Thoughts on our Discourse

I think I have kept my mouth shut long enough. Many of us have. We have allowed complacency to fester and have somehow convinced ourselves that our stunned silence is an adequate response.

It is continuing to be apparent that our silence is not only inadequate but it is also becoming dangerous. The time has come for me to publicly address what I see as the poisonous atmosphere, which is being dotingly cultivated at EMU.

I graduate in a few weeks but as a student and sometime student leader, I feel obliged to speak for those who, like me, are recovering from the illness of silence and are finding voice with which to speak about the continuing misdirection of our institution.

While I appreciate and support the efforts being made by the administration to engage our community in the discussion regarding homosexuality, I wonder if perhaps there are mixed messages being sent even as the discussion takes place. In light of the recent pledge by the powers that be to open dialogue, I find the recent dismissal (for that is indeed what it amounts to) of Professor Ken Roth, the latest victim in a string of firings, hypocritical.

How can we have discussion when those who would speak are silenced? While I have never had Roth for a class, I am assured by several friends who have been his students that he is a superb teacher.

What really troubles me about the non-renewal of Roth's contract is that several times in my college career I have had to take classes with less than competent professors whose jobs I'm sure are quite secure simply because they are "safe" and avoid public discussion of wayward subjects. It appears my scathing end-of-term professor evaluations and objection to their methods are of no consequence. This leads me to the question, "What kind of an institution are we trying to create here?" The message being sent is clear (to me): "You can voice your opinion as long as it is in harmony with ours. If it is not, then watch out."

It has proved to be a remarkably effective technique in silencing the masses (with the notable exception of trouble makers and sojourners like Ken Roth). How many qualified, passionate professors, academics and administrators like Kathleen Temple and Jean Hawk do we need to lose before EMU is finally shaped into a place where dissent is completely obliterated, rendering it characterless?

Recently, the cunning fox has become more sly. We are being led to believe that we are free to openly dialogue sexuality without threat, yet it is evident how EMU has dealt with those who have dared to question the status quo.

From a distance I have watched the formal discussions on sexuality unfold with bemusement, great sadness and with empathy for those in our community who may be gay, lesbian or bisexual. It has been said before, but I'll say it again: EMU is not a safe place for these individuals.

These are fragile issues, and it is disconcerting to hear over and over again polarizing and hurtful things said about those who are perceived to be different from us. In one discussion I was a part of, I heard a theologian draw parallels between homosexual behavior and individuals who have sex with animals. If the broader goal of this whole exercise is to maintain a spirit of love despite the apparent differences between us, then the dialogue process must be approached from that perspective.

I am certain that EMU has its share of gay and lesbian and bisexual students faculty and staff. It is telling of what kind of an environment we are currently nurturing when one considers the scarcity of those in this group who are "out" on our campus. What sort of an institution are we creating? When we are done with oppressing the gays and lesbians, who next?

I am reminded of the lyrics of a song by singer/songwriter Brad Yoder who points out in a song that, "Jesus was a misfit, he hung out with the queer kids." What does that mean for us here at EMU? More importantly, does it mean anything? Should it?

Let us rise in love. Let us practice love.