Submitted by John Boles and Inigo Gallo
Nikki Jagerman’s article on May 20, “Miss California’s answer smacks of insensitivity,” was disappointing. After reading it once, I asked myself, “So, what’s her point again?” thinking that I missed it because I had skimmed it quickly. So I reread it. But the same thing happened again. And then again a third time. So I had to conclude that there is simply no argument.
Well, I take it back; there’s one: Miss California said something that Jagerman does not agree with. That was Miss California’s mistake and for that she deserves to be called the B-word and the C-word. Disappointing.
Since there’s no argument to respond to, I could use what seems to be Jagerman’s technique: personal attack. But personal attacks are never constructive, so let’s focus on the two main points: one specifically about Miss California, and a second more general one about discrimination.
According to Jagerman, Miss California’s “gross” answer “promoted discriminating against gay couples.” Watching the video on YouTube, I heard some boos but mostly applause. And this is what happened the day of the Proposition 8 election: Some people voted yes on 8 ““ a majority ““ and some people voted no. Because of her response, Perez Hilton insulted her.
Jagerman writes in her article, “Hilton is completely justified in his reaction.” Amazing. Ms. Jagerman, let us ask you: Should all those who voted yes on 8 be called the B-word and the C-word because they don’t share your views?
This is what you seem to be implying. Miss California was asked to give her opinion, and ““ in a more or less structured way, but definitely in a polite one ““ she did. Does freedom of speech only apply to one side of the issue?
Second, Jagerman thinks that Miss California and the Proposition 8 supporters are discriminating and imposing their beliefs. Obviously if the result of the election had been the opposite, she would not call it an imposition, but “progress” or “enlightenment.” Jagerman seems to think that she has the right answer to the same-sex marriage question. But, to her surprise, the supporters of Proposition 8 think that too! Of course, it is only the Yes on 8 crowd that is doing the imposing. If the No on 8 side had won, you wouldn’t dare say they were imposing: You would be called anti-democratic.
Regarding impositions, let’s consider Massachusetts, where four judges legalized same-sex marriage without giving voters any say in the matter. Second graders in public schools are already being taught that same-sex marriage is okay. So if you as a parent consider marriage to be between a man and a woman and want to pass that on to your children, you are alienated from the public school system and have to either seek an expensive private school education or homeschool. Who’s imposing on whom?
It seems to me that Jagerman’s main point ““ and sadly that of many others, including others in the media ““ is “it’s OK to have an opinion as long as you have my opinion.” That is disappointing. Jagerman’s reaction reminds me of a bumper sticker that I saw recently: “A very open-minded liberal keyed my car.”
Imagine that the California Supreme Court decided to nullify the voters’ will and strike down Proposition 8. You then read an article in the Daily Bruin by a student who proceeds to call you the B-word and the C-word because you agree with the decision. Would that student be justified? Definitely not. And you know what? I think Miss California would also defend you. So far she has acted far more elegantly and respectfully than many. Jagerman, show the respect you are asking for.
John Boles is an incoming first-year student and Inigo Gallo is a first-year doctoral student at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.