Suppose one holds to traditional moral values and disagrees with some aspects of the gay-rights movement's political agenda. Is that person automatically considered prejudiced? If so, then can there ever be a meeting of the minds on gender identity issues?

The SpeakOut programs at Palomar this year include plays, films and forums that are, to put it mildly, sympathetic to the interests of people with alternative lifestyles. One play is a black comedy that ridicules parenthood.

Another play will be "an exploration of the fate of those judged different by Hitler and Nazi Germany." A mixed-media event examines the word "queer." A film, "Boys Don't Cry", will look at the problem of gender identity crisis. And a forum and "free-speech zone" will be opportunities for participants to speak their minds about gender identity topics.

Something was missing, however.

There was no mention of any events presenting the traditional moral perspective regarding gender identity.

The professor organizing SpeakOut, Michael Mufson, said he saw the forum as "a safe platform for diverse voices to speak openly about the issues that divide us." He said he expected heterosexuals and religious people to bring their perspectives to the forum.

Those expectations were not realized.

I attended the March 3 forum. As I took a seat in Howard Brubeck theater on the Palomar campus, I surveyed the audience. One hundred or more people came. Of those who expressed opinions, the vast majority were sympathetic to liberal views regarding gender identity (this was, after all, a college campus). I was of a very small minority ---- a member of the non-Palomar community who holds culturally conservative values regarding homosexuality (by culturally conservative values I do not mean hateful values; I mean values that acknowledge we are all God's children and that we should find ways to get along without compromising our moral principles).

Halfway through the discussion, Professor Mufson, perhaps sensing that no conservative voices were being advanced, asked the audience, "Are there any heterosexual homophobes out there who want to express an opinion?" Several times he asked for "homophobes" to join in.

I was struck speechless. "Homophobe" is a derogatory term. For the professor to use that term to intimidate conservatives ---- especially after a discussion about how gender-different people decry the use of the "f" word ---- was appalling.

I asked Mufson later why he addressed conservatives as blanket homophobes.

Who in the audience, I asked, would feel safe to respond when labeled so unfairly? Mufson said he was sorry that the term prevented me from speaking at the forum but said he was using it "tongue-in-cheek."

(Memo to conservatives: It's OK to use derogatory terms as long as you use them tongue-in-cheek.)

Something else at the forum struck me as remarkable. Several of Mufson's students attending the event were not exactly politically correct regarding homosexual issues and they said so. Yet they were quick to point out that they weren't being judgmental ---- just uncomfortable with parts of the stereotypical gay lifestyle. And so, by appealing to a sense that morality is subjective and a matter of preference, they were effectively marginalized.

Can a dialogue about gender identity issues between conservatives and liberals in North County ever get off the ground if conservatives are intimidated with derogatory labels, suspected of being prejudiced just for disagreeing, or marginalized because it is politically incorrect to express judgment?

I did not go to Palomar thinking that the forum would be an exercise in balance. I knew the deck would be stacked to some degree. And I know that if the forum had been held at a church, synagogue or mosque, and had been sponsored by a culturally conservative organization, the dialogue would have been markedly different. Still, I hoped there would be some effort to provide a "safe platform" for cultural conservatives to outline to liberals their reasons for holding their views ---- especially a platform that is supported in part by my tax dollars.

Palomar College, in its sponsorship of SpeakOut, constructed a facade to mask politically correct indoctrination. The college is advertising the events as community outreach: an opportunity for "diverse voices to speak openly about the issues that divide us."

That's false advertising. If Palomar truly wants to include voices from cultural conservatives ---- who are a majority in North County ---- it needs to take SpeakOut back to the drawing board.

Mark Thornhill is editorial cartoonist for the North County Times.

3/24/02