Now let's be honest. When it comes to the topic of homsexuality, the last thing the BGLSA wants is "serious scholarship." Two years ago, Peninsula devoted 56 pages to the topic, substantiating its arguments from The Journal of Homosexuality, the Psychological Record, and a myriad of academic texts. What did Harvard get from the BGLSA then? Eatins, protests, harassing phone calls, and a whole lot of whining that it was all too insensitive to ask the BGLSA to defend the lifestyle it so actively promotes.

Well, things haven't changed much. This time around Harvard got the protests, the eatin, and the accusations of bigotry. Granted, Mansfield didn't provide the cross-examiner with 56 pages of corroborating evidence, but he at least had arguments--arguments that once again have been dismissed as "invalid," "bigoted" and "deeply offensive," all without a shred of this "serious scholarship" we hear so much about from the BGLSA; arguments that once again have not been countered.

Of course, the staff overlooks this point, spending most of its time cheerleading about what a "model" for "contentious controversies," what a champion for free speech, what an inspiration the BGLSA has become. An understandable position, we suppose, only because the editorial spends the rest of its space parroting the above responses of the BGLSA, voicing its sentiments of vicarious "deep offense" in turn.

The staff's own epithets, however, can't make up for its lack of a solid moral argument. The Crimson staff is good at deciding when it's "deeply offended"--which is often; not so good at careful moral thought. Apparently, the only thing which the staff deems shameful is the assertion that anything shameful exists.

Perhaps the staff needs to be disabused of the notion that basic standards of morality can be lifted or imposed--even by the Crimson staff--through mere liberal fiat.