Dec
9

Standing Up for What’s Right on Campus

“No matter how difficult this has been, if I don’t represent the Christian perspective — the minority perspective — there won’t be anyone to represent these views.” — Isabella Chow to Fox News

Isabella Chow

On Oct. 31 of this year, at the request of the Queer Alliance Resource Center (QARC), a measure was voted upon by the student Senate at the University of California Berkeley. The (largely symbolic) measure was in opposition to one being considered by the Trump administration — specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — which would declare a new, “trans-exclusive” Title IX definition of sex. (Actually, it would be a return to the original, classical, pre-Obama definition.) In other words, the proposed HHS measure would “establish a legal definition of sex” that is binary and “determined by genitalia at birth”, and the UC Berkeley measure strongly opposed that, while also resolving that the university should more actively promote LGBTQ+-oriented organizations.

Not surprisingly for a far-left school like UC Berkeley, this was a very popular measure, and 18 out of 20 student senators voted in favor, with one absent and one abstention. The lone holdout was Isabella Chow, a junior business/music double-major, who had been elected earlier this year as a member of the Student Action party. Chow is also a conservative Christian who apparently agrees with the proposed Title IX re-definition.

If Chow had simply abstained from voting, she likely would have been given a hard time anyway, since the pro-LGBTQ+ agenda demands approval of their claims and lifestyle. But, the student senator bravely chose to make a statement to her fellow senators explaining her choice. The following image is of the “verbatim transcript of [her] statement before the roll call vote”, which she later shared on Facebook:

Notice that, while making clear her principled objections to the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and why she therefore could not support such a measure, she also decried discrimination, harrassment, bullying, bigotry, and stereotypes. She also declared her love and compassion for LGBTQ+ individuals as valued people, all in keeping with her biblical principles. Setting aside a couple small points where I would have liked a little clarification, I can only hope that, were I in a similar situation, I would have been as gracious and articulate. But, the LGBTQ+ crowd and their supporters are rarely so understanding. Instead, Chow has been inundated with all manner of invective and mistreatment.

o She has been the focus of a LOT of insults and profanity — e.g., these from social media: “horrible person”, “mental imbecile”, “bigot ass”, “f*** isabella chow AND her b****a$$ community!”, et al.

o Over 1000 people have signed a petition demanding that she resign from student government or face a recall.

o People/groups (e.g., CalTV) who once supported her for election have now distanced themselves from her.

o Even the Student Action party has severed ties, though Berkeley College Republicans remain supportive.

o The Daily Californian (student newspaper) ran a critical editorial — i.e., after the QARC misrepresented Chow’s statements — and refused to publish her written defense, asserting that she had “utilized rhetoric that is homophobic and transphobic by the Daily Cal’s standards.”

o Various organized protests have affected Chow’s work and studies (including at least one canceled music recital she was to give).

Chow noted sadly,

“I go to classes, and people are looking at me. I’ve been painted in such a negative light. Everybody’s talking about it. No matter how much I tried to say, ‘I can love you and still disagree with you,’ people still interpret my disagreement with being a bigot and a hater.”

Make no mistake, the LGBTQ+ activists are not tolerant. They will not practice “live and let live”. Leaving them alone is not really an option. They demand public approval and seek to destroy — metaphorically, if not literally — anyone who will not submit or even has the audacity to suggest that their pro-LGBTQ+ claims may be unwarranted and the associated lifestyle is physically and/or psychologically unhealthy. More broadly, they insist that they be in control, living according to their feelings and desires, even when that flies in the face of scientific facts and, of course, the God who made them and laid down the physical and moral laws.

Fortunately, Chow has received support from friends and strangers alike, both on campus and social media. One notable exception I found to the totalitarian attitude of the opposition (though I’m sure there are others) was this comment from a young man on Facebook named Andrew:

“I am saddened that you got banned for such a peaceful statement. While I disagree with your views on sexuality, I think that Berkeley should be a space where we can engage with all perspectives in calm and peaceful discourse.”

Andrew gets it. (At least, partially.) As one other FB commenter noted,

“A secure and healthy organization allows its members to have different voices and knows how to respect and honor one another.”

Encouragement from supporters (including a pledge signed by 18,000+), along with her trust in God and the strength of her convictions, has helped Chow weather the storm. When asked by the San Francisco Chronicle if she will resign from the student Senate, she replied,