By SAMUEL VERZINO

STAFF WRITER

In today’s progressive era, it comes as no surprise when outside forces seek to deter novel concepts from coming to fruition. Too often, the hammer of stagnancy comes down on those topics that are most taboo. This is only natural, yet it becomes worrisome when it starts to feel as if each push for change remains as futile as the last. One of these consistently “taboo” categories of conversation is sex.

One would think that in 2013, the ability to have an intelligent, informative conversation about that which proliferates our entire existence would not be so difficult. So then, why is a renowned higher education center squandering a great opportunity for knowledge?

The University of Tennessee recently decided that its students were not mature enough to have intelligent discussions regarding sex. Projecting at its finest if I have ever seen it. After it was announced by the college that an educational “Sex Week” would receive state funding, religious and political conservatives alike were outraged. The student-founded program would use $6,500 in student fees, $11,145 in state tax funding and additional contributions from academic departments.

After receiving protest from State Sen. Stacy Campfield and the ultra-conservative Family Action Council of Tennessee, the president of the university announced that the event would not receive the anticipated state funding. This obviously came as a huge blow to the event. Sen. Campfield stated that the students “can do whatever they want when they’re not asking for tax dollars. As long as they are a public entity, we do have a say in what goes on on campus.” The event was ultimately cancelled.

Fortunately, the students in favor of the program banded together and were able to appeal to the public and raise all the money they lost within less than two days. One cannot, howver, dismiss the intolerance. Campfield’s decision, while not explicitly tied to religious beliefs, was certainly influenced by the religious conservative backlash that the event received. Additionally, Campfield made no cover-up excuse about “tough economic times” to justify the repeal of the funding. Why else would the topic of sex education receive such a speedy shutdown from the legislature other than the representative’s entrenched religious beliefs?

While Sen. Campfield’s argument is valid, the ulterior motives are enough to make you gag. As a state center of education, the University of Tennessee relies on tax dollars to provide services and education in all forms to their students. It is ill-informed to make the assumption that many of the school’s requests for funds do not even receive so much as a second questioning.

This is the Bible Belt, however, and the concept of explicit sexual conversation is too much for the religious conservative headquarters to stomach. At the risk of sounding far too much like a textbook liberal, it continues to befuddle me that, in a modern age of science, American citizens are still so fearful and shameful of their own sexuality. This does not make these people evil or wrong, but it is distressing how rooted in their paradigms they truly are. The need to suppress an opportunity to increase the current generation’s happiness and safety ois the only thing that many of us see in this situation.

In defense not of the conservatives themselves, but of humanity as a whole, it must be said that their mentalities can be explained. Put simply, religious conservatives have been brought up their entire lives to oppose sexuality outside the private sphere. It is saddening that the notion of sex as a devious topic has been their indoctrination since youth, yet it is maddening that they cannot see outside of the box they have been placed in.

I graduated with a student who now attends the University of Tennessee and was able to contact him for comment, though he desires to remain anonymous.

“Being from the Northeast, I am a minority around here,” he said. “It is strange to see how rooted in their beliefs the residents here are. While I believe in the value of Sex Week, I also recognize that we aren’t going to change these peoples’ minds on this topic.”

One reason for the outrage could definitely be due to the titles of several of the events planned. Risqué titles included “Bow Chicka Bow Woah” and a discussion called “How Many Licks Does It Take…”. While these are certainly good-natured and meant to spark interest in the talks that would ultimately be informative, the titles merely added fuel to the angry fire already burning within opponents of the event.

John Alsam, FCRH ’15, believes that though students are certainly “mature enough to engage in these types of discussions,” the state government has “every right to refuse funding.”

While I believe this to be correct, it does not go deep enough. We will never see progress if we continue to stop our arguments when we have reached the extent of the law. The law is meant to protect rights, not stagnate evolution. There are times when respecting everyone’s beliefs has no value. I do not respect the close-minded opinions of these religious conservatives because it does no good. It harms students by keeping them ignorant of sexual topics. I do, however, understand why they feel opposition to Sex Week.

Yet, if we quietly resign ourselves to consistent acceptance of these issues, we will do nothing to break the rampant cycle of ignorance and indoctrination that these religious conservatives have trapped themselves in. This will only further spread hate and misunderstanding — two entities that only discourage progression in society

Samuel Verzino, FCRH ’14, is a biology major from Waterbury, Conn.