Welcome back students! This is the sixth day of a new year and the first day of a new semester. I’m excited to have you all in my class. Well, actually, I’m excited to have all but one of you in my class. Please allow me to explain.
Each semester, I teach two sections of Introduction to Criminal Justice. Each section has 35 students. At the end of the semester, every student is given a chance to evaluate the course. I receive and read those evaluations several months after they are completed.
When the evaluations come in, the results are generally the same. Over thirty students rave about the course – many saying it is the best they’ve ever had. A few students offer mild criticism – some saying they wish I would use Power Point. And, every semester, one student claims to have been offended by something I said in one of our thirty class meetings.
Last spring, an offended student claimed I was disrespectful towards students, explaining further that I had engaged in “homophobic” speech in the classroom. I know precisely why the student made that remark as there was one and only one discussion of homosexuality over the course of the semester in that particular class.
Our brief discussion of homosexuality occurred on our “preserving free speech” day. Every semester, I do a little exercise in understanding and appreciating free speech, which involves having every student answer three questions pertaining to free expression. The answers are read and discussed in front of the class sometime around mid-semester.
The third of those questions asks the student to say something he always wanted to say in a college classroom but feared to say because of concerns over political correctness. One student chose to say that he was adamantly opposed to gay marriage. After I read the remarks, I allowed a supporter of gay marriage to rebut them. In other words, both sides had an opportunity to speak.
There was a brief back-and-forth between the gay marriage supporter and the professor (me). I talked about the 1879 Reynolds decision, which upheld a Utah ban on polygamy. We talked about the issue of whether adoption of gay marriage would lead to polygamy. He said he did not care. I said I did. We had a healthy and respectful exchange – so much so that it continued for a couple of days during my office hours.
But, regrettably, someone who did not have the courage to express his view on free speech day – where, clearly, both sides were allowed to speak in an atmosphere of mutual respect – chose to become offended. And, for the record, I believe that taking offense is a choice. There is no evidence of an un-gay gene that makes people perpetually unhappy.
So, in light of the fact that someone was offended, I think (not feel) that it would be best for me to lay down my basic beliefs about human equality before this semester gets under way – and, more importantly, before the drop date passes. Here goes:
1. I believe that all people – black or white, man or woman, gay or straight – were created equal. That is, they were born equally annoying. From birth through the next several years of life we are incapable of thinking of anyone but ourselves. We cry and scream and throw tantrums in order to get what we want – regardless of whether we deserve it or whether it is even good for us.
2. Over the years, most people learn to think of others. But a minority never really stops throwing temper tantrums in an effort to get what they want. I believe that most gay activists are in that minority.
3. I believe that whenever a person says “I am offended and my right to be un-offended trumps your right to speak” he is, in effect, throwing a temper tantrum. This is most certainly the case when he likens constitutionally protected free speech to a “phobia” simply because he cannot muster the courage to offer a calm and intelligent rebuttal.
4. I believe that temper tantrums thrown in an effort to advance the gay agenda do nothing but reinforce the stereotype that gays are emotionally inferior and, perhaps, emotionally unstable.
5. I believe that blacks and gays have only one thing in common: Their spokespersons – whether Perez Hilton or Al Sharpton – hurt the people they purport to represent by remaining in a constant state of offense, faux outrage, and self-righteous indignation.
Those are my views and I don’t really give a damn if they make you cry. I know all there is to know about the crying game. I don’t want anymore of the crying game.
Have a great semester!
As Netroots Nation Drinks Up Democrat Kool-Aid, AFL-CIO Warns This Could Be A 'Powerful' GOP Year | Matt Vespa
New Obama Executive Action Plan on Amnesty: Bring Kids to U.S. Directly From Central America | Katie Pavlich