![\"Duke\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/170\/2015\/08\/Duke.jpg\")
<\/a>Editor\u2019s note: This expression of ideas is way too long and meanders a bit. The author apologizes for not editing it down, but he\u2019s just got a lot going on right now.\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Shortly after returning home on a drizzly afternoon, I began doing the dishes. When I do the dishes, I listen to things, because doing the dishes is boring and it distracts me from all the gross slimy things that my fingers make contact with.<\/p>\n On this particular dish session, I listened to a fascinating interview<\/a> on Radio West (a show on KUER, the SLC NPR affiliate) where the host, Doug Fabrizio (Doug-E Fresh), spoke with Greg Lukianoff, an advocate of civil liberties in academia who recently co-authored an article in The Atlantic<\/a> about the changing landscape of college discourse.<\/p>\n Universities, he argued, are quickly becoming places where students believe they should be shielded from ideas, materials and even words that challenge their worldview. Something that people typically refer to as \u201cpolitical correctness.\u201d<\/p>\n The interview was interesting, and when I was done with the dishes I pulled up my Twitter feed to check in on what\u2019s going on in the world. And as it just so happened, a new controversy surrounding a student that wishes to abstain from reading material for fear of offense has once again erupted!<\/p>\n Serendipity!<\/p>\n Now, whenever I see these things \u2014 these \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d on college campuses things \u2014 I\u2019m always a little skeptical. Mostly because I wonder how frequent they really are. People do and say strange things everyday, but just because there\u2019s a couple of college students who don\u2019t understand that you can\u2019t study American history without talking about racism in pretty frank terms doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re in the depths of a national crisis. It just means not everyone\u2019s on the same page, which seems natural.<\/p>\n But Lukianoff\u2019s interview did a lot to sway me to believe that maybe things are<\/em> getting a little out of hand on college campuses. That\u2019s when I read an explainer that explained at me the story of an incoming Freshman at Duke who is apparently refusing, quite publicly, to read Alison Bechdel\u2019s Fun Home <\/em>because he thinks it\u2019s pornography.<\/p>\n Now, the explainer I read wasn\u2019t terribly helpful because it mostly shouted about why Fun Home<\/em> is a great book, which might be true (I haven\u2019t read it) but that seems a little beside the point. The point, from what I can gather from other sources, is that this youngster is simply uninterested in reading something he believes to be offensive. In fact, he wrote in the Washington Post<\/a> that he \u201cresearched the book\u2019s content\u201d and even \u201cread a portion of it.\u201d So his decision seems at least relatively informed. Oh, and his main justification is that he believes the depiction of sexuality to be offensive to his Christian beliefs (something that many suspect to be based more on anti-homosexual beliefs than just sexuality in general).<\/p>\n Interestingly, he doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to read it, which is why it\u2019s a little strange he made a whole ordeal out of it. He says in the post that the book is only recommended summer reading, and that he posted a comment to the Duke Class of 2019 Facebook page explaining why he won\u2019t read the book, hoping to help others that agree feel better about their decision to opt out. Then the internet people got wind of it.<\/p>\n So as far as I can tell, this is basically much ado about nothing. A kid didn\u2019t want to read a book that he doesn\u2019t have to read and so he didn\u2019t and nothing will happen. But, possibly because of the context of the Lukianoff interview, I have read with curiosity the reactions to his pretty freaking boring decision.<\/p>\n First, there is the strange attempt to define with authority what is and is not pornographic<\/a>, which is kinda silly but still an interesting conversation. There is also the \u201cThis Young Christian Boy Is Being Persecuted by the Secular Liberal Media<\/a>\u201d angle, which is also silly and considerably less interesting.<\/p>\n But what is<\/em> interesting to me (again, because of the context of the Radio West interview) is the \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d angle. Is this a case of \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d run amok on college campuses? Some seem to think so, but others seem to think that the fact that it\u2019s a decision driven by a religious worldview disqualifies it from being proof a \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d uprising (I keep putting political correctness in quotes because Lukianoff argued quite persuasively that that\u2019s a really awful term to describe what\u2019s going on, but it\u2019s all we have).<\/p>\n In fact, one writer calls out Lukianoff\u2019s article specifically<\/a>, claiming that the Duke situation is in fact proof that schools are not experiencing an uptick in overly sensitive people with liberal sensitivities. It is, and always has been, the opposite.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s what I don\u2019t get. On both the liberal and conservative side, these issues seem to me to be connected in a very fundamental way, which I think also helps me see some nuances. Separating them by ideological lines seems almost arbitrary. Especially when one considers that the main worries of those who argue the liberal justification \u2014 that some images, words or even ideas can be harmful to individual students, and teachers\/administrators should be sensitive to that \u2014 are shared by those on the other side.<\/p>\n Separating it between those who use political ideology and those who use religious beliefs for justification also seems arbitrary, since that would assume one is more likely to produce rational conclusions than the other (which isn\u2019t actually true<\/a>).<\/p>\n That\u2019s why I think it might help these conversations if we started using some other vague term, like \u201ctheologically correct\u201d or \u201creligiously correct\u201d to describe situations that are essentially the same as issues of \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d but are grounded in the dogmas of religion and not political worldview.<\/p>\n That would make complaining about them a lot easier, and people would maybe see that these things aren\u2019t so terribly different. If you hate the idea that someone would choose to opt out of reading something because they are worried the images of naked women will harm their spirituality, just remember that if you switch the word \u201cspirituality\u201d with \u201cidentity,\u201d it has essentially the same meaning.<\/p>\n (And as plenty of research shows<\/a>, separating religious convictions from things like race, gender or sexuality in the age of identity politics isn\u2019t all that constructive).<\/p>\n And to be perfectly honest, I understand the urge to avoid material that one finds offensive. I\u2019m currently religious, and I grew up that way, too.\u00a0 I spent the vast majority of my young life avoiding material that I personally found offensive, and that is something that really only changed when I went to college.<\/p>\n That is, I guess, why it\u2019s not hard for me to see these issues as interconnected. In my mind, \u201cI refuse to read something because I find it sinful\u201d and\u00a0 \u201cI refuse to read something because I find it socially offensive\u201d are basically different names for the same thing. Now, ideologically I get that their different. One might argue that it is better to, for example, be offended by racism than by homosexuality (which I agree with), but the fact remains that people always have and always will disagree about stuff. So how we handle disagreements should be consistent.<\/p>\n So the real debate here, and what I think the cause of a lot of frustration surrounding this issue, is where the line should be drawn. It seems that on both sides, people want the freedom to shape their own understanding of the world, without being forced to consume things they find hurtful or damaging. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me. But we also have this notion that education should be about shifting perspectives, and that can\u2019t happen unless you aren\u2019t constantly in control of what information you are or are not exposed to.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s a tricky line, and I think the case of the Duke student exposes a little bit of a blind spot. This kid is clearly not just some nut, he represents a group of students that have a very particular worldview. So calling him a loser isn\u2019t really getting us anywhere. This is about what education should and should not mean. Something which, at the moment, isn\u2019t clearly defined. We\u2019re in a period of transition.<\/p>\n Another point I want to bring up that is that despite how confused one might be about this frosh\u2019s objections, there is something to be said about the fact that if he is coming from a very conservative home, with little to no exposure to nudity or sexuality, encountering these things in a graphic novel can actually be a relatively traumatic experience.<\/p>\n It\u2019s something that people who advocate for pluralism argue frequently. It\u2019s important to respect the boundaries of a person\u2019s convictions, not because you agree with those boundaries, but because you recognize that people take their convictions very seriously and flippantly disrespecting them can have legitimately damaging effects on their emotional well being.<\/p>\n Now, I\u2019m not saying that the Duke kid fits into that category. Maybe he loves Paul Verhoeven films and he\u2019s just being a jerk about homosexuality or something. The point is, we don\u2019t know. And so claiming that this kid doesn\u2019t deserve a college education<\/a> seems a little extreme to me, especially when one would typically not levy the same condemnation to someone who made a similar choice on social justice grounds.<\/p>\n Having said that, I personally don\u2019t agree with the student\u2019s decision. As one who is both religiously observant, and a huge fan of graphic novels, I take issue with the fact that he interprets Matthew 5:28-29 as meaning \u201cnever see a naked woman\u201d and that he personally finds images to have a greater capacity for vulgarity than other forms of media. He also tosses around phrases like \u201cprofessing Christians\u201d to describe those in the faith who disagree with him, which is less than awesome. I also tend to side with those who think it\u2019s important for students to read things that dramatically alter their worldview. It did wonders for me.<\/p>\n