Editorializing at its weakest

Last week The Daily Campus accommodated an article reporting professor George Henson’s experience with homophobic vandalism, specifically the word “FAGGOT” scrawled across Henson’s Allies sticker on his office door. Let’s revisit a key quote in that article taken from professor Henson:

“If this was the work of a Bush supporter who was upset by my criticism of the Bush administration, it doesn’t surprise me that this would be their response. This is a perfect example of the tactics that Bush and his supporters have always used against their critics.”

Close examination shows this first sentence is rather strong speculation, claiming, “If this was the work of a Bush supporter,” but not a full-blown accusation. The second sentence claims, “This IS a perfect example of the tactics that Bush and his supporters have always used” and is wrongfully labeling the senseless vandal as being a Bush supporter. Reality is, this could be the act of someone who is void of opinions deemed controversial concerning gay rights, could be an act of some student upset with professor Henson due to a grade, could be the act of someone homophobic who does not claim a hand in politics or someone who is quite passionate about certain political beliefs, whichever party the offender claims affiliation to. Perhaps the perpetrator did not know professor Henson and acted out solely on the Allies sticker. We will not know unless concrete evidence is ascertained.

Professor Henson in his subsequent editorial confronting homophobia did modify his previous statement, which included, “I should have said Bush and some of his supporters,” rightfully acknowledging this did not apply to the group as a whole. He did not, however, modify statements implying this act of vandalism is an example of certain tactics common among Bush’s administration, for knowledge of that is still pending. The editorials in response to this did not hesitate the following days after, of which I would like to focus on today.

There seems to be a common agreement that an act of homophobic vandalism occurring against a respected professor is cowardly and purposeless. However, professor Henson insinuating the perpetrator had political reasons led to much argument. Is Henson exploiting this horrible act to find reason to argue against Bush and his administration? Are there some Republicans (and some Democrats) exploiting homophobia, by advocating against gay rights, to increase polling numbers?

For Henson, to point fingers without evidence is wrong. However, for a professor like Henson who consistently writes editorials addressing controversial issues that might bring many to disagree, it would not be wrong for him to connect the possibilities that this act could have been performed by someone who disagreed with him politically. Maybe professor Henson’s error lies in his failure to completely modify his original quote, instead of “slightly modifying” it as Brian Wellman’s editorial points out.

It appears Wellman takes the appropriate amount of time examining professor Henson’s words, yet he focuses his editorial so narrowly on this particular quote where Henson implies causality of the vandal. Clearly, Wellman did not agree that this act of vandalism, especially without proof, should serve as a precursor to a full on argument about certain political tactics incorporating homophobia. As I will say endlessly, it is not right to quickly point fingers as professor Henson did in response to this horrific act. Wellman also proved this while excessively listing various Democrats and certain illegal activities, a waste of space and Wellman’s talent if you ask me, as it seems evident today in the political arena that name-calling, labeling and blaming can take the focus away from important issues. When I say important issues, I am referring to the negative prejudices, found at all intensities, which still exist against homosexuals. Should the occurrence of a homophobic act bring up questions towards certain political persons advocating against gay rights? Professor Henson dedicated much of his editorial elaborating on certain tactics used by Bush and some administrative members, fueling the maintenance and prevalence of homophobia. Should professor Henson have kept his argument silent until the vandal’s political orientation and cause was established? Would it have even mattered by then? Would anyone even care? Republicans and Democrats alike have been subject to performing illegal activities — this is known. How does pointing fingers to make the other side “wrong” bring us any closer to a more united agreement upon acceptance?

Today I am going to assume that political labeling, with negative intents such as “Bush supporter” or “liberals” or “homophobe” or “faggot,” is a waste of time, leaving little room for meaningful thought. However, professor Henson’s examination into the Bush administration and its outward part in selling anti-gay rights as a commodity to win support is not completely unjust, if the intent is to honestly examine why homophobic behaviors are still happening. I do not completely disagree with those who argue against professor Henson. However, I could not locate a single argument worthy enough to match Henson’s observations of our current federal government and the influence of homophobia.

Kevin Lavelle’s article provided the appropriate respect toward Henson, while arguing his beliefs. I do not doubt Lavelle’s passions, nor do I stand here today to denounce him. However, I believe his arguments for such a sensitive topic should be more strongly backed with reasons on why he does not support gay marriage. If they are not religious purposes, then what are they? For people like myself in this country who still can not comprehend why all citizens of this country are not assumed equal under the eyes of the laws that govern this great country, I want to know the opposite argument in full to better determine what’s just. While we have no time to get into religion today, what is the argument for this? I can accept if one’s religious beliefs are not open to debate. But again, prejudices exist at all intensities. Acts of hate are at one extreme, but supporting anti-gay rights should be justified, as the intent seems to be spawned from negative attitudes or prejudices against the gay community. Those driven with religious purposes should provide a good argument for those of us who are or are not religious and still do not agree with the Bible.

I do not believe that issues especially concerning gay rights should be shelved away in editorials, appearing for a week here and there. Going back to the root of the problem, an act of homophobic vandalism, the reasons for homophobia should be debated continually, even if a consensus is not in our near future. I have pondered, sought opinions from various influences, questioned gay and straight people, and examined my faith to wonder why homosexual relationships are not recognized as a union based on love, respect and commitment. While I deeply respect Christian views on this matter, I also deeply respect our rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and property. And since we have reached a contradiction of beliefs, once again I have to shout the importance of thorough arguments to seek certain truths, whatever they may be.

After last week’s articles, it became clear to me that editorializing while straying completely from fact, political name-calling and the blame-game bring this country nowhere closer to resolution or clarity. I do appreciate professor Henson’s later remarks in his editorial piece, while he provided good insight toward some political leaders and their part in this particular prejudice. While I have yet to hear a good response to this portion of Henson’s argument, the prejudices still incorporated in America today should not be ignored. Because if they are, how can people like professor Henson hope for change for those who must live under such shameful acts of prejudice and homophobia?

Diane Line is a senior psychology major. She can be contacted at [email protected].