Bravo, OU Students
As expressed in my article, Oglethorpe University: Not Safe for LGBT Students (?), I have some wonderful news to report from TSM Correspondent, Jonelle Thomas. Here is Thomas’ report:
As I approached the Emerson Student Center on Monday, 07 March 2011–the afternoon of the much ballyhooed Dr. Matthew J. Franck lecture–I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. After reading some of Franck’s prior writings, I was struggling with the idea of remaining as free from pre-judgments as possible. Even the title of the talk, however “Charging Hate in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: How to Stop an Argument You’re Losing and Endanger Freedom While You’re At It” made this effort very challenging.
I entered the lecture room and settled into a seat in the back row and watched the room began to fill with what would ultimately be approximately 120 attendees. Of these attendees, roughly a third wore some symbol of support for LGBT equality. A man appearing to be in his 60s, sat next to me, leaned in with a confused expression and asked, “What does all the purple mean?” I told him it was being worn to express support for LGBT equality. He responded, “So, I guess if they’re wearing purple and a rainbow sticker, it means they’re twice as gay?” I said, “Or at least twice as supportive.”
The event began with Dr. Brad Smith introducing this lecture as the first in a series of four, which collectively fall under the heading “Contemporary Constitutional Controversies”. In his introduction, Dr. Smith was warm and welcoming and thanked the audience for their presence (a large turn-out by Oglethorpe’s standards). He then lamented the current polarization of American politics. He asserted that for one to successfully engage in a meaningful political argument with another whose views differ, a person has to be able to know and understand the argument of the other side.
As Franck approached the podium, I felt a spark of hope that this desire for mutual respect, expressed by Dr. Smith, would be in evidence during Matthew Franck’s lecture.
Alas, my hope was short-lived.
Throughout the lecture, I found Franck’s demeanor to be smug and condescending. As he espoused his views on the harmful nature of homosexual marriage, virtually everything about Franck’s demeanor smacked of the contempt in which he seems to hold the homosexual community. He repeatedly asked the audience to “try to follow my logic, if you can”, as he listed his grievances with arguments supporting gay marriage. He gave multiple examples of how people who (by their own admission) believe “it is not okay” to be gay are facing “discrimination” by the “despotism of secularists”. He even freely admitted that Christians (including himself) believe themselves to be better able to decide moral arguments than those “without faith”. He simultaneously expressed sadness at the increased rights being experienced by gays and indignantly insisted that the Christian majority in this country would not be “swayed” into changing its mind and accepting equality.
After several minutes of these lamentations, he concluded his lecture and began to take questions from the audience.
The question-and-answer portion of the event began with a respectful exchange of ideas. I was very pleased and proud to see Oglethorpe’s students asking thoughtful and provoking questions, respectfully challenging some of Dr. Franck’s assertions. As the questions continued, however, and Dr. Franck became increasingly less adept at dismissing them, he began alternating between folding his arms across his chest, responding dismissively without addressing the question being asked, or just snickering at the questions, before addressing a different questioner.
Throughout this question-and-answer period, Dr. Franck insisted he had “won” the argument he came to present (an insistence he never bothered to explain) and repeatedly asserted that Catholics (such as himself) were being discriminated against because of their “defense of traditional marriage”. In a condescendingly “magnanimous” gesture, he said he would be willing to “consider” civil unions on a federal level, as long as threesomes, “octos” (his expression) and platonic relatives were included in the definition of such unions. Even in this discussion of equal legal rights, Dr. Franck managed to make clear the contempt in which he holds the LGBT community. He responded with derision to the well-researched and clearly-articulated counter-arguments presented by Oglethorpe’s students. Ultimately, after a student repeatedly pressed him as to the exact nature of his objection to homosexual marriage, the only response he could muster, was that marriage is an institution that “was never supposed” to include homosexuals. This was a very weak response from someone supposedly well-versed in the details of constitutional law.
Contrary to the opening words of Dr. Brad Smith, Franck seemed to have very little experience engaging in substantive political conversations with those who disagree with him, judging from the ultimately petulant nature with which he responded to his questioners. Even worse, he appeared to be completely obtuse to the effect his arms-length qualified “approval of gays” has on the lives and civil rights of others, who struggle daily to be treated with a small measure of the respect Franck seemed to demand from his audience.
TSM Correspondent: Jonelle Thomas
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags: bullying, Constitutional Law, hate speech, Marriage Equality, Matthew Franck, Oglethorpe Lectures, Oglethorpe University
Social Justice For All 