The Student Activities Commission’s decision to provide university funding for Monday’s Bro-Choice 2: A Panel on Male Activism in the Pro-Choice Movement triggered alarm for many who believe the event conflicted with the university’s Jesuit identity. The university administration, however, rightly showed restraint in deciding not to intercept the funding. In supporting the panel, both SAC and the university reaffirmed their commitment to freedom of expression.

Although panelists’ position in favor of abortion rights contradicts Catholic teaching, allowing them to speak on campus certainly did not. Rather, the panel promoted open dialogue about a controversial reproductive issue. An objection raised by the Plan A: Hoyas for Reproductive Justice coalition is that the university stifles discussion about sexual health topics. That claim has been repeatedly disproved by the university’s support of sexual education events. Last month, for example, SAC provided funding for the second annual Sex Positive Week. The university’s silent endorsement of SAC’s decision to fund the Bro-Choice panel is the most recent instance of university-sponsored sexual education.

While most of Plan A’s original criticisms of the university – including the statement that the administration hinders sexual education – are unfounded, the Bro-Choice panel is a positive step for the coalition. A close reading of the event’s description reveals that, contrary to what some believe, the panel was not focused on abortion. Instead, it was a forum on the role of men in the pro-choice movement. This distinction is a key. Both are worthy topics, but they should not be confused.

The misinterpretation of the panel’s objectives underscores a larger misreading of Plan A’s overall mission. Many students have characterized the coalition as a group that emphasizes abortion rights. Nowhere in its Feb. 5 letter to University President John J. DeGioia, however, did the coalition call for abortion services to be available on campus or at Georgetown University Medical Center. Although many of the Plan A demands are unrealistic, mischaracterizing the group’s goals will only increase confusion about its role on campus.

Furthermore – while last week’s leprechaun-themed protest was not the best way to convey Plan A’s message – the Bro-Choice panel is a valuable contribution by Plan A to campus life. Any event that encourages men to learn about and increase involvement in discussions about reproductive issues is worthwhile. Male input is too often suppressed, or entirely absent from, the abortion debate. There are currently no laws in the United States that require women to inform their partners of planned abortions, but that does not mean that men should not participate at all in discussions about abortion rights.

Yet abortion is often seen as a women’s issue, and arguments for abortion rights often center on a woman’s right to choose. The reality is, it takes two to tango, and men should not be excluded from the dance. In that respect, the Bro-Choice panel set an example that could be followed either by groups like Georgetown University Right to Life or, more ideally, by a joint effort of GU Right to Life and H*yas for Choice, which forms part of the Plan A coalition. At the very least, the benefit of bringing men into the abortion debate is something on which both anti-abortion and abortion rights advocates can agree.

*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”