Before I begin what is sure to be an incendiary argument, I would like to make a disclaimer: I am a liberal, feminist Catholic. I believe that women should be priests, that nuns deserve more respect, and, yes, that many Catholic laws, mandates, and morals are inherently sexist. Moreover, I believe that women have the civil right and moral authority to make decisions regarding their bodies for themselves.
However, I also really wanted to come to Georgetown. I loved its American Studies program and commitment to social justice. So, even though I was not entirely in agreement with all of Georgetown’s views, Catholic related and otherwise, I decided to become a Hoya. When I signed my commitment to attend Georgetown at the end of my senior year, I effectively signed my support, at least in part, to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I say this because by attending this university, I am quite literally funding their mission and message through my tuition.
All students here did this. I doubt anyone here agrees with everything Georgetown does, least of all GU Fossil Free, Hoyas United for Free Speech, or H*yas for Choice. But everyone clearly saw the value of a Georgetown education, and decided to compromise their beliefs in some way big or small in order to get a Georgetown degree.
H*yas for Choice is unique in that they attempt to pose as an inflexible, uncompromising moral authority on campus. That they portray themselves as liberal, pro-choice saviors is inherently hypocritical because they chose to pay tuition and attend this university. Their legitimacy as a moral authority suffers because they are demanding moral consistency from the university when it comes to its stated commitment to free speech while simultaneously failing to uphold moral consistency themselves. Their unwillingness to concede to university authority on anti-choice dogma in the public square actually hurts them because they have already conceded by coming here and paying tuition. By paying tuition, they are enabling Georgetown’s authority over them.
Their money funded the Right to Life Conference, Vita Saxa, and every “virulently racist and homophobic” speaker invited to lecture at Georgetown. Their money helps pay the salaries of the police officers who removed them from the sidewalk, and those of the administrators who wrote the very free speech policies that they claim to be victimized by. Their attendance at the university negates any strict moral argument they have against it: they endorse it, its policies, and its Catholic message through their mere class attendance and tuition.
H*yas for Choice has two options to advance their moral legitimacy on campus: to remove their monetary support for the university by withdrawing, or to concede that by paying tuition, they are not the moral authority they claim to be.
In short, H*yas for Choice needs to admit that they are hypocrites. They must admit that the Catholic Church now has some, although very negligible, domain over their lives, and that, however unwittingly, they support the views of the Catholic Church through their tuition.
H*yas for Choice are already radicals, but in order to become the reformers and leaders they want to be, they need to offer some concessions. By espousing their own brand of inflexible morality and by refusing to attend the Cardinal O’Connor Conference on principle, they appear ignorant of the fact that they helped underwrite the Conference. They are, in fact, just as hypocritical as they claim the university is when it promotes itself as a place of free speech.
My advice for H*yas for Choice? Next time you stand by John Carroll protesting whatever anti-choice, homophobic, sexist, and undoubtedly Catholic event comes next, at least acknowledge that you asked for it, you paid for it, and by remaining students here, you perpetuate it. By recognizing your part in supporting these views, you come one step closer to compromise. Only by admitting your own hypocrisy will you be able to make a sound argument.
Yeah lemme just give up my scholarship real quick and go to a public school that doesn’t have the academic program I need to pursue the career path I want because the school I go to is Catholic. Easy peasy. Since education in America is so easily attainable and equal everywhere this is a totally attainable thing for me to do. Thanx so much for your guidance, I would hate to have realized only after graduation that I had wasted 4 years of my life being a hypocrite. Us “feminists” gotta stick together, amiright??
You make an interesting and thought-provoking point, but its a flawed argument. Using your logic, the claim could be made that Martin Luther King was a hypocrite because he paid taxes which financially supported the racist and oppressive local laws that he rallied against. Much like students in Hoyas for Choice, MLK could have chosen to move elsewhere that did not have these racist laws as they were state-centered not federal (this example’s equivalent of no longer attending Georgetown). So, I ask you, was MLK a hypocrite for preaching and rallying against these beliefs? Should we simply just accept the status quo and not try to foster change? Because if everyone acted as you claim they should, thats what would happen.
This is a false equivocation. MLK could not “decide” whether to pay taxes. You, however, had a clear choice in attending this university.
So are you saying that by coming here, everyone must automatically adhere to the Catholic mission? I hope you know that this statement–and the publication of this article–has the ability to put off thousands of amazing students from applying here.
By your logic, MLK could have chosen to live in a different country, just like we can choose to attend a different school, so yes, it is an accurate comparison.
Also you used the word “equivocation” incorrectly. For future reference.
How about you learn to read before you try to critique others and use phrases that are beyond your cognitive capabilities.
Directly from the comment:
“MLK could have chosen to move elsewhere that did not have these racist laws as they were state-centered not federal (this example’s equivalent of no longer attending Georgetown). “
Does being a Jew who decided to come to Georgetown for its academic programs, geographic location, and commitment to social justice make me a hypocrite? Should I convert because, as you say, my tuition supports the catholic mission? Just because I don’t believe in Jesus, I shouldn’t call myself a Hoya? Also, I’m not sure why stating that you are a feminist liberal individual makes you think that you have the right to judge H*yas For Choice members for deciding to come to Georgetown.
Being a Jew does not make you a hypocrite because you are not actively parading your criticism of the institution. You may not agree with Georgetown’s religious traditions, but you are not protesting Catholic functions. H*yas for Choice, on the other hand, is active in decrying hundreds of years of tradition of the Catholic church, calling it “sexist” and “outdated.” Choosing to attend Georgetown implicitly expresses your respect for the school and its views.
Good point, but this piece argues that tuition dollars majorly support the Catholic mission of the institution and that when I decided to come to Georgetown, “I effectively signed my support, at least in part, to the beliefs of the Catholic Church.” This statement is beyond false and it’s not okay to judge people and make assumptions about where they decided to spend their money and what it means to spend money in a certain way–especially when the institution in question is one that has broadened its scope and impact far beyond its Catholic identity.
You make multiple assumptions in this piece that simply are not valid. First of all, you say that in order to come to Georgetown, it is necessary to compromise individual beliefs. This is simply not true. Students attend universities such as Georgetown to expand their minds and obtain the skills to articulately and clearly state their opinions and personal leanings of any sort. We come to this school not to compromise our beliefs, but to discover and solidify them. Regardless of Georgetown’s religious affiliation, this fact does not change. You also state that it is necessary to adhere to Georgetown’s religious beliefs in order to attend the school. By saying that “even though” you were not entirely in agreement with the official Catholic viewpoint, you still chose to come to Georgetown. Essentially, with this you are making the assumption that not participating in Catholicism challenges one’s eligibility and ability to ‘fit in’ at Georgetown. Again, false. People praise Georgetown’s religious diversity. It factors into the Georgetown identity just as significantly as Catholicism does, if not more. Additionally, you state that paying to come to Georgetown automatically translates into an obligation to obey the Catholic mission. You may feel this way, but that does not give you the right to judge others’ behavior based off this again misplaced assumption. Furthermore, you say you are a feminist, but you are criticizing other women not only for their personal choices, but their use of free speech. Perhaps you came to Georgetown for its Catholic mission, but Georgetown is also one of the most prestigious universities in the country with top programs in business, foreign service, linguistics, and so on. Students accepted to Georgetown have the opportunity to attend an amazing school, and choosing to come here should not invite criticism upon them when they choose to join activist organizations that may not perfectly align with with the Catholic mission’s beliefs.
She is not saying that if you are from a different religious background, you are not welcome to this university. In fact, one of the most prominent values of this Jesuit institution is that it is open to all religious backgrounds. She is also not necessarily critiquing what Hoyas for Choice stands for. However, she is criticizing the outright disrespect and disregard for Catholic doctrine. Just because a university does not support abortion and contraceptives, it doesn’t mean it is sexist. Does Georgetown not have the same right to act on its religious beliefs, and as students who are a part of this institution, do we have the right to say this is outright wrong for Catholic doctrine to take on these beliefs? If Leos doesn’t serve meat on a Friday in Lent because it is against Catholic tradition, as students should we rise up in arms and say this is wrong and that they can’t oppress students with a lack of meat option? Should a Quaker be drafted in a war because the rest of the country is… Or should the country respect their religious views and not make them violate what is an integral part of their way of life. As students at a Catholic institution, we should respect Georgetown’s expression of religious freedom. And not for nothing, while angered freedom of speech lovers attack this not so popular view at Georgetown, let’s not forget that she is sharing a different view, a perspective held by many alumni and students at Georgetown afraid of being called “sexists and homophobics.” Isn’t a varied opinion the very idea that you all find to be the most important aspect of religious diversity on campus? But no..let’s keep attacking Ellen’s own unpopular opinion. Free speech, am I right??
You’re using a circuitous argument. Claiming that institutions and individuals alike have equal rights to expression and ideas doesn’t invalidate the stance of Hoyas for Choice (the author did say that their message is undermined and invalidated).
She also called them “radicals” for expressing their own opinions. If exercising free speech is seen as radicalism, then we’re in a lot of trouble. I hope you don’t agree with her on that.
Also when you post a controversial opinion piece on a public website, you cannot blame individuals who disagree with you for commenting negatively.
First of all, you’re essentially arguing that in order for one to attend Georgetown University, one must surrender all of his or her personal beliefs. Not only is such a view archaic, this argument–at an institution of higher learning in the United States–is borderline ludicrous.
Second, H*yas for Choice is indeed a legitimate campus group with legitimate standing, and here’s why:
You seem to misunderstand the concept of protest, and the overall concept of why H*yas for Choice exists. You say that H*yas for Choice loses legitimacy and invalidates their moral standing by protesting against an institution they pay tuition for. What you’re overlooking is that the group exists solely because their views are directly opposed to the institution they pay tuition for. It is inherent in the definition of protest to resist institutional standards. Nothing about what they do invalidates their stance.
Simply because Occupy Wall Streeters are members of the economic system they vehemently oppose does not mean their arguments are invalid. Simply because American colonists were subjects of the British Empire does not mean their protests against oppression were false. Simply because some Georgetown students happen to disagree with their university does not make them hypocrites.
You will have a very difficult time finding protest groups that agree with the institutions they protest against. It doesn’t make sense to say that every campus institution must agree with Georgetown University. That part of your argument is nonsensical. H*yas for Choice understands very clearly that they oppose the University they know and love, but that does not make them hypocrites.
I’ll finish with this: If your vision of Georgetown University is a campus where free-thinking is restricted to the ideas promoted only by the Catholic Church, and where liberal ideals have no place, then that is a frightening vision. Yes, this Catholic university disagrees with the message of H*yas for Choice. But I would argue that they disagree with the idea of smothering intellectual freedom even more.
Quandary*
What exactly do you mean when you say that members of H*yas for Choice need to admit that they’re hypocrites? It’s not like anyone is unaware that members are Georgetown students. Are you asking for a sign on the condom table announcing that all the tablers pay tuition? A note on all condom envelopes with the member’s year and school? I see why you framed this slam on your fellow feminists as advice, but next time at least try to make the pretense a little more convincing.
The author wants to claim that they’re a liberal feminist and wants to give HFC on how to become reformers and leaders, but what authority does she have to proffer this advice? I doubt the author’s feminism goes beyond a Ready for Hillary poster on her wall that she got for free in Red Square. Feminism is the active practice of combatting patriarchy not a vague, noncommittal commitment to “equal rights”. We all participate in patriarchy in some way, including where our university dollars go. Most students were unaware of Georgetown’s archaic sexual health policies before coming to Georgetown and many assumed (especially with the admins talk around religious pluralism) that Catholic dogma wouldn’t influence such a personal aspect of their lives. These students shouldn’t be blamed for participating in patriarchy, but should be held responsible for their response to their participation in patriarchy. If students are aware of their participation in patriarchy and do nothing to undo it then they are complicit, but if they seek to deconstruct patriarchal systems then they are accounting for and seeking to rectify their participation (to claim that students can up and transfer at the drop of a hat to satisfy a disagreement w/ admin is an arrogant, classist assumption). I also think that the author misreads HFC’s moral superiority. HFC members pay tuition like any other student, they aren’t better than another student. However, HFC members spend a significant amount of time learning about and organizing around repo justice issues (plus they offer students opportunities to learn more). As a general rule, most HFC members probably know more than the average student about repo justice issues and want to inspire/lead student response to these issues. Claiming that their messaging/tone is off is a legitimate claim, but to illegitimate their entire organization/what it does bc of tone misses the entire point.
This article is indicative of how far student organizing has fallen. Students like HUFS,GUFF, HFC who actually organize and are willing to use nonviolent direct action are considered controversial or too radical, while the vast majority of students are willing to sit on their couches and issue toothless center-left condemnations of their more active peers.
As the author accurately predicted, this argument is an incendiary one, but not for providing a valid counter-culture opinion, rather due to the piece’s apparent ignorance of the historical impact and importance of student’s resisting institution policies. Student protests have been credited with ending wars, advancing the rights of underrepresented groups, and ensuring that college administrations are held accountable to students for their actions.
Recently, we have seen protest centered on a myriad of issues that still plague institutions. In September Colgate students staged a 100-hour sit-in protesting the lack of protections against acts of intolerance (http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/colgate-students-end-100-hour-sit-in-after-agreement-with-administration/86893); this year a fellow senior at Columbia University has decided for her thesis to carry around a mattress with her everywhere she goes as symbolic of the weight she still carries from her assault and as a critique of the University’s mishandling of sexual assault cases (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/columbia-student-carrying-mattress-long-alleged-rapist-campus-article-1.1926393); closer to home UMD students recently protested the purchase of M16 rifles for the UMD police department (http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/11/umd-students-protest-against-m16-rifles-armored-truck-on-campus-109294.html).
On the Hilltop, we’ve seen student supported protests for Leo’s worker’s rights (http://www.thehoya.com/petition-seeks-aramark-renegotiation/), student protests demanding reforms of ambiguous RA policies in the Yes All RAs movement (http://georgetownvoice.com/2014/11/13/yes-all-ras/), and GUSA-led initiatives to reform everything from housing policy (http://www.thehoya.com/new-housing-policy-delayed-after-protest/) to national student loan interest rates (http://www.gustudentassociation.org/7312013-gusa-statement-on-passage-of-student-loan-reform/) to open container policies in Village A (http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2013/08/30/breaking-open-container-policy-to-change-in-village-a-and-henle/). More particular to the topic of this article, student organizations have a played a pivotal role in providing representation to underrepresented populations through such organizations as BSA, Club Filipino, JSU, GU signs, GU Pride, and Diversability to name a few.
The argument that the H*yas for Choice organization is hypocritical is predicated upon the belief that student’s must subvert their own beliefs to those of the university, but as constituents of a university, if anything it should be the reverse. The vast majority of Hoyas love Georgetown, and I’m sure this is true of the H*yas for Choice membership, and it’s because we love this school so much that we endeavor to improve wanting aspects and participate in the tradition of student advocacy and engagement in salient issues. We didn’t come here to merely endure four years for a nice sheet of parchment as sheep entirely ignorant of the issues around us.
In my view, H*yas for Choice, regardless of your particular opinion on their message, provides representation and advocacy to women who personally believe in their right to choice as well as access to sexual health materials, which would otherwise not exist at Georgetown. As a disclaimer, I am male, and given my lack of investment in the question of choice I’ve tended to excuse myself from the argument leaning a bit towards pro-choice given my liberal upbringing. But both organizations have a place at Georgetown as both are vital components to the conversation surrounding choice.