By Jonathan Rousse
Staff Writer
Sexual preference has become a topic of debate that has raised much disquietude among students, faculty, alumni and administrators at Pepperdine. The sex policy the university adjusted regarding its students and faculty is a reaction greatly inspired by past events that have occurred regarding the issue of homosexuality.
The manner in which Pepperdine has been dealing with this issue has been discussed at some length. However I do not think that all of the ramifications of the university’s behavior have been thoroughly examined. Many of the tactics the university has been using to deal with this issue are doing a great disservice to its students and to the image of the university as a whole.
The Gay Lesbian Straight Alliance is not a university affiliated organization and is not allowed to advertise on campus.
Administrators have also asked the organization to discuss material for meetings with proper school officials prior to the actual meetings. This is an attempt to curtail the discussion of homosexuality. Another attempt to prohibit discourse about the topic is the new sex policy, voted on this past June. It is clear that by these policies the university can or will “discipline” those students and faculty who partake in sexual relations outside of marriage or those that encourage others to do so. While this policy encompasses a great deal more than issues of sexual preference, its genesis was no doubt greatly inspired by that issue.
I agree that the university has an image to uphold, but is the manner in which the school has been acting regarding this issue assisting in the preservation or improvement of that image? This is a Christian university, which affirms certain Christian values, as it should.
Individuals lately have most definitely not forgotten that the school is “Christian,” but I do think that they have forgotten that it is a “university.”
Pepperdine is, or claims to be, a place of higher learning. And in a place of higher education, ideas, intellect, issues, intelligence and debate are all essential.
A place which claims to educate people so that they may go out into the “real world” prepared and learned should not inhibit the free flow of ideas. The school’s past and current actions are doing just that.
The GLSA never portrayed themselves as condoning any lifestyle, but wished to be available to address issues of other lifestyles to people who were interested. The way the university has responded to this organization interferes with students who are on a quest for knowledge and understanding.
The sex policies do the same thing as well. This policy is formulated in such a manner that it could keep students and faculty from even discussing matters of sexuality for fear that they might be thought of as “encouraging” such behavior.
If anything, the school should encourage exploration of the issue for it is obviously one that has many people up in arms. I have no problem with the school taking a stance on the topic, saying that they are not in accordance with the idea of homosexuality. In fact, I would expect no less. I do have a problem with the wording of Seaver College’s policy and censoring the GLSA.
The school is acting as if it is afraid that people might become “brainwashed” by such thinking, therefore becoming lesser Christians. But what are ideas, opinions, knowledge and faith if they never go unchallenged? They are weak.
Not that a Christian who condones homosexuality is “not a good Christian” or that a Christian who opposes the idea of homosexuality is “a better one.” Both are weak points of view and are supposedly rooted in faith, if they go unchallenged.
By hearing different perspectives one may choose to change their mind in either direction, or perhaps not alter their opinion at all. But if any of those scenarios is the case, each opinion is all the more valuable and validated because it was examined further.
Located in the “Dean’s Message” of the Seaver College student handbook, Dean Dr. David Baird states, “We emphasize a broad exposure to the world around us … its scientific and ethical moorings, its social structures … It is crucially important to know how to determine the relative value of the competing ideas around us.”
I couldn’t agree more with Baird and I challenge him and the rest of the university to uphold such ideals, because lately it does not seem as if they have been adhering to such a well-meaning message.
I have complete faith in the competency of this university that it can reword its sex policies and behave in an appropriate manner not only affirming the schools stance on such issues but allowing the students and faculty to freely explore them.
If and when this is done, I believe that other universities and employers will look upon this institution more favorably.
Unfortunately, there is often a stigma that Christian places of higher learning “shield” their students from the real world and its issues for fear of compromising their faith.
I do not wish Pepperdine to be thought of as such a university. The words “Christian” and “university” should complement not conflict with each other; for the issue is not about condoning or condemning any lifestyle. It is about education, one in which faculty, students and families all invest a great deal of time, work and money.
Pepperdine says that it is a Christian university that affirms Christian values but respects the religious beliefs of others. It is not too much to ask that they respect the marketplace of ideas, even if part of the marketplace is derived from someone whose opinions are not synonymous with the sentiments of the institution.
February 20, 2003