The purpose of The Hoya editorial board, as I see it, is

to advocate for the improvement of Georgetown University. The board does not exist to crusade for social or political issues. It exists to provide informed opinions of issues on campus, and generally the board goes to great lengths to fulfill this responsibility. In today’s editorial

“Providing Funds to H*yas is the Right Choice” the board has neglected this duty.

The editorial suggests that SAC funding for H*yas for Choice is simply a matter of freedom of speech. This is a blatant distortion for political purposes. The editorial selectively presents its facts to strengthen its case with the knowledge that there is more at stake, and that this is not principally an issue of freedom of speech.

H*yas for Choice has in the past stated its primary activities as “condom distribution, clinic escorting, the hosting of speakers and the provision of complete sexual health information.” (H*yas for Choice, Hoyas for Student Health,” The Hoya, Oct. 11, 2002, p.2) This organization is not a political advocacy group – giving funding to this organization would not be a matter of free speech. The fact of the matter is that H*yas for Choice is probably not going to abandon its two core issues once it is given SAC funding.

It is debatable whether a Catholic university has the right to restrict condom distribution on campus. Many consider condom distribution an issue of freedom of speech. On the other hand, many students feel that, as a Catholic institution, Georgetown does not have to permit activities that run contrary to Catholic beliefs. This debate may be intriguing – it is not relevant to SAC funding. The question at hand is not whether condom distribution should be allowed, but whether or not Georgetown should pay for these condoms. Even more spurious is the suggestion that Georgetown, a Catholic university, has the responsibility to subsidize clinic escorting.

The Hoya editorial suggests that H*yas for Choice could simply abandon these parts of its mission statement and gain legitimacy from the university and maintain legitimacy in the eyes of its membership.

If the members of H*yas for Choice feel it is highly important to distribute condoms and provide clinic escorting, then they should not foreswear these goals to gain university funding. To suggest that H*yas for Choice should abandon its ideals to fill a gap in the scope political advocacy groups on this campus is absurd. On the other side, if the university feels that condom distribution and clinic escorting are unacceptable activities for a club with university funding it should not be intimidated by erroneous free speech rhetoric. To suggest that funding H*yas for choice is simply a matter of free speech, and faulting the university for not funding the organization, is irresponsible.

The Hoya editorial board has allowed the complicated social issue of abortion to cloud its generally sound judgment of university issues. Had this issue been looked at with an unbiased eye, the board would likely have concluded that as a Catholic institution, Georgetown would in fact be betraying its identity, and likely angering many members of its community by funding H*yas for Choice. The board should have concluded that this is not an issue of freedom of speech.

Josh Zumbrun is a sophomore in the School of Foreign Service, Viewpoint Editor of The Hoya and member of The Hoya Editorial Board.