After last week’s letter to the editor, “Concert Counter to Catholic Conscience,” many are asking: who would allow that to be published in the Creightonian?
I did. And as the Opinion Section editor, I wanted to take the time in this week’s edition of The Creightonian to explain why.
First and foremost, I was pleased to see the rigorous debate and dialogue that ensued last week over the publication of that letter, but want to remind everyone that a letter to the editor is neither an endorsement from The Creightonian nor the official position of the university. It is merely the opinion of some members of the Creighton community; in this case, two students.
I typically receive about one or two letters every few weeks from students or alumni who would like to voice a concern or comment on a column that one of the opinion staff members has written. This interaction is the whole reason the Opinion Section exists.
I tell my staff writers all of the time to write about things they are passionate about and then defend them enthusiastically. My opinion on the columns or letters is never a factor. My agreement, disagreement or general indifference to issues or concerns raised by my staff, or in letters to the editor, is irrelevant. All I am worried about is whether or not I am allowing a variety of opinions to be aired.
With that being said, many now reading this are probably thinking, “his decision to publish that letter last week was wrong.” Don’t worry; I’ve received enough responses from readers to know this quite a popular opinion, but hear me out.
Editor-in-chief Josie Bungert forwarded the letter from Ben Thompson and Christina Laubenthal to me on Oct. 21 from The Creightonian email account like all other letters to the editor. Then on Tuesday, during production night of the newspaper, I presented the letter to the other editors, telling them that I was running it.
There was an honest discussion among the editors about the letter. Some felt that the authors had a point, others felt the letter was wrong and misappropriated Catholic doctrine and some viewed this as an attack on the LGBT community using the school newspaper to do so.
The one thing no editor said was not to run the letter. All of the editors recognized that there was the strong possibility of controversy because the underlying subject of the article is a hot-button issue and places the university in a very unique position. Most would agree that the Catholic Church is in a time of transition, but what does that mean for an institution of higher education that has openly gay students and organizations like the Gender and Sexuality Alliance?
I liken it to the chicken or egg paradox: which comes first? Are we first a liberal arts institution that values open ideas and a Catholic institution second? Are we a Catholic institution first and foremost, that happens to have people from all walks of life? Or is there some middle ground?
I don’t have the answer and neither does Thompson and Laubenthal’s letter. In my opinion, their letter is being given too much credit. Their stance is one part of a very complex and nuanced issue that could not possibly be fleshed out and summarized in a 650-word letter and that’s why I ran it — to present one side of the issue, hoping others would also weigh in with their opinions.
While many disagree with it, their position is not unreasonable and the rather recalcitrant attacks against them are unconstructive. I am not the first to point this out, but the personal attacks maligning them followed closely by aspirations of tolerance are contradictory and corrosive.
Demonizing a position you may not agree with is not tolerance. I am not arguing that you have to accept their viewpoint. This is not an endorsement of their opinion. All I am saying is that I can recognize that some people may think that way, while others may not, and in this week’s Opinion Section, you will find a few letters to the editor, as well as the Opinion Section columnists weighing in on the matter.
What I hope becomes very apparent about the letters published this week in print and online is their varied response to Thompson and Laubenthal. People interpreted this issue in many different ways, and each and every one of those opinions is as worthy of our consideration, because on some level it adds value to a much larger conversation.
The Creightonian Opinion Section is a place for all voices — not necessarily the loudest — in the Creighton community to express their opinions. We can all recognize that the opinion of these two students in no way encapsulates us as a whole nor does any letter or column that is written in the Opinion Section purport to be. We are too diverse to paint with such broad strokes.
I am not defending last week’s letter; I am defending their right to write the letter and I will continue to defend this right for the Creighton community to openly express its opinions because this is your section.
I will admit to you now that you will find most of the letters this week counter or tangentially counter to the opinion expressed by Thompson and Laubenthal. That was not intentional on my part; I did not receive any letters continuing the dialogue on their behalf.
A conversation about publishing opinions should include a discussion on censorship. What would it mean if I chose not to publish Thompson’s and Laubenthal’s letter? How is that representative of student voices? I forget who said it, but “Who I am to judge,” after all?