That's what Ohio State University (Mansfield) professors J.F. Buckley and Norman Jones are alleging, in a complaint that they have filed with the University. A conservative OSU reference librarian (Scott Savage) suggested that several books be included in the first-year reading program; one of the books -- The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian -- is apparently anti-gay.
The professors claim in a formal complaint filed with OSU that this suggestion, and the librarian's arguments in its defense (which were apparently not otherwise anti-gay, not that this should matter), create a "hostile environment" for them based on their sexual orientation. (The complaint has been referred to as a sexual harassment complaint, but it's really a sexual orientation harassment complaint, see the first paragraph on page 2 of the Ohio State harassment policy.)
Here are copies of the relevant documents, attached to an Alliance Defend Fund letter written on behalf of the librarian. (The ADF, as readers may know, is a public interest law firm that generally approaches things from a cultural/religious conservative perspective.) My summary above relies on the copies of the documents, not on the ADF's own accounts.
The university is now investigating the complaints. It's quite sad, I think, that these university professors are responding to offensive ideas not just by arguing against them, but by trying to coercively suppress them (apparently, according to the ADF's letter, with considerable support from their colleagues). I expect that the university will promptly dismiss the complaint, since even under the university's own policy such speech is not prohibited -- among other reasons, the speech wasn't "based on a person's protected status," since the statements weren't about the complainants, and weren't targeted towards the complainants because of their sexual orientation. But it reflects badly on the complainants that the complaint is even being filed.
Oh, and one related item, from a message during this debate written by another professor, Hannibal Hamlin (no, not the Hannibal Hamlin): "On the matter of homophobia, I think you should be rather careful, Scott. OSU's policy on discrimination is not simply a matter of academic orthodoxy, but a matter of human rights." Yes, reference librarians, professors, students, everyone: On matters of certain viewpoints that are prohibited by university policies, we think you should be rather careful.
Thanks to commenter Gaius Obvious for the pointer.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Accusing Librarian of Sexual Orientation Harassment
- Scott Savage Cleared:
- Interesting Tidbit About the Ohio State (Mansfield) Controversy:
- Suggesting Anti-Gay Book for Inclusion in University Reading Program = Sexual Orientation Harassment?
How do you get to be so sensitive that even a suggestion of including a contrary opinion in the curriculum prompts you make an administrative complaint?
"It's quite sad, I think, that these university professors are responding to offensive ideas not just by arguing against them, but by trying to coercively suppress them."
Look, analogizing back to the school library thing, you don't have time to actively dismiss every crackpot racist and bigot. Or, analogizing another way to a more extreme but similiar logic, should the OSU faculty respond to a position to make a Jewish-global conspiracy book mandatory reading by saying "good idea, but we can balance it with a book that says Jews aren't half bad after all?"
In the end of times, the optimal strategy to bad ideas is sometimes *not* to present a logical argument against them, but to ignore or minimize them. While we should be careful to protect free speech in making such decisions, that doesn't mean that more speech is always a nonnegative thing as a matter of practical consequence.
If these are his serious suggestions for "conservative ideas", either he is remarkably unqualified to make suggestions or there is little on the right of academic value. I would hope that conservatives here would agree with me -- a dyed-in-the-wool liberal -- that the former is the case.
I guess it depends how you look at it. Certainly if the librarian ONLY suggested the protocols and called it the "definitive history" or something like that, it would be odd.
But I doubt you would argue that the Protocols DIDN'T have an effect on western European history in relation to jews, no? Anyone researching the "role of Judaism in Western European history" would probably want to take a look at the protocols, not as scholarly work but as historiographical background, right? Censoring the work would LIMIT one's understanding of the subject matter at hand.
But ultimately, the protocols is a ridiculous choice for the librarian not because it's false, but because it's a limited subject matter, not different than the diary of anne frank. Any librarian who is asked for "a good book on" and gives someone something other than a survey text should probably be removed for librarial(?) incompetence, not ideological viewpoint.
All conversations have rules. All decent people would agree that it's OK to criticize pedophiles. All sane people would also agree that we have the right to punish* others (at least socially) for racist or anti-Semitic comments
If being gay is morally the equivalent of being Jewish, then it's OK to punish anti-gay comments. Wouldn’t everyone agree that a librarian should at least be criticized for trying include a book that treated Judaism as an evil on the Freshman reading list? But if you take the perspective that being gay is itself immoral, then a whole different set of rules apply.
Can anyone come up with a system of rules of discussion that does not depend on the speaker's view of the underlying merits?
*There are several levels of rules for the discussion of any topic--what comments deserve social disapproval, what comments deserve financial and job-related disapproval (say, firing or reprimanding someone), and what comments deserve civil or criminal penalties from the state.
Have you read Kupalian's book?
I take your point, but to preserve my own: I would argue that the Protocols are not only inappropriate because they are "limited," as you correctly observe, but because, in some meaningful way, they are "wrong." And I want to preserve -- at some level -- the right for us, and for colleges, to make those sort of distinctions.
Should Savage be fired? No, probably not. But should this incident be taken into account if he applies to sit on the First Year Steering Committee? I'd say yes, even if it means that at some level the university is retaliating against him for the actions described here.
Which means, of course, that if we truly believe these actions are protected in some way that he ought to have a cause of action. (Consider what would happen if his offense was stating that he had voted for Bush.) But should he? I'm skeptical.
BTW, it was pretty foolish from a professional point of view to mix serious scholarly suggestions (Bat Ye'or) with political tripe.
The 'Protocols' may say nothing true about the Jews, but one understands the history of the Jews in Europe better by reading them; and the most vile racist rantings reveal the racist, if not his targets. We appear to be headed for a regime where, amusingly, it will be impossible to teach about bigotry (except that it's B-A-D) because the source documents will be verboten.
Whether "The Marketing of Evil" is in fact bigoted, I don't know. But if it is, then it's banning doesn't logically follow unless the object of education is Right Thought.
How about if we call station house Fahrenheit 451 to the library to "rescue" the students from Dawkins' anti- religious bigotry.
I would be able to hear the howls of "speech" from these same professors in Ct.
The academy is in bad shape if the professors in question here are representative of any significant portion of their bretheren.
In what way is the book in question "anti-gay"?
Does it make discrimination against homosexuals a normative reference for moral thought?
Does it engage in arguments which assume that homosexual behavior is inherently evil?
Does it engage in derogatory remarks about homosexuals without ever seriously considering their claims to social acceptability in society?
Does it disagree with leaders of the homosexual movement about the desirability of legal/cultural change that they advocate?
I assume that the book wasn't recommended solely because of its commentary on sexual norms of society. Why was it recommended?
Was it recommended with any specific reasons or commentary about its usefulness as a learning tool? If so, what were the comments?
The letter cited above claims that the professors used Amazon.com reviews as evidence of the book's anti-gay slant in their charges against Mr. Savage. Did they find any reviews in more serious publications about the book? Or can Amazon reviews be considered authoritative for faculty discussion of a book?
In my position at the University I currently study at, I've seen some discussion of textbooks by academic departments. (Happily, Calculus textbooks tend not to inflame heated debates that might draw in sexual-harrassment charges.) However, I would hope that the instructors had skimmed the books in question to get a grasp of thier central thesis and argument style, rather than depend on the reviews available at Amazon.
Did anyone do that in this case, before responding to allegations of anti-gay-ness of the books?
to pick up form Matty (and myself as a librarian), one could point to the Protocols due to their effect on how some (many?) Europeans have towards Jews (pograms, Holocaust) but the librarian would be seriously remiss if he did not point out that the Protocols were a work of fiction, i.e, that book is not what it purports to be. It would be almost like handing someone the DaVinci Code if he asked for a history of the Holy Grail (although Brown's book is always classified under fiction.)
Right now, we have no idea what it means for the book to be "anti-gay". It could say all homosexuals should be burned at the stake. It could also just make claims about homosexuals that are the equivalent of complaining about Islamic countries in a book about Islam. Or it might claim that homosexuality is evil in some theological sense without advocating that anything should be done to homosexuals.
Only when we know that can we decide what kind of Judaism book this one is comparable to.
By the way, OSU is not the only place where university professors are seeking to quash unwanted viewpoints:
Cincinnati Post Article
Just as disturbing, there seem to be some posters to this thread who are not only unappalled by the situation but seem to think that they have an appropriate system for censoring the contents of university libraries. I'd like any one of these persons to explain what advantage their system of censorship might have over any other, e.g., one I might suggest, in a way that is completely rational and will be accepted by all Volokh readers.
Can you point to one instance where someone has objected to inclusion of the Protocols where they were used in their proper historical context--I doubt it. Now there may be some ridiculous examples out there where people get all bent out of shape by the use of the word "niggardly" (which of course has a completely different entomology than its homonym and is no more derogatory to black people than saying "a chink in the armor" is derogatory to people of Chinese descent) or the inclusion of Huck Finn in High School curricula. But such things rarely, if ever, happen in higher education.
Perhaps the complainants could be punished under a "group libel" theory for implying that homosexuals are a weak and pathetic victim class that can't take any criticism or political opposition.
I think there have been some such but I can't recall specifically. My point is more that if we insist such sources can only be studied with warning flags attached ("in their proper historical context," as you put it), we are teaching 'what to think' rather than 'how to think'. Becoming foolishly attached to foolish ideas and then disabused of them is all part of the college experience.
What is the "First Year Reading Program" at OSU, and what are its stated goals and guidelines, if any?
Would a book advocating gay marriage, let alone the book in question, fit those goals and guidelines?
Curses! Foiled again!
:-)
Even from the ADF's filing, (which of course has to present Mr. Savage's argument in the best possible light) it is extremely unclear what the basis of the sexual harrassment claim is. The ADF filing implies it is simply Mr. Savage's book recommendations, but never directly states it. It sounds like Mr. Savage got a bug up his ass when the committee rejected his original suggestion to the reading list (Freakonomics), felt he was dissed by all those leftist, snooty professors and set about painting himself as the poor, oppressed rightwing librarian trying to bring balance to the leftwing indonctrination and decided to submit a list of books by a bunch of rightwing kooks (and yes I am calling Santorium a rightwing kook) just to make a point.
It sounds more like that somewhere along the line, Mr. Savage lost his cool, and called the professors "fags" or some other such derogatory term, and that is the basis of the sexual harassment lawsuit, not his silly list of books.
And by the way I love how the ADF characterizes the list as leftist--Dawkins I'll give them, but the rest? The wife of the Republican governor of California, a former president? Jared Diamond really gets me. I assume that the book in question is Guns, Germs and Steel. In what way is that book leftist? Because it advocates the theory that the European dominance of the last 500 years of world history is due more to geographic and genetic luck (and the fact that we liked living in close proximity to our pigs, chickens and cows) rather than our moral, intellectual, and religious superiority over the savage races of the world? Where is Marx, Lenin, Sartre, or even Upton Sinclair?
And it's not "censorship" in any meaningful or objectionable sense to object to the inclusion of book that preaches bigotry (assuming, arguendo, that is the case) in a limited set of books that are required reading. Professors aren't "censoring" every single book in the world arguably relevant to their field that they don't require students to read.
On the other hand, I can see the argument that threatening to discipline an employee for suggesting that a book be required is going too far.
1. If you were organizing a plot to take over the world, would you write it down?
2. If you did, would you characterize your intentions as evil, as the speakers in Protocols do?
3. If your conspiracy had any significant influence over governments, would you have allowed this book to have seen the light of day?
4. How would you prove "conspiracy too weak to suppress the book" isn't the same as "no such conspiracy exists"?
I suspect that anyone that didn't find Protocols laughably absurd is probably too deranged for rational discussion anyway.
The bigger problem is that homosexual activists are terrified of any serious debate on the subject--hence the need to engage in suppression of free speech.
One of the books was supposedly written by Maria Shriver and another by Jimmy Carter. Anyone have the original list?
I don't understand your point. Do you think the Protocols should be introduced in college courses as though they are actual historical documents produced by the Elders of Zion because some people actually believe this and then let college students figure out they are actually forgeries penned by the Romanov secret police and there are no Elders of Zion? Should we also teach as fact David Irving's lies about the Holcaust along with the proven historical facts about the holocaust? Should every science class teach every theory that has been disproved along with the valid one and then require the students to figure out which one is correct?
So are you insulting Americans as particularly deranged, or do you find the increased death toll laughable?
Many, if not most, academics are in the job NOT to deal with anything they don't like. They teach the classes, write the exams, and grade students so they don't have to encounter any ideas that they don't already approve.
Any deviation from this is simply unthinkable and, in their opinion, unconsciousable, so of course they took action.
There is a ideological requirement in most departments, unspoken, but there and if you don't like it, please seek employment elsewhere. I did!
So a priori, a book by a former President can't be leftist, but a sitting Senator is a "leftwing kook"?
Consistency, thou art a jewel...
Considering that the last time this country elected a president that could even remotely be called "leftist" was 1944 (and I would argue that FDR was the only "leftist" president ever elected in this country--and by international standards he was barely leftist), yes a book by a former President--at least one written by any president other than FDR, can't be leftist, as much as Jimmy Carter is now a favorite whipping boy of the right. And I called Santorium a rightwing kook, not a leftwing one.
All of the reasons that I have heard for failure to bomb the death camps--I've never heard this one. Where did you find it?
It is amusing (but unsurprising) to see a liberal like you arguing in favor of censorship, because the masses are just too stupid to read and think for themselves.
No, I deny that Protocols could have persuaded anyone to violence or even hatred that wasn't already inclined that direction by their own emotional problems.
The bigger and more interesting aspect of this case, however, is the blatantly totalitarian nature of the attempt to suppress dissent about homosexuality at Ohio State. Someone as terrified of multiple perspectives as these professors probably suspects that a serious debate would leave their position in ruins. Or at least liberals would have insisted that this was the case if a university in 1963 had similarly responded to a faculty member suggesting Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth.
As a gay man, it is plain as day that there is really no debate as to whether homosexuality is "acceptable" or not. It's not even the right question. I'm born with it, I'm stuck with it. It is, in itself, neither good nor bad... it simply is. And no, Clayton, I was not molested - I was gay before I knew what sex was, before I even knew the basics of the birds and the bees. One can legitimately discuss the implications of fact for American culture, discuss the ways both good and bad that people of similar bent form communities, ande even the (very real) pathologies of those communities, if one starts from the position of recognizing the basic humanity of the people involved.
But to start with the presupposition that this orientation is a consequence of "evil", as this book appears to do... well, that's right up there with young-earth creationism as an intellectual foundation. If a suggested text is going to be based on something so flatly counterfactual, what IS off limits? What COULD be a legitimate basis for a human rights complaint? One might answer that this "harrassment" complaint is not the correct basis for challenging ANY book on the reading list, and I would accept that. But is there a good alternative?
For a university to leave this book on the reading list with the goal of providing balance... well, I couldn't imagine a better example of "relativism" overwhelming common sense. To include this book would be to admit no academic standards whatsoever, and I am dead serious when I say that the Protocols would be a better choice.
As to how you'd think of Jared Diamond as "leftist"... they were likely discussing Collapse rather than Guns, Germs, Steel, which can be taken as an inherently leftist critique of our current society. It's a slightly more scholarly and better written version of Earth in the Balance. Collapse definitely has a specific viewpoint.
The questioning of Maria Shriver as a "leftist" seems especially ignorant for this blog. I mean, come on, do you seriously think that anyone is as stupid as to believe that "wife of a Repiubican governor" is a sufficient or complete definition of Maria Shriver??? How stupid do you assume that everyone else is? It's obviously her husband that defines her politics, rather than the fact that her father was one of the prototypical limousine liberals, ran as one of the most leftwing serious candidates for US President, and that her other relations are the most prominent political family in the United States, who move further to the left with every year and every passing generation? McFly?
I seriously hope that Mr. Savage sues the University and the accusers for their scurrilous charges and attempts to damage his career and reputation. Unless they can produce other emails that give substance to their "fears" they deserve to lose and be hit with a very large judgement on the order of several million dollars (given their attempts to make Mr. Savage unemployable and remove his current high salary and benefits).
I also haven't read Marketing of Evil or Protocols. I will read the former (ordered it from Amazon yesterday) and won't read the latter, for personal reasons. I didn't realize David Kupelian runs WorldNetDaily. Had I known that, I wouldn't have ordered his book.
What I have read is the complaint, including the email exchanges. Scott Savage's little email should have offended no reasonable person ... but alas, we're dealing with college professors here (no offense to our esteemed hosts). These are people who have some of the best jobs in the world, and manage to find things to get upset about.
The belief that "I've always been gay" is widespread among homosexuals, but that you believe it doesn't make it true. A serious debate about the subject would be very worthwhile, especially because there seems to be a lot of different forms of homosexuality. For example, this incident is an extreme example of the S&M gay subculture--but even in the less extreme forms, it is pretty clear that someone has a serious confusion about pain, pleasure, sex, and domination. (Gee, rather like you might expect if someone's first sexual experiences involved pain, pleasure, sex, and domination.)
Unfortunately, there will be no serious debate about this subject, because homosexuals will not allow it at a place like Ohio State, or just about any other university.
Indeed, when "leftists" get attacked for believing in outrageous things, and liberal bloggers respond that they're making straw men arguments, the rejoinder tends to be, "well maybe I wasn't talking to you. I was talking about leftists, the cooks to the left of you - what, you agree with them""
At least when I write, I try to carefully distinguish leftists from liberals, even though both are on the left end of the spectrum. Liberals still believe in private property (except when big corporations want it, ala Kelo) and freedom of speech (at least in the abstract) while leftists do not.
The belief that "I've always been gay" is widespread among homosexuals, but that you believe it doesn't make it true. A serious debate about the subject would be very worthwhile...
Tell me, does there exist a subject which, in your mind, is so settled in the minds of reasonable people that "serious debate" is not "worthwhile"? Or are you of the belief that all knowledge and understanding is up for grabs?
I ask this as a frank and unapologetic postmodernist who is inclined to be skeptical of everything, yet even I recognize that some subjects are so in-your-face obvious that continuing to debate them is a waste of time.
I didn't even have to click on your link to the castration incident to know what you had linked to. This is getting off on a tangent, but you know what my reaction to that story was? I looked up "castration" on Wikipedia and learned quite a bit about the long history of voluntary castration in spiritual contexts, and concluded that perhaps labelling it as pathological was premature. Maybe, like homosexuality itself, it's a deeply rooted expression of primal drives that we still only dimly understand, something that is part of what makes us human. (I also can't help but notice that you gravitate to this, rather than the more timely and widespread spectacle of heterosexual Catholics around the world flagellating themselves and getting nailed to crosses this weekend. Eeech... I'd take castration over that any day, thanks! Those Catholics must be "confused", no surprise when they're confonted with the violence and gore of crucifixion from early childhood, no?)
Savage, the Librarian, was a member of a University Committee tasked with choosing books for a specific course. As an employee of the University, serving on that Committee, he had a professional employee's duty to aid the committee's work. That means behaving cooperatively, and it means that his suggestions ought to reflect the application of professional standards. This was not a platform for personal expression, where he would deserve the full panoply of 1st Amendment protection; this was professional work.
Obviously, we don't know all that went on here. On the basis of incomplete evidence, though, it appears Savage, in making the four "suggestions" was being an ass, and failing in his duty, as an employee, to cooperate productively in the work of the Committee, of which he was a member.
Savage's supervisor probably ought to have reprimanded him for inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, and, I presume, if that had happened, nothing further would have ensued. We don't really know if it happened, although there is a hint that his supervisor defended his conduct, when complaints were made.
Sexual harassment regulations are being used here to draw attention to his unprofessional conduct and to "punish" him personally with an embarassing investigation, which Savage is trying to summarily suppress.
Is there any reason for a court to intervene here? The University will investigate the complaint, and act according to its own procedures in the matter. Is there any evidence put forth that the University procedures in the case of such a complaint are not likely to resolve the question properly? Does the University need a judge to intervene here?
Is it really necessary to have a judge intervene in the University's administrative investigation of an employee's professional and on-the-job conduct?
I think it might very well be that the University's sexual harassment regulations and procedures lend themselves to abuse, and maybe they are being abused here. The notion that there might be a libel claim does not seem as far-fetched as the first amendment claim, and there may be other recourse in Ohio labor law or University or State policy.
But, really, is the remedy for abuse of sexual harassment regulation, an abuse of 1st amendment claims?
We don't know that the book does this. We only know that the book has the word "evil" in its title.
The book could be
-- using the word as a rhetorical exaggeration
-- using the word seriously in reference to gays, but in some way that falls short of harassment (for instance, they may believe that God prohibits homosexuality but not want to do anything to homosexuals)
-- using the word seriously in reference to some group that is smaller than all gays (for instance, particular groups of gay activists)
-- using the word in some technical way (for instance, according to original sin, all people are "evil")
It's also possible, as someone pointed out, that the book is in fact saying that gays are evil, but that the librarian proposed it as a way of pointing out that the accepted books are as bad as this one rather than because he agrees with the sentiment.
And I would be very wary of judging a book on the basis of an amazon.com review quoted by one of its opponents.
This is the logical consequence of Robert Bork's new approach that censorship is a necessary condition of freedom.
Is there any 'serious debate' about heterosexuality? Would you be eager to put up for 'debate' your own sexuality? Are you really heterosexual? How do you know? Were you born heterosexual? Were you converted to heterosexuality?
Professors J.F. Buckley and Norman Jones reaction makes perfect sense if they believe their job is to teach WHAT to think.
Students should be taught first how to analyze the belief systems of their teachers and reject any teacher that wishes to teach them what to think.
You mean a subject that you are emotionally invested in, and therefore can't afford to have seriously questioned.
1. I don't find the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument persuasive, because lots of "natural" behaviors are uncivilized and brutal. Watching two male ducks fight over mating rights to a female until they unintentionally killed her--that's a "natural" behavior. But I think I can say with high certainty that heterosexuality is "natural." Whether homosexuality is "natural" or not, I can say with certainty that mammalian species that are not heterosexual do not reproduce.
2. I know that I am heterosexual because those are my preferences, and I grew up in a society where homosexuality was generally accepted, with only a small amount of negativity towards it.
3. Was I born heterosexual? Probably. It appears to be the default setting for just about all mammals.
I agree with the comments above that note Savage was being an idiot but that the harassment complaint is not appropriate either.
Look, if the objection was that Savage's suggestions were not scholarly works, okay, that might be a worthy suggestion. But suggesting works by Maria Shriver and Jimmy Carter isn't exactly setting a high standard for academic rigor.
I realize that it is a great source of frustration to professors to realize that their beliefs aren't generally held by those outside the ivory tower. This insistence, however, that the purpose of a university is to tell students WHAT to think, rather than teaching them HOW to think, is discrediting the entire notion of a liberal arts education.
I do not want universities turned entirely into high-end trade schools (computer science, electrical engineering, math, physics, chemistry)--but this sort of creeping totalitarianism makes me very skeptical of the rest of these institutions.
You mean a subject that you are emotionally invested in, and therefore can't afford to have seriously questioned.
You probably don't remember, but I've been engaging you, reading your posts, following your links, and seriously listening to your arguments on soc.motss and elsewhere for FIFTEEN YEARS. At times I've been called, by my peers, "so open minded that my brains fell out".
I suppose it's a sort of masochism that I have kept returning to your writing, because I believe in the critical approach and genuinely welcome dissent... to a point. But there comes a time when it's simply over and done with, when there is nothing more to be listened to.
So playing the closed-minded card with me is a little ridiculous.
It looks to me that we're missing copies of several of Savage's e-mails in the link you provide. Accordingly, in assessing the claim of harrassment, it seems that we have only some of the relevant materials. I think it's a mistake to reach a conclusion on this matter until we see all the e-mail records relating to this episode, including the follow-up emails that Savage apparent sent to his detractors but which have not been produced.
von
P.s. I would agree with your conclusion if the linked e-mails consituted the entire universe of e-mails. Since they apparently do not, I can't join you yet.
I don't think that's premature. I've read about hermits out in the Egyptian desert castrating themselves, and that sounds like someone with some pretty serious problems.
Talk about making my point for me. You are so prepared to defend this deranged behavior because the alternative is to acknowledge that there are appropriate limits--like not castrating someone. I don't even think this is appropriate punishment for rapists.
You are revealing more about yourself than I could ever imagined. I find the whole flagellation and crucifixion thing bizarre and even repulsive. Jesus died on the Cross for Christians to take on their sins--once. There's no need for any Christian to do this today, and it accomplishes nothing. But you know, as bizarre and repulsive as some of these actions are--when the weirdoes who have themselves nailed to crosses are done at the end of the day, everything still works. And you would rather be castrated?
Yup. We were visiting Mission San Jose many years ago, and my daughter was about three years old. Her reaction to a traditional Catholic crucifix with Jesus covered in blood was terror. This is definitely part of the sacrifice Jesus made--but there are age appropriate items, and there are age inappropiate items.
Yours,
Wince
Yeah, that will teach everyone how wrong it is to supress speech.
See my earlier post on the matter.
When the rightwingnuts start talking about Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's After the Ball as some sort of "Holy Grail" blueprint for the "homosexual agenda" you know you are dealing with cranks.
It doesn't matter what book it was, what the title was, how evil or bad the book's contents were, or whatever.
The mere listing of an idea (in the form of the book's title, or even quoting the book itself) is not sexual harassment. It is not harassment of any kind. Period.
How many people can play this game? Will feminist professors who harp about the glories of womanhood and the evil of the patriarchy now be sued for sexual harassment? Who is safe in this universe? This revolution will devour its children. No thoughts, no expressions are safe, if this is successful.
I find it amazing that the liberal commentors on this blog don't understand that. Zeal for their cause has blinded them.
Yours,
Wince
Now re-read Clayton's comments. They have degenerated into a gay-bashing diatribe. Granted, he isn't calling for blood or pouring kerosine onto stacks of logs, but the tenor of his comments is openly hostile to the very idea of homosexuality. He thinks people like Tony are deluding themselves.
Here's my question. What is it like, Eugene and VC administrators, to link arms with such people as our Clayton? Perhaps your offense at this lawsuit really does stem from the principled position that leftish academic intolerance is baleful. I don't doubt that some conservatives legitimately hold that view, without more--and I think they probably have a point. (Sydney seems to fall into this category.) But what is it like to realize that many of your fellow travelers are simply bigots?
I'm afraid that it is your characterization of Clayton which is bigotted.
Yours,
Wince
When people confound "entomology" with "etymology" it bugs me! :)
A reasonable guess about what went on, from the record we have, would be that Savage first suggested Freakonomics -- a perfectly sensible suggestion, a serious book, which might be a good introduction for Freshman to serious academic thinking -- and that suggestion was not treated with what Savage regarded as sufficient respect. So, Savage made his 4 suggestions, escalating the confrontation.
Savage may have been provoked, but that should not excuse bad behavior. And bad behavior should not be an automatic claim on 1st amendment privilege.
A sexual harassment claim does not seem appropriate here either, but unless there is some evidence that the University is not competent to figure that out, and deal appropriately with the charge and those, who made it, I see no reason for a Federal court to intervene. Administering a University is hard enough, without groundless Federal Court intervention in what appears to be a rather trivial personality clash.
A good history professor (or other professor) generally places the works he is teaching in some sort of context. It is not illegitimate for a teacher to point out that a work is outside the mainsream of thought in a field, that it contains errors, or that the errors portray individuals and groups in a worse (or better) light than appropriate. The question is whether this is done with the appropriate judgment and balance. Considering four works that portray Jews in a more or less bad light-- The Protocols, Oliver Twist, The Merchant of Venice, and Gogol's stories-- a good teacher would approach these in different ways. None should be banned from university curricula, but all should be taught by teachers who advise students to be skeptical of their depictions.
The same thing could be said of books portraying other ethnic groups. Nights with Uncle Remus, Puddinghead Wilson, and Uncle Tom's Cabin might all be included in curicula, but hopefully not without some instrution that they do not represent an accurate depiction of the life of Black Americans in the 19th century, and hopefully with some balance that would nudge students toward a different view.
That's the difference between us: I wouldn't try to suppress your ideas. I just want there to be a serious debate about this subject; you and a bunch of OSU professors want debate about this subject shut down completely.
But what was the "bad behavior"? Suggesting books that provide some balance to what was otherwise a left of center bias? If that is "bad behavior," stop demanding my money to fund your leftist circle jerk.
It went from "a rather trivial personality clash" to a serious matter when the gay thought police started a sexual harassment claim against Savage. When a public institution starts to decide whether to discipline someone for expressing a political opinion, that's a First Amendment violation.
I am not surprised that you wouldn't want the federal courts sticking their nose into how a public university operates. Why, they might actually insist that OSU follow the law: tolerate freedom of speech and equal protection of the law--and then the entire leftist control of the academy would start to collapse.
Unfortunately for Michael, Prof. Volokh and others are likely to read what Clayton actually wrote, rather than relying on a biased summary, before making up their minds. (This is apparently not standard procedure at Ohio State.) Then they will see that what Michael wrote was nothing more than clumsy intellectual thuggery.
But don't give up, Michael! Keep on libeling people who disagree with you, and keep on trying to intimidate people who partially disagree with you. Keep on showing us just how tolerant and open-minded liberals really are.
Note that this is a different issue from mainstream anti-war activists who directly ally themselves with Stalinists like ANSWER. Eugene Volokh simply happens to agree with bigots on a particular issue; he is not openly cooperating with them or endorsing their organizations. There is no shame in that.
What makes you think that he has? Because he hasn't censored what I have written here? You are just proving my point about how some people can't tolerate dissent or disagreement--they think any opposing viewpoint, no matter how moderately or calmly expressed, is a heresy deserving of suppression.
Why can't you tolerate any criticism of homosexuality? The left is allowed to engage in not just calmly worded criticisms of Christianity, capitalism, private property, President Bush, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq--but even criticisms that are neither calm nor fair: BusHitler; Fahrenheit 911; Piss Christ; burning of the American flag; etc. ad nauseam. And you can't tolerate even the criticisms of homosexuality that I have posted here? Why is your skin so thin? Perhaps you know something that you are having trouble admitting to yourself?
Assuming for the sake of argument that sexual orientation is innate, this does support or refute any argument with regard to the appropriate status of homosexuality in society. Whether a given sexual orientation should be discouraged, tolerated, accepted, or promoted does not follow from whehter it is biologically based.
By analogy-- if the propensity to alcoholism were biologically based in some or all alcoholics to a greater or lesser extent, this would not argue either for toleration of copious alcohol intake or for euthenasia of people that carry a gene that makes it especially likely that they will engage in such behavior.
You've been great parents, and we appreciate all that you've given to the world.
But it's sad that you're wasting your last few productive years like this. Seriously.
In the name of apathy,
truly yours,
Gen. X
Gen. Y
As a chemist and currently getting my masters in civil engineering (and someone who was disgusted by the lack of intellectual rigor in law school), I am heartily offended by the notion that the hard sciences are nothing but "high-end trades". What kind of liberal arts, elitist, nonsense is that? Is an education only worthwhile or useful only when it isn't practical? Does enlightment only come from the liberal arts.
If I can figure out who you really are I plan to sue you for discrimination, you anti-technite bastard!
Well, gee whiz. One can ask this same exact question to any group of people, including self-proclaimed "progressives." What point are you trying to make here?
I don't hate alcoholics anymore than I hate homosexuals. I've worked for functional alcoholics--guys with important jobs who had (even by their own admission) serious problems with controlling their use of alcohol. But just because some alcoholics don't let it destroy them, doesn't blind anyone to the fact that alcoholics are more likely to end up damaging themselves, their families, their friends, and anyone that has the misfortune to get in their way.
I blog frequently about the enormous damage that alcohol ends up doing in our society, and yes, there are jobs that I would not want an alcoholic to do. Does that make me a alcoholophobe? Would I be upset if a university made it a form of harassment to criticize alcoholism or alcohol abuse? Yes, I would.
Does this seem absurd? Less absurd than it would have seemed in 1960, if you had told someone that a day was coming when it could get you in trouble to criticize homosexuality.
I majored in chemistry when I first went to USC. I work as a software engineer. My BA and MA are in History. I get to play all sides of this one!
Michael did wonder why some weren't disassociating themselves from Clayton's arguments (which is not a "call for censorship" in real time or otherwise). And Michael asks a reasonable question.
It really goes back to Public Defender's point, which explains much of this thread. IF you think discrimination against gays is like discrimination against blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc., then it's entirely reasonable to ask sensible/sane people, even those on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, whether they might consider denouncing such speech. But, if you think discrimination against gays is like, say, discrimination against pedophiles, then you wouldn't feel that way.
Clayton repeatedly places himself on one side of that fence. But it's just as legitimate, by any objective standard, to place oneself on the other side.
Oh, and in my personal opinion, Clayton, you're dead wrong. And I must say, I hear in your tone sometimes a tacit admission that your side is losing this battle.
"what was the "bad behavior"? Suggesting books that provide some balance to what was otherwise a left of center bias?"
Savage's bad behavior was: suggesting some books, which were clearly inappropriate -- not serious suggestions, but books chosen for their predictably inflammatory effect on other committee members, affecting the collegiality and effectiveness of the Committee.
Pretty early on, Savage involved FIRE in his e-mail exchanges. It seems quite possible Savage was just playing agent provocateur here, creating a controversy, for the purposes of advancing a reactionary political agenda.
1. Argue that the book should not be added to the curriculum - I don't think anyone, even those who support adding the book, would argue that there is anything improper about arguing against the book's inclusion
2. Argue that Savage was morally wrong to suggest adding the book - I think most people would concede that this was also reasonable
3. Argue that Savage should be fired - This is probably the toughest question, but it isn't really implicated here anyway OR
4. File a complaint against Savage claiming that they were personally harmed by Savage's actions - This is what actually happened, and the professors were clearly wrong to do it. If Savage had recommended adding Mein Kampf to the program and a Jewish professor filed a complaint, the professor would still be wrong. Recommending the book was an academic exercise, and it was not intended to offend or harrass any particular individual. Retaliating against Savage with a harrassment complaint is wrong. The moral status of homosexuality or discrimination against homosexuals is irrelevant.
Of course neither Volokh nor anyone else has any actual responsibility or duty to disassociate themselves from Cramer's hysteria. But I think that the professor's argument is diluted when his most vocal backers conflate his argument with a separate and noxious message.
I'll make my position more plain this time, since you failed to apprehend it the first time. I don't wish to stifle your views, here or elsewhere. I don't think anyone should censor your arguments or those of other social conservatives. I think you should be allowed to express them in blogs, on television, in universities, and from hilltops. You make a more convincing case for your opponents than your opponents ever could.
If I were a principled conservative, I would deplore the use of my academic freedom argument as a convenient vehicle for your gay-bashing. (I do not mean that I would censor your views. I mean that I would express my disagreement with them.) Maybe Eugene and the other VC-ers disagree. They're entitled to, but their credibility takes a hit.
I find it laughable that you assumed I was homosexual. I am heterosexual and have always been that way. I view homosexuality the same way. There nothing wrong or 'unnatural' about either.
1. Sexuality is natural. Reproduction is not completely tied to sexuality. Homosexuals can certainly reproduce, they aren't sterile or anything. As far as I know, no mammallian species is exclusively homosexual. How that is an arguement against homosexuality? Some mammalian specials are bisexual.
2. I know I am heterosexual. If you grew up in a society with little negativity about homosexuals, how did you get your current anti-gay bias?
3. How is heterosexuality a 'default' setting?
If you think my arguments (that homosexuality is a symptom of trauma) or my positions (that what consenting adults do in private is none of the government's business) are "extreme" or "vicious," then you better get out more. I would guess that I would be considered a liberal on this subject by at least 30% of Americans.
Michael O'D writes:
Like I said to Colin, you need to get out more.
So you're saying if an alcoholic never drank alcohol in the first place he's unlikely to become an alcoholic? The difference between comparing a form of substance abuse to sexual attraction is quite obvious I would think. If everyone in society was one gender (and reproduction occurred through vast sperm banks or egg repositories) in some twisted science fiction world everyone might very well grow up gay for lack of a choice in the matter. However, if at any point a person of the opposite sex were to make themselves known in that society its entirely possible more typically patterns of sexual attraction might arise.
Beyond that, one can abstain from a substance in the first, but we shouldn't feel the need or point to separate ourselves from a particular gender because its frankly impossible to do so. I've never met a person who was born with a need from birth to drink alcohol but I have met a number of gay virgins.