To the editor:

For the sake of clarity, I would like to briefly summarize the discussion that has taken place over the past few weeks centering on LGBTQ rights in our public schools. On 11/1 a letter was published questioning the fact that the school board was undergoing an equity training, citing “LGBTQ issues” among other items the writer found concerning. After a few responses, Mr. Thom joined the foray on 11/9 with his “LGBTQ rights” letter, followed up by a number of other submissions that contained false and misleading statements. After the publishing of a number of responses thoroughly explaining his legal and factual errors, Mr. Thom conceded and moved the discussion into more subjective arguments centering on morality and his perception of truth. When I questioned what the basis for Mr. Thom’s “truth” is, providing evidence supporting my own version of truth, rather than responding Mr. Thom has now attempted to pivot the debate into the wider topic of critical theory as a whole.

So, let’s talk. The word critical has two meanings, 1) expressing disapproval and 2) involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work. In his letter, Mr. Thom is using the word “critical” to mean “aggressive criticism” (ie definition 1). When it comes to critical theories, which are taught in college level settings, the term “critical” is used to illustrate the analysis, or critical thinking, necessary to understand a concept (ie definition 2). I’m not quite sure how Mr. Thom has managed to connect his critical (read “aggressive criticism”) response towards LGBTQ students’ rights to my critical (read “analysis”) response of legal protections afforded to said students by the Federal Government, but here we are.

In response to Mr. Thom’s question, the people that I want to have teaching and counseling my children are individuals who are respectful and kind to all humans, not just those who conform to their version of “truth.”

Casey McMullen

New Ulm