Beech Tree News Network

To the Editor:

I’d like to respond to the recent article criticizing Western Kentucky University’s 10th Annual Drag Show and the presence of families at the event. While I understand that not everyone is comfortable with drag performances, I believe the outrage—and particularly the calls for government intervention—reflect a deeper and more troubling trend: political overreach into private life and personal choice.

Let’s be clear: drag is not inherently sexual. Like any form of performance—be it music, theater, or comedy—drag can be tailored for different audiences. The WKU event, held on a university campus, was described by many attendees as family-friendly, artistic, and inclusive. To claim that a supervised moment—such as a child handing a tip to a performer—is evidence of exploitation is an exaggerated and unfair conclusion.

What’s more concerning is the inconsistency in how parental rights are being applied in this conversation. Many of the same individuals who advocate for parents to have broad control over their children’s education, healthcare, and religious upbringing now seem eager to deny those same rights to parents who choose to expose their children to diverse forms of art and expression. That’s not principled conservatism—it’s selective censorship.

Imagine the outcry if a liberal politician proposed banning children from attending a Christian music concert, a pro-life rally, or a Civil War reenactment due to concerns about content. Most conservatives would immediately (and rightly) argue that such restrictions are a violation of family autonomy and freedom of expression. The same standard must apply here. The government should not decide which events are “acceptable” for families based on a narrow moral lens.

Some have framed this issue as one of religion and morality, claiming that drag shows are evidence of a moral decline. But in a pluralistic society, not everyone shares the same religious beliefs or definitions of morality. Many people of faith—including Christians—embrace the values of inclusion, love, and creative expression. Using religion to justify silencing others assumes a singular moral authority in a country that guarantees freedom of belief and expression for all.

It's also worth remembering that drag, cross-dressing, and gender-bending performance have long been part of accepted mainstream culture. Robin Williams won hearts in Mrs. Doubtfire, playing a loving father who dresses as a woman to stay close to his kids. Dustin Hoffman did the same in Tootsie, and Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot—a film widely considered one of the greatest comedies of all time. Tyler Perry’s “Madea” and Martin Lawrence’s “Big Momma” have become household names. Even RuPaul’s Drag Race, a modern celebration of drag artistry, has won multiple Emmys and brought drag into homes across America. These performances were celebrated—so why the outrage now? It seems the difference is not the content, but the context: LGBTQ+ identity.

Finally, the issue of public funding deserves perspective. Public universities support a wide range of student events—from religious observances to multicultural festivals to drag performances. No one is forced to attend, and these programs exist to reflect the diverse identities and values of the student body. That’s the essence of higher education in a pluralistic democracy.

I’m also genuinely alarmed by the growing level of political overreach we seem to be getting increasingly comfortable with. Banning books. Canceling events. Restricting curriculum. Censoring art. If we continue down this path, we have to ask—what’s next? Are we really prepared to hand the government the power to decide what kinds of events we can attend, what stories we can read, or what ideas we’re allowed to expose our children to? If so, we are no longer preserving freedom. We are surrendering it.

At the heart of the backlash is something deeper than policy or performance. It's fear—fear of what we don’t fully understand, fear of change, and fear of difference. But fear is a poor guide for public policy. Rather than using it to justify censorship and control, we should confront it with curiosity, compassion, and respect for the freedoms that define our democracy.

As a proud WKU graduate, I’m encouraged to see my alma mater supporting a wide range of student-led events—whether they are cultural, religious, artistic, or expressive. That’s what a public university should do: create a space where all voices have room to be heard.

Steven Compton