(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
(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