Gabriella Morrongiello is the director of public relations for GW Young America’s Foundation.
I’m writing in response to the op-ed, “YAF is wrong about sensitivity training – a conservative Christian’s perspective,” by Alex Pollock (online, March 17).
As an executive board member of GW Young America’s Foundation, I felt compelled to respond to this piece, which condemned our organization’s planned exemption request from proposed mandatory LGBT sensitivity training.
Pollock contends that absent such training, there will be “no credible way” to ensure that students have the tools to “provide a safe space for all.” The assumption is that the absence of offensive language or actions makes others feel safe.
If sensitivity training indeed made people feel safe, then absolutely – count me in. In fact, let’s expand the edict to sensitize our peers to a plethora of beliefs and actions just to be certain all GW students finally count among the utopian ideal of “inclusion.”
What might that look like? I’d begin by demanding that student leaders attend Second Amendment sensitivity training since one segment of the student body, myself included, would feel safe knowing that everyone understands the right to bear arms, has been properly trained in firearm use, and can identify the difference between an assault weapon and a semi-automatic shotgun.
According to Pollock, our request to seek an exemption is “illogical.” He claims that as private school students, our First Amendment rights become extraneous in matters related to GW. We may not be protected by the Constitution, but that does not mean our University and peers are impervious to constitutional scrutiny.
Taking his argument to its logical conclusion, how long until we face deterrents to protests on campus? Does the potential exist that people will be thrown off campus if they are found bowing their head in prayer at a dining hall?
Pollock also suggests that the Student Association has an obligation to ensure groups that receive University funding are “inclusive and not offensive.” I would feel safe not hearing labels like “bigot,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “religious zealot” or my personal favorite, “hate group,” but do I think my peers should forcibly be taught not to call me a “greedy capitalist pig”? Of course not.
It would disturb me to witness the slow, subservient march of my conservative brethren into trainings where they would be taught to embrace the new dogma of not being allowed to hold divergent opinions or thoughts.
How can Pollock discuss the nebulous nature of the content of this training when such information doesn’t yet exist? Even so, it is not the content that YAF’s members object to, it is the methodology, the belief that one group can force, not share, their opinion with others.
Pollock cites Christianity’s golden rule in his attempt to discredit our position. As a Christian, I strive to operate by this rule and treat others as I wish to be treated every day. However, I see no use in granting societal subgroups the power to dictate what I, as an individual, may determine is offensive or acceptable treatment of others.
In Matthew 19:16, Jesus encounters a rich young man who’s reluctant to abandon his possessions. The man eventually departs, choosing not to follow Christ. The freedom God gives man to reject or follow him illustrates the basis of our opposition to mandatory sensitivity training: Behavior can be solicited, but it should never be coerced.
