Discriminating Tastes: A Masquerade

I've recently started reading another politically "right" rag, The American Spectator, and I chose it primarily because the Clinton Administration decided to send the Justice Department after the magazine – something the rag likes to brag about. Anyway, there was a nice article praising the president of San Diego State University (SDSU) for his judgment to let undercover DEA investigators on the campus. The result was the remarkable drug bust mentioned in recent news stories. More remarkable are his comments to the press about his actions:

Weber, the university's president, said he did not hesitate to allow undercover officers on campus, even if that decision sparked ire. [Earlier versions of the story quoted Weber as specifying faculty ire.]

"We did the right thing," he said. "I think, frankly, more universities should step up and take these kinds of actions."

The Spectator article continues by describing typical actions universities take to ensure their paying customers are healthy, wealthy, and appropriately dumbed-down to current societal standards. Clinton Taylor's paragraph is worth reproducing:

UNIVERSITIES TODAY BUILD mushy cocoons around their students to insulate them from the consequences of their actions. They throw contraceptives at entering freshmen like latex confetti, and then subsidize abortion services if things don't work out. They police for political incorrectness, to defend students' sacred right not to be offended by opinions too far outside the campus political mainstream. Colleges regard their students both as fully enfranchised adults, encouraged to experiment with sex and (tacitly) drugs, and yet at the same time as children who need to be protected from those decisions. What exacerbates the problem is that this license is usually granted in a climate hostile not merely to traditional morality, but to the very concept of judgment and discrimination.

The entire article is a great read, but I set the word police out in red because it highlights a common misperception. Campus police generally ARE peace officers, not "rent-a-cops." Yet these duly constituted law enforcement agents often seem to be paid to look the other way when certain classes of laws are broken – especially if the crime would embarrass the college administration and/or reduce likely admission goals. Take a quick Google search with "college, rapes, crime, and cover-up" as the search terms.

A substantial portion of the article deals with the serious lack of able teaching concerning reasonable judgment. Because the word discriminate has taken on some rather unusual connotations it is rarely used in its most common meaning; that is,

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : distinguish differentiate ‹~ hundreds of colors›

2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; esp: to distinguish from another like object (Merriam Webster's Dictionary).

I'll close with another section of Taylor's excellent article – just in case you didn't follow the link to read it yourself – because it highlights a bedrock problem in our institutions of higher learning… ok, even our high schools have similar problems:

One of the most memorable passages of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind dealt with Bloom's surprise that his colleague at the University of Chicago saw his professorial mission to be removing all the prejudices from his students. Bloom saw his role as instead inculcating the right prejudices in his students, moral lessons drawn from the best works civilization had to offer. An educated person should discriminate -- between good and evil, false and true, success and failure, for starters.

Otherwise, what's the point of all this expensive education? You can learn "who are you to judge me?" on daytime television, and skip the tuition.

Being politically correct, non-judgmental, and possessing a culturally diverse mindset have essentially removed the ability of our population to make reasonable decisions about their own actions. Yet we shake our heads in wonder when a kid is surprised that he is in trouble for striking another student. It's worse than that…

Taylor reports that Ralph Partridge, one of the DEA officials, said, "A sad commentary is that when one of these individuals was arrested, he inquired as to whether or not his arrest and incarceration would have an effect on his becoming a federal law enforcement officer." That is a sad commentary.

Stay safe and well all – and reinforce to your kids that discrimination extends beyond issues of race and gender, and yes, it extends even beyond matters of taste.

But I was born this way!

A few days ago I participated in a hackneyed discussion with some fellow officers at work. It centered on the nature and morality of homosexuality. Mostly, I am tired of the topic, but I also realize the "controversy" is here to stay for some time to come. The reason I mention the topic today is that the tired line of argument that was used to justify homosexual behavior is ultimately so ridiculous. So then, before you tune out, let's make a few things clear. First, I am not going to address the morality or immorality of homosexual behavior per se. Second, I am not going to address the truth or falsity of whether there is or is not a "gay gene," or whether homosexual behavior is biologically determined. Finally, the aim of this post is not to provide a positive or negative judgment about homosexual behavior.

Before I do get to the aim of the post, since part of the background is about the notion of being "born gay," it seems reasonable to provide a few starting points for independent research concerning the "gay gene." For a somewhat "moderate" view of things that contains a bit of history and looks at some of the research from an obviously postmodernist perspective try out PBS' Is Homosexuality Inherited? by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. For a contrarian and less than moderate view that traces both the history and science involved try out Ryan Sorba's The Born Gay Hoax. With these as a starting point, finding any number of social science perspectives that fit with one's preconceived notions of homosexual behavior should be a breeze!

Now then, what is the aim of this post? Simply to make the point that claiming one was "born this way" is not a justification for any kind of behavior. The correlative to this is clearly that homosexuality primarily describes a behavior – not an identity.

During our discussion, the group I'll call the "religious right wing-nuts," argued belligerently that homosexual behavior was a sin, morally wrong, and should be legally sanctioned. The group I'll call the "loony left nutroots," argued just as belligerently that homosexuals were "born that way," and therefore should not be punished any more than someone who is born black should be punished for an accident of birth. Mostly I was just listening, but when the "born that way" comment was made I "couldn't help myself" and said, "That's an incredibly poor argument for justifying homosexual behavior." I was pretty much immediately attacked as a bigot and Nazi like the right wing-nuts were being attacked. The following paragraphs reflect what I tried to explain to both parties.

At this point, I don't care whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong. You guys on the right are saying a specific BEHAVIOR is wrong, while you guys on the left ignore the behavior being addressed and try to equate the behavior to an identity. The point is truly simple: two guys or two girls having sex is nothing like simply being black. You guys on the loony left need a new argument! Don't use this one, it's useless!

For the sake of argument, let's pretend for a moment that homosexuality is somehow like race – one is simply born that way – and that sodomy is illegal. One is not punished for being black, white, or brown; however, a black, white, or brown person will be punished for murdering his neighbor – because it is against the law. Likewise, a person would not be punished for being a homosexual; one would be punished for a behavior called sodomy.

Now then, here in today's America, very few states punish homosexual behavior. However, to extend this line of thinking a bit further, let's make another comparison. Again, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there is a strong biological/genetic component to homosexuality. Let us also pretend, for the sake of argument, that there is a strong biological/genetic component to pedophilia. Since pedophiles are "born that way," and are unlikely to change their sexual preference, should that somehow make their attendant behaviors as legal and moral as the homosexuals' behaviors?

Do not think that this comparison is a stretch. Dr. Michael Werthheimer in A Clash of Worldviews interview, while discussing pedophilia and the fact that pederasty was normalized in ancient Greek culture made the following comments in response to the question: "[I]s ANYTHING, in your view, an objective disorder? Would you consider pedophilia normal and desirable, if a particular society says it is? Could a pedophilic relationship ever be "good"?

I'm sure that various somatogenic problems due to severe brain trauma may be close to "objective" disorders. But I know of no convincing evidence that even pedophilia is harmful to the boy. In ancient Greece, for example, a pedophilic relationship with a young boy was viewed as the ideal kind of relationship for an older man. What's the actual evidence--not just principled moral prejudgment--that such a relationship is damaging to the boy?

That's why I said the "born gay" notion is not the point. If people (whether gay or straight) fail to think about the premises of their arguments and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from those premises, then too soon simple identity becomes a justification for immorality and illegal behavior. So then my friends I refer to as loony left nutroots, please find a better argument!

Next – let's explore postmodernism and deconstruction! [groan]

Until then – stay well, stay safe!