Author: Christine Bachman and Chelsea Guster
After reading Andrew Throdahl's article two weeks ago ["Constructive and unconstructive methods of change," Opinions section, April 23], we would like to address the same subject that he endeavored to address: constructive and unconstructive methods of change. As co-presidents of MOQA we feel it necessary to respond to criticism made about the GAYpril calendar, not because we cannot tolerate criticism, but rather because we would like to encourage a dialogue and feel it is important that our voices be heard on the matter as well. We find many of the arguments made by Throdahl offensive and shortsighted, thus meriting our criticism.
But with this criticism comes candor. We do not pretend to speak for all LGBTQ people at Middlebury - MOQA cannot and will not be the singular voice of all queer people on campus. Instead, the opinions we hold and the events we advertise reflect only the initiatives raised by our active members. Moreover, in writing this response as co-presidents, we directly convey only our own views, though with considerable support from many MOQA members. Just as neither we nor MOQA represent the entire queer population at Middlebury, Throdahl should not feel comfortable or capable in defining MOQA or its "important matters."
In describing the calendar, Throdahl mentions "two waifs [kissing] in their underwear," a manifestation of "some methamphetamine-induced orgy," along with "twin-like lads suggestively [sharing] an apple, that clich
OP-ED An unconstructive misunderstanding
Comments
