(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 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
(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
(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
(May 9) The Campus: "Free speech for whom?"
This op/ed puts the Middlebury PC debate in conversation with national narratives about PC and a reactionary speech by President Bush. It also describes an SGA meeting on April 28, during which straight white men voiced protests to the new sexual harassment policy. Cornwall directs "Mr. Bush" and "Mr. Defensive Heterosexual" to attempt to understand what real threats/discrimination looks like before they claim victim status. He then lays out three examples in which an LGBTQ+ student or professor might be silenced due to their identity. Finally, Cornwall addresses the cherry-picking of Christianity involved in homophobia, and emphasizes that it is minority groups who actually experience offensive speech and silencing. Here is the article from The Campus' archives, as well as photos of the article as it was originally printed.
Richard Cornwall (Economics Professor)
May 9, 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
(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