More and more these days, it has become fashionable, if not almost mandatory, for universities to promote the idea that homosexuality is completely normal and that homosexual behavior is exempt from moral evaluation. It's simply an alternative lifestyle as routine and acceptable as heterosexuality. And woe to those who interfere with this message! Professor Mike Adams shared his experience of attending a seminar at UNC-Wilmington instructing students on how to better display sensitivity toward homosexual, bisexuals, and transgendered persons. At the seminar, two cross-dressers gave the audience instructions on how not to offend those who switch their gender identity back and forth. One of the two said that not all cross-dressers are gay and that the heterosexual ones feel superior to the gay ones, "because they're like the Catholics who think they're the only ones going to heaven." This is the rubbish passing for higher education on many of our campuses today.
Examples of such madness are endless. UNC Provost Robert Shelton commissioned a report on the state of UNC-Chapel Hill's homosexual community. The report recommended promoting the development of the "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community on campus," with an emphasis on encouraging "tolerance" of gays and their agenda. It reported with horror and apparent incredulity that "half the general population continues to believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong." The implication, obviously, is that an open and tolerant university climate can't permit such archaic thought patterns. The report concludes that UNC-Chapel Hill's climate for members of the LGBTQ community in academics, support services, employee and faculty benefits, and institutional policy lags behind other "benchmark" universities in America.
Of special concern was the finding that UNC did not offer majors, minors, and certainly not certificates in "sexuality studies." After all, according to the report, "Over the last three decades, the study of sexuality has become established in the U.S. and elsewhere as a rich, vibrant area of research." That says it all, does it not? The study recommended that to correct this disparity UNC must "actively encourage department chairs and faculty to revise existing courses to include material relevant to sexuality studies and to develop new courses" and to "explicitly communicate to ... the departments that sexuality studies is a valued and legitimate area of research, teaching and scholarship." It urged the acquisition of a full-time director of sexual studies.
Note that, beyond being objectionable on their face, these recommendations carry an educational opportunity cost. One UNC alumnus put it in perspective, saying, "You find students now who have difficulty getting into core classes ... because they are full, because they don't have money to fund more professors. It makes it very difficult for a student to successfully arrange their schedule in the course of four years ... yet the university is using its resources to provide classes ... that don't contribute to the intellectual climate."
The dean of the College of Education at Texas A&M University proposed a "tolerance" statement for homosexuals, requiring faculty members to "celebrate and promote all forms of human diversity," including sexual orientation. It didn't simply say that homosexuals should be treated fairly, but that their lifestyle must be "celebrated and promoted." Eight professors submitted a letter of objection, saying that Christian faculty members should not be forced to "celebrate and promote" a lifestyle they believe is immoral. One faculty member countered by accusing the objecting professors of bigotry and urging that one of them be fired from his administrative position.
"Rather pompous and arrogant" is how Dean Jane Conoley characterized the letter. "Sacred texts should be used to guide our personal lives and not used in judgment of others," she explained as she stood in judgment over the professors. "I generally consider distinctions that call us to love the sinner while hating the sin to be empty, rhetorical gestures at best and covers for persecution at worst." But the objecting professors were not suggesting that they engage in judgmental behavior-merely that they not be compelled to sign on to a policy statement repugnant to their personal moral beliefs.
Was this article helpful?