Letters

Douglass responds on Courtesy Scholarships

I appreciate Ann Hartle's letter questioning the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for educational benefits for same-sex partners (Sept. 25). The code does not recognize domestic partners as "legal" dependents for Courtesy Scholarship so as to be available as a tax-free benefit. Consequently, the value of this benefit must be taxable as income to the employee.

The University's decision to limit Courtesy Scholarships to natural or legally adopted children is consistent with the Internal Revenue Code, Section 177, which allows the benefit to be available only to employees for such dependents on a tax-free basis.

Pat Douglass, Human Resources

Report guilty of yellow journalism

I was highly disturbed by the First Person editorial of Gerald Garrett (Sept. 25). It was truly one of the most homophobic pieces of writing I have ever read while at Emory. I will not even dignify it with a rebuttal.

However, I was even more surprised to see that Emory Report gave it such a highlighted position. The article and positioning dripped of yellow journalism, and I thought Emory Report was above such behavior. I suppose not.

William Morse, Law School

Garrett employs `strange logic'

I strongly disagree with the premise of Gerald Garrett's remarks regarding domestic partner benefits in "First Person" (Sept. 25).

But my point in writing is really to applaud Emory Report for providing a prominent space in which truly opposing viewpoints can be aired. The pursuit of diversity, after all, is not simply a matter of race or sex or sexual preference, but more importantly it is a matter of differing opinions, values and beliefs. For much too long, we've witnessed the degeneration of free speech through the effective stifling of controversial viewpoints in mainstream media, as well as in the classroom. Mr. Garrett is one of a rare breed these days who dares to fly in the face of what has really become conventional opinion. No matter how vehemently I disagree with his views, I am glad that he was given a forum in which to air them. In providing this forum, Emory Report makes an important contribution to the preservation of open, unabated discourse here at Emory.

But how ironic that what sanctions Mr. Garrett's personal views is the very freedom he would deny to those whose lifestyles differ from his own. That certain lifestyles which are harmless to others are forbidden-not only through the denial of benefits extended to others, but also by the laws of the state-is an idea so undemocratic as to be laughable. Mr. Garrett doubtless would call me a "moral relativist" for this view, but he should thank his "Almighty God" that he is still free to say so.

Suzi Howard, Institutional Advancement

Sermon inappropriate genre for editorials

Gerald Garrett's editorial raises a number of issues. I will not dwell on the scientific basis for some of his claims ("Homosexuals can change, and indeed many have." Is Mr. Garrett himself a recovering homosexual?), nor the insight of his sociological analysis ("Illicit sex is leading to the destruction of school systems, cities and society as a whole." I would have thought that economics played some part.), nor finally the peculiar effect of the photograph of Mr. Garrett's smiling face alongside the assault of his words ("depraved," "nefarious," "abominable").

What I would like to emphasize is the way that Mr. Garrett engages us. "Preaching" is a genre that is most effective when one's audience (1) shares a certain religious commitment and (2) is voluntarily present. Neither of these conditions apply to the readership of the Emory Report. I and many others at Emory are not Christians, much less fundamentalist Christians. And in picking up the Report, we do not consent to be preached to. If Mr. Garrett really wants to communicate to us, he needs to find another way of doing so.

Donald Donham, Anthropology