7m7-christmaspg

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,66jogo casino 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

“What he said or didn’t say is between him and the people of North Carolina,” said Mr. Vance, former President Donald J. Trump’s running mate. He added: “I’ve seen some of the statements. I haven’t seen them all. Some of them are pretty gross, to put it mildly. Mark Robinson says that those statements are false, that he didn’t actually speak them. So I think it’s up to Mark Robinson to make his case to the people of North Carolina that those weren’t his statements.”

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.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.ola2025