by: Joshua Howell
We at A&M have a penchant for
self-regard. Not only must every good deed, no matter how miniscule, be
trumpeted as if it were some herculean effort, we have failed at what many believe is our core mission:
A&M, we are incessantly told, is home to
the friendliest students in the nation.
But if you have to say it out loud…
For 13 of the past 17 years, The Princeton
Review has ranked Texas A&M as one of the 20 most “LGBT-Unfriendly” student
populations in the country. Recently, in a kerfuffle that garnered national media
attention, we secured a spot on The Princeton Review’s list for next year.
The offense centered on The GLBT Funding
Opt Out Bill (SB 65-70), which was introduced to A&M’s Student Senate in
early March. Authored by Northside Senator Chris Woosley, the bill requested
that “students who object to funding the GLBT Resource Center through their
student fees and tuition for religious reasons be allowed to opt out from
funding the same.”
With its anodyne wording, few realized SB
65-70 would eviscerate the goodwill A&M earned when Johnny Manziel won the
Heisman. But ignorance is no excuse. On campus and in the media the bill was
rightly seen as targeting one of A&M’s most vulnerable minorities.
The Huffington Post, MSN Now, LGBTQ Nation, San Antonio Express News, and
The Eagle all
covered the proceedings.
The
Human Rights Campaign lambasted the
bill as “a direct attack on members of the LGBT community at Texas A&M.” It
reasoned that the bill’s implementation would segregate LGBT Aggies into
“second class citizens” by “significantly reduc[ing] resources for a much
needed institution.”
Perhaps the best response, though, came
from Campus Pride, which issued a low-key opinion with which The Left whole-heartedly agrees -- “while
SB 65-70 claims to promote religious freedom, we cannot ignore that it only
allows students with one religious belief to control how their student fees are
used: only religious traditions that disapprove of LGBT interests are given a
voice... Whatever the intentions of the bill may be, the effect is clearly discriminatory.”
The
Left
would add, however, that “religious freedom” does not entail exemptions to
rules which are generally applicable. It is a constant refrain of this news
site, and deservedly so, that religion is a worldview like any other: the
religious can mobilize, advocate, elect, and -- we too often forget -- be compelled to do things they aren’t otherwise
inclined to do.
Arguing otherwise is to push for a gross
political entitlement never before recognized.
To
quell the ensuing indignation -- while simultaneously missing the thrust of it
-- Woosley changed “The GLBT Funding Opt Out Bill” to “The Religious Funding Exception Bill.” The new version requested that “students who object to
funding various services through their student fees and tuition for religious
reasons be allowed to opt out from funding the same.”
The altered
document passed the Senate with 35 votes for, 28 against, but was vetoed by Student
President John Claybrook. In a confident, well-worded explanation, Claybrook
noted that “what this bill represents still remains and must be done away with,”
and that “[n]ow, more than ever, is the time to show great resolve and come
together”.
Alas,
A&M’s faculty was latent in its response; they did not “come together”
until after the veto. Two statements stood out.
The first
came from the Department of Anthropology, which strongly reaffirmed their
“commitment to diversity and support of groups that have felt discrimination on
campus,” as well the “GLBT community and the GLBT Resource Center.”
The
second came from University President Bowen Loftin, who, in a rather lukewarm email,
said that A&M’s recent discourse “has, in some cases, lacked civility and
discounted each individual’s right to free expression of their ideas and
beliefs.”
Dr.
Loftin’s email was poorly timed; an hour later The Dallas Voice broke a story that at least
one LGBT Aggie had received a death threat.
In an interview with The Left, Camden Breeding, an activist and senior at Texas A&M,
confirmed the incident: “All I can say about the threat is that it was a phone
call that threatened death upon ‘faggots,’” he said.
Lacking civility, indeed.
Student Senators recently upheld Claybrook’s
veto. Shortly thereafter, a motion to censure Woosley was brought to the floor,
but didn’t get the necessary votes for a second.
While solid efforts at rehabilitating A&M’s fractured ego, these legislative moves will not elicit the media attention SB 65-70 did in either of its forms; they will not repair the self-inflicted damage done to our university’s reputation.
We as Aggies must do better.