I am a straight, married veteran researching potential doctoral programs. Expense is a huge factor, and it seems the most affordable school is religious and openly homophobic. This place is roughly a quarter of the cost of the other schools that offer my program of choice because of its discounted tuition for military veterans and their spouses. I’m an atheist and do not have a problem attending the school because it’s religious, but I feel conflicted knowing that gay spouses are excluded from benefits offered by the college. I’m torn by my decision to pursue a degree at a college that doesn’t align with my moral ideals but aligns with my desire to take on as little debt as possible. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
You’re justly troubled by a religious university’s policy of denying spousal benefits when it comes to same-sex veteran marriages, even as it offers you an affordable path to a doctorate. But let’s be careful with our categories. The Catholic Church, for example, views all sex outside a traditional marriage (including masturbation) as morally disordered, to use its neo-Thomist terms. Yet the Holy See has also opposed unjust discrimination against people who are homosexual and called for them to be accepted with “respect, compassion and sensitivity.” There are evangelical universities, similarly, that forbid sex outside of heterosexual marriage but also affirm the dignity of everyone in their community, regardless of sexual orientation. You could argue that such positions are wrong, or incoherent, or unstable. But they’re not necessarily rooted in the active hatred or contempt that we condemn as homophobia.
Students and faculty members in such places invariably include people who privately disagree with institutional positions but value other aspects of the community or, yes, the practical benefits it offers. The quandary you face is more complicated, in any case, than the clash between self-interest and principle. It relates to how we position ourselves within flawed institutions — which, I’m afraid, means all institutions.
One question is whether joining this discounted doctoral program could allow you to meaningfully engage with people on campus about these issues. We tend to imagine change as the work of thunderbolt-throwing campaigners with unstained ideals, and that’s part of the picture. But change also happens in the context of messy, compromised social realities. It’s the moment when a snide remark, instead of sparking the intended merriment, earns a side glance and a wince. Or the earnest conversation that occurs between grad students at a reception, each holding a red Solo cup and opinions that they’re starting to question. These may seem like small, forgettable exchanges. But Jesus had a point when he noted that a tiny mustard seed can grow into a plant big enough to shelter birds in its branches.
A Bonus Question
A few years ago, my friend of many years self-published a work of fiction and asked me to buy a copy and review it on Amazon. Reading this book was absolute torture, but I could not bring myself to tell her. Because of our friendship, and the fact that I’m an emotional coward, I wrote a positive review of this horrible book, at some cost to my self-respect. Now she wants me to read and review her second attempt at literature. What to do? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
This is someone whose friendship you value and whose literary efforts you do not. Being mindful of her feelings isn’t just cowardice; it’s also caring. So find a way to combine a measure of candor with a measure of kindness. That might be some version of: “Personally, I struggled to connect with this story, so I’m not the right person to post a review — but I’m so impressed with your creativity and dedication.” Otherwise you could take inspiration from Muriel Spark’s novel “A Far Cry From Kensington.” It features a book editor who, asked to assess an awful manuscript that her boss has already committed to publish, responds simply, “I consider that it cannot be improved upon.”
Readers Respond
Last week’s question was from a reader who was conflicted about sending an anonymous note to a former partner’s new girlfriend. She wrote: “I was in an emotionally and physically abusive relationship for four years. … My ex started dating someone else shortly after we split, and though I do not know her, we travel in the same professional circles. … I am confident that my heart is in the right place. But I am also aware that to reach out, even anonymously, would be to insert myself into someone else’s life and to risk re-exposing myself. Do I have a moral obligation to share my experience with this stranger, or should I mind my own business?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “In this case, the act of sharing your experiences carries its own risks. You need to decide, in particular, whether your ex still poses a threat to you. But I do hope you can safely find a way to help this woman. … Your concern springs from an important truth: You are uniquely positioned to understand her situation, knowing the emotional terrain of his particular brand of abuse. The trouble is that an anonymous warning could feel creepy (“Who is this person surveilling my life?”) or condescending (“What gives this stranger the right to judge me?”). Think about whether, in your own case, an unsigned email from some mysterious address would have had the same effect as the conversations that liberated you. The power of shared experience lies not just in the information exchanged but in the human connection that lends it weight.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
The Ethicist’s response was spot-on. Every detail. I was in an abusive marriage, and only gradually, over many years, came to understand what was happening. A turning point for me was when my ex-husband’s first wife spoke to me. She used the word “abusive.” At first I thought that word was extreme, but I kept it right at hand. At one point there was no turning back. Leaving him was hard; I was anxious and afraid. But it worked out best for all of us. — Beatriz
⬥
I was my abusive husband’s third wife. His next partner and I shared a hairdresser. I asked the hairdresser to pass on a message to the new girlfriend that I hoped she’d “be smarter than three ex-wives were” and get out before she got in too deep. She dumped him. The human connection is indeed important. You almost always know the truth, but it’s good to know you’re not alone. — Joyce
⬥
Since the beginning of time, women have protected one another better than any of the existing formal laws, religious policies or common social practices. Tell her. But be prepared for a backlash — and you are the only person who would be able to determine how that may happen. — Vickie
⬥
The Ethicist’s advice would be fine if their mutual connections were personal, not professional. Bringing colleagues into the new girlfriend’s relationship is a misuse of those contacts. If the letter writer had mutual social contacts, only then should she develop her own connection with the girlfriend. — Skip
⬥
In a similar situation, I told a woman that if she ever needed to know why I and her current boyfriend really broke up, I’d be happy to tell her, and that she could find me through our alumni network. Four years later, I heard from her. He was still abusive, and much more violent. My letter to the court helped her keep her children in a custody case. We are still friends. — Deborah
The post A University Denies Benefits to Gay Spouses. Can I Attend to Save Money? appeared first on New York Times.
