Pharmacy school vs. LGBT center:
Which should our taxes fund?

The editorial pages for the past several weeks have been like Chinese water torture — a slow, incessant trickle of rants and name-calling. It seems some would rather see the government officially sanction the political agenda of the gay rights groups than listen to reasonable debate from those subscribing to different convictions.

When news broke that the University of the Cumberlands had asked a student to leave for violating its sexual conduct policy, newspapers were quick to pounce on the issue.

Initially, there were letters to the editor printed in the papers from supporters of the university’s position. That door of journalistic open access quickly slammed shut and editorials refocused sights on politically correct, conservative bashing.

Senate President David Williams was called a bigot and portrayed as a redneck that hates gays. Newspapers would never allow such name-calling to be directed at homosexuals, yet they practice it routinely when it comes to anyone who opposes their far-left viewpoint.

Critics of the University of the Cumberlands claim that taxpayer dollars should not go to fund a new pharmacy school building on the campus of the Baptist college. These opponents claim that even though the money is for a pharmacy building, the university discriminates against homosexuals and should not receive public funds.

Their position amounts to saying that public universities that promote homosexuality are the only institutions that should receive public funds. This being the case, they should love what’s going on at the University of Louisville.

Editorial writers cried foul when 11 million dollars went to the University of the Cumberlands to fund a pharmacy building. Meanwhile, nearly twenty times that much goes to the University of Louisville, receiving in this year’s budget a whopping 176.1 million in taxpayer dollars. And what does U of L do with an overabundance of tax dollars? It funds the Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Services (LGBT).

Kristi Lohmeier, director for the LGBT Center, proudly announced in the Center’s newsletter—and on the U of L web site—that her “position is funded through the Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity and Equal Opportunity” and that this is “the first and only position of its kind at a public or private university in Kentucky.”

Lohmeier goes on to proclaim that the “biggest project for which I was hired is the development and implementation of the Safe Zone Project.” According to the U of L website, the Safe Zone Project is meant to educate staff, faculty, administrators, and students to create Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender “allies.” These “allies,” who have completed the gay program and are judged worthy, are awarded a pink triangle reading,  “Safe-Zone.”  These “Safe-Zone” triangles are placed at desks, on office doors, in halls, or in other places where “allies” exist.

So does this mean that places without pink triangles are “unsafe” or dangerous?

This type of intimidation is a far cry from the “tolerance” they aim to purport. Are faculty, students, and staff that do not conform to the radical sexual agenda intimidated or harassed in other ways? Is an opposing viewpoint also financed by the university?

The taxpayer money appropriated for the University of the Cumberlands is intended for the uncontroversial and nonpolitical purpose of producing more pharmacists. Taxpayer money going to the University of Louisville’s Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Services is going for special interest sexual politics of the most explicit kind.

Newspaper editorialists may be outraged about the funding going to the University of the Cumberlands, but there should be little doubt about which public use of tax income will steam Kentucky’s taxpayers more.

            ###

David Edmunds is a policy analyst for The Family Foundation, a Kentucky nonprofit, educational organization that works in the public policy arena to protect families and the values that make families strong.