Regarding the ex-gay conference and protest
Dear Editor:
Bill Maas’s idea that you can’t protest voluntary therapy groups is absolutely silly. Many people across the nation protest abortion clinics on a daily basis. Abortion clinics are voluntary, too. They’re run by “very educated” people, just like the conference being protested. Why don’t these protesters just move on and let abortion clinics spread their message that there are many ways of dealing with unplanned pregnancies? I mean, many states require abortion clinics to talk about options such as adoption, so these protests may seem even sillier because the workers on the inside even help to spread the message of the protesters that there are other options than abortion.
Also flawed is Bill Maas’ argument that “protesters want tolerance of everything except when it comes to a conservative Christian standpoint.” I’m sorry to break the news, but conservative Christians aren’t the only people who use this statement and apply it to themselves. In fact, last Saturday there was a conference about 15 minutes from my home in Virginia of “European Preservationists.” For years, these people thrived under the name of the Ku Klux Klan, but this failed, so they moved to a name that was more politically correct. Who’s against preserving races and the cultures that go along with them? Perhaps the same people who are against focusing on families? According to the Washington Post, the attendees of the European Preservation meetings feel there is a problem of “prevalence of anti-racists” and of “whites being ethnically cleansed.”
Everyone is free to have their meetings, and everyone is free to protest. Nobody likes their ideas being protested, but that’s the nature of disagreement. Bill Maas can write all he wants about how the protesters are wrong, but he shouldn’t tell me that this conference is being treated unfairly because protesters showed up. Conservative Christians are in no way unique in being protested against, and I would venture to say they are much more tolerated than groups such as the “European Preservationists.”
David Hall
Class of 2007
Dear Editor:
The article “Students to protest ‘gay therapy’ group” in the Feb. 24 issue is completely flawed in its logic on what the Exodus conference is all about. Exodus is about allowing homosexuals to choose whether they want to act upon homosexual tendencies or to turn the other direction, but it isn’t forcing a decision or way of life upon any of them.
It isn’t like Exodus is going into local gay bars, beating people over the head with clubs and forcing them to come to the conference. Conference attendees come on their own power. They choose to be there. They choose to turn from their homosexual tendencies. It is their choice.
Not everyone with homosexual tendencies wants to be that way. I have friends in that situation, not because society tells them that being homosexual is wrong, but because they just don’t want to be gay. They want to have a wife; they want to have a family of their own. Mike Haley, a well known ex-gay speaker, felt that same way, and Exodus helped him become who he is today and he thanks them for it. It is people like this that the Exodus conference was created for: to help people who seek help in turning from their gay tendencies.
By protesting the “ex-gay” events, you are trying to force people with homosexual tendencies to be gay, which is exactly your argument against the conference. Exodus isn’t telling people they can’t be gay, it is merely saying that you have a choice in the matter. That choice should be left up to each individual. Exodus just helps someone once they have made that choice and offers them an opportunity to change if they so desire.
If you are going to protest events and organizations that people voluntarily attend, you might as well go protest Student Health and Counseling Services. Students go to health services when they feel that something isn’t right and they want it fixed. Not everyone that is sick goes to the doctor, but some people choose to.
Shawn Radovich
BS/MS candidate in engineering and business
The acronym ‘LGBTIQAA’ needs to go
Dear Editor:
The LGBTIQAA task force needs to do some serious revising of its name and acronym. Don’t get me wrong; I support LGBTIQAA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, asexual, and ally) individuals and their mission of educating the community about such issues. I think what they’re doing is a good thing and something worthy of publication. What I have a problem with, however, is their name. That eight-letter acronym is utterly painful to read.
It seems that every time I open up the paper I see a few more letters thrown into the acronym, making their membership and main mission that much more confusing to the reader. It was once GLB, then it was GLBT, and next it was GLBTQ. What’s next? I understand that it’s an organization that represents a wide variety of peoples and orientations, but there is no need to befuddle everyone not involved in the organization with such an unnecessarily long acronym. We get the point – you don’t need to be so politically correct that you are obligated to include every person who feels discriminated against for their sexual orientation in your name. Are they so desperate for more members that they feel that including more orientations in the name will attract them? If that’s the case, then there are a handful of other groups and orientations that need to be included.
I would like to read about the group and what they’re doing just as much as any other group on campus, but I can’t muster up the will to read their name every time and end up not reading about their happenings. Is the acronym really necessary? I’m waiting to see some more letters thrown into the mix in the next article about them – possibly something along the lines of LGBTIQAASMHBZRT? Who knows what it will be next?
It seems to me that it would be extremely hard for a group to reach out to the community if the community can’t stand the long name and can’t relate to it. If I’m either a member of the organization or I’m simply trying to talk with someone about it, I don’t know about any of you, but I don’t want to say “Hey, did you read that LGBTIQAA article in StudLife yesterday?” Or, even worse, “How about that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Questioning, Asexual, and Allies rally the other day?” For me, I wouldn’t even bother attempting to say that mouthful.
Justin Davidson
Class of 2007
A clarification of WU scientists’ involvement with atom bomb
Dear Editor:
Mira Tanna’s letter (“WU scientists’ actions…”) in Student Life (Feb. 25) is inaccurate and based on misunderstanding or ignorance of the circumstances relating to the atom bomb and WWII.
The prospect of Germany’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction” was very real in 1939. Germany had outstanding engineers, scientists, and a giant industrial base. There is no doubt that Germany would have used the atomic bomb on its enemies if it had been available. It is our great good fortune that, for many reasons, this terrible scenario did not occur.
Many scientists in the U.S., some Americans and others who were refugees from Germany, were well aware of the dangers and were able to persuade President Roosevelt to authorize the start of the Manhattan Engineering District. At the same time, stimulated by the same fears, a similar project was starting in Britain. The two projects were combined, and nuclear explosives were developed and used on Japan in the closing days of the war.
The wisdom and ethical aspects of the political/military decision to use the bombs on Japan are still debated today: Professor Henry Berger will be speaking on this subject on March 21. But I am unaware of any significant disagreement about the need to have developed the bombs, given Germany’s technical strength and demonstrated ruthlessness.
A minor correction, as well – there are portraits of all six chemists (not only four). The chemists’ recognition was not “for their contributions to develop the atom bomb” but to express the University’s appreciation of their role in establishing our strong Department of Chemistry. Among the scientists engaged in the bomb project, there were serious concerns and conflicted emotions during the war and afterwards. One should not judge the actions and attribute motivations to people without some awareness of the historical circumstances.
Michael Friedlander
Physics professor