YOUR VIEWS
Professor mistreated
University of Oklahoma law professor Brian McCall recently resigned his administrative position over vocal opposition to his religious beliefs, which are formed by his fidelity to the Catholic faith. The school’s dean said an independent review uncovered no evidence of harassment or discrimination on the part of McCall during his 12 years at the law school, but he implied McCall’s beliefs are a threat to the school’s ability to provide a safe and inclusive environment. What a joke!
The real question is whether McCall has suffered a hostile or offensive work environment because of his religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once declared, “Universities are in favor of diversity in everything except ideas.” Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also believes it’s a terrible mistake on the part of university administrations to bow to pressure and shield students from ideas: “The whole purpose of college is to learn how to deal with difficult situations — not run away from them. It creates the false impression that we can insulate ourselves from those who hold different views. We can’t — and we shouldn’t try, not in politics, or in the workplace.” McCall’s resignation in the face of harassment by a vocal intolerant mob showed loyalty to the school and love for his students. The dean should have led by rejecting the resignation.
Thomas R. Baker II, Oklahoma City
No room for people like McCall
Regarding “Intolerance wins again on campus” (Our Views, Oct. 8): Brian McCall was shown tremendous tolerance by the University of Oklahoma and his speech was absolutely protected as evidenced by the fact he remains employed as a professor. The Oklahoman failed to include the most outrageous remarks from McCall’s 2014 book, “To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age.” I am a graduate of OU’s paralegal program and would have chosen a different place to study had I known the individual running the program held the following opinions:
“Out of charity towards men” and to show “modest restraint,” I should not wear pants and doing so is a sin. I should not participate in any activity that I “cannot do modestly and gracefully in a skirt.” I should not be permitted to vote (though I can share my opinions with my husband for his consideration). I should not work outside the home and doing so is “another false promise of the devil come to pass,” and has lowered the price of labor, thus, hurting families financially.
Students pursue educations to move forward — not go back 100 years. The university should not have this individual serving in any capacity that represents the school. To do so would reflect poorly upon the university and our state.
Angie Beery, Edmond
What’s the gripe?
Regarding Thomas Baines’ letter about military health benefits (Your Views, Oct. 7): In prior years, we could purchase dental insurance through the Defense Health Agency. Some vision benefits were covered by Tricare and those benefits are not changing. For 2019, we are being offered dental and vision plans through the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). The FEDVIP offers very good rates thanks to the 3.3 million people already in the program; adding the military retirees may even lower those rates. In our ZIP codes, we’ll have the choice among 11 dental plans and eight vision plans. The benefit of more choices and the addition of a vision plan to help pay for eyeglasses is better for me. When we get notifications of changes to our benefits, it sometimes helps to eat some cheese with our “whine”; it may help the news go down!
Greg Hall, USAF (ret.), Oklahoma City
Against SQ 800
State Question 800, also known as the “Vision Fund,” is one of the questions we will be voting on Nov. 6. It would create a fund for the investment of 5 percent of oil and gas development tax revenue and for a yearly transfer of 4 percent of the capital into the state’s general fund. I urge voters to vote no. We already have two reserve funds. We don’t need another that has very loose terms on how the funds will be used. Creating yet another fund is not only redundant, but hurtful to our state in the present.
If Oklahoma legislators want to set our state up to have a solid future, they need to invest more money from the existing reserve funds into our infrastructure and public education. A state can appear as beautiful as paradise to visitors, but without being built on a solid foundation, it will eventually crumble and we will be left in a dire situation without solutions.
Callie Barton, Tecumseh