Administrators of the Catholic University of America last week postponed a screening of Milk, a biographical film detailing the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person elected to public office in America. The screening, hosted by the CUA College Democrats, had been scheduled to mark the beginning of LGBTQ Awareness Month.
As rationale for canceling the event, CUA officials cited the size of the rainbow flag on event fliers and literature describing the event as a “Kick-Off” to LGBT Awareness Month, claiming that the screening’s purpose had changed from education about LGBTQ issues to active advocacy for LGBTQ rights.
In addition to a screening of the film, the event was scheduled to include educational talks from both John White, a CUA professor of politics, and Kevin Walling, an alumnus of the university and chair of the Montgomery County Democrats. While students were still invited to hear the talks, the screening was canceled due to the school’s institutional policy against LGBTQ advocacy (much like Georgetown’s own policy that prevents H*yas for Choice from billing itself as an official student group).
This persistent resistance to advocacy demonstrates that, despite the burgeoning strength and acceptance of the LGBTQ community at Georgetown, not all Catholic institutions have accommodated the needs of their LGBTQ students. The canceled screening not only displays CUA’s ignorance of the diversity of sexual orientations within its student body but further illustrates just how antiquated its policies are. Although “committed to being … a Catholic … institution of higher learning, faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed on by the Church,” as laid out by its mission statement, CUA’s draconian response to the screening lags behind even the evolving stances of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis himself has opined on how unhealthy the Church’s “obsession” with homosexuality is. And this, of course, passes no judgment whatsoever of student education about a current and pressing societal issue.
Advocacy, though certainly desirable, is in this case beside the point. Screening a dramatized account of a gay man’s life is in no way equivalent to advocating for LGBTQ rights. To restrict the film on the basis that its content is disagreeable to the university administrators is a violation of free speech. The existence of media that includes homosexuality is not activism, nor is it propaganda for a political point of view: media is up to the interpretation of the viewer. The life of a significant historical and social leader merits examination, regardless of the viewer’s sexual orientation or political sympathies.
At Georgetown, we often struggle to walk the line between our institutional Catholic identity and our academic obligation to open dialog and academic integrity. We Hoyas are comparatively fortunate, however, that the line is open to discussion. CUA needs to realize that no religious belief is cause to violate the First Amendment to this degree, nor to limit the educational exposure of its students. Catholic institutions the world over are wrestling with the same disparities between reality and doctrine as CUA; in this case, though, it’s the university that needs to play catch-up.
