DEAR EDITOR,
I note with some bemusement the condemnatory responses to the recent incident that took place at UTech involving campus security guards and a student. Individuals with a public platform, civil society groups and government officials cried shame on the security guards and student mob and called for tolerance of people who are different.
What amuses me is this. A number of the responses carry no equal condemnation of the behaviour suspected of the student at the centre of the debacle. They focus rather on tolerance. Tolerance of what? Two male students fraternising in a public UTech bathroom? This is the issue at the core. One should not aim for political correctness at the sacrifice of the ennoblement of simple decency. I am sure many students work and carry out activities with people they know are homosexual without wishing to harm or embarrass them. Tolerance is not at issue here.
Correctly, it must be clear that the vigilante behaviour of the students and guards was reproachable. However, it must also be made clear that students, homosexual or heterosexual, engaging in behaviour that appropriately belongs in a private space is unacceptable. Minister of Education Ronald Thwaites recognised this. He was careful to point out the unacceptable nature of the suspected behaviour of the young man, while chiding the actions of the security guards and the student mob. Minister Thwaites' response was balanced and refreshing. I commend the minister so far on his tenure. He displays a keen appreciation for the norms of the Jamaican society and the place of education within these norms.
One might argue that tolerance became an issue because the reaction of the guards and student mob would have been different were a heterosexual couple suspected of the same behaviour. However, tolerance must be promoted within the context of the expectation of decency and propriety on the part of its beneficiaries. I imagine the trauma many students would have experienced, happening upon the spectacle or hearing of the suspected indiscretion of the student. One student remarked on the news that he did not know how he could continue to use the bathroom. This is understandable as homosexual behaviour is seen as perverse, considering what is involved. It doesn't help that any shade of it is taken to a public bathroom. Decency, please!
As the various agendas are advanced, let us remember that self-control and restraint are expected on all sides for the good order of society.
Paula Hagley
johnspa@yahoo.com
Let decency prevail
-->
I note with some bemusement the condemnatory responses to the recent incident that took place at UTech involving campus security guards and a student. Individuals with a public platform, civil society groups and government officials cried shame on the security guards and student mob and called for tolerance of people who are different.
What amuses me is this. A number of the responses carry no equal condemnation of the behaviour suspected of the student at the centre of the debacle. They focus rather on tolerance. Tolerance of what? Two male students fraternising in a public UTech bathroom? This is the issue at the core. One should not aim for political correctness at the sacrifice of the ennoblement of simple decency. I am sure many students work and carry out activities with people they know are homosexual without wishing to harm or embarrass them. Tolerance is not at issue here.
Correctly, it must be clear that the vigilante behaviour of the students and guards was reproachable. However, it must also be made clear that students, homosexual or heterosexual, engaging in behaviour that appropriately belongs in a private space is unacceptable. Minister of Education Ronald Thwaites recognised this. He was careful to point out the unacceptable nature of the suspected behaviour of the young man, while chiding the actions of the security guards and the student mob. Minister Thwaites' response was balanced and refreshing. I commend the minister so far on his tenure. He displays a keen appreciation for the norms of the Jamaican society and the place of education within these norms.
One might argue that tolerance became an issue because the reaction of the guards and student mob would have been different were a heterosexual couple suspected of the same behaviour. However, tolerance must be promoted within the context of the expectation of decency and propriety on the part of its beneficiaries. I imagine the trauma many students would have experienced, happening upon the spectacle or hearing of the suspected indiscretion of the student. One student remarked on the news that he did not know how he could continue to use the bathroom. This is understandable as homosexual behaviour is seen as perverse, considering what is involved. It doesn't help that any shade of it is taken to a public bathroom. Decency, please!
As the various agendas are advanced, let us remember that self-control and restraint are expected on all sides for the good order of society.
Paula Hagley
johnspa@yahoo.com
Let decency prevail
-->