Integrity Needed in SC College Gay Book Kerfuffle

Because my wife is a graduate of the College of Charleston, I was intrigued by the South Carolina Legislature’s move to cut $52,000 from the school’s public funding (along with $17,142 from the University of South Carolina-Upstate). The cuts apparently stemmed from a kerfuffle over books that these two public universities require either all or some of their students to read.

While I am not an advocate of censorship, either in the form of book banning (or burning), cries of “censorship” will not hold much weight when the supposed victims of said censorship display such hypocrisy — not to mention poor judgment — that their defensiveness leaves little doubt that the universities in question are themselves engaged in the art of politics. To cry foul when the big, bad conservative Legislature uses the “power of the purse” to play hardball with liberal academics who selectively use the tired mantra of “academic freedom” when it suits their causes is laughable at best.

Of course, no one in the SC Legislature would have given much of a rip had the books in question not had an overtly gay theme. Let’s face it. Both conservatives and liberals use the “gay agenda” to gin up controversy, which in turn drives the big bus of donors and dollars. I’m quite sure that most public universities, including the College of Charleston, have previously assigned books to read which were, shall we say, anything but conservative. That’s part of the secular education system in America. I’m not saying it is good, but I am saying that, unless one has been living under a rock or in a cave for the last four to five decades, one would know that this sort of liberal education is part and parcel of the university system in America.

However, conservatives will let most things liberal slide at the university level, simply because of the reality of the system in place. However, when homosexuality or the “gay agenda” becomes the center of attention, conservatives — particularly conservative politicians and some religious types — see red. Gay rights have become the cause du jour in both conservative and liberal circles. The conservative politicians in the South Carolina Legislature never would have thought about de-funding the College of Charleston or the University of South Carolina-Upstate had it not been for the school’s selection of two gay-themed books that were required reading.

Although I would personally liked to have seen the two universities offer some type of alternative selection to the two books that were chosen, I think the Legislature, while within its right to do so, should have refrained from cutting funding for the two schools. However, that’s not to say that the schools were not at fault in this process. Most reasonably objective people can understand that these two schools, along with the vast majority of public and/or secular universities and colleges in America, wholeheartedly support gay rights, including same-sex marriage. Whether or not one agrees with that agenda (I personally do not) is immaterial to the case at hand. The kerfuffle over the two gay books in question really comes down to simple integrity. Not academic integrity (if there is such a thing). Just integrity, meaning honesty and transparency. Of which these two universities, at least in this matter, are in short supply.

So, what books are these universities defending on the hill of academic freedom? Which two books were so important that, in the case of the College of Charleston, the entire campus was required to read and, in the case of the U. of SC-Upstate, all first-year writing students were required to read? Which two books did “educators” choose above all other material out there? Here goes:

The College of Charleston’s program selects one book a year for the entire campus to read, which this year was Alison Bechdel’s “Fun Home,” a memoir about the author growing up as a lesbian in rural Pennsylvania. USC-Upstate’s program has first-year writing students all read the same book, which this year was “Out Loud: The Best of Rainbow Radio,” a compilation of stories shared on South Carolina’s first radio station for gays and lesbians.

Perhaps these two selections were the very best. Maybe both of these books are worthy for a wide audience. But, it would demonstrate far greater integrity and honesty for university administrators to admit that these books were chosen with a specific viewpoint in mind. That these books were part of a process of gaining sympathy and understanding for gay Americans, such that social and political barriers would be broken down. I would much prefer to hear someone who is honest and forthright in defense of their positions, even if, at the end of the day, I don’t agree with said positions. At least I can have an honest dialogue with the other person, knowing where they stand. In the case of the President of the College of Charleston, we get typical political blather. Who says academics aren’t politicians?

In response to the controversy, the College of Charleston’s president said the school has the right to introduce controversial ideas to students, adding their students are adults whom the school treats as such.

“Any legislative attempt to tie institutional funding to what books are taught, or who teaches them, threatens the credibility and reputation of all South Carolina public universities,” President George Benson said in a statement.

I do not disagree with President Benson’s contention that the school has “the right to introduce controversial ideas to students.” By all means, let’s introduce a plethora of controversial ideas to students and let them begin to critically think through these issues. Let’s introduce both liberal ideas and conservative ideas. Controversial ideas from gays and straights, men and women, Christians and Atheists. I’m quite sure that next year’s book selection will be a memoir of a son who grew up in the coal mining area of southwest Virginia. The memoir will include his loving relationship growing up in a traditional Christian home with a loving mom and a dad who spent time with him, including hunting (yes, killing animals) and fishing, all of which shaped him into the well-adjusted young man of integrity he is today. I can’t wait until my wife’s Alma Mater has that kind of book assigned for campus-wide reading.

Of course, I won’t hold my breath. The kerfuffle over the gay book selections at the College of Charleston and the University of South Carolina-Upstate has nothing to do with censorship. This, like most things in our culture today, is really a battle over worldviews. Politicians in the Legislature and politicians in universities will continue to duke it out, each claiming the moral high ground. Neither has much of a leg to stand on. Why not be honest and let your integrity take center stage, regardless of which side of the stage you are standing? That might be such a controversial idea that it just might work to teach the students at South Carolina’s universities a valuable lesson that they won’t soon forget!