Katz: Did you actually read what I wrote?
Dear Editor:
The latest round of letter-writers (Sept. 30) has realized that censorship isn’t a liberal approach to a disagreement. But they don’t seem to have read what I wrote. It wasn’t an attack on someone’s favorite “Uncle John,” nor an assertion that only homosexuals get AIDS.
In a nutshell, it was: 1. The increasing social acceptance of homosexuality in the 1970’s led to an increase in homosexual promiscuity. 2. This provided fertile ground for HIV, and led to the AIDS epidemic in America. 3. The homosexual movement is morally culpable for 1 and 2.
The first two points are accepted by epidemiologists who have studied AIDS. The third point is an issue of moral philosophy. To what extent are individuals responsible for the unintended consequences of their acts? Are ideas responsible for the consequences of people acting on them? This is not an academic exercise; more than 500,000 Americans have died of AIDS, and nearly a tenth of them contracted AIDS from blood, blood products, their spouses or their mothers’ milk. These last nearly 50,000 victims surely bear no responsibility and were entirely innocent.
A number of letter-writers assume that a student who disagrees with his professor risks reprisal. Any professor who does such a thing violates academic integrity. I have never done so, and never will, nor would I reward a student for agreeing with me (I don’t even do the grading in Physics 107). But why would students fear this, unless it happens?
Washington University is a sick and corrupt institution if professors abuse their authority in this manner.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Someone should have challenged Katz article sooner
Dear Editor:
On Friday, I challenged Professor Katz to a public debate on his homophobic views through an open letter in Student Life. This weekend, he sent me a one-line e-mail accepting my invitation. It should never have come to this: an undergraduate student challenging a professor six years after the article was written. We live in a university community, where the standards of proof and argumentation are higher, because we have a duty to think critically about everything we do and say. But the system failed.
Six years ago, Professor Katz failed in this duty when he published an article without citations in a field where he has no expertise. Using his status as a professor, he gave the article undue credibility. As a man who has dedicated his life to teaching people, it baffles me that he could have published a work of such abysmal academic value. Where were the debates, the outcries from his peers?ÿOur entire system of developing knowledge is based on peer review and mutual criticism. Why didn’t his peers challenge him to defend his views? Professors, you allowed a member of faculty to publish an article without criticism. You had a duty to challenge Katz on his unsupported assertions and poor reasoning; you failed.
For six years, this university community has failed to call Katz to account for an article he wrote six years ago. Unfortunately, it has fallen to me, an undergraduate student, to challenge a professor. All I had to do was write an open letter in Student Life, and Katz immediately accepted.
There have been questions as to my motivation for challenging Katz to this debate. I’m not doing it on behalf of the GLBTQIA groups on campus; they are more than capable of speaking for themselves. My motivation isn’t a personal vendetta against Katz, or even simple anger at what he’s said.
ÿI am motivated by frustration with the fact that this article has been silently accepted for so long. I recognize that the debate occurring in Student Life is partially rectifying this, but Katz is still getting away with using baseless assertions. With our debate, I hope to restore an environment where everyone on campus should expect to be challenged on their views.
Professor Katz and I are currently working to select a moderator and a time for this debate to occur. The format will be: opening statements, followed by a moderated exchange of questions, followed by moderated questions from the audience, and possibly an opportunity for us each to make a brief closing statement.
More information on the time and location of the debate will be made available as soon as it is decided. I hope that everyone will choose to participate in this debate in the spirit with which I enter it. This is not a time to heckle a member of the community, but rather an opportunity to participate in the academic process of challenging someone to provide evidence and reasoning to support their views.
By going to a university, we choose to be held to a higher standard. For six years, Katz has escaped his duty to that standard. It’s time that this community remind Katz what is expected of every scholar.
Lawrence Wiseman
Class of 2007
University should control Web space
Dear Editor:
In response to Professor Katz’s academic freedom, I think the University has a responsibility to monitor what views are represented on their Web site. Although I believe what Professor Katz says is hateful, bigoted and most disturbing of all for a supposed man of SCIENCE, uneducated, I would defend his right to say it. However, if he wishes to express such controversial views, I do not think that the school Web space is the appropriate forum. What he says on our Web space is a reflection on our school, and the University has a right to monitor and censor what appears on the Web space to a certain extent. While every American has freedom of speech, do they have the freedom to go on national TV and use vulgarity without consequence? If the TV networks have the right to censor the material which represents them to a nationwide audience, then I would argue that the University, which allows Professor Katz to use their Web space, has this same right to censor. Therefore, I think the University should take action to censor some of the Professor’s more hateful and controversial material so as to send a message that the school does not support such homophobia. Moreover, the school should seriously question how they could hire a man who specializes in science who would hold such unscientific views. Society as a whole has a tendency to disregard homophobia, while a significant portion of society suffers the consequences. By censoring the professor, the school would send a powerful message saying that homophobia is indeed intolerable and should be treated like any other discrimination.
Sean Karunaratne
Class of 2008
AIDS not only a homosexual issue
Dear Editor:
I was extremely disturbed to read Professor Katz’s article “In Defense of Homophobia,” specifically that Professor Katz had the audacity to blame homosexuals for the spread and origin of AIDS. His argument was irrational and close-minded. I believe that it is bigoted individuals, such as President Reagan and Professor Katz, whose inability to see the context and severity of such a disease because of its primary target are what have led to the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS. It took President Reagan four years after the first reported case of HIV/AIDS to publicly address the disease, solely as a result of the questioning of a reporter. I would like to think that we have grown from our past, and are now able to see that this disease is no longer called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, we are all susceptible to HIV/AIDS, and homosexuals are merely more susceptible than heterosexuals. It is absolutely necessary for individuals to look at the HIV/AIDS epidemic from a global lens, study this disease in South Africa, where it is most prevalent, or in Asia, and then draw conclusions. Professor Katz may be a brilliant physicist and I would not question his understanding of scientific law. However, AIDS is not a mathematical problem with a simple solution, it is a complex epidemic and rather than searching for the origin and who to blame, we should be searching for a cure and methods of prevention.
Natalia D’Souza
Class of 2008
What about AIDS and promiscuity?
Dear Editor:
Why has nobody else brought this up? I’ve even e-mailed Katz himself about this. People condemn Katz for condemning homosexuals as evil and wrong. Katz condemns homosexuals for their reckless promiscuity. But what I don’t understand about Katz is why he restricts himself to condemning simply male homosexual promiscuity. Maybe that’s how AIDS first spread, but now it spreads among all types of groups. In addition, there’s always herpes, chlamydia, all other STDs. These all spread through promiscuity. So why is it that gay promiscuity is evil and wrong, but regular promiscuity is ok? If anything, Katz should be condemning promiscuity and unprotected sex in general, and maybe admonishing the gay community and everyone else to learn from the past and not repeat its mistakes. It’s not like the gay community was being any more “evil and morally wrong” than your average collage campus. So if Katz wants to condemn sexual promiscuity, he can. It’s simply a logical fallacy that he attributes AIDS to the homosexuality rather than the promiscuity. And as a side note, even though I don’t agree with Katz (and told him so personally), I think the calls for censorship here on this liberal college campus are ridiculous. “Lets end tolerance of intolerance”? Both sides need to step back and realize the glaring flaws in their arguments.
Scott Fabricant
Class of 2009
Student Life is hypocritical about censorship
Dear Editor:
I applaud Professor Katz. Not for his opinions, but for his courage in standing up for what he believes in. Wrong or right, this guy has some cojones to hold his ground in the midst of so much vitriol. I also applaud most of the writers who weighed in on academic freedom, homophobia, AIDS, censorship…Thank you for the enlightenment and the entertainment.
You said many things I wanted to say much better than I could have. On the other hand, I decry the editorial staff for their hypocrisy and revisionism. Last week the editorial staff appeared to give a tacit endorsement of censorship with its rallying cry to “End tolerance of homophobia now.” Now the other “students have called for the censoring of Katz’s opinions.” As for today’s headline “Katz sparks academic freedom debate.” Katz did no such thing. Jeff Stepp did. Katz may have provided the gasoline, but Stepp provided the spark. So,there’s the revisionism-what about the hypocrisy?
Ironically, while denouncing someone for opinions posted on a personal Web site, the staff approved Johnny Chang’s humorous cartoon with similar opinions for mass distribution. Oops.
William Knapp
Graduate Student
Student Life made Katz debate
Dear Editor:
The headline on Monday’s issue of Student Life summed up a big problem with the paper. “Katz sparks academic freedom debate,” proclaimed the headline. This is untrue. The controversy surrounding Dr. Katz was born in Student Life, largely exists within the confines of Student Life, and will die in Student Life.
Before I sound like I’m defending Dr. Katz’s views, let me state my thoughts.ÿIf some inconsequential asshole in the physics department doesn’t like me for ludicrous reasons, that’s fine. When assholes hate me, it lets me know I’m doing things right. I’ll focus my time and energy on the consequential assholes, like the one currently occupying the White House. More specifically, I second the views voiced by the ever-enchanting Annabelle Burnum in last Friday’s issue.
My point, though, is that this whole controversy seems to have been ginned up out of boredom by Student Life. Dr. Katz’s views and Web site are old news. I imagine the staff sitting around, nostalgic for all the real news of last year. Without SWA, dump-gate, or public sorority drunkenness, what to do? The new student center story has no panache, so let’s invent some excitement. I’ve observed this pattern many times in the three years I’ve been here. There’s a story about something or other on the front page which really isn’t consequential (like, oh, I dunno, drinking on campus), but a passionate editorial is written in Forum. Many letters are written in response, more editorials…and nothing changes. Ever. Just something to fill space and time.
This is my plea to Student Life. Become a positive force for change on campus. Do some investigative reporting into consequential wrongs on the campus, unknown to the student body at large. I’ll give you the first one. Let’s look at Bon App‚tit’s management vs. their labor. Now look at the racial makeup. Now state the obvious, and ask the hard questions.
Nick Beary
Class of 2007
Gay rights groups not impotent
Dear Editor:
As members of Safe Zones and Pride Alliance (formerly Spectrum Alliance) we would like to respond to David Brody’s article in the Sept. 30 issue of Student Life. In contrast to his claims of our groups’ “impotence,” Safe Zones and Pride Alliance have clearly had an impact on the campus atmosphere, given that the vast majority of responses disagree with Katz’s views. However, the dialogue surrounding Katz’s obviously homophobic views misses the point; it is a distraction from the more subtle and pervasive forms of oppression aimed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual and ally (LGBTQIA) people at Washington University.
Safe Zones’ three hour-long ally workshops focus on addressing homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and heterosexism, ranging from personal interactions to institutionalized oppression. In the last year Safe Zones has conducted workshops for all RAs, Career Center staff, Office of Student Activities staff, Uncle Joe’s, 1 in 4, CORE, Wilderness Project Pre-Orientation leaders and the Social Justice Center. Each semester Safe Zones facilitates at least one Open Ally Workshop. We are currently accepting applications for new Safe Zones Educators, trained individuals who lead our workshops (see http://resteech.wustl.edu/~safezones). We look forward to reading Mr. Brody’s application by the extended deadline of Oct. 14.
In addition to our workshops, Safe Zones co-sponsors events with other LGBTQIA student groups, including Pride Alliance, Keshet, Outlook and Outlaw. Last spring, the first annual LGBTQIA prom, Gayla, attracted over 200 fabulous attendees! Beginning Oct. 8, Pride Alliance will kick-off its annual Awareness Week, which includes a program co-sponsored with PFLAG during Parents’ Weekend and a celebration of National Coming Out Day on Oct. 11.
A week of events surrounding transgender issues in November will culminate in a lecture given by the renowned transgender artist Loren Cameron on Nov. 18 from 6-7:30 p.m. in Steinberg Auditorium.
Far from being “impotent,” our groups actively spark discussion of a full spectrum of LGBTQIA issues, beyond polarized debate with an avowed homophobe. While blatant homophobia easily becomes this campus’ hot topic, we encourage readers to thoroughly examine the implications of the many forms of oppression that surround them.
Bennet Goldstein, Class of 2007
Nathan Miller, Alumnus
Lori Weingarten, Class of 2008
Tom Giarla, Class of 2007
Stacy Read, Class of 2007
Tanya Antonini, Class of 2008
Brockway’s advice could use depth
Dear Editor:
(Re: Rachel Brockway’s “Sex, lies and Lucky Charms – Oct. 3)
Today’s iteration is not the most irrelevant piece of relationship writing ever, only the most recent in a train of pointless articles.ÿ It is not my wish to attack the piece specifically (though that strategy could prove simple enough: a citation of Napoleon Dynamite as proof of success in technology-based relationships?ÿ You are actually citing a satire?), but to address the thought processes that go into these articles.ÿ Concerning subjects and including sources that appear limited to an insular group of undergraduates on campus, “Sex, lies and Lucky Charms” is not by any stretch of the imagination journalistic writing.ÿ Each piece is literally pregnant with enough inane suggestions and trite details that a point-by-point apology column could appear next to it.
Far be it for me to claim that I have the answers to all relationship issues, but Brockway’s sophomoric, Livejournal-esque stream-of-consciousness advice certainly cannot be considered cogent guidance either.ÿ In a dating/relationship column, I would expect quotes from health counselors, psychologists, therapists and the like.ÿ Advice from the author’s boyfriend or those bearing the moniker “Dirk Diggler” does not convey thoughtful counsel to me.ÿ Also, a preponderance of these articles spend a majority of their print detailing highlights of Brockway’s week (i.e. novel Internet access, or a nude encounter with the police) that are only tenuously linked to what can be called the “lesson.”ÿ This is another fallacy for an advice column; it should focus on relationship concerns affecting students around campus, not the most recent hedonistic “epiphany.”
I would love to see a relationship/dating/sex advice column maintain a post in Student Life, but “Sex, lies and Lucky Charms” is not it.ÿ Frankly, it is insipid drivel masquerading as legitimate journalism.ÿ This is a request from a regular reader and contributor to Student Life to raise the standards.
David Freeman
Class of 2006