Lauren Bialystok: All steam, no substance

We're ostensibly living in a vibrant era of polemics at Penn.

On some issues, the clash is tangible and the stakes are high. But for all the ink being spilled, very little of substance is actually being said. Meanwhile, some key issues just aren't getting the attention they deserve at all.

Consider Exhibit One: the PennForum debate on same-sex marriage, which has been rehashed in these pages several times.

When Dan Fishback and I spoke in favor of legalizing same-sex marriages, the audience was overwhelmingly supportive -- strange, since about 75 percent of Americans are opposed to the concept.

Not so strange, though, since the Penn College Republicans refused to even advertise the event among their members. But when PennForum Co-Chairman Guy Margalith wrote a guest column in The Daily Pennsylvanian to lament the political imbalance at the debate, everybody got defensive.

Ryan Fagan, one of the speakers against the resolution, devoted an entire column in First Call to slandering Fishback. Fagan didn't attempt to reconstruct any of his own arguments against same-sex marriage.

Meredith Voliva, vice chairwoman of the College Republicans, claimed that her group "declined to participate in the recent PennForum discussion on gay marriage because [it] could not reach consensus on the issue."

Neither of these reactions constituted an appropriate response to the problem identified by Margalith.

The goal of debate is as much to examine relevant aspects of complicated issues as it is to dogmatically defend a single position. By choosing to sequester themselves from such opportunities for open discourse because of internal dissent, the College Republicans revealed their insecurity about contentious topics that can't be dismissed in one sweeping party line.

An individual Republican who speaks publicly about a particular idea doesn't necessarily represent the views of the entire party.

Dan and I are both DP columnists. No one at that debate was under the impression that we were speaking on behalf of this publication.

But the Republicans acted as though it were preposterous for PennForum to approach them in search of an opposition speaker. In general, when you want to find an opponent of same-sex marriage, a self-identified conservative group is a good place to start.

Instead of participating, though, they shied away from the issue altogether -- College Republicans Chairman Brett Singer insisted that it had "little resonance during a time of national conflict" anyway -- and then charged PennForum with poor political etiquette.

They diverted the focus from same-sex marriage itself to the formalities of procedure.

Marriage matters. Let's stop diffusing the issue, and start talking about it.

Witness Exhibit Two: In another recent instance of stifled political discussion, it was reported that Penn was found guilty of gender bias for hiring a female coach, Barb Kirch, for the women's crew team in 1997. Andrew Medcalf sued Penn on the grounds that he was the most qualified candidate for the position, but was turned down simply because Penn wanted a woman for the job.

No one has had the guts to say that gender may have contributed to Kirch's qualifications for coaching a women's sports team.

It's entirely reasonable to look for a woman when hiring a coach for a college women's athletic team -- a job that requires not only athletic ability, leadership and expertise in the sport, but an understanding of the emotional and physical needs of the crew and a capacity to interact with them, if necessary, on a very personal level.

Non-discrimination is an admirable policy. But I believe the gender bias suit against Penn deserves deeper consideration than a politically-correct statement about hiring practices.

Gender matters. Let's drop the jargon and talk about it honestly.

Exhibit Three was the incident at Homecoming, where the incomparably witty Penn Band decided to salute the 125th anniversary of women at Penn by forming the numbers "36-24-36" on the football field.

Perhaps most people brushed off the display as weak humor in questionable taste.

I'm afraid it pointed to much more troubling facts about the perception of women at Penn and the tenor of social commentary on this campus.

There's no justification for reducing women to hourglass physical proportions, even in jest. The band was clearly trying to comment on the anniversary festivities, but chose an inappropriate form of expression.

Last week's celebration raised very pertinent questions about the role of women in education and changing expectations about gender roles. But they should have been discussed in context, rather than satirized in a puerile display at a football game.

Notice the pattern?

In the last few weeks, we've seen a lot of steam about the state of polemics at Penn, but very little about the relevant issues themselves.

Penn's opinions have become shrouded in defensiveness, immaturity or loyalty to party lines and political correctness. If we want to take our opinions seriously, we're going to have to do better than that.

Lauren Bialystok is a senior Philosophy major from Toronto, Ontario.

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