Letters to the Editor

Reorienting what?

To the Editor:

A challenge to Alex Wong, Robert Spitzer, practitioners and clients of "reorientation" therapy and all communities -- lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight and so on: What if we acknowledge that all human beings are "humansexual," that the only "lifestyle" we all have is human and that any of the labels and categories we use are constructs that both help and hinder us in understanding ourselves and each other? That our gender and who we love -- male, female, both, neither or anywhere in between -- means nothing compared to how we love?

In all other aspects of our lives, we know each person is a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional creature worthy of being able to live a life of integrity and, in this beloved community, entitled to equal civil rights and privileges and the expectation that we will take equal responsibility for honoring the integrity of all others around us. If we don't apply this standard to our sexuality as well, we are stuck with ploys like "reorientation therapy," used to give some people power, some people a means of coping with unfair treatment, some people a means of avoidance and some people, like us, one more presence to work against.

We say this because Spitzer proved only the ability of self-proclaimed "ex-homosexuals" to say that they are able to "function" heterosexually. This research did not show "reorientation." In other words, sexual activity and ability to "perform" with the plumbing are only one small part of orientation. Reorientation therapy is, at its core, wholly political, anti-lesbigay and a tool of the extreme religious right, thinly-veiled in the guise of science.

Rev. Dr. Beverly Dale

Rev. Douglas Fauth

The writers are executive director and associate director, respectively, of The Christian Association.



To the Editor:

I am deeply troubled by Alex Wong's misleading article on "reorientation therapy" and believe that it was laced with numerous inaccuracies. First, he points to Robert Spitzer's study and says it backs the notion "gays can change." The fact is, Spitzer acknowledged that "the vast majority of gay people -- even if they wanted to -- would be unable to make substantial changes in sexual attraction."

Clearly, either Wong did not do his homework, or his column intended to falsify the facts.

Interestingly, Wong failed to mention that these "reorientation therapies" are condemned by every respected medical and mental health organization in America. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, says these therapies can cause "anxiety, depression and self-destructive behavior." The failure of these therapies is backed by the failed leaders of groups that promote change. The co-founder of the first "ex-gay" ministry, Love in Action, denounced reorientation therapy after his best friend committed suicide. He now lives with his life-partner in California.

Two of the male co-founders of Exodus, the largest "ex-gay" group, married each other.

Conveniently, Wong omitted these important details.

Finally, Wong does not acknowledge that the extreme political right is behind these groups and portrays them as victims. The fact is, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are largely responsible for pushing the false notion that gay people can become straight through therapy and prayer. I think their anti-gay comments following the Sept. 11 attacks show they have no credibility on this issue and will say anything to defame lesbian and gay Americans.

Hopefully, Wong will not continue to follow in their footsteps and will write a more thoughtful, balanced and less fictitious column in the future.

Wayne Besen

The writer is associate director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign. Look beyond details To the Editor:

The real test of the Undergraduate Assembly's newest members will be their effectiveness in advocating the interests of the undergraduate student body. Motivated representatives who know their constituents and want to contribute to campus life should have little difficulty picking up the technical details of student government, just as baseball fans easily remember the rules of the game and even batting averages.

Veteran members of the UA will be more than willing to share institutional knowledge. The high rates of candidate and voter participation in this fall's freshman elections may prove to be better indicators of the Class of 2005's eagerness to participate in University politics than the number of candidates who can describe the University Council, which has not met since the spring.

As a member of the UA, I won't be terribly concerned if some of my new colleagues are unable to define a UA quorum; I want to work with people who will not fail to make a quorum.

Jed Gross

College '02

The writer is vice chairman of the Undergraduate Assembly. Right or wrong To the Editor:

I must admit to being disappointed by University President Judith Rodin's remarks about the proposed "voluntary" identity card policy that is currently the center of campus debate. Rodin stated that she wanted "to be persuaded of its utility." She suggests that we should judge the policy by whether or not it is "useful" in an "experiment."

Notably absent is any suggestion that we should deliberate about whether it is right or wrong. Nor is there any attempt

to discuss whether the policy supports or denigrates the mores that sustain and guide our institution of free thinking.

This is unfortunate because a policy that may prove to be useful for some people may also be patently unjust. As such, we must also ask ourselves if a policy is right. We can do so by reflecting upon the values by which we choose to live and considering if they are upheld or deprecated by the policy in question. Such deliberations provide a much more solid basis for policy debates because they acknowledge that our laws and institutions must be legitimate to be effective.

Michael Janson

Political Science

Ph.D. student

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.