Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

I was quite disappointed with your article of 6 October “ ‘Coming Out Week’ Celebrated”. While it is true that this article served as a fairly objective portrayal of the event, it does not provide the whole story. As the only newspaper on campus that respects traditional (one hesitates in the post-Bush era to say ‘conservative’) values, I had expected more from your coverage.

Unfortunately, homosexuality has become an issue in our society on which openminded, fair discussion is denied. Th e National Coming Out Week events do not promote discussion, which is the very thing they say is intended, rather they hinder it. According to GLBTQ Council leadership Gasseling and Belcic, the week is meant to help people “free themselves from the constraints of ignorance-based limitations.”

People cannot, however, honestly discuss a view when one side has so little respect for the other that it calls the other’s views ‘ignorant’. If true discussion on this issue is ever to come about, neither side can be as disrespectful, uncharitable and closed-minded as the NCOW organizers have shown themselves to be.

Universities are meant to pride themselves on open-minded, fair and respectful discussion, which BC spokesman Jack Dunn intimated when quoted for your article. As a university, Boston College should seriously question its support for such discussion-limiting rhetoric as that provided by NCOW.

I had hoped the Observer would say as much, but it appears you, too, have come under the purview of the stultifying oppression of Political Correctness.

-Anonymous

To the Observer Staff ,

While I disagree with many of the things written within the pages of your paper, I respect the thought that you obviously put into your articles and opinions. I enjoy picking up your paper because it gives me an opportunity to read arguments against many positions that I hold.

What stuck me as inappropriate in this past week’s Observer came from your “Observed” section. I don’t really care if your “observations” are supposed to be satirical, sarcastic, funny, or serious in nature, there is a problem when you so openly attack the Jesuits and thus the Church that many of us call home.

You may have issues with the BC health insurance policy, but saying that it “provides Jesuits with condoms” crosses a line. It is offensive to many Jesuits as well as myself, and simply not funny. Then you continue on in another “observation” that provides insightful commentary on the homilies given by our priests on Sundays. The punchline is essentially the homilies “suck.”

You may feel a decline in the nature of homilies given, but if you would like to take issue with them you should do so in a more intellectual manner befitting of a reputable collegiate newspaper. While you may have considered these “observations” to be funny, I find it odd that you so blatantly attack the Jesuits when the motto of your paper is Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. In trying to find God in all things, I fail to find God in your humor.

-Sam Hay
Theology Major, Class of 2010

Related Articles: