This letter is in response to “Be consistent with your call for diversity” as well as some of my thoughts about the current letters submitted to the editor. Hello Robert. I’m glad you submitted your letter. Honestly, I do not agree with the majority of your points, but it has given me more insight into why you and others hold these opinions. Recently, it seems to me that many discussions on the topics you and others have brought up in the Daily argue without really understanding each other’s viewpoints on the particular topic.

For example, the LUCHA letter that likened white privilege to a virus brings up four examples of white privilege. One of them was not being able to “speak your native tongue without getting looks or comments from other people.” At first it may seem ridiculous (that was my first reaction). The majority of America speaks [at a minimum] English in the home. Hearing another language simply would stand out. As with anything that is not common, one would probably give it attention, negative and/or positive. From this angle, the LUCHA article seems misguided. BUT, do Spanish speakers, or anyone who doesn’t speak English, deserve negative feedback for not speaking English? There is nothing inherently wrong with speaking another language. Why do they deserve to be judged? Do you see what I’m trying to get at? Two angles about the same topic. No conclusion will be reached.

Now back to some of the points you made in your letter.

Second paragraph: it is simply something that would have to be discussed in person, as I’m sure you’d be willing to explain that statement more.

Third paragraph: Christianity has great components in it; however, the views on sexuality certainly will bring up disagreement. You use the phrase, “reduced to a commodity.”

I was raised Catholic. I understand the sanctity of sex and how beautiful it is when used as God intended. (Un)fortunately for me, I now disagree. From my perspective, the sacredness of sex has meaning simply because you give it meaning.

Example: a couple (we’ll assume a man and a woman) waits until marriage before having sex. They consider it sacred as thus have bonded together through this belief. Awesome. How about another couple who had sex multiple times before tying the knot and happen to bond together through that experience? Awesome. I simply cannot tell a difference in purity or sacredness in both examples.

Now what if that couple wasn’t “traditional”? Say a genderqueer person and a male fall in love and bond together for life. How can their relationship be any less beautiful than a man and a woman? What if the male is also asexual? Does that intrinsically affect that relationship? To me it doesn’t.

I personally don’t think God condemns what science has not shown to be harmful. What I mean by this is that it seems arbitrary to me to condemn sex as a commodity simply because it doesn’t agree with your faith. Here is one of the gaps between our arguments: what God intends and doesn’t intend for sex. To reach an agreement, we’d probably have to spend more time discussing this. Because this topic isn’t simple, it seems to me rather damning of you to say sexuality as a commodity is inherently worse than being a sacred act.

Paragraph four: I agree that humans have the right to life, but what does that statement really mean? A seminal article that may open your mind to the way the topic is being discussed in philosophy literature is “A Defense of Abortion,” by Judith Jarvis Thomson. I encourage you to read it as it’s fascinating.

Paragraph seven: I would like to hear more of your opinion on the matter as my first impression of the “All Comers policy” reminds me of company hiring policies, which I see no problem with.

Paragraph eight: I’m glad you don’t agree with forced conversion therapy as the other opinion article to which you responded covers this topic already.

Paragraph nine: I see no connection between your comparisons of banning conversion therapy, GLSEN, and diversity trainings. Conversion therapy is a discredited medical practice while the other two ideas are educational programs.

Isn’t this a false analogy? Are you implying that conversion therapy is an attempt to indoctrinate LGBTQ+ against themselves? Is GLSEN an attempt to indoctrinate children into thinking LGBTQ+ is acceptable (which the science community certainly thinks so now)? Does diversity training indoctrinate campus and the workplace? Your analogy is too absurd to take seriously.

What stops me from taking your logic to say that quantum courses are indoctrinating people against classical physics? Women’s studies courses are indoctrinating people to view gender separate from a binary? Your presentation of “diversity” functions as strawman. Diversity is a means for a plurality of ideas to be discussed, debated, and evaluated by society as a whole. Free speech has a knack for accomplishing this goal. This does not mean that society thinks every idea deserves the same attention.

Example: the idea that racism is good does not garner much attention in today’s society. Same idea can be said with lobotomy and any other discredited medical practice. It seems that society is currently talking more about LGBTQ+, pro-choice and the extent of religious freedom. Just because you disagree does not mean you should not discuss the ideas and consider the other side’s viewpoint.