Alison Heely reports that a campus-wide phone announcement about the first GALA meeting of the fall semester provoked a barrage of defamatory comments about the gay community at Ursinus College. Heely points out that GALA is not exlusively for gay students and calls for the campus community to promote open-mindedness, kindness, and inclusivity. 

In this opinion article, Dr. Nagy writes that "homosexuality is not a good alternative" to heterosexual relationships. Although he states that he opposes the disparagement of the queer community, he condemns LGBTQ+ sexualities as "emotionally" and "physically" harmful, and argues that GALA excludes and intimidates the Ursinus community. 

Anne Marie-McMahon and Chris Bowers refute Dr. Nagy's claim that same-sex relationships are "not an alternative" to heterosexual couplings. They challenge his claim that sexual orientation is a choice and speak out against homophobia. 

A satirical opinion article points out the hypocrisy of homophobia and critiques defamation against the LGBTQ+ community.

Keith Brand writes that homophobia is fueled by ignorance.

Dr. Nagy responds to the criticisms of his first article.

Debate Begins: Autumn, 1995

      In her article “Close-mindedness is the Real Problem,” Alison Heely recounts that in October, 1995, a a campus-wide phone call announcing the semester's first GALA meeting provoked defamatory comments from members of the Ursinus community. As she writes that misconceptions about the mission and goals of GALA incites fear, her argument brings to light the damage of devaluing the work of the LGBTQ+ community [1]. Heely argues that misconceptions not only defame the identities of the queer community, but are damaging to the campus community, as students segregate themselves from diverse perspectives.

       As we analyze the newspaper articles from the fall of 1995, a particularly helpful term emerges from scholar Joseph H. Neisen’s 1990 article “Heterosexism: Redefining Homophobia for the 1990s.” Neisen argues that while homophobia manifests as hate speech and overt condemnationof the LGBTQ+ community, heterosexist beliefs and behaviors also operate more insidiously. Nielson defines heterosexism as the construction of heterosexual lifestyles as normative by the "major institutions" of society, as well as the passive allowance for continued discrimination [2]. Niesen argues that “Heterosexism manifests itself…. in forms of exclusion or lack of acknowledgment of gay'lesbian/bisexual lifestyles" [3].  The conflicts in The Grizzly in the fall of 1995 echo Niesen’s argument. On one hand, they discuss direct attacks against GALA and the LGBTQ+ community on the Ursinus College campus. Moreover, the tone and content of many of the opinions expressed devalues the contributions of the LGBTQ+ community to the campus, and often through insidious assertions of moral and religious superiority.     

       As debate percolates in The Grizzly, an opinion article written by Dr. Doug Nagy, a professor at Ursinus, exacerbates the conflicts. In his article “Homosexuality: Not a Good Alternative,” Nagy condemns GALA by writing that it “excludes” and “intimidates” other students [4]. Nagy presents heterosexual relationships as the societal “norm” and argues that relationships not fitting into this mold are harmful [5]. While the article thus devalues the presence of GALA and the LGBTQ+ community, it also justifies its claims through an alleged moral and religious authority. It is ultimately Dr. Nagy’s article that becomes the center for debate in The Grizzly. While several articles support Dr. Nagy’s argument, many student authors flood The Grizzly with articles that advocate for GALA and critique Dr. Nagy’s point of view.

Debates on Religion and Sexuality

As the debates about GALA continued in The Grizzly, several of the articles diverged into discussions of the position of religion and morality on sexuality. The articles in this section show condemnation and support of the LGBTQ+ community through alleged biblical evidence.