced in the U.S. and which even the left-most liberals could not rationally declare to be a public harm. Please understand that this does not justify acts of violence against homosexuals-only the right to refuse to accept the moral equivalence of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
To the question “Should Wash. U. tolerate homophobic professors?” I would respond, “Just as much as Wash. U. tolerates homophiliac ones.”
Matthew J. Harris
School of Law student
University’s Web policy only protects experts
Dear Editor:
There is an explicit response to the claim that the truism “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” applies to the Katz controversy. It is found within Washington University’s Policy on Academic Freedom:
“It is a faculty member’s position, based on MASTERY OF HIS/HER SUBJECT [emphasis added] and his/her own scholarship, which entitles the faculty member to freedom in the presentation of his/her subject.”
Katz has not mastered the subject on which he is speaking; therefore, essays on the University Web site that stray from physics or science are not protected by academic freedom. As for Voltaire, we should defend Katz’s free speech when it is spoken in the private domain.
Steven S. Hoffmann
Class of 2007
A biased learning environment
Dear Editor:
Like many students at Washington University, I find it disgusting that Professor Jonathan Katz uses Washington University internet to spread his unsubstantiated hate speech. I don’t know whether I should be more disgusted by his message or by the fact that a Wash. U. professor uses such poor reasoning skils to construct his arguments. The professor condemns homosexuality as the cause of the AIDS epidemic.
Professor, since AIDS disproportionaly affects minorities and the poor, should we conclude that it is immoral to belong to these populations also?
While I support his right to free speech, I see major flaws in the integrity of anyone who would so publicly condemn the GLBT population, especially a professor. How could a GLBT student feel comfortable with someone who so publicly decries their lifestyle? How could they be sure that the grades they receive are even fair when they know about their professor’s biases against their sexuality?
Rose Kowalski
Class of 2004
Student Union: a forum needed
Dear Editor:
The recent Staff Editorial regarding Professor Katz’s controversial Web site was a disappointing response to an issue that demands serious attention. Clearly, a “quicker response” is necessary, but the suggested course of action was vague. In the spirit of the intellectual dialogue, I propose that Student Union invite Professor Katz to speak on behalf of his beliefs. A forum should be established to hear more about the content of Professor Katz’s Web site, one held not with reactionary disdain but with genuine concern for the issue at hand. If Professor Katz decides not to attend, Student Union should still host a forum regarding this controversy. Inevitably, Student Union should be responsible for formalizing and voicing the general sentiment of students in regards to Professor Katz’s usage of University space for his “less than tolerant” beliefs. All should be invited and have the opportunity to better understand the relationship between academic freedom and political correctness.
Ian Schatzberg
Class of 2007
Fair trade… cannabis?
Dear Editor:
Jessica Long is right on the mark with her Sept. 28 article advocating Fair Trade Coffee. But the governments of the world’s richest nations do more than just subsidize coffee farmers in their effort to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. They also make irrational laws and use them to form profitable multi-billion dollar organizations. By doing so, they also create tremendous profits for the thugs and low-lifes who operate the black markets that the government so kindly provides for them. Yes, that’s right, both the government and the terrorists are winning! So then, who is losing? The losers are honest, good people who don’t want ignorance, violence, coercion and “sleeping with the fishes” to be part of their business vocabulary.
This is a sad state of affairs, but a step in the right direction has been made with “Fair Trade Cannabis.”
The industrial form of cannabis sativa is called “hemp,” and it has little to nothing to do with those silly “cannabis heads” who use the bud section of this plant for controversial recreational and medicinal purposes. Hemp is stronger, more versatile, far less soil-taxing and has better vitality than just about any other plant, including cotton, its main competitor. In addition to unparalleled performance in quality textile production, hemp is an efficient source for paper pulp and fuel. Nutritionally it is only rivaled by soy, but even soy’s greater amount of protein is of lesser use to humans. Hemp, by all accounts, is God’s gift to organic materials production.
And no, I’m not some crazy hippy with ulterior motives who’s making things up because I want my drug fix to be legal just like everyone else’s is. There is a reason why our government is blind and why growing hemp is illegal, and it’s not a respectable one. But please, don’t trust me, go and do the research for yourself. Political corruption may be a fact of life, but you don’t have to sit back and submit to it. Keep a keen eye out for Fair Trade Cannabis. Buy smart when you buy green!
Matthew Ullrich
Class of 2006