(March 14) The Campus: "Help! How do you define PC?"
This op/ed was published alongside Daniel O'Neil's on March 14, 1991. This article details the points of a lecture on March 7 by Catherine Stimson titled: “On Being Labeled Politically Correct.” Not finding the lecture extremely useful, Bryant heads to the dining hall, and finds better examples of the arguments for and against PC by talking to left wing John Rothstein '93 and right wing Brian Howie '93. In the end, Bryant doesn't take a stance for or against PC, but instead argues for "common courtesy toward individuals." Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Chad Bryant
March 14, 1991
(March 14) The Campus: "The Meaning of Political Correctness at Middlebury"
This is the first op/ed in response to Middlebury's new sexual harassment policy in 1991, which included harassment based on sexuality. This article discusses the merits of intellectual freedom, censorship, and political correctness at Middlebury. O'Neil argues against the idea of political correctness, the idea that "negative comments concerning sexual orientation" is sexual harassment, and the possible "Cherishing the Earth" mandatory course that was being discussed at the time. He argues for the fraternity system at Middlebury, which he believes is under attack. O'Neil also harshly critiques the administration/"Old Chapel Regime" as well as the faculty, and states that "the time has arrived for the Board of Trustees to seize authority from their ridiculous subordinates and to assume direction of the corporation." Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Daniel E. O’Neil
March 14, 1991
(April 11) The Campus: "PC seen as threat"
This op/ed is written in defense of Daniel O'Neil's article in the March 14 edition of the Campus. This article specifically addresses the legitimacy of the college's new sexual harassment policy which prohibited "negative comments concerning sexual orientation." Upham labels this policy as "extremist" because it "prohibits the expression of the religious tenets of Roman Catholicism and of religions that regard homosexual acts as immoral" and "prohibits the free discussion of a major question in psychology." Note that there was already psychological consensus that homosexuality was not a possible diagnosis or mental disorder (Search: (April 18) The Campus: "Correcting Upham"). Upham believes the new policy is "coercion of the mind" and that it is an attempt to "coerce" rather than "persuade" those who don't agree with PC ideas. He concludes by stating that all who care about intellectual freedom and the free exchange of ideas in an educational institution, "must resist the tendencies of the current phenomenon known as political correctness." Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
David Upham
April 11, 1991
(April 25) The Campus: "Homosexuality is unnatural and evil"
This op/ed follows a previous article from Upham (2 weeks prior), and articles that were written in response to it (1 week prior.) Upham makes his position on homosexual acts as "both unnatural and intrinsically evil" very clear. He says that he wishes to appeal to those who support his right to express these opinions, whether they agree with them or not. Upham then engages in conservative fear-mongering, claiming that Middlebury will begin prosecuting students for "politically incorrect ideas" in totalitarian style and that the sexual harassment policy puts an end to discussion. Finally, Upham restates his claim (which had already been disproven) that homosexuality as a mental disorder was still a matter of debate in the professional field of psychology and in the psychology department at Middlebury. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
David Upham
April 25, 1991
(March 21) The Campus: "Middlebury is tense as it defines political correctness"
This op/ed is a response to the theme of PC in the March 14 1991 edition of The Campus, and more specifically the articles written by Daniel O'Neil, Chad Bryant and Leland Hart. Lang makes it clear that everyone is feeling the "heat" of PC on campus, and describes a recent lecture by Catherine Stimpson that addressed this issue. Lang contradicts Bryant, who found no value in the lectures and debates on campus. Lang agrees with O'Neil that we need a diversity of opinion, but only while bearing in mind the interests of others. Lang also opposes O'Neil's favoritism of white men and states that while fraternity members can be considerate people, that fraternities "are sexist and elitist institutions" in principle. Finally, Lang discourages Hart's sarcasm and puerility and states that everyone must be willing to compromise and be aware of the rights and needs of every person on campus to relieve the current tension. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Drew Lang
March 21, 1991
(May 9) The Campus: "Upham misunderstands PC"
This op/ed is a direct response to David Upham's second article written two weeks prior in the April 25 issue of The Campus, and also references Kevin Moss's rebuttal to Upham's first letter. This article describes how Political Correctness has become a popular scapegoat for public actions that people dislike. Coyle points out that even as Upham targets Political Correctness as a problem and claims Middlebury is stifling discourse, his articles continue to be printed uncensored. Coyle also notes that if Upham's crusade against homosexuals succeeded, then they would be silenced and criminalized. So it seems Upham isn't actually arguing against persecution or censorship, just for his beliefs to be the dominant world order. Coyle makes an analogy to the persecution and murder of left-handed people in the olden days who were also viewed by some as "intrinsically evil." He looks to a scientific study which shows that about 10% of the population is left handed and about 10% is homosexual, and states that Upham gives no rational argument as to why one would be any more harmful to society than the other. Coyle concludes by saying that PC embodies a greater sensitivity to diversity and inclusion, and though Upham is resentful of having to follow the administration's code of ethics and morality, everyone is accountable to the sexual harassment policy. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Hugh Coyle (Administrative Director of
the Bread Loaf School of English)
May 9, 1991
(March 21) The Campus: "Revising O’Neil’s definition of PC"
This op/ed is a direct response to Daniel O'Neil's article a week prior on March 14. The article accuses O'Neil of claiming a "genuine intellectual interest in preserving diversity" while what he is really advocating for is the right to open bigotry. Spencer further dismisses O'Neil's claim that traditional liberal ideas are "radical" and "extremist," identifying this is a ploy used by the right to isolate people from multi-culturalism and cultural democracy. Finally, Spencer addresses the fact that straight white men's fight to keep the fraternity system alive, will never be "on par with racism, homophobia, and sexism." Spencer believes that PC holds an important role in the fight against oppression and that eliminating offensive words from our vocabulary makes us challenge our beliefs and habits. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Jeffrey D. Spencer
March 21, 1991
(April 18) The Campus: "College policy protects discussion, not hatred"
This op/ed is a direct response to David Upham's article written a week prior in the April 11 issue of The Campus. Moss responds to Upham's opinions about the new sexual harassment policy (which included harassment based on sexuality for the first time) and states that the policy isn't "extremist," it is Upham who is homophobic and falsely claiming that the tenants of Roman Catholicism are being oppressed. Moss also points out the incredible lack of awareness in Mr. Upham's analogy to oppression based on eye-color, stating, "For some reason, though, no one seems to object that their first amendment rights are infringed upon because they cannot abuse blue-eyed people." Most importantly, Moss walks us through the history of oppression, showing that the Roman Catholic position on homosexuality has actually varied over time. Moss demonstrates that in the scripture, homosexuality is condemned along with hypocrisy, greed, wearing wigs, shaving, and much more, so clearly "the scriptures are adhered to selectively." Moss then points to bishops and kings who were allowed to have openly homosexual relationships. Finally, he addresses that fact that homosexuality as a mental disorder is no longer up for discussion, and was a result of oppression, and not science, to begin with. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Kevin Moss (Instructor in the Russian Department and an advisor to MGLBA)
April 18, 1991
(May 9) The Campus: "Open your mind, Mr. Upham"
This op/ed is a direct response to David Upham's second article written two weeks prior in the April 25 issue of The Campus. Spangler begins by pointing out that expression of opinions cannot be called out to someone from dorm windows or passing cars, this is hate speech. Next, she notes that there is a "rich and diverse" culture of homosexuality and that those who identify as homosexuals are unique individuals just as straight people are. Spangler also points out that although Mr. Upham discusses a Winter Term Psychology course on homosexuality to buttress his argument, he is wrong about the subject of the course, and would perhaps be more informed if he had actually taken it. Furthermore, although Mr. Upham claims to want to engage in meaningful classroom dialogue, he has never once engaged in conversation with multiple members of the MGLBA (including Spangler) who sit next to him in class three days a week. Looking at Mr. Upham's sources, Spangler comments that the existence of certain sources are questionable and that the ones that could be found were often taken out of context by Upham. Finally, Spangler tells Mr. Upham that she too is catholic and would be willing to engage in open discussion with him any time, promising not to oppress him for his ignorance. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
M. Carrington Spangler (Member of MGLBA)
May 9, 1991
(April 18) The Campus: "Correcting Upham"
This brief op/ed corrects an incorrect statement in David Upham's article from the April 11, 1991 issue of The Campus. In that article, Upham claims that whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder is a question of current debate in the field of psychology. Reed clearly lays out the fact that at the time there was already consensus among psychologists that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and it had been removed as a possible diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Matthew Reed
April 18, 1991