I sent an email to the provost and to the chancellor regarding my concerns over the fact that V-week and the events surrounding it degraded women and left the impression that the body is mostly good for a sex-toy. Chancellor Thorp kindly responded. His response was, in summary, that he can do nothing about allowing people such as Sue Johanson to come to campus because he is constrained by the First Amendment. In an attempt to make this clear, he mentioned (to my delight!) that my cartoons (published in the Carolina Review) perhaps offend a mighty lot of people around here. Below was my response to his response.
Dear administrators,
I thank you very much for responding to my email. There are some things that I must take issue with regarding your point, however. I am certainly offended by Sue Johanson, but that is not my main argument. I find it hilarious that you know that I am a cartoonist for the Carolina Review and I am certain as well that my cartoons offend the sentiments of many on this campus. My points of view seem often to be in the minority and while the university pretends to believe in protecting and celebrating diversity, I often find my points of view officially condemned by UNC.
An example of what I mean can be found in the fact that the university funds an LBGTQ Center. I know of no law or amendment that requires there to be an LBGTQ Center, the university funds it because it values the inclusion of these members of our community. There is no law barring the university from funding a center that promotes the biblical point of view regarding sexuality either, however. The university obviously does not value religion, but rather secularism.
In other words, my point is that the university does not fund some things that are protected by federal law simply because it disagrees with them, or because it does not wish to see the values that would be disseminated propagated. The university, for example, would not fund a Nazi rally even though the Nazis would be protected by the first amendment. The university believes in fighting racism and, of course, a Nazi rally would not contribute to the university mission. Well, neither does a Sue Johanson speech in which her main point is to inculcate the idea that the human body is merely a sex toy (“Sexuality is the most important part of your life” and all that).
I believe women ought to be treated with more dignity that Sue Johanson treats them and thus I think her attitude toward degrading women ought to be fought.
I don’t expect a response nor do I expect you guys to read so long an email as I am sure you are extremely busy. I just wanted to respond to the assumption that my problem was in being offended. While it is against university policy (literally) to offend others, I find this a silly policy for the reasons Chancellor Thorp pointed out. I simply don’t like the idea of a public university degrading women any more than I like the idea of a public universiy supporting a Nazi rally.
Sincerely,
Justin Crowder
What a shame that such a thoughtful rebuttal to the Chancellor failed to change the University’s tyrannical commitment to stifling our right to condemn and ostracize. I must warn you though that several “Christian” denominations have re-interpreted the bible to allow for the consumption of shell fish and to forbid the biblically-mandated execution of homosexuals.
As for Sue Johnson, why is she not at home fearing God and her husband? Did you notice the trollop was wearing pants. And what, pray tell, is a sex toy?
God bless fellow warrior in Christ,
Boobie Diddles
Boobie Diddles: You are funny, I’ll give you that. I hope, however, you are not in serious about your underlying assumptions about my point.
You had a point? My apologies. I was unable to discern one in your pastiche of whiny gripes. Let me give it another try.
Your points of view are “condemned” by the University, though obviously not silenced. An example of aforementioned condemnation is the legally-superfluous LBGTQ center, which exists without a complementary bible-based sexuality center. This demonstrates the University’s preference for secularism over religion. This choosiness is further demonstrated by the University’s hypothetical rejection of a Nazi rally coinciding with their lack of outrage over Sue Johansen’s talk, neither of which, hypothetical or existent, contribute to the University’s mission. You find Sue Johansen offensive, deem her message degrading to women, and want the University to “fight” her woman-as-sex-toy shtick.
You call that a point? I’m surprised you can even draw.
And are you by chance a closet liberal? Why are you whining to the Chancellor about the lack of a bible-based sexuality center? The government, federal, state, local, and/or especially university can’t solve your problems! Why don’t you round up some like minded conservatives, contact Michelle Malkin and Fox News and demand the establishment of one! Instead of being like those flag-burning liberals and getting your money from the the socialist exploitation of students by way of student fees, set an example and collect donations from private sources, use private property (don’t you hate the way “student union” sounds?), and make your dreams come true.
As for Sue Johansen, you should have staged a protest with really really big, impossible-to-ignore bill boards visually connecting the dots between the University’s tolerance of Sue Johansen’s anti-woman message and their hypothetical refusal to support a Nazi rally. Maybe pictures of giant dildos dressed up as Nazi soldiers? I think that would really convey the intellectual rigor underpinning your “point.”
Boobie: Aww, that was mean. To be clear, I was not whinning about anything. I felt like the text of my email would make a unique blog post because I felt it explained my “point” clearly. I was attempting to refute the university’s pretense at neutrality regarding morality.
I don’t want a UNC center promoting a biblical view of sexuality and I certainly don’t want one that promotes homosexuality, your missing the “point.” I was merely providing an example of UNC’s bias. The Nazi rally example was meant to offer an alternative, legitimate example of where the university should refuse funding.
Speaking of points, this “Boobie Diddles” character seems to have none.
Separation of Church and State?
Sara: Can you please explain what you are infering?
Au contraire, I have plenty of points. Wait, did I just use French?!? Hold on, let me go recite the pledge of allegiance. OK. Better now.
As part of its mission the University has certain obligations, some of which necessarily have moral dimensions. This would include the obligation to pro-actively support a learning and living environment that is free from harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. As LGBTQ people are a part of the UNC community and some segment of the general population regards them as less than human, additional measures may be justified to create a safe learning environment for them in contrast to Slovaks and Campus Republicans whose humanity is generally accepted.
Whether or not the establishment of an LGBTQ center within the Division of Student Affairs and its incumbent cost is a legitimate approach to this is a worthy question. But if the LGBTQ center is questionable then certainly the Disability Services office (all those special rights for ADHD kids) and the Fraternity and Sorority Life office (talk about the gay agenda) are questionable as well. Maybe if you broadened your critique beyond your favorite targets the administration (and everyone else) might take you more seriously.
Sorry to be mean (I thought conservatives had a sense of humor?!), but comparing the LGBTQ center to a Nazi rally is just a tad, teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy, bit of all-too-typical hyperbole. The Nazis want to kill the gays, the gays just want to bang the Nazis and steal their boots.
I never compared the Nazi party to the LBGTQ Center…
I’m sure we can at least all agree that the name “Boobie Diddles” is hilarious, and starting a post in reply as “Boobie:”, is even funnier.
He prefers to be called “Mr. Diddles”.
Don’t forget, that could be her? name. Or is James speaking as an authority?
Esteemed Mr or Ms Diddles: Rock On.
Crowde: Come on man! OF COURSE his/her name is not BOOBIE DIDDLES.
????????
Boobie Diddles wins The Internet.
Of course Boobie is my name and I am deeply offended by your derisive treatment of it! In my ethnic community (American descendants of low-country Hungarian-Slovaks), the name Boobie is highly regarded. Indeed Boobie Pernicious Diddles, III is a great hero to our community for in 1854 he liberated us from the oppression of the high-country Slovak-Hungarians, who, in case you don’t know, generally possess between 1/8th and 1/7th (due to inbreeding) Turkish blood and are therefore our sworn enemies. Don’t try to research the veracity of my claims because the high-country Hungarian-Slovaks have used their status and privilege to eliminate any trace of our rich cultural history.
Given our plight, I am currently organizing a petition to call for the creation of a class in the cultural history of low-country Hungarian-Slovaks, which I hope will eventually result in a Program, Curriculum, or maybe even Department of low-country Hungarian-Slovak Studies. I’ll let you know when it’s ready.
Yours,
Boobie Diddles