COLUMN: Is Penn Protecting All Minorities?

From Dan Schorr "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 Whose God? Certainly Chaplain Johnson's God. And certainly the monotheistic god that is acknowledged by the majority of the Western world, and perhaps the majority of those who were graduating. However, there were undoubtedly atheists in the crowd, and possibly a few polytheists as well – all of whose beliefs were ignored. As we are all constantly reminded, American history isn't without its prejudices and injustices. And Johnson's Commencement invocation wasn't the first time that a public speech given in a secular setting disregarded the views of the minority. In 1954, the pledge of allegiance was amended to tell everyone that we are "one nation under God." During his re-election campaign, former President George Bush told America, "You have to believe in God to be President." And President Bill Clinton, as others have before him, concluded his oath of office with the extra-Constitutional words, "So help me God." So it's not surprising that in a free country graduates, family, and friends were coerced into prayer. But it didn't just happen anywhere – it happened at Penn, which professes to prevent the opinions of the majority from offending the minority. Penn is the school that has consistently affirmed its devotion to providing a forum for ideas of the minority. Penn is the institution that has annually held diversity education workshops for freshmen so that they can understand and appreciate those who are different. It was Penn's Judicial Inquiry Office that considered prosecuting a conservative columnist because he made others in the University Community feel uncomfortable. But at June's graduation, this emphasis on diversity, tolerance, and appeasement was forgotten as the audience listened to a purely monotheistic prayer. What if a speaker wished all the graduates good luck in finding "that perfect, heterosexual partner" with whom they could share the rest of their lives in "marital bliss?" Would he fit the University's supposedly unbiased code of speech and thought? How long would an address last that told the audience to remember the "values of white culture?" How accepted would a man be who told his fellow males to "never forget" the principles behind their "history of dominance" over the other sex? Yet it is apparently acceptable to tell believers and non-believers alike about the one true God. While each oppressed group has justifiable gripes, the difference is that Non-Monotheistic-Americans are among the many "minorities" that are not political. And at Penn, in 1993, this fact seems to make all the difference. Citizens of Non-One-God Beliefs do not march, protest, hand out flyers, or have months, weeks, or even days of "understanding." They've seemingly accepted the fact that pronouncements of a monotheistic God permeate American culture. Thus, when graduation arrives, they are all reminded of what the majority recognizes as the true nature of the universe, and react in violent silence. How serious is Penn about proclaiming the benefits of diverse views when it seems only to cater to "minority" interests that are politically popular? How sincere is the term "multiculturalism" when minorities must constantly demonstrate outrage in order to be considered one of the "multi-cultures?" The hysteria of political correctness will never end while militant groups are consistently and excessively rewarded as more silent minorities have their views ignored. The issue here is not religion. Whether or not there is a God, and whether or not he has any divine contemporaries, anyone who truly believes that Penn should not impose the opinions of the majority on others would be appalled at Chaplain Johnson's words at this multicultural, diverse occasion. The University's anti-bias policies are not truly consistent with its actions as its judgments often rely upon the victim's expression of outrage. In an atmosphere where the less vocal minorities are ignored, special interest group cannot be blamed for excessive militant behavior. This is the dangerous hypocrisy of political correctness. It claims to be all-inclusive, yet it is truly exclusionary. Words such as "minority," "multicultural," and "diverse" are in fact referring to a select number of politically fashionable groups. How responsive is the University to general minority interests? If you felt aggrieved, which course of action would you take? The loudness of your voice seems to be directly proportional to the political "protection" received. At Penn, the squeaky wheels do not just get the oil, but are doused in the largest well of the Persian Gulf. So what should atheists, agnostics, and polytheists do? Ask to be accepted? Explain their beliefs? Probably a better bet is to label themselves victims of the oppressive, patriarchal forces of Western society and collect the spoils now doled out to the biggest loser. Dan Schorr is a junior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines will appear alternate Fridays.