Editorial Response
The publication of Basil Haady’s article (”Homosexuality: The Big Debate”, pg 26) in the last issue of King’s Bench has effected a considerable reaction. Some of this has been negative: criticising our decision to publish the article, as well as the manner in which we have done so. However, much of the criticism of our decision to publish the admittedly controversial piece appears to have overlooked the direct rebuttal of the arguments of Mr. Haady in Richard Harmer’s article which we published simultaneously.
King’s Bench was established as a forum for debate amongst the student body. Our editorial decisions are therefore not based on our personal opinions; nor should they be. After much discussion of the sensitivities involved, the editorial team came to the unanimous decision that it was in the public interest that the extreme opinions which Mr. Haady’s article represents, were exposed, countered and subjected, as they indeed were, to rigorous analysis and constructive debate rather than suppressed and ignored.
The very fact of Mr. Haady’s article undermines the suggestion of some of our critics that in the United Kingdom at least further debate on the broad premises and misconceptions expressed in Mr. Haady’s article, objectionable as they might be to some, is redundant.
Moreover, our editorial choices are also informed in significant part by our international and multicultural setting and took account of much broader cross-cultural perspectives of homosexuality, which (between males) is still outlawed in as many as 83 countries.
The charge that the publication of Mr. Haady’s article was in some way an implicit endorsement of the views expressed, or worse, a threat to the wholesome community spirit within the student body at King’s is of the greatest concern to us. With the benefit of hindsight we can see how giving the subject-matter the title “The Big Debate” may have given an impression of moral equivalence of the views expressed. However “The Big Debate” is simply a template that the magazine designed to highlight the absence of editorial intrusion between competing or conflicting views or attitudes. The general disclaimer on page 51 reinforces this policy. Moreover, the overwhelmingly supportive reaction not just from the LGBT community but from the student body as a whole, evidenced in our personal correspondence as well as our public fora, happily negates the latter charge.
Finally, we acknowledge that the fact that the article was written under a pseudonym has been a matter of concern to some of our readers. We accept these and have since made it our policy not to publish anonymous articles.
We sincerely regret any offence caused by the publication of the article and hope that this editorial note will serve to reassure all our readers of the balance that we seek to achieve in promoting the constructive debate of issues in the marketplace of ideas. On the preceding page we publish a further rebuttal of Mr. Haady’s arguments by Professor Robert Wintemute and we will continue to post contributions from the student body on the messageboard of our Facebook group and on our website.

