Megan Little's Instructor Page

Denise Rohrer

This person does a great job addressing the issues at hand. First, I like the introduction that provides the background of the topic. It helps ease the reader in and explains why you are writing this paper. Good job, but you might want to make your position clear hear, too. I didn't really know where you were wanting to take it until later on. The second paragraph comes together nicely. I really liked the end when you gave the example of giving scholarships to the LBGT community. Something like this could satify both parties, and I could hear your voice shine though their arguments. The next paragraph has equal meritt because you again explain your perspective clearly. You give another comparative example about tuition paying for other groups; which this helps the reader understand the Gender and Sexuality Center has a place here on campus just as much as the others. I especially like the phrase, "as long as the fee is equal". The last paragraph kind of caught me off guard. You make some great points; however, the overall gist of the passage seems counterintuitive to the previous paragraphs and the conclusion. On the other hand, this critique of the LBGT community might just give your paper the credibility you were looking for though carefull consideration of the both sides of the story. I get where this is going, but I think if it were rewritten to still uphold your personal philosophies the entire paper would be cohesive. Finally, the conclusion is nice. It summerizes your feelings on the matter. It is clear, but maybe you could bring this point in earlier in the paper. Then, use the conclusion as a reminder. Overall, the paper is great. It has potential! Good Job.

In the article “Before You $end Your Tax Dollar$ Much Less Your Child! To UT…” Will Lutz, the author, presents his case making a mockery of the Gender and Sexuality Center at UT. He states that money was “wasted” on this unnecessary support center. What Lutz fails to present, though, is that a support center like this may be the only place a person who identifies himself as LGBT can turn to. Also, this center is not closed to straight people in the least sense as it encourages students to become aware of safer sex practices and health issues through seminars the center hosts.

The first point brought up by Lutz is that the tuition has been raised to fund this center, making UT less affordable for middle class families, but he fails to provide actual data that backs up his case. There is not one place in the article that actually states how much tuition was raised or that a tuition raise was induced because of the Gender and Sexuality center. His reason for leaving an specific amount out could be because it is not much. Although he claims this money could be used to fund more scholarships for “middle class” students, he takes no initiative to explain a dollar amount that could actually be supplied from the tuition money taken to support the Gender and Sexuality center. Instead, a portion of the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the center’s homepage were inserted to “rile” up readers. Since the targeted audience is middle class parents, most likely conservatives, the FAQs should seem very out of the ordinary and something as open as these questions would be taken as offensive to be printed in an article. But this should not rile anyone up, it should let you know that the LGBT community on campus needs a place to turn to when everyone else turns away or dismisses their lifestyle, just as this article has.

The idea that an equal amount of money should be spent to create center that promotes traditional family values, was also brought up in this article. It can be assumed that Lutz presented this idea to make a balance between the two lifestyles and their support on campus, but the LGBT community receives far more discrimination than those not associated with it. There already is support and counseling open to straight couples and singles on campus and the advertisements for it are presented everywhere, even on UT shuttles.

Middle class families are the main audience of this article, but are not LGBT a part of all social classes? Only the ideas of Lutz stand in this article, who claims to be an advocate of the middle class, but there are no opinions of middle class students or parents who feel this center was a “waste” of funds. This article should include opinions of those who actually agree with Lutz to make his argument stronger. He would be a bit more credible and not so easy to shut down, which is what is going on since his opinions are the only ones that are being voiced here.

Whether or not one supports the LGBT community, he should be a supporter of humanity and recognize the need for social support systems anyone can turn to when they are in need of it.

It is my belief that every student at the University of Texas, and everywhere beyond, should have basic human rights. Every human being, under the law, should be protected and there should be no exclusion for those who simply do not identify with one gender. The problem is that “equal rights” is not as simple as it may seem. In an attempt to insure equal rights there are questions that must be answered: Who should be in charge of funding transgender protection in universities? We must also realize that transgenders are not the only people who face discrimination, therefore how can we insure the protection of all students at UT. How do we create a balance and insure that by protecting transgender rights we are not violating the rights of another group? To find balance in the human rights arena we much examine not only the rights of transgenders but also the rights of others on campus, ensuring that everyone receives a piece of the pie.
The first challenge I plan to tackle is the issue of money. Will Lutz points out that in recent years UT has “hiked tuition, making UT less affordable for middle class families.” His main argument stems around his idea that UT should be spending its money on other things, rather than the Gender and Sexuality Center—specifically that there is a better use for the money. His particular problem with UT funding this center is the fact that that money is not only coming from students, who may or may not agree with the center, but also taxpayers. Since the University of Texas is a public institution I will agree with his argument with a few exceptions. I will be careful discussing this subject and not use the words “better use for the money” like Will Lutz. By using these words it is my understanding that the cause is not worth while and deserves no money—I do not share these feelings. I believe that money is an issue in this debate and I am not convinced that public funds should be use to this end. Lutz does make a point that money going to the center could be used for scholarships for middle class students or reducing tuition. With tuition rising every year this is a valid argument. While students from higher income families are less likely to need financial aid and lower income students are more likely to receive scholarships, it is the middle class that will feel the effects.
While Will Lutz would agree that transgenders should be cut of from university spending I am quick to disagree. Although I will argue that there are others that need public university money, I do believe that transgenders can receive help/aid from the university in other ways. Transgenders are very susceptible to violence and discrimination—something that no university student should have to endure. But there are other ways that transgender students can receive help. University counseling is open to all UT students and could serve as a safe-haven for those who are feeling attacked.
When dealing with the issues of transgender rights we must also realize that equal rights must extend to everyone. The insurance of equal rights for all becomes difficult when the rights of some interfere with the rights of others. By integrating one group of people, you may have isolated another. Lutz points out that “…while UT Dean of Students opened the Gender and Sexuality Center, which promotes homosexuality and transsexuality” it does not fund “a center which promotes traditional family values or alternative to abortion.” Without a center that supports the opposite ideal, we have broken balance. Although LGBT’s (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual and Transgenders) may deal with a greater deal of opposition and discrimination, we cannot assume that heterosexuals do not also deal with some of the same issues. Why should UT not fund a center that “promotes traditional family values or alternatives to abortion” when they fund a Gender Sexuality Center? By creating a center dealing with issues surrounding pregnancy, the university can educate students on safe sex and alternatives to abortion. Pregnancy has become a prevalent issue in college woman and creating a center focused on the issue would not only have information but could offer support to woman in this situation—much like the Gender Sexuality Center. Therefore, UT would not simply be creating a center because they are trying to fill “the balance ratio,” but also because it would be beneficial to college students.

Disagreeing With Lutz
Submitted by ryannshea on Mon, 2008-03-17 15:02.
I read an article by Will Lutz’s, entitled “Before You Send Your Tax Dollars”, which was about how our University is giving money to this new Gender and Sexuality center on campus. Through Lutz’s article he shows information about the G&S’s website and informs the reader about how the University is charging more tuition so that they can help fund programs like the G&S. I agree with Lutz that there are some problems with prices of tuition and that the middle class families seem to be getting the brunt of increased tuition costs but I believe the Gender and Sexuality center deserves to receive funding from the University. We give thousands of dollars to sports every year, I think the school could afford to through a little of it’s 50,000 students tuition towards a center that can help students become more aware of sexuality in a world that is full of sexual myths and lies. Lutz throws this tuition argument into his first paragraph to reel in students and parents who feel their tuition money is not fare and not being spent appropriately. At the same time, Lutz provides no tangible evidence of exactly how much tuition has gone up or how much the school is giving to the G&S center. I know tuition seems pricey and there are a lot of problems with college expenses being too high but when comparing the price of the University of Texas to out of state schools, it is a fairly reasonable amount. Some public out of state schools cost 30,000 a year and UT (for out of state) only costs around 12,000, which is a very big difference.
Lutz also tries to make the audience think that the center is geared solely towards homosexuals, especially because he only includes questions from the website that are aimed at homosexual and transgender people. When taking a closer look at some of the titles of their upcoming seminars, it is clear that this center wants to help everyone. They don’t care if someone is straight, gay, or not sure, they want to be a center that students can come to learn real relationship assisting information about dating, sensitivity, and safer sex. We all know there are many confused young students, who don’t discuss most things with their parents. Students who have only learned information from friends, tv and magazines, shouldn’t all students have a place where they can ask the awkward questions and receive real answers from responsible adults?

After reading Will Lutz's argument for the opposition of the Gender and Sexuality Center at the University of Texas I am honestly torn by the situation. The majority of people in Texas, being a conservative state, would generally agree with Lutz in the opposition of the center but Lutz's article doesn't provide much evidence in his reasoning for opposing the center. His "evidence" actually looks a bit obscure for instance, Lutz begins speaking about how the university is making the financial costs to middle class families less affordable and then he goes on to discuss UT's educational series "Living with Pride" and how it was funded privately because many students and the Capitol were against it. Lutz also provides a link and a few excerpts at the center's Frequently Asked Questions. It seems Will Lutz's position on this matter is undeniable but his form of direction is not convincing enough to help persuade outsiders to side with him.

The University of Texas at Austin is located in the most liberal and openly gay city in Texas. However, many taxpayers, students, and parents who are associated with UT have conservative ideals making for an interesting predicament over the student fees funding the controversial Gender and Sexuality Center located on campus. Editor of the Lone Star Report, Will Lutz, speaks out against the funding of the center, and more importantly, for the values and lifestyle the center represents in his article, “Before you send your tax dollars much less your child to UT Austin.” He uses examples and excerpts from the center’s Web site in order to mock and perhaps ridicule the mere idea of having a center as a resource for students. Lutz directs his claim to the middle class parents of students who are potentially paying for the center’s use, whether their child does so or not, and then uses the university’s overspending, and high tuition as the ground work for a fairly weak argument.

Lutz shows no couth displaying his opinion regarding the center or the LBGT community, and his argument gets lost in the clutter of his cynicism and lack of hard evidence. Because he is most likely speaking to a conservative audience, he leaves out examples on the contrary to his argument. Lutz attacks UT for not “funding a center which promotes traditional family values or alternatives to abortion” but leaves out actual evidence that would essentially prove his claim that UT would never support a conservative center. I believe that strong arguments can refute the opposition’s claim, and Lutz shows no attempt at truly addressing the opposing side. He only assumes that the audience supports him and believes his notions.

Furthermore, Lutz’s attempt at citing reasonable evidence is noted when listing seminars that are held at the center; however, his writing becomes almost cynical when he names the discussion groups offered at the center without a real background or context to explain them. He insinuates that the seminars are for a homosexual audience, but titles like “Chocolates, Roses and You: A Romantic Look at Safer Sex” and “The Love Boat: the Dos and Don’ts of Dating” are not sexual orientation specific. In fact, the names of the seminars actually imply that the center is doing a positive thing for the student community by promoting safe sex practices. Also, he blatantly mocks the “Gender Neutral Bathroom Locations” by having to add, “I’m not making this up.” Not only does his lack of professionalism shine through his statement, anyone who takes this evidence seriously is being blind-sides by the obvious use of puffery.

In addition, the bulk of Lutz’s argument is basic factual explanations of the LGBT lifestyle and situation taken straight from the Web site from the Gender and Sexuality Center. The FAQs are unsubstantiated by Lutz, and his lack of commentary on each passage makes it seem as though he has nothing to say. By simply leaving the passages to speak for themselves, he relies on his audience’s previous knowledge or beliefs on the subject to agree with his claim. Because of the jaded population today, descriptions of gay and lesbian lifestyles are normal, and to take his argument further and make it more believable, Lutz must interject more evidence/opinion to push his audience in believing how silly the center (or maybe gay life in general) really is. If Lutz had added more research and commentary to support his examples, there could be potential for a strong, organized argument. Because of his tone, though, even his supporters should disregard this article.

Lutz relies solely on appealing to those of a similar viewpoint, and leaves out the substance of a true argument. His writing is conversational and sarcastic, and really does not provide facts regarding his claim. In order to truly prove an argument worthy, a writer must not only persuade those of a similar viewpoint, but attempt to persuade those opposing his beliefs. He does neither of these effectively, and his argument gets lost in the clutter of other gay-bashing articles.

Denise Rohrer

Lutz vs. the Gender and Sexuality Center: Brooks uses a subtle technique to address the issue

Karen Brooks reported a story for the Dallas Morning News on the controversy surrounding the Center for Gay and Lesbians at the University of Texas. Even though Brooks does not specifically say it, I could feel the sense she supports the association due to her careful, yet discrete, way of addressing the issue. Brook’s article contains credibility. First, she introduces the topic with an unbiased perspective. Brook’s quotes Lutz’s and identifies some of his supporters; while, she also tells about those who agree with the center, its funding and its main objectives. Thus, Brooks demonstrates her story in a non-threatening and informative way.
To begin, she gives specific information that supports Lutz’s case, when he didn’t even provide it in his own argument. This shows Brooks looks at both sides of the spectrum before making conclusions, and her article emphasizes an educated rather that personal perspective. She uses the fact that students pay $80,000 for the center’s funding to show why many disagree with its financial public support. While, Lutz simply states the center takes away from formal education. He should have used facts like this one to give his case more credential. Brooks uses this information to form a trustworthy article that will attract several different audiences. Furthermore, Brooks addresses the University’s Board of Regents grassroots campaign against funding the center with student tuition. She states that ultimately these people control the schools budget. As I glanced over the picture of these elected officials on the University’s website, I noticed all of them look over sixty years old. So, how does the Board of Regents know where students want their money to go? Brooks demonstrates scholars and politicians who advocate that students should have the power to control whether or not their tuition sponsors the Center. Since “the student-fee budget is drawn up by the students themselves”, this should constitute as the deciding factor on what money is spent on. Also, she compares other school’s who have established similar institutions and ways of funding them. Over 100 schools proportion a part of their budget to untraditional organizations such as the Gender and Sexuality Center. This shows the increasingly common need for places used to educate students on this modern diversity. Brook quotes a democratic Representative from Houston who says, "People go to the university to broaden their horizons and learn about the world, and the university is not a place for censorship”. Basically, as new ideas are created in society, schools have a responsibility to inform their students of these developments. So, the University of Texas is simply adjusting to cultural change; which seems more appropriate than denying students who are affected by it.
Consistently rising tuition costs seem to stir the biggest issue revolving around the Center. Would money spent on the Center be more effectively used on students if it went to other educational programs? Brooks quotes politicians who believe money should go strictly to academic curriculum. One of these is a republican from my hometown of Tomball, Texas. Knowing about this small town and its citizens, I have to wonder if he would also want to detour funding from the athletics programs, since it is not an ‘academic’ organization. I highly doubt he would cut funding to the football team here at the University. We must consider everyone at the school. Brooks brings about this concept surrounding the student body that all members of the school should feel accepted, not just the majority. Again, the article uses quotes from students and higher authorities to assist the notion. Even though many people have personal beliefs which contradict the Center’s philosophies, they still think it is a useful tool to gain acceptance for all. Brooks leaves her audience with the open ended question, “How much should a university represent the beliefs of the larger society it's in?” Brooks does recognize the conservative perspective; however, mostly she presents information to demonstrate that majority ideologies should not impede on those who have contradictive beliefs. Yet, it is more important to embrace and educate those on such differences as sexual preference.
Overall, Brooks presents an informative glance into the different perspectives surrounding the Gender and Sexuality Center at the University of Texas. Her article appeals to any audience because it addresses the issue of whether the school’s budget should help fund the Center in a very honest and under-opinionated manner. This unbiased demeanor, accompanied with other’s opinions, gives her story a reliable tone. After reading it, I have gained enough information to step back and consider both sides of the issue. Yet, I also feel a bit of Brook’s sense on the topic; as she leaves us with a very strong statement made in support of the Center.

The Gender and Sexuality Center certainly has a place on campus as an expression of freedom of speech. While many LGBTW individuals at The University of Texas have reported feeling alienated and shunned by fellow students, few accounts of physical or verbal violence were documented. Intolerance and harassment of LGBTQ individuals has been a long-term social problem at UT, but more recently, participants have observed a progression towards a tolerant and heteronormative atmosphere on campus. The Gender and Sexuality Center is largely responsible for this improved treatment, and they hope to pave the road for more drastic changes in years to come.

In the article Did they raise the tuition for this? by Will Lutz, he complains about UT’s recent “spending spree” where they are “hiking tuition” and “making UT less affordable for middle class families.” This claim is ludicrous. Although in and of itself it may be persuasive, it omits a significant detail: How much money does the Gender and Sexuality Center request from each student? Answer: three dollars per year. With this information revealed, Lutz suffers a major loss of credibility. Later, Lutz proposes that UT should use the money given to the Gender and Sexuality Center for providing scholarships. In my opinion, this claim is more warranted. The total cost to run the Gender and Sexuality Center is eighty thousand dollars per year. This money could send many underprivileged children to the university of their dreams. In fact, considering the scholarships presently available to Latinos, African Americans, and Asians, a scholarship could even be created to meet the needs of exceptional LGBTQ individuals.

Lutz also argues that the university should not spend its money on the Gender and Sexuality Center because it does not concern the majority of the UT population. He bases his claim on the primary purpose of attending college: to acquire an education. The Gender and Sexuality Center is not academic. Therefore, the university should not be forced to fund sexuality of any sort, and the center should not exist at tuition costs. However, although students’ main collegiate aspirations are to learn and be successful, college is hardly a place of censorship. Students also hope to broaden their horizons and learn about the world. Ultimately every student deserves equal rights, fair treatment, and protection, and these conditions have not been met for every group in the UT community time and time again. If all students must pay their tuition dollars to the Multicultural Information Center and to Services for Students with Disabilities, it is also appropriate that every student financially support The Gender and Sexuality Center as long as the fee is equal.

The primary values of the center are practically unanimous and must remain true: people of every gender and sexual orientation deserve to live lives of comfort and safety. However, several of the goals of the Gender and Sexuality Center seem to overstep the boundaries of organizations constructed for college minority groups. First, the argument that same-sex couples should be able to live in married housing seems unnecessary. This decree would go against the state of Texas, which does not formally recognize same-sex marriages. It is not just for unmarried heterosexual couples to be denied the rights of unmarried homosexual couples. Secondly, in concern for safety, free HIV testing would be beneficial to same sex students. However, it was surprising that homosexuals took offense from this complimentary and potentially very advantageous procedure, as they were the primary beneficiaries. Finally, while LGBTQ students desire acceptance rather than isolation for their different orientations, they continue to make requests to separate themselves. The Queer Student Alliance has recommended measures such as designated floors for queer students and single dorm priorities for transgender students. With respect to every individual’s right to safety and comfort, these proposals deserve an adequate amount of thought and consideration. However, if it really were the wish of queers and transgenders to connect with the majority of the student body, these regulations would only grant them further isolation. It would consolidate their argument if the Queer Student Alliance prioritized their desires for individuality or respect.

The Student Government of the University of Texas is elected by students, for students. They were the group who initially voted in favor of using tuition to fund the Gender and Sexuality Center in 2005. Therefore, regardless of the morality issue, the decision for the university to support or not support the center should ultimately lie in the favor of the students. Thus, the regents should respect the wishes of the students, regardless of their beliefs about homosexual lifestyles.

At present, the issue of gay rights is central in many debates. Legislators cannot agree on a proper solution, nor can the general public reach a consensus. Another (less publicized) issue related to this is gender identity, and both these issues come to light in the debate over funding for the Gender and Sexuality Center at the University of Texas.

One opponent of the center, William Lutz, voiced his opinion in his article "Before you send your tax dollars, much less your child, to UT Austin." Lutz argues that the Gender and Sexuality Center (GSC) is an improper use of student fees and that its message and cause is in direct opposition to most Texans' belief systems. Lutz approaches his argument with perhaps not enough caution. The title of the article suggests that he believes the center to be a blight on the university campus and that parents should exercise caution in allowing their students to attend UT. His subsequent mockery gender neutral bathrooms is even less tasteful. His statement that he's "not making this up" could offend his target audience - parents of college-bound students. Even if the reader is not suffering from a gender identity crisis, chances are they are close to someone within the gay community, and are familiar with related issues. By mocking someone with a plight as difficult as someone who feels they must use a gender neutral bathroom, Lutz almost compels his audience to jump to the defense of those he has attacked. Lutz also believes that by calling attention to the fact that gay marriage has repeatedly been denied legality, his argument will be strengthened. While this does lend merit to his argument, a knowledgeable reader will quickly note that gay marriage legislation was overwhelmingly approved in Travis County, home of UT. Therefore, one could argue that the majority opinion in Travis County is actually in favor of the GSC. It would not hurt Lutz to exercise much more caution when approaching the issue. Instead of acknowledging that it is a helpful resource for LGBT students at the university, he has decided to focus solely on its supposed disalignment with Texas' values and his belief that student fees shouldn't be used for something in contradiction to those values.

While Lutz has potential for a strong argument regarding student fees and their use toward the GSC, he abandons any chance he has at being convincing when he lets his disapproval of the gay lifestyle and the clientele of the GSC seep into his article. Instead of expressing his views regarding what the GSC stands for, he would be better off to instead discuss whether or not the appropriation of student fees to the GSC is appropriate. The Gender and Sexuality Center is, in fact, an important resource to have on the UT campus, regardless of whether or not we agree with the lifestyles or choices of those who utilize it.

The issues surrounding gender and sexuality have become an increasing area of debate on the University of Texas campus. One of the many facets of this discussion is evidenced in William Lutz’s article “Before You $end Your Tax Dollar$...” His article is on the Gender and Sexuality Center at the University of Texas, a facility that he claims does not warrant the funding it is receiving. According to the center’s website its mission is “to provide safe spaces for all members of the UT Austin community to explore, organize, and promote learning around issues of gender and sexuality.” Lutz, the editor of the Lone Star Report and a fiscal conservative, feels that the rising tuition and lack of scholarships for the middle class are already large enough issues without the funding of the GSC. However, the construction of his argument does little to convince this reader.

The most salient factor that causes me to oppose the argument is Lutz’s tone throughout the article. By seeming sarcastic, to a point of mockery, he only makes himself seem close-minded and ill-informed. When discussing the gender neutral bathrooms he asserts “I’m not making this up.” In writing this, Lutz makes it clear that he is not educated in the realm of issues and needs of transgendered students. Before he degrades the homosexuality and transsexuality supported by the GSC he should at least take the time to understand it. It is not surprising that he would deem the center unneeded if he did not realize that there was a utility for such a space on campus by the LGBTQ community. Lutz subsequently includes several examples of frequently asked questions and their responses, as they can be found on the GSC website. The first of the “choice excerpts” selected reads, “Is it the parent's fault if their child is gay? It is never anyone's "fault" if they or their loved one grows up to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.” It quickly becomes evident to the reader, through the chosen questions, that Lutz feels the center is silly and unreasonable. He included these examples in the hopes of discrediting the Center. Ironically, he ends up doing a disservice to himself instead. Being LGBTQ is not a joke to the people of that lifestyle, and should not be to Lutz. Even if Lutz’s logic were flawless, his decision to be derisive toward the Center in his article damages the argument’s influence.

The GSC is an important place to those that utilize its services. One of the main missions of the University of Texas is to educate its students. The areas of gender and sexuality are only a few of the categories that are contained within that mission. Lutz should take the opportunity to educate himself in those areas too. Then, if he is still opposed to the GSC he will be able to provide a more formidable argument against the Center based on sound facts and not on personal dislike. As the article is currently written I cannot agree with his reasons for not supporting funding of the Center. I think that the funding for the GSC is in fact needed, and I think even Will Lutz could discover that reality.

In the University of Texas there are varieties of programs that are there to help many different types of students. The Gender and Sexuality Center is one of these and it helps and counsels homosexuals and transsexuals. Will Lutz’s concern is that tuition has increased because of centers like this one and that The University of Texas could use the money for scholarships to middle class students. I agree with Lutz that the university’s has increased its tuition because that is a fact but I think he could have said that the money should be used for scholarships. He did not have to narrow his audience to middle class students because then he would have left the topic open for ideas and opinions from the reader.
In Lutz article his target audience is the middle class parents. He alienates any other audience in most of his article. This makes his argument weak because to make a good argument he should be open minded to other ideas so that the audience feels that they could give their opinion. I also disagree that the reason that tuition has increased is only because of the Gender and Sexuality Center and that is how Lutz makes it seem. There are other programs that have been funded by student tuition as well and Lutz fail to mention that. He wants to convince middle class parents that the University of Texas should not spend money on centers like this one and that instead it should be providing scholarships for middle class students but what about other programs? Should they not be funded as well?
He posts an advertisement after his first paragraph that has two men hugging with the word gay in the background. Lutz uses this poster so that parents might think that if they do not do anything about tuition being spent on programs for homosexuals and transsexuals then their child might be encouraged to be like the guys on the picture. Also a parent who is against the situation could immediately think that the University has a large population of guys like the ones on the poster. When in reality campus does not have any students that walk around holding each other either because they are to busy walking to class or the students are afraid to be open about their sexuality for fear that they might be made fun of. The same situation happened many years ago when blacks where not able to be seen with whites, way before Martin Luther made his famous speech but all this changed and it was with the help of many individuals.
Tuition has increased over the years but not only for this program but for many others as well that are around campus and that help many other students. After all what a students’ tuition pays to sponsor this center is not over two dollars and if we have the ability to help make a difference in the life of others than why would we not want to do that?

I strongly disagree with Lutz’s approach to the argument. He presents it in a way that can be very offensive to the gay community. He makes it seem as if the center is ridiculous and that is not what I believe this issue is about. I think the issue is whether or not the Gender and Sexuality Center should exist or be funded privately. But to me, Lutz infers that he is against all bisexual, transgender, and gay people. Right now the center remains on campus and it is funded through the university. I believe that the Gender and Sexuality Center should remain on campus because it is a resource used for students, but I also think if one uses the center then you should be paying for it. There are many facilities on campus that each student pays for with their tuition but some of them are not used by all the students because we choose not to. In this case, the majority of the students do not use this center a resource because they do not need it, rather than choose not to use it.
In Lutz’s argument, his main claim is that the center should not warrant funding, but he turns this claim into a joke with his audience. He uses examples from the center’s website and uses language that mocks or makes fun of it. He makes fun of the seminars and gender-neutral bathroom locations, but what he does not realize is that some students need or enjoy these facilities. Not once did I read of Lutz speaking of funding for this center. He only pokes at the resources the Gender and Sexuality Center provides, rather than his original claim, the funding of this center. If Lutz took his argument more in depth and detailed about his claim he might be able to catch a reader’s attention rather than offend them or turn them away.

This subject is hard because there are different right and wrongs according to everyone. I may have one opinion about an argument and another might have a completely different opinion. I feel that Lutz goes about his argument in the wrong way and I am forced to disagree with him because his choice in the way he says things I feel is incorrect and not fair. America is a free country therefore people are able to choose what they want to do and when they want to do it. Or they are able to choose if they are straight, lesbian, gay or anything else. Therefore, I feel that no one has the right to judge another because of the choices that they make for themselves. One reason is that they may not agree completely with the decisions that you make as a person. Just because something isn't the "norm" doesn't give a person the right to say that what another person does is right or wrong as well. I feel that Lutz is not even taking a look at the other side and just making judgements that what a lesbian, gay, or anything else is just wrong. He appears to be very close minded and I feel this makes him less credible. There is nothing that says people are able to make decisions for other people. If a person feels comfortable being something that is different from what another has grown up to believe is wrong, there is nothing wrong with that and the person needs to know that yes it is different but it still can be ok. In my opinion, Lutz could have made his argument a lot stronger if he would have stated things differently rather than just bashing anyone that was different from the his norm.

William Lutz wrote this article with a harsh and close minded tone. In my opinion he has a valid argument to make about the topic however he takes a very insensitive and rash approach to making his argument. The way the article comes across is that Lutz is completely against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals all together. Which is where I can't bring myself to entirely agree with him. I don't see it as my business to interfere with someone else's personal decisions, especially when those decisions do not effect me. I don't think it's my place to judge a person's decision on right and wrong as long as the decisions don't harm others. If someone makes a decision within their human rights then they shouldn't have to answer to another person's judgement and they shouldn't have to change their life decisions to please someone else. What they do with their life is their own choice, which is one thing that Lutz does not seem to believe in about GLBT's which is why i don't entirely agree with him. Lutz makes good points however, and has a good solution to what he sees as an issue. The reason i agree with this solution is because it is really based on the point I just made that supports an individual's choice to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual. That point is that every individual should have the right to decide what to do with their life and what is right or wrong as long as it is within their human rights. So for the same reason that it is an individuals right to be GLBT, it is also an individuals right to choose if they want to support that belief and that decision. If someone doesn't agree with the need for the Gender sexuality center then they shouldn't have to give money to support it. We see this happening in our government all the time where people pay taxes for things they don't believe in. But in this case the majority of Texas does not support the gender sexuality center. So if the government is really making decisions for the people by the people then this would not be one of those decisions. If the center still needs to exist then that's fine, but there should be the option to pay extra for it or not.