Scott Savage Cleared:
Many thanks to commenter OSU Grad Student for pointing me to this Inside Higher Ed item from today:
Ohio State University officials on Friday cleared Scott Savage, a librarian at the Mansfield campus, of harassment charges filed against him based on his recommendation of an anti-gay book for a freshman reading assignment. A conservative group had threatened to sue the university if the charges were not dropped. They were dropped the same day that the group went public with its complaints about the way the librarian was being treated.
Delighted to hear it, and especially pleased that the university acted so quickly.
"Police are investigating reports of sexual assaults on a 23-year old woman that may have taken place at the home of the president of Maryville University, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. The paper also reported that John Neal, the president, announced that he was resigning for personal reasons. Neal, who was unavailable for comment, had been president for less than a year."
Applying Cramer logic here, I might say something like tsk, tsk, another rapist is on the loose. What is it with straight guys? Or perhaps "it would be foolish not to acknolwedge that there exists a serious problem with straight guys raping women."
While the book has many targets, gay people rank high as a source of problems, with frequent implications of a gay conspiracy hurting society. Publicity material for the book blasts the gay civil-rights movement for changing “America’s former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes” and says that this transformation campaign “faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.”
Scott Savage should have stuck with Freaknomics. Highly recommended.
There certainly is a serious problem in that regard, but the problem is with the small minority of straight guys who are rapists, not straight guys as a whole. Since Mr. Cramer is fond of implying that the misbehavior of some gay men is attributable to gay men as a whole, I thought I'd point out the analagous reasoning would imply that straight men are "objectively disordered" (to use his term) since some of them are rapists. That was the point of my post.
And Savage not the least of them. But not me of course.
I've always wondered about the existence of segregated restrooms. Isn't that a tacit acknowledgement by women as a group that men, all men, are not to be trusted in an intimate environment for fear that they might be raped? It can't be just a "privacy" concern, because women freely mix with other non-familiar women in those areas, it's just all men, even intimate men like husbands or brothers who presumably would be excluded from the privacy concern, who are banned.
I thought it was just a decency standard. For whatever reason, people consider being seen naked (in a locker room for example) by people of the same sex to be on a different footing than being seen naked by people of the opposite sex. I suppose the theory is that the people who can see you naked don't really want to see you naked, so it's going to make you less uncomfortable than a co-ed locker room would.
I suspect that men object to mixed restrooms as much as women do, which argues against the 'rape' hypothesis; also, women don't seem to be too eager to admit transgendered males (unlikely to be rapists) to the ladies' room.
Mossback, troglodyte conservatives have of late questioned the sincerity of such airy and inflated self serving proclamations. I guess they have a point.
As for men who rape; 1] I'm not aware of anybody defending it. 2] How does mentioning it disallow any criticism of the current position and issues surrounding gay rights? One is bad so the other can't be discussed? A non sequitur.
<blockquote>
How rdiculous can political correctness be? Embracing anti-[Semetic] beliefs, even if we can equate that with [a] recommendation on that particular group, should not be any reason for any authority, whether government or schools, to prosecute innocent people who don't happen to toe the politically correct line. OSU officials who hatched those harassment charges deserve a strong kick in the butts. ["Jew-lovers"], [Louis Farrakhan] would [call them].
</blockquote>
The question of the appropriateness (on both a legal and social level) of anti-gay speech depends on whether you view being anti-gay the same as being anti-Semetic (which I do), or whether you think there is something inherently wrong with being gay. This is why the two sides generally talk past each other.
If the librarian thinks that there is something inherently wrong with being gay, it's perfectly fair to criticize him. If he uses his job to promote bigotry against gays, it's fair for his employer to consider sanctions just like they would for someone who promoted bigotry against Jews.
In this case, I think it's overkill to fire someone for suggesting a book for a reading list. But to turn things around, consider what you'd do if the librarian had publicly said he thought Jews were inherently immoral people and that living a Jewish lifestyle was immoral. And then, as part of his state-paid job, he proposed a reading list about Judaism that included only the views of Hamas, the Nation of Islam and the Klan?
At that point, Savage could either hold his ground, and that would be grounds for termination,or he could capitulate. If he capitulated, and there were no further incidences of incompetence, I would keep him on, figuring he learned his lesson, and no harm done. If, however, he holds his ground, then fire his ass.
Every employer has the right to have the type of employees he wants, provided he does not discriminate on race, creed, etc. But as to the views of the employees, well, that's an employer's perogative.
Do you really think that would pass muster? Firing him for "incompetence" would be seen as firing him for his politics, and perhaps his religious beliefs. There is no way that such an excuse would hold water.
"consider what you'd do if the librarian had publicly said he thought Jews were inherently immoral people and that living a Jewish lifestyle was immoral. And then, as part of his state-paid job, he proposed a reading list about Judaism that included only the views of Hamas, the Nation of Islam and the Klan?"
I take it that, based on this comment, you really have no clue what happens in Middle-Eastern studies departments. The exact things you denounce are basically the rule there.
Well, if left wing professors had any interest in ousting anti-semites from their own ranks that might hold water, but they dont seem to (at least in the case of the anti-Israeli lobby which crosses that threshold disturbingly often). Lets not forget this is the same group defending the Taliban spokesman attending Yale.
The scholarteriate has defended all kinds of speech and advocacy from its very ranks that most Americans find, not just offensive, but flat out dispicable- witness Ward Churchill.
In this case, the librarian in question introduces the discussion of a position held by a majority of Americans (which i utterly disagree with btw). I find it odd that speech agreed with by millions of Americans is ok to immediately and without discussion be ruled out of bounds, but speech agreed with by only a tiny unhinged minority is lionized as exemplary of 1st amendment rights. Odd but not unusual.
I'm of two minds on the subject. On the one hand I applaud Savage for sticking his neck out and proposing books that challenged the taboo topics. I had a friend who told me that nothing improved her arguing and writing skills more than having to debunk a holocaust denier in one of her history courses - the value of having your views challenged and having to defend them cannot be overstated. On the other hand though, I think if I were in his shoes I probably wouldn't have made such provacative choices. I'm sure there were other options that could have produced a little less controversy. Basically, if I had tenure, I would have done what Savage did, but looking at it from the perspective of a newbee, I think I would have been more cautious in my suggestions.
Over at the Association of College and Research Libraries blog there is no effort to defend Savage whatsoever. The message I got out of the below is that it was cool that Savage was proposing alternate viewpoints, but unfortunately not the correct alternate viewpoints:
I wonder what the ALA's position is on this. [cynic]Given their politics I wouldn't be surprised if they sided with the professors...[/cynic]
I grant that some on the left are too unwilling to criticize anti-Semitism, but the Right faces its own hypocrisy when it comes to tolerating bigotry. Weren't there calls to ban the former Taliban student and to fire Ward Churchill?
But it's not helpful to make broad accusations against "the Right" and "the Left" when we are deciding what rules we should have for tolerating ideas that some consider bigoted.
Tenured professors (like Ward Churchill) get more leeway to offend the Left or the Right. Non-tenured staff (like many university librarians) get less leeway. Beyond that, things get complicated.
So let's be clear, do you think universities should or should not discriminate against anti-Semites? I think universities should discriminate against both avowed anti-Semites and avowed anti-gay people in the hiring and tenure process.
But once someone gets tenure, it should be much harder to fire a person for being anti-Jew or anti-gay.
It is that groups that represent gay interests, such as the ACLU, are defending NAMBLA in a civil suit resulting from the rape and murder of a child.
In another case, the ACLU argued that minors have a "due process liberty interest" in making the decision about whether to have sex with adults. If you see the rhetoric that comes out of NAMBLA, you will see some interesting overlap. NAMBLA, of course, doesn't argue that they have a right to rape children; they argue that age of consent laws violate the rights of little boys to decide to have sex with adults. In practice, that means the right of adult men to manipulate little boys into sex.
I've pointed out that much of the same reasoning used to repeal laws against homosexuality is now being used to argue against the "narrow prejudices" that prohibit adults having sex with children, and unsurprisingly, university presses are beginning to publish works arguing that pedophilia really doesn't harm children.
What if a group of gay professors used anti-Semetic language against conservative Jewish groups because those groups believed that homosexuality was wrong and a sin, and used anti-gay language as support?
But discrimination against men because of the sexual predation of a small subset is socially acceptable. Consider the following scenario: You are at a shopping mall with your nine year old daughter, and suddenly collapse to the floor desperately ill. An ambulance is called, and a stranger approaches and offers to take your daughter to your home. You would prefer not to have a stranger take your daughter home, of course, but what if the stranger is an adult woman versus an adult man?
If you went into a daycare center where all those watching the children were men--would you be comfortable doing so? What if all the workers were women? Would this change your level of comfort?
A woman is walking down a dark street. She becomes aware that there is someone else on that street, a few yards behind her. It turns out to be a woman. Will she be afraid? It turns out to be a man. Will she be afraid?
In each of these cases, the vast majority will admit that they are more concerned about a man than a woman, for the simple reason that men commit effectively all rapes, and the vast majority of sexual abuse of children. It is only a tiny percentage of men who do these horrible crimes--but the costs of failing to discriminate are likely to be very high. The costs of discriminating (unless the government imposes penalties) are essentially zero.
http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/248333/
Do you need any more evidence?
The majority of Americans believe that there's some kind of sinister gay conspiracy that controls the media? First I've ever heard of it.
You have four positions you can take:
1) It's OK for Savage to recommend "The Marketing of Evil" and OK for profs to recommend "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" for first year introductory colleges courses in history.
2) It's not OK in either case
3) It's ok in Savage's case, but not in the prof's case
4) It's not ok in Savage's case, but it's ok in the prof's case
Positions 1 and 2 are principled (though different principles). Position 3 is just a right wing hypocrite. Position 4 is just a left win hypocrite.
So which position do you take? Bear in mind if you think it's ok for Savage to recommend "The Marketing of Evil" for a freshman college course, you forfeit the right to complain about those left wing profs at Columbia who are recommending equally idiotic books.
Nice use of humor to make a point.
Maybe I've got things backwards. Perhaps universities (especially public universities) must tolerate both openly anti-Semitic and openly anti-gay professors and staff. But I don't see how you can permit one set of ideas and punish the other.
Not true, because the "complaints" were different. Here, left-wing professors demanded a sexual harassment investigation. At Columbia, I believe the complaints consisted of an imbalance of views in the department and that professors silenced dissenters with bad grades (because they were grading based on the views, and not on the strength of one's argument).
What if a group of gay professors used anti-Semetic language against conservative Jewish groups because those groups believed that homosexuality was wrong and a sin, and used anti-gay language as support?"
I don't think life is that simple. If the guy's a math prof and some titanic genius on the level of Gauss but he harbors some unstated dislike for Jews or gays then personally if it were my university I'd probably be willing to put up with him. The benefit of having him is worth more than the cost of having him. If he's a marginal performer to begin with and embarassing the institution with some kind of loony crusade against Jews, gay people or whatever conspiracy de jour is popular among his crowd, then dump him. It's simple Chicago school economics at that point - the cost of keeping him around is more than the value of having him. The hard part is the Gauss/crusader combo, but fortunately there aren't many of those. Would you want Einstein on you faculty if he wen't around making speeches about how blacks where inherently inferior and didn't deserve the right to vote? At some point you cross a line beyond which it's just not worth keeping you around no matter how smart you are.
Savage merely suggesting a book doesn't mean that everyone else on the committee is going to go along with him and put it on the reading list. Had the university put this book on the list, there might be a legitimate question as to whether this was appropriate. Savage merely suggesting a book isn't sexual harassment--not even close.
I can complain about the fierce leftist bent of the universities all I want. It doesn't cause anyone to get fired from their job--unlike where this was going with Savage, who was going to receive at least a reprimand for merely suggesting a book.
There were calls to fire Ward Churchill, and for at least two different reasons, one of which was a bad reason, and one of which was good.
The bad reason was his "thousand little Himmlers" article. I found it offensive, but that, in itself, isn't a good reason to fire him. What you do off the job shouldn't matter to your employer--and when it is a public employer, there is the First Amendment involved.
The good reasons to fire Ward Churchill were that he wrote articles that were lies--statements of historical fact where the sources he cited clearly showed that he was lying. (This is pretty common among academics, of course, but this still a legitimate reason to fire him.)
He also lied--and perjured himself as well--about being an Indian. This was because he was hired to meet an affirmative action quota of Colorado University. Otherwise, he would just be another spoiled rich white kid intent on destroying the evil capitalist system that nutured him.
I would suspect that the danger inherent in cost-benefit analysis in these situations is that both sides are going to estimate the costs and benefits in a way that tilts in their favor.
Better, it seems to me, stick with a principle, and I would go with the one that errs on the side of inclusiveness (with as few exceptions as possible) rather than exclusiveness.
Alas, valuation problems are the reality that clouds the elegant theoretical beauty of law and economics.
George Orwell had some, ahem, strong opionions on homosexuality. (For instance, he accorded homosexual inclinations—along with necrophilia and coprophagy—the status of "perversions" in his essay on Dali.) When asked for a summer reading list for incoming freshmen, I always put Orwell on the list. This time I recommended "Hommage to Catalonia," so I've dodged a bullet. But is it an act of anti-homosexual bias to ask students to read his "Essays"? And what happens to my "Orwell's Twentieth Century" seminar?
Meanwhile, a collegue uses Bell Hooks's "writings" in all of her classes. The hostility toward people who look and love like me is quite blatant in those books.
If she and I ever go up before a disciplinary committee, I can guess what the result will be. Anyone want to stake the retirement fund on me?
What's troublesome in this case is that professors thought that the appropriate response to ideas they found offensive was to file a harassment charge. This shows a lack of respect for the free exchange of ideas.
Now on to the next. Can (or should) a university student be expelled for saying he's gay? Apparently the answer, at the University of the Cumberlands in Kentucky, is yes.
I'm assuming that EV and the conservative organizations from which he gets his "threat to free speech on campus" alerts will be getting right on this.
Of course, you may not find out much information from other students at that school, since they have apparently been "warned" not to speak publicly about the incident.
Should a religiously affiliated university be able to dismiss students who violate religious principles? Yes.
As far as I know, OSU espouses no religious principles, other than that Michigan sucks.
So I'm not sure that EV's "conservative organizations" need to get bent out of shape on this one.
I went to Notre Dame. We all knew that we would be kicked out if we were caught having sex with anyone who wasn't our spouse. If you agree to enter a religious institution, you agree to play by its rules. (I wouldn't be demanding that Yeshiva U. sell cheeseburgers at the cafeteria, for instance.) State universities play by differnt rules. Your choice.
And to add insult to injury, they gave him an "F" grade in all his courses this semester even though he'd been on the Dean's List up until that point. Classy.
So yeah, they probably have a legal right to expel the guy, because the law doesn't prohibit them from being asinine, hypocritical jerks.
Or do you mean that there are students there are probably sinning in private, the college has to know that this goes on, and hasn't started a detailed investigation to see who is behaving themselves and who isn't? That's a bit different.
I don't see students breaking the rules in private as okay, but publicly breaking the rules tends to encourage others to break the rules in private.
I think that was unnecessary. I would have told him to move off campus, finish his classes, and leave at the end of the semester.
It seems to me that a lot of distinction is how the debate is framed. The religious right claim there is a gay 'conspiracy' to undermine the culture. The only thing untrue (aside from using loaded and negative terminalogy) is that it is a secret. Do equal-gay rights activists not claim it is their intent to change the prevailing intolerant attitude that has been a part of Western Culture for centuries? Of course they do, it is the critical part of their movement. Many people may not like the fearful and sometimes angery way this is spelled out by people like Kupelian, but does that mean the moral argument being made isnt engageable? Every civil rights movement in history has had a fringe of the paranoid and inflamed, but they are usually not exluded from the debate. Anybody want to argue that Malcolm X's "By Any Means Necessary" would provoke this kind of reaction? Quite the opposite im betting. This is about political preference no matter how it is danced around.
So, I ask again, when a school actually expells a student for simply stating he is gay, gives this student "F's" his classes, and then threatens fellow students into silence on the subject, why are we not seeing similar moral outrage from EV and friends?
You make a fine case for not trusting you, Clayton. The problem with your parallel distrust and dislike of out gay people (half of whom are women, by the way) is that there is no similar overwhelming disparity in conduct. Heck, even one of the examples you gave of "gay pedophiles" was a married man with children.
Yes, and they're about to receive $15 million in public tax dollars to build a brand new pharmacy school.
In this case, the student's only "transgression" is that he IS gay. Nothing has been suggested about his engaging in actual sex. His "breach of conduct" consists of breathing.
Somewhere along the line, however, certain people have decided that the Nazi regime was always populated by gays, and that gays were behind the whole enterprise, and somehow benefited from it. The record is quite clear that in fact gays suffered at least as much as other groups, and quite likely suffered more. And any one who doubts this may consult the Holocaust Museum here in Washington, DC, which put together a wonderful exhibit stating as much a few years ago. In fact, my facts come from the two books I bought during that exhibit.
Actually, it is a fine case for not trusting any man about whom you know nothing.
Actually, less than 1/3 of gay people are women. Lesbians are typically 1-2% of the female adult population; gay men are typicaly 3-4.5% of the male adult population. A little arithmetic tells you that gay men outnumber lesbians quite substantially.
There is, however, evidence that while gay men are a minority of child molesters, that they are disproportionately child molesters. If I was hiring a painter, or an engineer, or a lawyer, his sexual preference would be of no relevance at all. If I were hiring someone to watch my kids, I would be disinclined to hire a man (gay or straight) to do so.
There is also some reason to think that the homosexuality provision may have been used for another reason. I saw an interesting documentary about German homosexuality in which a surviving lesbian of that era indicated that there was near perfect correlation between homosexuality and membership in the German Communist Party--at least among her circle. I wonder if using homosexuality as a charge might have been easier than political party membership. Especially at the start of the Nazi time, there were still a few people in positions of power prepared to question what was being done.
Anyone that thinks that "gays were behind the whole enterprise" or generally benefitted from it is clearly unfamiliar with the history of the period. Roehm and the upper leadership of the SA were homosexuals, and were wiped out in 1934. However, there are a lot of little indications that this wasn't the entire homosexual population of the NSDAP. I've read that some of the top leadership of the NSDAP used a term of affection in private that was generally considered homosexual. Perhaps this was an affectation--or perhaps indicative that Roehm's SA wasn't the only part of the Nazi system with homosexuals in it.
In this case, the student's only "transgression" is that he IS gay. Nothing has been suggested about his engaging in actual sex. His "breach of conduct" consists of breathing.
What is the actual violation of the code?