Surely the New York University community was saddened this week to learn Dr. Li-ann Thio, of the National University of Singapore, was canceling her plans to teach there this fall. Or not: She was a giant bigot.
The coming arrival of Thio on NYU’s law school campus set off a firestorm of backlash. Students demanded to know why the university, with their tuition dollars, was paying for a so-called humanitarian hero to teach them when she also stood by Singapore’s laws that makes it a crime for two men to have sex with each other.
Amidst the furor, Thio wrote the entire NYU Faculty with an 18-point argument about why she should be welcomed on campus. Among her reasons:
My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
In her correspondence, she added: “If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive.”
Nor is she coming. Dr. Thio has rescinded her acceptance to NYU’s invitation.
And: It seems, the NYU law community is saying so. Sort of. Dean Richard Revesz, who initially defended inviting the doc, has offered this for-and-against question-and-answer letter, which addresses things like academic freedom and human rights, without actually saying whether inviting Thio was one giant mistake.
Should an academic opposed to the recognition of certain important human rights be allowed to teach a human rights course?
An academic’s views on a substantive issue should be irrelevant to his or her suitability to teach a course in a particular area as long as the opposing views are treated fairly in the classroom: A proponent or opponent of the death penalty can be equally qualified to lead a seminar on capital punishment, for example. The contrary position would be a serious affront to academic freedom, would lead to endless political litmus tests, and would greatly impoverish academic institutions, which gain so much from the robust discussion of controversial legal issues.
What say you?
NYU LAW SCHOOL — LI-ANN THIO AND HER ANTI-GAY LEGAL OPINIONS
Greetings Dean Revesz,
cc: members of Hauser Global, Professor Li-Ann Thio,
While I can understand your position and reasoning in displaying solidarity to the larger NYU School of Law community regarding Hauser Global’s decision to bring in Professor Li-Ann Thio (see attached email), I must state my strong objection to her appointment and the official NYU Law defense of said appointment.
As an African-American man working in the LawITS department, and simultaneously a student at NYU, I could never imagine the day would come when NYU would allow the appointment of a legal scholar who held the opinion that African-Americans practice acts of “gross indecency”, that African-Americans who strive for diversity should be rebuffed because “diversity is not a license for perversity”, describing the private intimate acts between African-Americans as trying to “shove a straw up your nose to drink”, among other intellectually and morally shallow absurdities.
I would also never imagine the day in which a legal scholar who held the opinion that African-Americans are inferior to Whites or any other racial/ethnic group would be granted a platform here at NYU Law, simply due to interest in not squelching “other” views.
In fact, I can state the unequivocal belief that that day would absolutely never come. Not only would the members of the Hauser Global group and any other group at the Law School not stand for it, I feel absolutely confident that neither would you Dean Revesz.
As a Gay man as well, however, it seems that it is still an acceptable position within academia to hold these opinions about LGBT individuals and community without repercussion.
You stated:
“Needless to say, the value of the program would be seriously diminished if the visiting scholars all thought of legal issues in the same way. Much of the benefit of engaging with the world lies in confronting profound differences in viewpoint and experience. We can learn from these visitors, and-we hope-they can learn from us.
……..
To be clear, the Law School categorically rejects the point of view expressed in Professor Thio’s speech, as evidenced by our early and longstanding commitment to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet we believe academic freedom requires that this disagreement express itself through vigorous, civil debate, rather than an attempt to suppress those views.”
It is my sincerest hope that you truly do not believe the intellectually dishonest and bankrupt position that no other scholars among the 6-billion people who populate this planet have the legal heft, and offer the same benefits, that Professor Li-Ann Thio brings to NYU Law, but without her incendiary belief structure regarding valued members of this community (faculty, administrators, student body, parents, friends, alumni, etc).
Suffice it to say I could not imagine your defense of Professor Li-Ann Thio being made regarding a legal scholar who was an avowed supporter of the KKK, or one who publicly and legally sympathized with the violence and vitriol espoused by Al-Qaeda, for example.
In short, this is not an issue of perceiving “legal issues in the same way”. This is an issue of fundamental human rights, human dignity, and human respect. Until the day comes in which these so-called “opinions” regarding the LGBT community are no longer tolerated in polite company, the blot on those who provide intellectual shelter and comfort, in this case, NYU Law and Hauser Global, to those who espouse anti-LGBT views will continue.
It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is highly disappointing for an institution such as NYU, which has most certainly been a member of the vanguard on these and other civil rights issues, to willingly allow this to pass.
I ask that you rethink your official position and take into consideration the harmful effects someone of Professor Li-Ann Thio’s stature has, not only on members of the NYU community, but the LGBT community in Singapore which continues to suffer gross oppression at the hands of their government. An oppression which the good Professor strongly desires continue.
Her unnecessary appointment does nothing but tarnish the LGBT-positive legacy that NYU has built over the past several decades.
That said, I welcome discussion on this matter going forward and sincerely hope that in the end NYU Law will take the right course of action and terminate its relationship with Professor Li-Ann Thio and all others who hold these incendiary viewpoints regarding minority groups, whether they be by sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, or religion. Thank you for reading.
Malik Graves-Pryor
NYU LAW — MEMO — DR. LI-ANN THIO
Dear Sirs and Madams,
1. I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position. I was going to stay above the fray but given this insidious attack on my academic reputation (aside from many ad hominem insults), I feel I must cast some clarity on certain issues.
2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US – I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is (a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and (b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue, it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.
3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching,
and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.
4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)
5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.
6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.
7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are sni
ckered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?
8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I
am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.
9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?
10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject. I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree. As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains. We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.
11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.
12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.
13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.
14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.
15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?
I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name
16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.
17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context
a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.
b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?
e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores. Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague(a) be removed from her job (b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training (c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated). We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.
I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
I am writing to let you know that Professor Li-ann Thio informed me today that she is canceling her Fall visit to NYU Law School as a Global Visiting Professor as a result of the controversy surrounding her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights. She explained that she was disappointed by what she called the atmosphere of hostility by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes. The Law School will therefore cancel the course on Human Rights in Asia and the seminar on Constitutionalism in Asia, which she had been scheduled to teach.
This issue has been delicate and challenging since it brings into tension certain important principles and convictions that normally coexist in harmony and define our institutional identity.
NYU is fully committed to the principle of academic freedom and intellectual diversity. The Hauser Global Law School Program– under the auspices of which Professor Thio was invited as a visitor for one semester–grew out of our early recognition that the practice of law has escaped the bounds of any particular jurisdiction, and that legal education must take account of the intertwined nature of legal systems. At heart, the program seeks to expose our community to legal scholars who come from and have been shaped by their experiences in different countries, regions, and cultures. Needless to say, the value of the program would be seriously diminished if the visiting scholars all thought of difficult legal issues—including issues of sexual moraility–in the same way. We can learn from these visitors, and–we hope–they can learn from us.
Whatever their areas of expertise or views, the appointments of global visiting professors are decided on their record of distinguished scholarship and teaching and their ability to contribute to intellectual exchange within our community. So, while many in our community, including me, sharply disagree with, or are offended by, Professor Thio’s 2007 remarks to the Singaporean Parliament, it is important to bear in mind that she was appointed as a visiting professor based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator.
We are also proud that NYU and the School of Law extended partner benefits to gay couples long before New York law mandated such benefits, that in 1978 NYU Law School became the first law school in the United States to deny access to its career services to employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that in 1990 the Association of American Law Schools required accredited law schools in the U.S. to follow our practice. We also were leaders in the suit by the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) to challenge the Solomon Amendment.
Over the last month, many members of our community have shared with me their views on the appointment. I am very grateful for the many thoughtful messages that I received and would like to take this opportunity to give you my personal perspectives on the major questions that have arisen by responding to some recurring questions I have received.
At the time that the faculty voted on Professor Thio’s appointment, was it aware of the speech she made to the Singapore Parliament on October 23, 2007, forcefully arguing against the decriminalization of consensual sexual acts between men?
At the time that Global Appointments Committee met in December 2007 to recommend that the faculty vote a visiting appointment to Professor Thio based on her teaching and scholarship, none of its members were aware of the speech. That recommendation was considered by the tenured and tenure-track faculty at its meeting of January 30, 2008. I was not aware of her speech at that time and don’t believe that any of my colleagues were aware of it either.
Of course, an electronic search of her public statements would have produced the text of the speech. We did not conduct such a search in considering this appointment, and we have not conducted such searches in considering other appointments: We limit our inquiry to the review of academic publications and works in progress, teaching evaluations, and reputation for collegiality. That is the general norm at academic institutions.
After becoming aware of the speech to Parliament, did NYU Law School ask Professor Thio to withdraw?
It did not.
If the faculty had been aware of the speech, should her opposition to the decriminalization of consensual sexual acts between men have played a role in the decision as to whether to invite Professor to visit?
Professor Thio’s position in that speech is inimical to a strongly held institutional stance that the Law School has taken, over more than two decades, in favor of ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — a position that I am proud to have been able to further strengthen over the period of my deanship. Nonetheless, the fact that Professor Thio is opposed to our institutional position should not have played any role in the evaluation of her merits to be a visiting professor. Leading academic institutions benefit greatly from a diversity of perspectives, not from hiring only people who share the same views.
Should the nature of the arguments in her speech to the Singaporean Parliament have led to the revocation of her offer?
Once the faculty extends an offer to a professor, whether a visiting offer, a tenure-track offer, or a tenured offer, it does not continue to evaluate the strength of the individual’s work to determine whether subsequent work suggests that the offer be withdrawn. So, even if the faculty had met to evaluate the strength of Professor Thio’s arguments in support of her statement to the Singapore Parliament (which it did not do), and even if it had decided that the manner in which she defended her position called into question the committee’s earlier conclusion regarding her strength as a scholar (which it also did not do), the offer should not have been rescinded. (Of course, such an evaluation would have been relevant to whether a subsequent offer should be extended.)
Under what circumstances would the Law School determine that a faculty member’s views give rise to an atmosphere that is inimical to classroom learning?
In the last few weeks, a number of members of our community wrote to Professor Thio indicating their objection to her appointment as a visiting professor. She considers some of these messages to be offensive. In turn, she replied to them in a manner that many member of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful. These exchanges have been circulated on various blogs. Members of our community have questioned whether Professor Thio’s statements create an unwelcoming atmosphere, one in which students in her classes would have been unable to participate effectively in the learning experience. Determination of where that point is on the continuum of free speech is a difficult, case-by-case judgment based upon context, history of the relationship, and many other factors. But it would be an extraordinary measure, almost never taken by universities in the United States, to cancel a course on the basis of e-mail exchanges between a faculty member and members of the student body. To do so would eviscerate the concept of academic freedom and chill student-faculty debate.
Should an academic opposed to the recognition of certain important human rights be allowed to teach a human rights course?
An academic’s views on a substantive issue should be irrelevant to his or her suitability to teach a course in a particular area as long as the opposing views are treated fairly in the classroom: A proponent or opponent of the death penalty can be equally qualified to lead a seminar on capital punishment, for example. The contrary position would be a serious affront to academic freedom, would lead to endless political litmus tests, and would greatly impoverish academic institutions, which gain so much from the robust discussion of controversial legal issues.
Undoubtedly, the issues raised by Professor Thio’s appointment are among the most difficult faced by academic communities. What are the limits of academic freedom? How should an institution with a proud tradition—as is the case of NYU Law School’s support of the LGBT community– interact with those who disagree strongly with such a tradition? I don’t expect that my answers to the questions raised by our community will be persuasive to everyone. And I want to stress that they are my personal views, not the consensus view of any decisionmaking body at the Law School. But situations such as these, despite the unfortunate pain that they inflict, also serve as learning experiences. I am sorry about the considerable discomfort many members of our community have felt during the last few weeks as these issues were discussed, and I appreciate the thoughtful messages I’ve received from students, alumni and others as the debate unfolded.
a lez in singapore
She’s a bigot, and I wish she’d never found her way into my country’s parliament.
D-Sun
Yes, Queerty, this is good.
Larry
This is great news! Frankly, Malik’s letter was right on the money; Thio’s response is childish and ignorant; and the NYU’s continued defense of its position is shameful.
There’s no way that a prestigious law school like NYU’s would invite an avowed racist or sexist to teach there, but it’s still willing to invite a homophobe in the name of “academic freedom” and “intellectual diversity.”
If anything, it lends credence to the idea that homophobia is one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry.
DM73
After reading her response, she sounds like Pat Buchanan talking about Judge Sotomayor. She wants us to be good little fags, buy expensive apartments and goods, keep the economy going but know our place. She’s a piece of work. So separate and unequal is the rule of law. I guess Plessy v. Ferguson must be her favorite American Supreme Court Decision. If she rebutted the same points about any other minority group in this country in her letter, she’d get much worse than the civil and well thought out letter of Mr. Malik Graves-Pryor. There is nothing in his letter that constitutes libel in the laws of New York State so don’t look for him to be your “debtor”. TYPICAL BIGOT RESPONSE. Just like those whose names were exposed in California for supporting Prop 8, she thinks it’s unfair to be criticized for her “orthodoxy”. What a waste if she truly believes she is a humanitarian. This from a country that used to forbid chewing gum. So I shouldn’t be shocked.
Landon Bryce
I have been fascinated with Richard Revesz’s letter. He refers to the school’s position in favor of human rights for LGBT people as a “proud tradition,” which bothers me. He takes the attitude that many liberal straights have, which is that reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it is okay to put people in jail for being gay. I am disappointed that he did not deal directly with one of the questions he has been asked most often: would the school have taken the same position if Thio were arguing in favor of treating a racial minority rather than a sexual minority as less than human?
Larry
@Landon Bryce: I have the same issue with liberal straight people, too. I mean, few people have a problem ostracizing those who hold racist or sexist views, but we’re still expected to respect the “opinions” of homophobes.
Bruno
Besides being a bigot, she’s an incredible windbag, apparently. NYU students are likely thanking their lucky stars they wouldn’t have to sit through THAT lecturing them.
TANK
But it was at her discretion… The school isn’t off the hook.
paulied
What absolutely slays me is when these people whine about our intolerance when we challenge their blatant bigotry against our community. We saw this in the Carrie Prejean mess and we’re seeing it again here. That we are somehow the thought police and are attempting to stifle their rights of free speech is laughable. Everyone has the right to spout of whatever nonsense they believe; they do not have the right, however, to their bigotry being universally accepted and unchallenged.
TANK
@paulied:
I’ve found it’s truly ignorant people who make the argument that any criticism of their claims and actions amounts to an attack on their free speech.
TANK
@TANK:
Perhaps instead…it’s stupid people who might be ignorant.
Forrest
Malik’s letter really nailed it. Being opposed to equality for gay people is seen as a legitmate academic area of research and debate. Like we are some odd species that needs to be cordoned off in a separate habitat for study of our abnormalities.
In contrast, racial prejudice is rightly condemned and not tolerated or considered part of the respectful discourse.
Clearly, we still have a long way to go.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
True.
Though it may have happened in the back room, and they gave her an easy out. They may not be taking responsibility for their part of the affair, but it is diplomatic, and that is usually how things are done in any kind of public organization
After they got involved in the first place it kind of looks bad and unprofessional if they hang someone out to dry. It might scare off anyone considering a position there in the future.
TANK
I mean, clearly they can’t defend their claims and actions, so instead they change the subject, diverting attention away from it, and make it about their right to be unethical and do criticism worthy things.
Andrew
Yikes. If no other reason at all, NYU should be happy it’s avoided adding someone to its faculty who clearly lacks the ability to formulate a clear and concise argument. Her “response” was painful to read — and not just because the substance of her position is ethically challenged, but also because she labors the reader with the chore of knitting together her points from the vast sea that is her wandering prose. She is but a wolf in “scholar’s” clothing.
sal(the original)
@Larry: yeah!with ya there
Tyler
Did anyone else notice that she has giant man-hands? I mean, like fingers the size of vienna sausages precariously balanced atop swollen potatos. Glove puppies I would call them.
I’m just sayin. I would hate the gays too if every time I went in to get a mani-pedi they pulled out the circular saw and belt sander just to trim down my over-sized hand-hooves. I’m just sayin.
Damn you gays with your dainty, perfectly-mainicured hands and your ability to wear calfskin leather driving gloves. DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!*
*I think I had much more worthwhile to contribute to the conversation before I had to click through three pages to leave a comment. What do you expect?
Drew
@Tyler: Ha I thought it was only me focusing on those big ass fingers…
Anyway she lost me in paragraph 3: “for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place)?”.
Who talks like that? Homosex..?
Anyway, I can understand that it in all healthy academic situations open discourse should exist. Be that as it it may it is strange how the Government of Singapore is dragged into this. A government known for its oppression though in a Friedman-school of thought.
I tell you what…she’ll come lecture here in Africa and she will have free reign and be adored.
paulied
@Tyler: I think she’d be considered “well-hung” for a lesbian.
Drew
@paulied: Zing! You said it!
thomas
This ignoramus woman speaks of social norms.. I sugest she takes a good long look at asian history and look at the social norms before foreign crusaders brouht in their own warped ideology.
schlukitz
Bravo! I was really having a hard time believing that a fine school like NYU, in the heart of Greenwich Village, no less, would hire such an openly bigoted and hateful person to spread her blatant homophobia. How wonderful that the students stood up and protested her hiring. It says a lot for our younger generation.
I noted your comments, Landon and Larry. I too feel the same way as you both do. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why racist views are not tolerated, but sexist views are. It such a dichotomy.
Nay, mindfuck is a much better way to describe it.
petted
“In turn, she replied to them in a manner that many member of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful.” – well looks like the dean has some doubts about her decorum now.
M Shane
First, there is a considerable difference between teaching the capital punishment issues with a bias and that relating to the legal issues related to human rights in a pluralistic democracy when you have preforce determined that there is one group of people to whom basline respect does not apply.
Capital punishment , whether it is lawful or not is not selectively doled out just to certain people. Capital punishment is an argueable issue because there are pros and cons and it applies to anyone.
Not so with human worth of select people in a democracy the issue is on a basic level not arguable as is claimed.
The matter of ‘Mainstreaming’ as we understand it is different than having equal rights. It has more to do , in a pluralist society with having our own(gay) culture and not trying to mimic straight people’s sexual and emotional prototypes. It is the opposite of gay liberation as those two issues have evolved.
BobP
Awwww. I was looking forward to running into her sorry bigoted ass in my neighborhood, and giving her a big gay American welcome to my country.
Damn her hands, anyway.
Michelle Lee
@DM73:
Wow I think it’s despicable when you end off with “This from a country that used to forbid chewing gum. So I shouldn’t be shocked.”. That’s my country you’re talking about, don’t put all them bad eggs together; it makes you sound like a petty, sore loser.
I can understand why so many people were, and still are, offended by her remarks. I’m sure if I had followed the whole incident clearly enough I’d find flaws with her arguments too, but at the same time, she’s entitled to her own opinions. But that does not mean that those are the opinions of Singapore’s governments, so please don’t junk them all together.
Would it be ironic to end off now with
RESPECTFULLY YOURS
Kid A
@Michelle Lee: I’d respect a person’s opinion if they were content to keep it personal. I’d disagree, but support their right to have an opinion.
But this woman actively supports criminalization of “homosex.” When she makes gay people’s lives a government business, then her words become our business.
schlukitz
@Michelle Lee:
Defending tyranny makes you no better than the people perpetuating the tyranny. If you feel the need to attack someone, attack the people who are looking to take your rights away, not the people who are fighting to gain their equality.
As Kid A so rightly said, when she makes gay people’s lives a government business, then her words become our business.
If I were you, I’d get the hell out of Singapore so fast, your hair would spin.
mojojojo
@Michelle Lee: But isn’t gay sex illegal in Singapore?
TANK
@Michelle Lee:
Of course they’re the opinions of singapore’s government– homosexuality is still illegal in singapore. SHe’s not an ordinary citizen. She issued those absolutely invalid and stupid arguments in front of the parliament when the law criminalizing homosexuality was up for repeal (and it was not repealed as a result of her arguments…which don’t speak highly of either her intellect or the intellect of the members singapore’s parliament…she’s a real dumb dumb), of which she’s a member.
TANK
And she was educated at oxford, harvard law and cambridge…wow… She must have connections, because she certainly didn’t get to those places on the power of her intellect, to say the BARE MINIMUM.
She proves that you can attend the best schools in the world (except harvard…fuck harvard), and still be a complete moron.
TANK
@petted:
Now he does, because people are equating his pick and choose bigotry (some baseless hatred is apparently more acceptable than other forms of it…ya know, to promote a diversity of opinion and roll up our sleeves and have a good old community discussion…you know, like they do with the kkk, and other hate groups–acause it’s worth it because of some hazy notion of multiculturalism and diversity of opinion and belief) with the uncool kinds of hatred in endorsing her temporary position…he’s feelin’ the heat, and tap dancing. Not hard enough, as he disgraced the institution.
TANK
@M Shane:
?
Shocked
“Should an academic opposed to the recognition of certain important human rights be allowed to teach a human rights course?
An academic’s views on a substantive issue should be irrelevant to his or her suitability to teach…”
What was NYU (and Dean Richard Revesz) thinking?? Would it be alright to hire a White Supremacist to teach a course in Human Rights? Hell no! But, somehow it’s alright to hire a Homophobic Bigot??
Rikard
The old “some of my best friends are either self loathing gays, or violent vitriolic bitches” defense. I also loved the part about Singapore homos being affluent and catered to by developers. Since they evidently all have money, basic rights are just somthing they forget to ponder between manicure and botox appointments. To her credit I’m sure the elitest cunt never even noticed the hard working under represented queer citizenry in Singapore. After all it wasn’t like she was elected to represent the people of Singapore… wait, did I get that backwards???
Brian Miller
I’m surprised that someone hasn’t brought up perhaps the most obvious question:
Could this woman be an effective educator of gay students?
There are more than a few at NYU. If I was a student there, I certainly wouldn’t count on getting a “fair shake” from such a raving lunatic.
Nelson
Singapore does criminalise homosexuality, with a bit of dilemma though. The government’s response was that they wouldn’t interfere with the sex life of gays in the island and would not actively enforce the law. However, it becomes a representation of the government’s take on homosexuality and repealing it might trigger off backlash from the conservative grassroots. Still, Singaporeans are guessing that it would be repealed eventually. Thus, it really would be quite unfair to drag the whole of Singapore or its government into this affair.
All I can say is, this woman is probably just a stand-alone. Maybe that’s why the trip was cancelled.
TANK
@Nelson:
Do you speak for all singaporeans? So, the government (which is partly constituted of conservative bigots) didn’t repeal the law for fear of political reprisals…how noble. Second, the government reserves the right to prosecute people accused of having consensual gay sex, but said it won’t do it…once again, now noble. The fact that it is still within the government’s right to prosecute is inconsistent with the principle of the liberty to engage in it.
sg
i’m a singaporean and i despise this cunt.
kao
I wonder why NYU asks a Singaporean to represent the views of anything in Asia. Singapore’s government continues to discriminate; both actively and secretively and despite all this being common knowledge as part of Lee Kwan Yu’s “Nanny State” nation, NYU turns to her? Of all people? It is odd. As someone who lives in Asia (Taiwan) and who keeps up with the news, Singapore is not looked at as a progressive nation with a focus on human rights….quite the opposite. As an international laywer based here in Asia (though not Asian myself) I could retire every time I attend a conference with Singaporean representatives, who actively discriminate and allow personal feelings to influence professional grounding.
Backward, petulant and arrogant are adjectives I would ascribe to many people with power and influence in Singapore. WHY did NYU choose her? This is the issue…of all the representatives why her? As someone who clearly doesn’t believe everyone has equal rights, it makes me question NYU. She is as she is, and represents many views of Singaporeans and at the same times doesn’t represent many of the views of those repressed and alienated by Singaporean lawmakers, but it still doesn’t let NYU off the hook. The whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster for NUS, NYU and Singapore.
egg from Singapore
Dr. Li-ann Thio & her mum are douches.
till today i still do not know how she got a seat in parliament.
this shows you someone as educated as her can really have sh*t for brains.
youcanthandlethetruth
Yet again the homosexuals have managed to stifle freedom of speech, whilst spewing hateful slurs against this talented and qualified academic.
When will you homosexuals learn that there is nothing wrong in taking a principled stand against the homosexual lifestyle and the redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals?
Even though you may disagree people have a right to hold those views without being hatefully described as ‘bigots’.
Why do you think you have a monopoly on being offended??
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Let me know when the Mormon Church will open its doors and let me in to give a lecture on equality to their members. I’m free on Sundays.
Oh wait…they won’t
kao
@youcanthandlethetruth:
How is it that her views are being curtailed, or her freedom of speech is being stifled? As far as I understand, SHE backed down and withdrew, the invitation was not withdrawn. It sounds like SHE didn’t like the “homosexuals” having a voice, and she got a reaction, the very definition of free speech. Also, there was no mention of redefining marriage, so you may want to actually read what the article before you start ranting. BTW, who the hell says “homosexuals” in the 21st Century anyway apart from bigots and born again Christians…..could it be…you are one of those?
youcanthandlethetruth
@SM: And let me know when GLAAD or some other homo organisation will arrange an event for me to address them on the futility of homosexuality and the righteousness of defending traditional marriage.
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
I have no problem with it. I’ll give you a microphone. I have the ability to see how absolutely ridiculous you all look denying rights to other Americans.
The only thing I ask, when history is written. It’s written to show what churches DENIED rights in the United States.
Have fun~
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
One more thing. I do not want to speak to the Mormoms about not being Mormon like you want to do to LGBT people.
I want to speak to them about EQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES.
I think you are in the wrong country.
youcanthandlethetruth
@SM: SM homosexuals already have equal rights in the US. In many instances they have special legal protections as they have been designated a ‘protected class’.
For example, if a homosexual gets mugged he has greater protections than a little old lady who suffers likewise.
TikiHead
@youcanthandlethetruth: Boooooring
youcanthandlethetruth
@kao: Kao I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and it says
homosexual • adjective feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex.
No mention of born again Christians or bigotry – that must be your own christiophobic bigotry shining through.
Perhaps you should contact them at [email protected] and let them know “homosexual” is no longer a valid word since Dec 31st 1999.
I’m sure they could enjoy a good laugh as did I.
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Uhhhhhhh….You don’t think freedom of religion is a special right? American gives Churches Freedom of religion in this country and you use that freedom to deny rights. Real Nice.
Just write it in history~
Spin your wheels all you want. No one has ever been able to stop a minority group fighting for civil rights in the United States.
youcanthandlethetruth
@SM: Homosexual marriage is NOT a civil right.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
That’s not an argument. It’s an assertion…a bare assertion. Once again, fuckoff you degenerate mormon scumbag.
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Why do you have to go to a courthouse to get a divorce?
Hey don’t worry…I don’t ever remember a Pope standing up to slavery or churches fighting for womens equality either!
Kao
youcanthandlethetruth….go away, you’re boring; repetitive and childish. Freedom of speech is fine, but at least think of something original to say. You still haven’t answered the issues…SHE backed down and withdrew, the invitation was not withdrawn. Whilst you’re thumbing through the dictionary look up the words “freak” “loser” and the phrasal verb “fuck off”.
schlukitz
@Kao:
youcanthandlethetruth keeps coming back here because he is a masochist, like Butty-Barb who, who enjoys being verbally abused.
Bet he loves having his bare, butt-plugged ass too whipped with a cat-o-nine tails too! ;o)
Those kind usually do. It’s probably what he’s here looking for.
Kao
You’re right Schlukitz…I guess I should have realised that someone skulking around gay websites and writing homophobic crap and wrapping it in free speech with no sense of irony is a closet case, probably jerking off to the hotties in shorties. 🙂
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: Kao sorry you feel so embarrassed when I made you look a fool.
I thought you would be used to it by now!
Enjoy being a hateful christiophobic bigot
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
You are both hate filled bigots.
Kao
ok youcanthandlethetruth…I am not embarrassed and you didn’t make me look like a fool, and I am not a Christian nor hateful or bigoted…once again, you don’t answer the points. It is clear you’re gay since this is a gay website. Self-loathing much?
youcanthandlethetruth
Are you saying only homosexuals are allowed to express opinions on this site?
Kao
Nope, even bigoted closet cases like you are welcome, that’s the good thing about us “homosexuals”.
Michelle Lee
wow this is the most intellectually stimulating online- experience i’ve ever had, thanks to all who replied to my comment. i’m a follower of this site for life!
FlopsyMopsyCT
I agree with the dean on this one. Although I vehemently disagree with Thio’s asserted beliefs and political positions (I am gay), I do not agree with the student body’s treatment of her, given that she is a recognized (albeit controversial) scholar in the legal field. I am a major proponent of any and all viewpoints having a place in academia, no matter how unpopular or “inappropriate,” especially in the legal field.
I graduated from a very conservative Catholic law school in the mid-West. The school’s teaching staff was predominantly made up of social, political, and/or religious conservatives. Further, the vast majority of the student body was also conservative. Of course the school’s tenor towards progressive social issues (i.e. SS marriage) was disapproving. However, the school’s conservative demeanor never prohibited opposing views from being voiced. In particular, I recall a night where Phyllis Schlatley (sp?) was asked to come and speak. Schlatley, as I am sure most of you already know, if a raging anti-feminist, voicing very outdated beliefs regarding women’s places in society. Our school was conservative, but it certainly wasn’t THAT conservative. Indeed, I think most of the school was flat-out appalled at the woman’s views. However, her views and arguments were well supported, and as controversial as they were, our law school, as an academic institution that sees the integrity and benefit of any well formed argument, allowed her to come and speak. Of course there was major resistance from the majority of the student body. However, the school’s policy prohibited denial simply based on opinion.
I do believe that Schlatley’s speech, although controversial, was properly accepted into our institution’s debate.
I have another example. My torts professor was one of the lawyers that counseled the Bush administration on whether it was required to follow international protocol when dealing with terrorist groups. In a document improperly entitled by popular culture as “The Torture Memorandum,” the legal staff concluded that certain terrorist groups did not constitute military groups as defined by the Geneva Conventions. As a result of this document, it was said that my professor (amongst other lawyers) gave the Bush admin. a green light to torture certain members of terrorist groups. My professor was supposed to teach a course at a neighboring law school that is extremely liberal. The student body rejected him, a phenomenal instructor and a great constitutional and international law scholar because of his work for the Bush administration.
Now, I will admit I am slightly biased because he was one of the greatest instructors I’ve ever come across in all my academic years. However, it was appalling to see this other law school demanding his invitation rescinded due to his scholarly work. No doubt, his work was controversial, and, for sure, his work did not comport with the overall liberal tone of the school. However, those students lost out on a great intellectual treasure and a great legal mind. Part of what struck so hard was that his students, even those that had difficulty with his work, knew he was a good man and an even better professor.
Now, I don’t actually know anything about Thio’s arguments regarding homosexual issues, except from what I read in her letter (I also found it really confusing and poorly written, perhaps due to language barriers?). However, I trust the NYU Board in making a decision as to whether she is a qualified scholar for purposes of representing their school’s scholarship and staff and as to whether her arguments are well-supported for purposes of legal education. No doubt her viewpoints would have upset me, sparked furious debate, and perhaps enrollment in her classes would be low due to the extreme liberal nature of NYU’s law school, but I still don’t think that is a reason for her rejection.
One last thing, was no one a little concerned at the fact that she never replied to any of the KKK and racism asserted against her? Of course, I would fully support a debate on such controversial topics if people ever disagreed and wished to voice that disagreement. However, is she really just letting all that slide? But yes, anyone agree? Disagree?
Landon Bryce
@FlopsyMopsyCT:
It is not surprising that an admirer of (I think) John Yoo has a little grasp of human rights. Do you understand that that is the subject Li-Ann Thio was going to be teaching? Do you understand that Thio supported a huge fine placed on a television production because it presented a gay couple and their child as a family? It would be immoral not to question her understanding of human rights as a concept. It is very legitimate to question the competence of someone who uses the “success” of the ex-gay movement as an argument in parliament. She’s not just a bigot– she’s a stupid bigot. As Revesz indicated, NYU should be embarrassed that they chose someone who shows an astonishingly low intellectual callibre (it’s okay to make gay sex illegal because all gays are rich). Fred Phelps made his living as a civil rights lawyer until he was disbarred– would it be okay to hire him to teach human rights?
DM73
@ Michelle Lee
It’s funny when people don’t have a legitimate argument/rebuttal to make they resort to name calling. I find it awfully amusing.
Sore Loser? I don’t understand that comment at all. That implies I had a fair shake to begin with in a society where it’s still okay to make an instant joke by just inserting a fag in a scenario. Sore Loser? What did I say that was historically wrong or inaccurate? I’m not poking or making fun of Singapore. I stated a fact. They did not allow chewing gum. They institute corporal punishment of lashes for such a thing. Just pointing to the society for which the “professor” came from. The “professor” may have her opinions but so can I. I don’t begrudge her of her opinions, but like an asshole, everyone has one. And when her bigoted opinions lead to oppression, I have a right to say that too. This country has freedoms for which I can rebut bigots openly. In Singapore, I’m expected to play the good fag, shut the f*ck up and just hide in my closet unless I bring shame upon those I care about. “She” also was once a part of the government/parliament in Singapore and made her homophobic statements when she was a part of said government (look at youtube). Perhaps before opining fruitlessly with weird personal affronts, attack me with some kind of rebuttal based on what I said and if I got anything wrong. As for Irony, well, it’s obvious your education was stunted, because you don’t have a clue what the word means.
I’ve been a respectful and extremely productive person in society, and can not afford to be the good fag and stay quiet. As with all things, anything worth having is worth fighting for. As a group, we have to speak up, act up and be pro-active because people like Michelle Lee seem to think we’re all losers for trying to point out the worst kind of bigotry of all, the implicit kind. So if I’m some sore loser, it’s because I don’t see the value of hiding in a closet and cowering from “Moralists” like you. I am not a second class citizen and it’s your problem that you feel that I am.
Sincerely, F&ck you Michelle Lee.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Insults, invectives and epithets are not opinions.
They are hate speech designed to incite violence against LGBT people.
You are nothing more than a bigoted, homo-hating provocateur.
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: So in your view
anti-christian opinion = fair comment
anti-homosexual opinion = hate speech
Do you people realise just how bigoted and intolerant you appear?
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK:
You assert that homosexual marriage is a civil right
I assert that it isn’t, because I can’t find any mention of homosexual marriage in the US Constitution, nor do I know of any Supreme Court rulings that have stated homosexual marriage to be a right. Unlike traditional marriage which was stated to be a right in Loving v Virginia.
OK so now where is YOUR substantiation?
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
The only fool on this site is you!
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Nor, was there any mention of interracial marriages or the right of women to vote before the laws were changed. So much for “tradittion”. So, what’s your point?
Life is not static. It is always changing. Get used to it.
TANK
@FlopsyMopsyCT:
Most of this simply isn’t an argument, but an opinion. As to your bare assertion that any viewpoint deserves equal consideration and a right to be voiced in a place of higher learning, why is that? I contend, to the contrary, that there are some viewpoints that serve no redeemable purpose. These viewpoints incite violence against groups of people, increasing unnecessary suffering and are anathema to facilitating social cohesion–and for no reason other than the irrational and demonstrably false beliefs that they are constituted. They do not merit further investigation in terms of having their proponnents express them at the expense of such an institution’s reputation by deeming them worthy of being expressed, and financially for accepting or paying money to them. They are not educational (one isn’t learning anything except the beliefs and values of the proponnent that reference nothing but themselves), and serve to increase baseless and needless hostilities that interfere with learning the truth.
Some debates aren’t healthy or appropriate in an academic setting because the arguments are so poor (unsound and invalid) and contemptible, that they are completely destructive; and far from enriching the collegial environment, contaminate it by increasing hostilities and the potential for violence.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
anti-christian opinion = fair comment.
Absolutely, especially when when the Christians began slinging the shit first. Do you expect that we should just duck and say thank you, could you sling some more, please?
anti-homosexual opinion = hate speech
That’s how this shit all got started, isn’t it? You throw rocks at people and you can bet your sweet life, they will throw rocks back at you.
That the way it’s always been and that’s the way it will always be until you’ll decide to stop throwing rocks. And until you do, we will keep defending ourselves.
There is no law saying we must take this shit from you Christers in case you haven’t noticed.
TANK
And this certainly isn’t about freedom of expression, as no one is interfering with her right to express her opinions. She just won’t get paid to do it–the right that she has to reject the offer based upon the freedom of expression of others that she would like to silence.
schlukitz
@TANK:
Some debates aren’t healthy or appropriate in an academic setting because the arguments are so poor (unsound and invalid) and contemptible, that they are completely destructive; and far from enriching the collegial environment, contaminate it by increasing hostilities and the potential for violence.
I couldn’t agree more with you, Tank.
And that is also true on this site, as well, especially as relates to people like SM, Butty-Barb and the reincarnated YesonProp8, cum youcanthandlethetruth.
schlukitz
@FlopsyMopsyCT:
I graduated from a very conservative Catholic law school in the mid-West.
Well, there’s your problem right there. Little wonder that you do not agree with the student body’s treatment of her.
If you not equally upset by a straight bigot who only purpose for existing is to deny civil-rights to minority groups, then you obviously were not listening. Advocating treating LGBT people like criminals is not free speech. It’s provacatove and incites violence toward us.
Do you also feel that Hitler and the Germans were just exercising their right to free speech on Krystal Nacht as well?
I don’t give a rat’s-pitooey what her credentials are. She’s still over the top and should be shouted down, just like SM, Butty-Barb and youcanthandlethetruth and other such homophobes.
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: There ya go again, showing off your intolerance, christiophobia and homosexual bigotry.
Nobody is advocating treating homosexuals like criminals, but why shouldn’t you take criticism like any other minority special interest group?
Since when did homosexuals have a monopoly on being offended or expressing righteous indignation?
Landon Bryce
@youcanthandlethetruth:
“Nobody is advocating treating homosexuals like criminals”
Li-Ann Thio is, successfully. You really don’t read the stories you comment on!
yeson8won
@Landon Bryce: I was referring to the US, nobody in the US is advocating treating homos as criminals.
However some people on here openly advocating killing Christians and hoping that old people will die.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Landon Bryce: But nobody in the US is seriously advocating it.
Even Ahmadinajad got to speak in the US!
Mark
Li-Ann Thio’s credibility and scholarship on Human Rights is seriously damaged. There is no place for her bigotry in academia or politics. It’s embarrassing to watch the Dean of The NYU Law School be such an apologist for her ignorance on human sexuality, her discrimination of human rights for homosexuals and his inability to admit they made an enormous mistake.
Landon Bryce
@youcanthandlethetruth:
But the topic you are supposedly commenting on is someone who argued successfully for keeping laws against gay sex. Do you understand that you are not an effective advocate for your side when you writes in the comments of an article about someone who advocates treating homosexuals as criminals that “no one” is saying that.
Who in the United States invited Ahmadinajad to lecture on human rights? I missed that story. . .
youcanthandlethetruth
@Mark: What do you mean “There is no place for her bigotry in academia or politics”?
Who will you want to censor next? The “Gay Studies” professor?
So much for tolerance, you hateful homosexuals don’t seem to know the meaning of the word!
youcanthandlethetruth
@Landon Bryce: Nonetheless why not let her say her peice then you can raise your objections?
I never said Ahmadinajad lectured on Human Rights I said he was allowed to speak at Columbia last year.
He said there were no homosexuals in Iran.
schlukitz
@Landon Bryce:
youcanthandlethetruth is simply a disingenuous liar.
Bible-thmpers like he and Butty-Barb just like to stir-up shit.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
He said there were no homosexuals in Iran.
And of course, total idiot that you are, you believe him, I’m sure.
Landon Bryce
@youcanthandlethetruth:
I think, actually, that the official position taken by the gay student group that originally brought Thio’s appointment to general attention was exactly what you suggest. Again, it would be helpful to read the stories before writing about them.
Thio _was_ asked to lecture on human rights, unlike Ahmadinajad. That means that those of us who believe people like me are not inferior to people like you see an additional problem here. I see in Thio an avowed and effective enemy of human rights. You think gay people deserve to be treated as less than human, so you do not see her comments about us as problematic. Imagine, though, that we deserved to be treated as well as you.
And changing the subject when caught in an untenable position does not make you look any smarter.
Schlukitz, it’s not nice to use words as hard as “disingenuous” when writing about someone as intellectually incapacitated as our little friend, but, otherwise– yeah.
Andrew
YouCan’tHandleTheTruth masturbates furiously while watching early 70s footage of Anita Bryant at decency rallies… Just before reaching climax, he berates himself for committing the sin of Onanism -but- thanks the Lord he didn’t go far enough so as to “spill his seed upon the earth”…
[sorry folks, cocktails before dinner have made me just sick enough of this prick that I resort to ad hominem attacks]
[on 2nd thought, I take that apology back. Fuck him.]
🙂
schlukitz
@Andrew:
Fuck him.
I have too much respect for my dick to do that! ;o)
Michelle Lee
@DM73:
well said.
however, what i was commenting on was more the tone you used to approach this issue, and not at all your facts. Yepp you got all your facts right, but so what? Comments are used not only to cite facts but to also represent your feelings, and i think i was right on the money on how you feel towards her as a person, and how you then grouped singapore together with her. You certianly have your opinions, but when one mixes them with facts, as you did, I don’t think that makes for a lucid argument.
I think most people in singapore have got a “fair shake”, however you put it. My best guy friend is gay, and one of my closest girl friends is a lesbian, and i was one too. Do i feel oppressed? A little. Do we lament against the government, which, incidently, also banned chewing gum? Logic please? Tell me that wasn’t a poor attempt to cast a poor light on Singapore.
On the contrary, we express ourselves openly, are well educated, have got decent jobs (well i’m still in college but she does) and are doing dandy where we are. We went to top junior colleges, no ostracizing took place. So what have you got to say about that?
The irony, which you unfortunately seemed to have missed it your fit of anger, was how i imitated Thio’s letter at the end.
I am not a second class citizen and it’s your problem that you feel that I am.
“I am not a second class citizen and it’s your problem that you feel that I am.” — when did i ever imply this?
and “f&ck you Michelle Lee”? now, someone’s getting a little personal.
don’t be a hater.
DM73
@Michelle Lee
You made it personal. You’re the hater. Don’t paint that aspersion on me.
Remember, you stated my position as that of a sore loser, which makes no sense. You still haven’t a clue what irony means EITHER. As for “tone”, tone can be interpreted in any way in the written form. Even “f*ck you” in the right circumstances can be lovely, sweet and gentle.
The old gag of “my best friend is a such-and-such” is one of the oldest subliminal bigot defenses. Don’t resort to it, it exposes more of your true colors. Hear yourself. “If my best friend is gay, well, how can I be homophobic?” Your lovely “professor” claims the same nonsense. “Because at one time in my life I experimented with lesbianism, how can I hate gays?” That is baloney. Some of the most homophobic people can also be gay themselves (Ted Haggard, Larry Craig).So the argument merits very little logical or actual weight.
I also appreciate highly how when there isn’t an actual argument on your part anymore(you did agree that I was factual), that you spin the coin a new way. It’s not about a list of facts it’s about emotions. Bullshit! Now you subliminally accuse me of something that is extremely untrue. Misogyny. I don’t begrudge the “professor” of her opinions, in so far as that she keeps them to herself. If she used her position in parliament, as she did, to hurt other’s civil rights, which she did, then I can bitch and moan about it. I have no intention other than to civilly protest the bigot. Violence begets nothing and the claims of violence the “professor” alleges is the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. Spouting an opinion that she is a bigot is not misogynistic.
So, live a little. You’re young. Don’t espouse how I should feel until you’ve been harrased, belittled and denied opportunities despite having the same or better qualifications of those that are promoted before you for many many years. When you’ve been denied simple dignities as respect of one’s self as long as I have and many others, anger shouldn’t be a surprise. You’d be angry too if you were denied, like in many parts of the world, an education just because you were born female.
Singapore was never an issue. It was one you made up. All I stated was it isn’t a surprise that someone who is a product of a country historically as repressive as that one to come to her stance.
So chill out. Eat some pussy and leave arguments for the grown-ups.
Michelle Lee
@DM73:
you have my sympathy, so how about a little suggestion. why don’t you take a trip down to Singapore for a nice quiet break? Just don’t forget to leave that chewing gum at home, and check your ego at the door.
DM73
@Michelle Lee
You’re the one who needs sympathy. Pitying a person is to put them down and make yourself better than them. Get an education.
I don’t travel to oppressive cuntries. That’s exactly my point too with two-faced homophobes. Love the person, not the act nonsense. Just be a good little fag, spend your money and shut the f*ck up as I tell you how it is little fag.
As for ego, well it’s twats like you that prove again that you want us fags to stay quiet and hide in our closets and be happy to be able to be allowed to coexist with your majesty.
Ego is part of a complete person. But in oppressive places, it is expected to be checked at the door.
Thanks again for confirming the truth.
Why don’t you take your confused self and stay there then and have tea with the “professor” and laugh at us silly fags.
Brian Miller
@youcanthandlethetruth:
anti-christian opinion = fair comment
anti-homosexual opinion = hate speech
That’s an EXCELLENT point.
Christians are a profoundly persecuted minority in America with little political power.
After the State of California recently overturned the right of Christianity to be considered a “religion” with Prop 88, this really came into focus clearly. But that was just the latest in a long line of anti-Christian oppressive laws, where non-Christians and atheists used the law to beat down Christians.
Take the 1996 Defense of Religion Act, for instance, which stated that one state did not have to recognize another state’s non-profit status for Christians’ so-called “churches,” and which mandated that the federal government permanently exclude Christian churches from federal programs for religion, including nonprofit status.
There was also the 1993 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, which maintained the ban on Christians in the military. Noting that Christian beliefs about death and hell demoralize the fighting forces of America who are supposed to be focused on killing, the government banned open Christianity in the armed forces. Many army personnel expressed alarm at the thought of sharing close quarters with someone who believes in “drinking the blood and eating the flesh” of a 2,000 year old Jewish carpenter. Thousands of Christians have been dismissed from the armed forces as a result.
Let’s not forget the epidemic of Christian-bashing. The “Christ panic defense” remains an issue — often, individuals who murder Christians have gotten out of murder charges simply by claiming that the Christian tried to convert them, inducing uncontrollable disgust leading to violence.
And police regularly kick down the doors of churches and arrest churchgoers during “holy days.” In Fort Worth last month, there was a Baptist Church raided by the Texas Alcohol Commission and local police, who heard that since it was having wine as part of a religious ceremony, decided to come in and beat up on the churchgoers. One of them was so severely beaten he has a clot in his brain that threatens his life and health.
These ongoing efforts to suppress Christians’ civil rights are a stain on this great nation. youcanthandlethetruth makes an excellent, valid point.
DM73
Amen Brian Miller
Mark
@youcanthandlethetruth: Individuals, corporations, society and institutions of higher education enforce standards when accepting friends, employees, laws, faculty and students. It’s appropriate to deny the bigot, the racist, and the sexist individual the privilege to participate. She has enjoyed and continues to enjoy the freedom of thought and speech. She bowed out. The fired employee who can’t treat others fairly is not censored. They can still speak their hate- just not on someone else’s dime.
TKB
It constantly surprises me that “christians” like youcanthandlethetruth who profess to finding homosexuality unnatural and repugnant, and how the “homosexual agenda” is destroying family values etc, keep coming onto sites like this to spew their hate, to try and cram their specific beliefs down others’ throats.
Do homosexuals hang out on christians sites trying to turn them down the dark site? Do homosexuals stand outside churches, christian funerals, or secular public spaces loudly condeming all and sundry who are not homosexual? Do homosexuals in political power actively put up laws to limit the freedoms of heterosexuals? Or to criminalise the behaviours around heterosexuality?
A great line from an American comedian (I forget who) “If you dont like same sex marriage, not marry someone of the same sex” If you find homosexuality yucky, stay away from homosexuals.
Unless of course, the whole point is about forcing your hatred and anger down everyone’s throat. To try and force everyone to act in the way you see fit.
schlukitz
@TKB:
If you dont like same sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex – Wanda Sykes
TikiHead
@Michelle Lee: I think Singapore would be fascinating to visit, especially after Anthony Bourdain told us some of the good places to eat. Michelle, we certainly do hear a lot of stories here in America about Singapore’s apparently retrograde laws (possibly lopsided and exaggerated). The Professor’s comments were so grating to American ears, I think, because we already have our own healthy home-grown crop of gay-hating conservatives, no need to import more!
By the way, is it true Singapore used to dictate hair length for men?
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: If you don’t like bestiality or pedophilia then don’t marry a goat or a child.
Confucius
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Have no fear.
It’s not my desire to lessen the availability of either goats or children for you to have sex with.
I enjoy having sex with an adult male, so the field is clear for you to indulge yourself in your wildest sexual fantasies and desires.
Your God has no problem with goat or child fuckers…as long as they are straight.
I say, go for it! ;o)
Joey G
I like how she used the term “homosex”, then “homosexual”, like they were two different things. I also agree with the commenter on Prop 8. It’s screwed up how people spew their racist agenda (the Mormons) than get all offended when they get called out on it. I also enjoyed how she pointed out that developers just loved providing living spaces for homos. What the hell is that? It’s like a pretty prison for the homos to live in so they don’t make a fuss. What a slag. I hope the muslims take over in Singapore, which is the REAL problem they have. It’s also the reason she made her parliament speech, she was kissing Muslim ass. this means she is not a real scholar, just a politician serving a particular group. Yeah, give singapore to the muslims. I don’t think little miss uptight pseudo women’s lib gay basher is going to like her burka very much though.
Hollah
Hey 64! You must be a blast on a date…zzzzzzzzz…..good luck whipping boy!
Hollah
Again for 64. So, you are arguing that your conservative law school invited an ultra-conservative to your law school, and that it was O.K. and accepted. Wow, alert the press! Are you that clueless? Dude, put down the Kool-aid! There is no comparison between your story and this one! Your Professor (conservative) was rejected by a “liberal” school (that’s YOUR opinion) and you are surprised? Enjoy your log cabin rep…oh, forgot, they are dead in the water and a joke now…wow, dude, you are a piece of work!
Hollah
@schlukitz: and you know that youcanthandlethetruth just loves him some goat…probably not as much as his nephew though…hey, as long as God’s not watchin!
FlopsyMopsyCT
@Hollah:
No, that’s not what I was saying. Schlafly’s views on woman are popularly outdated even for a conservative school like mine. The vast majority of students and faculty at my school, regardless of their political affiliation, were not in agreement with her thoughts that women belong in the kitchen. So in a sense, our academic views were in accordance with a liberal school’s views, at least on that topic. But to add one more example of what I mean (since you had difficulty with the first), we had a panel discussion regarding gay marriage at our school. As I said earlier, our school is generally anti-gay marriage. However, the presenters included Jonathan Rausch, Dale Carpenter and Andrew Sullivan who obviously don’t follow the conservative, Catholic perspective on marriage. The conservative side included Lynn Wardle and Maggie Gallagher. It was a great symposium that lasted several days with great debate. Our school did not withhold invitations from the pro-gay marriage speakers because we are a conservative Catholic school. In addition, one of our professors is a huge advocate for unrestricted abortion rights and has written much scholarly material on the issue.
As for the preceding comment #103 . . . . You can say whatever you want when you’re hot enough.
As for Tank’s comment, see, I would probably disagree with you there. I do think there are topics and issues that spark furious debate and, of course, create unrest. However, I personally believe that such consequences are outweighed by the benefit of wide info dissemination and knowledge of different views. Of course, as long as their arguments are logical. Obviously this woman’s “gay sex=crime because gays are rich” argument is bad. But I don’t think that was what NYU was bringing her over for. However, I don’t think we should hold her too closely to that statement. I doubt NYU’s faculty board would find that legitimate debating material. There is probably more to her argument is all I’m saying.
Landon, I don’t think that’s fair. Of course I understand human rights and their importance. I am a young gay man myself who is a major proponent of equality for gays and lesbians. I am actually quite offended by what you said and think personal attacks regarding my intellect are cruel at this point. ou have no reason to doubt my credibility and intellectual capabilities simply because I disagree with you. Human rights can be debated, should be debated, and have been furiously debated. Further, she’s teaching Human Rights LAW. Of course her opinions will probably enter the classroom at some point. But most law professors don’t teach solely their viewpoints. It’s the reason why law schools follow socratic teaching methods. Legal teaching standards would not allow her to come into the classroom and gay bash.
Landon Bryce
@FlopsyMopsyCT:
I did not attack your intellect; I attacked your understanding of the issue of human rights. If you admire John Yoo or anyone who worked to allow Americans to torture our enemies, there are very few scholars in the area of human rights who would allow that you have any understanding of the issue at all. I am offended that a young gay law student is so indifferent to the suffering of others. I am offended that anyone could listen to Thio’s speech and say that there is probably more to her argument, as you do here.
FlopsyMopsyCT
Well I am assuaged slightly by the fact that you weren’t attacking me. I appreciate that. However, I think you’re taking offense to a position that a) I do not hold, and b) you would have no way of knowing I hold simply based on what I’ve written previously. To be clear, I am actually very sensitive to human rights, both in the domestic and international spheres. I am simply saying that full discourse on unresolved, controversial issues is a good thing, both academically and politically. Honestly I do think John Yoo has a very interesting legal mind. I certainly do not agree with everything he’s written, and most people in the legal world do not, including my professor who has worked with him extensively. Indeed, much of his work has been highly criticized by great legal minds and is controversial both legally and morally. Further, (and I thought I made this particularly clear) that I am not ultimately “siding” with professor Thio on any issue. Realistically, based on the little I know about her (only from this article), I doubt I would agree with her on much. Though I don’t agree with her treatment of gay rights in Singapore, I don’t think that means she’s a bad scholar and certainly does not mean she’s unfit to teach a class at a liberal law school on human rights. I, personally, do not have enough information to really decide whether I believe she’s “unfit” to teach. If she said she was going to inundate NYU law students with a bunch of anti-gay and racist thought and opinion, then no, I would not think that appropriate because I think all teachers’ and professors’ lectures need to be sensitive and neutral so as not to emotionally ostracize any students. However, given the normal methods used by law professors, and the fact that she’s teaching a course (as opposed to getting involved in a debate regarding gay rights), I don’t think her opinions regarding gay rights have much relevance as to whether she is fit to teach, as long as she’s able to keep her personal opinions aside while teaching. I think any professor, conservative or liberal, who is unable to do that, is unfit to teach. But simply having controversial opinions on a subject I don’t think constitutes proper ground to declare someone unfit to teach.
schlukitz
@Hollah:
LOL
TANK
As for Tank’s comment, see, I would probably disagree with you there. I do think there are topics and issues that spark furious debate and, of course, create unrest. However, I personally believe that such consequences are outweighed by the benefit of wide info dissemination and knowledge of different views. Of course, as long as their arguments are logical. Obviously this woman’s “gay sex=crime because gays are rich” argument is bad. But I don’t think that was what NYU was bringing her over for. However, I don’t think we should hold her too closely to that statement. I doubt NYU’s faculty board would find that legitimate debating material. There is probably more to her argument is all I’m saying.
I don’t think you know what a debate is. It is generally regarded that murdering people for pleasure is wrong, and that people who disagree and think it is okay to murder and torture people for pleasure are regarded as mentally ill. Now, it wouldn’t be acceptable to seriously debate this topic as it has no redeeming value to add to the discussion. I see no reason why that shouldn’t be extended to people who aren’t mentally ill, yet advocate positions that cause needless suffering by depriving people of their rights and human dignity for no other reason than false beliefs, superstition, and bigotry.
TANK
What are the benefits of debating about harming people for one’s amusement, or one’s preference?
TANK
And arguments need to be logical? What do you mean by “so long as the arguments are logical”? Because her arguments were logically invalid, and, given a charitable reading, unsound.