February 2018
The Demise of the University
The year 2017 was an interesting one if only for two anniversaries that it revealed, both relating to legislation passed fifty years beforehand. These are of course the Sexual Offences Act 1967, decriminalising many homosexual acts, and the Abortion Act of the same year.
Which piece of legislation was the most significant?
Well, for Catholics there can be no doubting that. The question of tolerance towards homosexuals can hardly be compared in terms of importance to the slaughter of children in the womb. In fact, far from the question of tolerance being the issue nowadays, as it was at the time of the passage of the Act, the homosexual lifestyle is currently lauded to such an extent that it is often characterised not merely as an alternative life style, but as a major positive contribution to social mores. If we add to this the legislation accepting the legality of same-sex marriage and the government proposals to give major recognition to the transgender agenda, society is coming to look well nigh unrecognizable from what it was even in the days of the supposed progressive Sixties. In fact, the sexual revolution of those times is beginning to look distinctly tame when compared with what is upon us now and likely to hit us in the near future.
As someone who has lived through these time periods I never cease to be amazed by the relative rapidity of these social changes. What is saddening also is the almost total lack of a high quality debate and discussion before the changes in question were put into force. In addition I was only recently a more direct observer of the poverty of argument that passes for debate on these matters. The facts surrounding this may be of some interest to Christian Order readers. It tells yet another story of how our traditions are being taken from us.
My alma mater is the University of Leeds, from which I have two degrees, at which I have taught in the past, and for which I have a considerable attachment. Well, this attachment was given something of a shock recently. The University decided to organize its own celebration of the previously referred to fiftieth anniversary of the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. It proceeded to fly the rainbow flag on the main Parkinson Building at the University and to light up both the Laidlaw Library and another major building there. Why was this done? Well, in the words of the University staff magazine, the University Reporter, “to support Leeds Pride [the annual gay pride celebration in the city] and LGBT 50.”
Now, I’m not in the habit of writing to Vice-Chancellors of Universities, but this seemed an appropriate response, if only to ask why on earth this action had been taken. I duly wrote to the person in question, Sir Alan Langlands. In my letter I stated that I was very disappointed at the University’s action. I stated the reasons behind my disappointment as follows:
Obviously a homosexual orientation is not itself wrong, but homosexual actions often involve acts of sodomy, which in addition to being against the moral principles of many attending your university, are also a grave danger to physical health. What an irony it is that the announcement of the university referred to above was printed adjacent to an item on “Healthy Week” in the university. This at a time when studies show that homosexual males are fourteen times more likely to contract syphilis than heterosexuals.
Dr. Alan Patterson, a person of much practical medical experience, expressed the reality of the situation in a letter to the Spectator: “To their eternal shame, doctors know about the dangers of such behaviour [anal intercourse], but lack the courage to raise this unpleasant subject, or risk the wrath of the politically correct brigade. They fail to speak out and unintentionally collude in the tragic worldwide spread of deadly organisms.”
By your blanket statement of support for Leeds Pride it seems clear that the university shares this attitude, celebrates such acts, and therefore encourages these great risks to health. Please would you inform me whether this is in fact the policy of the university? It will undoubtedly be assumed by the LGBT community that it is. I look forward to hearing from you before informing friends teaching at other universities.
In addition to the above, I’m afraid I couldn’t resist adding a postscript in the following terms:
Incidentally, I would add, along with the whole of Western tradition, that pride is in fact a sin (one of the seven deadly sins) and not a virtue to be celebrated. However, with university standards currently in free fall, I don’t expect that to be understood there.
The letter was duly sent off and I waited for a response. To be honest, I didn’t expect to receive one, such is the disdain with which the “oligarchs” usually treat the ordinary citizen. However, one week later a letter duly arrived. I mentally prepared myself for several paragraphs of devastating logical argument designed to pin me against the exegetical wall. How on earth would I cope? Well, I needn’t have worried. It had already occurred to me that the missive in question was not exactly a heavy burden when lifted up off the carpet on which it had fallen when pushed through the letter box. Here is Sir Alan’s response:
Thank you for your letter...in which you raised your disappointment at the University’s decision to harness campus buildings to support Leeds Pride and LGBT 50.
Equality of opportunity, fairness and inclusion are the foundation of our community at the University and also the wider City community of which we are an active and supportive member.
The steps we took to mark this important occasion were entirely consistent with this view and we felt it was important for us to show our support for an important milestone in the LGBT movement in this country. As such l believe the use of the campus in this way was entirely appropriate.
I’m afraid I have to say that Sir Alan’s letter was something of a disappointment. Here is someone who has occupied many major posts in his career, notably in the education field, apart from that at Leeds, those as Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dundee, and Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council. Surely a man who in his present post is said to be receiving a salary of £278,000 per annum, which is almost double that of the Prime Minister, could put together a letter that began at least to make some answer to one he received. Mind you, it must be remembered Sir Alan has also been involved at a high level in the health service, notably as General Manager of North West Thames Regional Health Authority, and as Chief Executive of the National Health Service Executive. In view of the generally accepted dismal showing of the health service in this country, perhaps little could have been expected of him in the present context. I’m inclined to agree with the verdict of a friend of mine who put it pretty succinctly, saying, “The response to your letter was obviously churned out by a computer. Is it surprising that he can't defend the indefensible? You see no why there is no debate at universities any more. It is impossible to talk to people who have abandoned rationality.”
Having been short changed to such an extent, I decided to write back to Sir Alan. This I did and the letter is set out below:
Thank you for your letter... I was astonished to see that you made no attempt to answer any of the points that I raised in my letter to you. I put to you a number of specific authorities, all of which have been completely ignored. This is a very strange way for the head of a university to respond. Of course, there have been many examples recently of attacks by university groups on free debate, and I assume that you have simply fallen into line on this. This is very sad and worrying.
How disappointing it is that you should support immorality and matters that pose a great threat to health when there are much more important matters than “Leeds Pride” to give witness to. In the same year that the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was passed, the Abortion Act came into force, resulting in the destruction of thousands of innocents. Why on earth does the university not take action in the case of this tragedy? Both are fiftieth anniversaries and it is shameful that the university should laud perversion and yet ignore the courageous defence of innocent life..
In addition, many of your students, a much larger number than are homosexuals, are Christians from countries where their families are being persecuted and as a result tortured and murdered. Why not light up the university buildings in order to light up this situation? This would be much more genuine evidence of the “equality of opportunity, fairness and inclusion” that you boast about in your letter.
I’m not exactly holding my breath in anticipation of a reply. I must confess, in fact, that one of the reasons behind my writing again to him was in order to cause a little bit of annoyance to him. People like this peddle their miserable agenda without generally being opposed in any way. This probably explains the reasons for my adding another postscript. It sums everything up really:
Sadly your attitude is yet one more example of why the universities are in free fall. How far away you are from Newman’s Idea of a University, with its depth of expression and high moral virtue.
The writer is the author of Roads to Rome; A Guide to Notable Converts from Britain and Ireland from the Reformation to the Present Day (2010, St. Augustine’s Press); and The Mississippi Flows Into the Tiber: A Guide to Notable American Converts to the Catholic Church (2014, Fidelity Press, available at www.fidelitypress.org and on Amazon.)