To the Editor: In response to Federico Sanchez's letter ("Supporting a choice," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/23/01); the similarity that Glowasky found between the B-GLAD supplement and the Horowitz ad does not simply exist in his own mind. The similarity is sticking in my mind as well. Contrary to Sanchez's claims, the B-GLAD supplement did not only promote diversity, it actively promoted, discussed, reflected upon and expressed worry about all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle through prose, poem and photography. Diversity may have been discussed, but only in reference to homosexuality. Just that sort of openness should be encouraged, for it invigorates public debate. But Horowitz's ad is equally beneficial to the public discourse and his view that reparations for American slavery are inappropriate deserves just as much airing as those issues in the B-GLAD supplement. I do not wish to appear as though I am placing the B-GLAD supplement and Horowitz's ad in opposition. In fact, their messages are closely linked and both are tied to the paramount notions of freedom of speech and openness to ideas. Those are not the ideas the need to be discussed. Rather, the troubling and disturbing ideas one might not so readily agree with require the greatest discussion and demand the greatest public opportunity to do so.
Evan Thomas College '01Comments powered by Disqus
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.