Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
MORGAN HUNT
On Monday, March 29, Boston College Republicans hosted Amherst College Professor emeritus Hadley Arkes for a Zoom lecture on Natural Law and traditional morality. Professor Arkes is a highly respected academic, a student of Leo Strauss, and the founder of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. It was an engaging talk, in which Professor Arkes laid down the philosophical and historical foundations of Natural Law, elaborated on its implications, and took many questions from the audience The Wednesday following, BC Heights published a news piece by Victor Stefanescu about Professor Arkes’ lecture, entitled “Arkes Denounces Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion At BC Republicans Event.” This “news” article did not even attempt to report on the event in an unbiased manner. Stefanescu carefully picked and chose select quotations of Arkes in an attempt to smear not only the event, but Professor Arkes and our organization. The article focused on his opposition to homosexuality, his backing of former President Donald Trump, and his admission that he probably “offended everybody” at the event. It also falsely claims that Arkes promoted conversion therapy. The article neglected to summarize Arkes’ arguments for the Natural Law—the entire focus of the event—proving that it was written to provoke emotional sentiments in those who didn’t attend the lecture and would likely take offense with Arkes’ viewpoints. Stefanescu additionally failed to place Arkes’ quotes in the proper context of his arguments. A week and a half later, on April 11, BC Heights published an opinion piece by Scott Baker called “A Message to Prospective Students: Boston College Is Still Homophobic.” In this article, Baker references us with regard to Arkes’ talk: “On March 29, BC College Republicans hosted notorious homophobe and transphobe Hadley Arkes, who gave a lecture that promoted conversion therapy, argued that homosexuality is a choice, and compared homosexuality to drug use and prostitution. At this point, after hosting a white supremacist last year, BC College Republicans should be considered a hate group and not an officially sanctioned student organization with University funding.” There are so many things deeply wrong and pernicious about this passage. Like Stefanescu’s news article, this opinion column completely ignores the focus of Professor Arkes’ talk, which was first and foremost a defense of the Natural Law. It also slanderously misrepresents what Arkes said during the lecture. Arkes did not “promote conversion therapy” at any time. He simply referenced cases in which “therapy and conversion” had led people to no longer consider themselves homosexual. Neither did he compare homosexuality to drug use and prostitution; he brought up the latter two as analogies to make an argument about bodily autonomy and consent. In addition, Baker falsely accuses a previous guest of BC Republicans, Andrew Klavan, of being a “white supremacist.” Instead of challenging Arkes’ or Klavan’s beliefs, which he evidently doesn’t agree with, Baker uses ad hominem attacks and slanders to charge Arkes, Klavan, and our organization with spreading “homophobia,” “white supremacy,” and “hate”. We at Boston College Republicans do not tolerate such false attacks. If Scott Baker had actually gone to our event, he would’ve found Professor Arkes more than willing to respond to questions in the Q&A and engage in debate with those attending. Additionally, he would’ve found Professor Arkes and our organization to be far less “hateful”, and far more tolerant and welcoming, than he believes. Baker could have challenged the Professor’s arguments real-time in a healthy academic debate, but instead chose to slander a well respected academic and the organization which hosted him in a disrespectful and flawed opinion column. It is equally despicable that Scott Baker would write a hit piece calling the BC Administration, and the school as a whole, “homophobic.” Such a polemic displays a level of arrogance and disrespect unbecoming of a Boston College student. If one actually wanted to convince the administration to change their views on establishing an LGBTQ resource center, etc., a more civil and polite column would be significantly more effective. Ironically, I personally agree with Baker’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage. I support gay marriage and, while I believe in the Natural Law, I don’t find homosexual love and attraction to be inherently bad. I knew going into the event that I would disagree with Professor Arkes’ views on homosexuality. Yet unlike Baker, I believe in academic debate and the lively engagement of ideas with which I disagree. In fact, I decided to challenge Professor Arkes in the Q&A portion of his talk. I laid down my case for gay marriage, and he laid down his case against it. We debated the issue back and forth for five or so minutes. It was such an interesting conversation that many people talked to me about it after the event had ended. Some agreed with me on the issue, some didn’t, but most people remarked that I had brought up some good points in defense of homosexuality and gay marriage. That is how one must approach controversial issues on a college campus. It should be how all those in favor of gay marriage approach the issue at Boston College. BC Republicans’ guest speakers always hold Q&A sections where all questions and challenges are welcome. In addition, one may just find that they learn something from our guest speakers, all of whom are highly regarded in their fields. It’s also important to consider that Arkes’ views on homosexual activity, that it is immoral and should be discouraged, are not extremist beliefs well outside the acceptable range of public discourse. Just 13 years ago, both major political candidates for President did not support gay marriage. The Catholic Church, the largest church in the world, does not bless homosexual marriage. The common moral and political arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage are not motivated by bias, but instead by religious faith, a desire for sexual purity, the impulse to incentivize procreation, etc. One can disagree with those arguments, as I do, and still recognize there is nothing extreme, evil, uncommon, or unacceptable about them. The act of opposing homosexual activity and gay marriage is not “homophobic” as Baker infers. A person is homophobic when they treat someone with disdain or disrespect simply because of their homosexuality. Too often the disapproval of homosexual activity is equated with the hatred of homosexual individuals. This is logically inconsistent. It is very possible for a person to disapprove of the sexual and romantic decisions of a gay man without hating their very existence. It is even possible for a homosexual individual to oppose gay marriage on religious, moral, or political grounds. Professor Arkes remarked in his lecture that he has homosexual friends who are opposed to the legalization of such an institution. It would be very strange, and quite nasty, to call that subset of the gay community “homophobic.” Put simply, homosexuality is an issue that should be debated on a college campus. There are many reasonable people on both sides of this important debate. I’m glad Professor Arkes came to campus, mainly because of his excellent argument for the Natural Law, but also because his visit allowed this discussion to happen. Professor Hadley Arkes, on April 6th, wrote about his virtual visit to BC in The Catholic Thing, which is well worth reading. To hear the actual claims Arkes made in his talk, don’t read the false and slanderous articles in The Heights. Rather, inquire with Tom Sarrouf (at [email protected]) to get your hands on a recording of the lecture. Comments are closed.
|