Editor:
Give me a break.
A field of little pink and blue flags is an offensive and outrageous “visual harassment?” We’ll forget about “empty, emotionally-driven rhetoric” for now.
I am bombarded daily by articles of clothing (which barely perform even the most basic functions thereof) that I consider to be immodest and immoral, and I’m not even close to a stickler on modesty. I can only imagine what some of our more conservative or culturally-biased students must think about said clothing. Heaven forbid that they and I be “visually harassed” with fashions that we take moral issue with.
Certainly we should not allow mini skirts or tube tops on our campus, right?
Or let’s talk about an even less popular issue than abortion: homosexuality. I’ve seen on a number of occasions certain public expressions of homosexual affection around campus. I am morally against such activities. Yet another example of “visual harassment,” I suppose, in that I am “forced” to catch these activities in the corner of my eye as I walk between classes. Certainly these people who wish to express their affection toward each other should stop on account of my disapproval, right?
Quite frankly, both of these relatively common occurrences “startle and scare” me, and make me feel “unsafe” and uncomfortable.
Given that, can’t we just talk about these issues in a forum somewhere? Y’all will stop wearing revealing clothing and making out with members of your own sex for now, I’ll agree not to mention my moral qualms publicly and we’ll all hash this out like civilized people.
Give me a break.
Now, about this “empty, emotionally-driven rhetoric.”
Oh, if only it were true. The truth, however, is that there are a number of facts here. Fact: More than 4,000 fetuses are aborted daily. Fact: Many abortions take place past the stage at which life begins, regardless of how late you estimate that to be. Fact: Women usually have the choice whether to engage in sexual activity without protection (or at all), just as they have the choice whether to have an abortion. If those facts aren’t “intellectually challenging,” nothing is.
“Politically loaded issue?” You bet. It’s hard to imagine, but politics used to be about people. It’s in the word itself (Gr. “polites” = “citizen”) – 4,000 future “polites” will die today, and you’re concerned about a field of flags.
Give me a break.
Nathanael Straight, Music business, senior
Editor:
Kaitlin Ketchum in the April 7 Maroon objected to the pro-life demonstration at Loyola.
Loyola is a Catholic university, and the position of the Catholic Church on abortion is clear. Loyola is a university and as such tolerates difference of opinion, but it is a Catholic
university. As a Catholic university, it certainly has the right to allow a Catholic opinion to be manifested or even to be privileged.
Surely Ms. Ketchum knew Loyola was a Catholic university when she chose to come here.
Bernard CookProvost II Distinguished Professor of History
Editor:
Kaitlin, I am glad the anti-abortion display offended you. It was supposed to offend you. The display was there to convince you that abortion is wrong. If it offended you that much, well maybe you should start your own protest.
This is an American and Jesuit university where a diversity of views and ideas should be expressed and appreciated without being condemned because someone was offended by it. If it offended you that much, well maybe you should re-evaluate your position on abortion.
What many students lack is the courage to stand out, and that is exactly what the display did – stand out. It seems that nowadays no one wants to offend any one with their “radical” ideas and beliefs. No one is willing to stand out.
It was also hypocritical of you to say that the display was “emotionally-fueled.” Your defensive argument is also “emotionally-fueled,” because you were “emotionally” offended by the display. Well, hopefully the display will “emotionally” offend you to the point where you create your own display. After all, we do live in a democracy.
From your fellow emotionally offended classmate,
Larry LoweMusic industry, sophomore
Editor:
In response to Ms. Kaitlin Ketchum’s column April 7, I wasn’t present at the anti-choice rally to which she objects, but assuming for the sake of argument that it was offensive, I would oppose the university’s disallowing of such displays.
I agree with Ms. Ketchum that forums with different views are more constructive than one-sided presentations. At the same time, I agree with John Stuart Mill’s argument that offensive speech ought to be permitted to the widest extent congruent with public safety. It is difficult sometimes to distinguish offensive speech from speech that challenges our own settled preconceptions. Such challenges are often unpleasant but nonetheless vital for the life of the mind.
Rather than respond to offensive speech with either administrative suppression or retributive insults, I recommend that we use such occasions as opportunities to construct the kind of open discourse that is more befitting a university. I would cheerfully join with her to help make that happen.
Roger White,City College
