2008 Woodie Awards
Response to Nelson's anti-equality letter
Jim LaValle
Issue date: 3/13/08 Section: Letters
No socio-political discourse is more dazzlingly hypocritical or more intellectually bankrupt than "political correctness." On this matter, I suspect, Richard Nelson and I essentially agree. But Murray State's recent decision to include "sexual orientation" in its anti-discrimination policy does not mark an ideological shift toward "political correctness," nor does it imply a "moral advocacy" of homosexuality or any other type of sexual orientation. Rather, the policy holds exclusively that Murray State does not advocate, support or tolerate discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - period.
In addition, the policy does not "recklessly safeguard," all kinds of sexual practices as Nelson wrongly implies. Thus, his reference to the various other psychological classifications of "sexual lunacy" is both contextually and substantively nonsensical. I remain optimistically convinced, for example, that the policy revision does not cover bestiality, pedophilia, indecent exposure or even child pornography.
Also, there is nothing in the policy which restrains or restricts religious, social or moral discussions of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, lesbianism or other "alternate lifestyles."
Students, faculty and staff all remain free to openly proclaim and debate their opinions of "alternate sexualities" with whomever they choose. Perhaps the "educated" Nelson thinks Murray State is somehow exempt from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Finally, as a personally committed (but profoundly flawed) Christian, I am reminded that Jesus himself was once asked why he spent considerable time with apparently unrepentant sinners, to which he replied that he was here to heal the sick, not the healthy. By openly dining with these people, Jesus was not advocating their behavior; it was explicitly to the contrary, I believe. Perhaps this important lesson from God himself is worth considering presently, even within the context of the discussion at hand.
In addition, the policy does not "recklessly safeguard," all kinds of sexual practices as Nelson wrongly implies. Thus, his reference to the various other psychological classifications of "sexual lunacy" is both contextually and substantively nonsensical. I remain optimistically convinced, for example, that the policy revision does not cover bestiality, pedophilia, indecent exposure or even child pornography.
Also, there is nothing in the policy which restrains or restricts religious, social or moral discussions of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, lesbianism or other "alternate lifestyles."
Students, faculty and staff all remain free to openly proclaim and debate their opinions of "alternate sexualities" with whomever they choose. Perhaps the "educated" Nelson thinks Murray State is somehow exempt from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Finally, as a personally committed (but profoundly flawed) Christian, I am reminded that Jesus himself was once asked why he spent considerable time with apparently unrepentant sinners, to which he replied that he was here to heal the sick, not the healthy. By openly dining with these people, Jesus was not advocating their behavior; it was explicitly to the contrary, I believe. Perhaps this important lesson from God himself is worth considering presently, even within the context of the discussion at hand.
Be the first to comment on this story