The idea is to discuss, not to argue
Letter to the Editor
We're here to learn, right? By engaging in free discussion, as they call it, we seek to understand the points and positions of others, which, in turn, enables us to grow in our own perspective.
I would not say that the environment I experienced while perusing the Viewpoint Section of Monday's Observer was conducive to discussion. Rather, there existed an intense competitive arena that while very inviting, only served the purpose of argumentation, not discussion. And there is a world of difference.
In Jay Johnson's letter to the editor ("Ban on gay ads is outrageous, immoral," Aug. 30), the thought he chose to convey in the second paragraph was an insult directed at Monk and Chandra Johnson. This leads me to think that the non-discrimination clause is not his priority, which is disappointing because it is a hot topic I am interested in discussing.
My understanding of the University's position according to them is that the clause was rejected on legal grounds. They fear that such a statement would backfire on them in court if, for example, they were to fire a gay faculty member for academic reasons. I don't know if I believe that; why couldn't they make such a concern explicit in the clause? Then again, this is the word of our administration; shouldn't I take them on their word?
At any rate, I want to know what others think, and, more importantly, why Jay feels so strongly on this issue. He must have some life experience or understanding that is worth listening to. But it is not worth listening to Jay insult our president as "bigoted and hateful," nor knowing that he thinks our faculty is "sheepish." The difference between arguing and discussing is clear.
Another discussion that I enjoy participating in is that centered around women becoming priests. In her column ("Four Views and an Occasional Point," Aug. 30) Kate Rowland picks a fight with those who do not think women should be priests. I am again left to wonder why she believes what she does. But I have no inclination from her column. She compares the Church to a refrigerator and priests to bottles that call her "petty and ridiculous". She also classifies those who share this view as "hyper-conservatives."
Her goal of angering a select group of readers was, I'm sure, accomplished. As for making an academic contribution to the issue, Kate achieved little. Kate, I want to know where you are coming from. I am not sure of my convictions, but I do understand that the Church is defending what she believes is truth, the speaking for which I would not consider "whining."
The idea is discussion. I want to understand you, be understood and in the process learn about both of us and the issue involved. If anybody's interested, give me a call. We'll talk. To all those who want to argue, yell at somebody else.
Larry Burchett
Junior
Sorin Hall
August 30, 1999
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, August 31, 1999
