October 28, 2010 Volume CXXVIII Issue 7

Your Language is Offensive!

-The Hangover
Back Page Editor/ The Boy Who Lived
(so far)

For Mr. Balmer it is clear that some things require immediate correction. To start, Tom Riddle or any other moniker once or now held by the Dark Lord himself is reserved for one individual, and one individual alone. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named watches over us all, lest we think his recent lack of activity is not a disguise for much more dubious pursuits in secret. The sovereign right to prescribe Harry Potter names to people and things rests solely with the Editor of the Back page (the royal “We”). These are the benefits of being the originator of such practices in this paper. So, Mr. Balmer, so much for deeming yourself this Editor’s mortal enemy. My scar does not burn as you create your long winded attempts to disarm the claims printed on this Page. However, you are now, and forever more, a member of the increasingly consistent Opinion Column Fogeys. Certainly obnoxious, but never too troubling. The Death Eaters are not at your command, but rather the ones likely to give you community service should you ever venture outside the confines of writing. If anyone needs help getting started, this Editor has recommendations. Heinous buffoonery most a-foul.

Here is the short response to Mr. Balmer’s near-class-essay-length argument for our college’s alcohol policy which remains the same and is therefore still as idiotic as ever. Mr. Balmer did not read carefully enough to understand the main point of the article he addressed. The point is that the consumption of a single alcoholic beverage is, in fact, no more morally reprehensible than the consumption of a single ice cream cone. These actions, in themselves, are identical as simple instances of enjoyment that serve neither to harm the consumer nor those in immediate proximity. Mr. Balmer made his claims on the basis of potential consequences, but what may or may not happen is quite separate from what this Editor’s argument decries. The point is that students of legal age should be allowed, morally, to make the decision, on campus, in dorms or elsewhere, to consume alcohol if they so choose. To say that the potential for drunken behavior overrides the right to freedom of choice is simply incorrect. Students should be able to make choices and only thereafter be held morally accountable. Mr. Balmer and those sympathetic with his views would rather the college make decisions for its students. This Editor believes students of legal age should have the opportunity to consume in moderation out of concern for autonomy and moral accountability. Mr. Balmer believes students should continue to be stripped of autonomy, that is to say, free will, out of fear of potential consequences and that the college is justified in its adherence to such a policy. This Editor will forgive the wild misconception that our own alcohol policy is not largely the result of the Board of Trustees’ traditionally religious moral opposition to alcoholic consumption; lucky you, newly established Freshman Fogey. Sectumsempra.

Though not the “sole” reason behind the policy, religious moral opposition is the strongest reason behind it and the one most strongly appealed towards as reason for the policy’s maintenance. The college might do well to note also that instances of drunk driving would arguably decrease were students not required to drive away to have a drink. No one should drink and drive, obviously, but if the rules are in the college’s hands then it should create an atmosphere intent on providing a safer environment wherever it is in the college’s control to do so. If drinking were kept more on campus it could then be better watched over; as it stands students consistently get drunk in Lexington and are left to sort things out with varying degrees of difficulty afterwards.

Since the Fogey, to this Editor’s knowledge, has this week written an article somehow objecting to the idea that our college should permit a GSA, something quite funny will shortly be pointed out. First, on a serious note, to prevent the formation of a GSA is, pure and simple, a moral failure on the part of the Board of Trustees, if they are in fact the ones responsible. Christianity should never be placed in opposition to matters of human rights; if we are all sinners, then none of us are fit to judge so harshly. That point is necessary only if one thinks there are sufficient Biblical grounds to be more worried about homosexuality than about sitting on large bank accounts and enjoying positions of privilege. To this Editor’s knowledge, Jesus does not explicitly address homosexuality. Even if Paul does explicitly address the issue, it is worthy to remember Paul is actually Paul and neither Jesus nor God. Jesus was far more critical of the rich. He also took those cast out by society in with Him. All these things considered, the prevention of a GSA formation seems to be a bit ridiculous.

To make this Editor’s point more clear, an offensive comment will here be useful. So, here you have it. To say that there is a uniform and explicit condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is, while incorrect, likely something also to be said by one holding that the Bible, from Old to New Testement, is inerrant. And that pigs fly. And that if one really tries one may fart purple sparkles at will without aid from magic or Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes.

In the exclusion of a GSA on campus, Georgetown fails to meet Christ’s example of living a life that stood in opposition to social injustice and inequality. If the college’s Christian identity would truly suffer from the formation of a GSA, which it would not, then its supposed “identity” is so fragile it is not something with which it is worth concerning policy in the first place. The question is, quite clearly, “How would Jesus handle GSA?”

The one rescue for homosexual students, much to their benefit, is that despite the prevention of a GSA, there is absolutely no policy restricting their late night rendezvous on campus. For all the college’s failure to validate homosexuals with a GSA, there has likely never been a homosexual, gay or lesbian, written up for fornicating after hours. It is positively hilarious that members of the opposite sex may not stay in the other’s room past a certain time, a rule established, originally, from fear of fornication (despite the fact that fornication, alarmingly enough, may occur at any time during the day). Combine this with the fact that there is nothing explicitly in our school policy against men staying with men, or women staying with women, and what exists as a result is a quite ridiculous mess of policies with consequences that surely conflict with their original intent. The college is against homosexuality, but really only enforces policies preventing heterosexual fornication. And alcoholic beverage consumption. We cannot forget that.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: