USD School of Law Graduate - Response to T. O'Malley

On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:18 AM, a USD Law Alum wrote:

See: Statement from USD VP for University Relations

Mr. O' Malley, 

1.  You say, "Despite the preconceived fears of some of our constituents about a stereotypical, commercial drag show..."  In so doing, you certainly paint with a broad brush.  I do not believe any of my comments reflect any such stereotype.  And it is quite bold of you to characterize your constituents' reaction as one based on "fear" vs. reasoned opposition. Perhaps the comment reveals more about your perception of your constituents.  Regardless, I hope you and President Lyons will sincerely attempt to understand why the decision she made offended so many.

 2.  "Nothing associated with the show promoted homosexual lifestyle."  In fact, the emcee "associated with the show" is a public proponent of gay marriage.  Why is USD, a Catholic institution, giving a podium to such an individual?  

3.  "Nothing associated with the show...contradicted the Church's teaching on human sexuality."  Please enlighten us.  What is the Church's teaching on gender identity?  And how does encouraging men to dress as women (and vice versa) comport with that teaching?

4.  "Our goal at USD is to provide a safe, inclusive learning environment..."  Inclusion is a nice euphemism.  But does inclusion trump all other values and virtues at USD?  

5.  "Our goal...is to emphasize the dignity of the person and and respect for the individual."  You might want to start by teaching students to love themselves as God created them.  I'm not clear on how encouraging men to dress as women dignifies them.

6.  Finally, regarding the recent change to the Education Code which is clear to all applies to public K-12:  Please don't fault your alumni for misunderstanding President Lyon's use of this red herring.  There are all kinds of things that can give rise to discussions.  The real question is why didn't the passage of this law give rise to a discussion about how "anti-discrmination" and "inclusion" laws at the federal, state and local levels are laying the foundation for discrimination against people of faith?  It is troubling to see USD on the wrong side of the discussion.  Under the recent changes to the California code, it is entirely possible (if not likely) a Catholic teacher that refuses to violate their conscience (and their academic standards!) by trying to identify and relay to children the sexual identity of historical figures will lose their job.  So much for inclusion.

These are, in fact, complex times.  But buying into the secular, relativist world-view of the dominant culture does not show leadership.  I think it is safe to say that your alumni expect better from their alma mater, and certainly the students at USD deserve more.  Hopefully that message has been heard.

USD School of Law, 2001