When the anti-gay group Stand for Marriage Maine released its first television ad, they turned Boston College Law School professor Scott T. Fitzgibbon into a star. Except plenty of his colleagues at BC Law vehemently disagreed with his stance — not only the anti-gay one, but also his misinformation and half-truths. (Which it admitted to.) And so 76 of Fitzgibbon’s colleagues, including the school’s Dean John Garvey, just moved to distance themselves from their discrimination-loving peer.
“The undersigned members of the faculty and administration at Boston College Law School feel that it is important to reaffirm our belief in the equality of all of our students,” they all co-signed in a statement. “We are proud of the fact that Boston College Law School was one of the first law schools in the country to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination pledge, and we reaffirm our commitment to making our institution a welcome and safe place for all students, including LGBT students.”
That’s sort of interesting, because three days earlier, Dean Garvey had circulated this message around BC Law faculty (read the full letter here), which attempted to explain how they can keep someone like Fitzgibbon on their faculty:
Professor Fitzgibbon, as a member of our faculty, is free to express his views. His public statements represent his own opinions, as the advertisement makes clear, and do not state any official position of Boston College Law School. We also have faculty members who hold a contrary view, which they too are free to express publicly. Many have done so while referring to themselves as BC Law professors. One of them has publicly led the fight to oppose the Solomon Amendment on the grounds that it is an affront to gay and lesbian students and prospective members of the U.S. military. Others have taken controversial positions on such subjects as abortion, euthanasia, and the treatment of detainees.
I believe that free expression is central to our mission as a law school committed to public
discourse and the free exchange of ideas and opinions. We have faculty and students from many different backgrounds, and with many different points of view. It is our expectation that they will continue to engage in public discourse, and argue their positions with passion and civility, with the intellectual freedom that an academic institution affords to us all.
Fine. But at least move him to a windowless office.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
ericka.valladolid
Garvey is correct. Mountains of evidence clearly demonstrate the agenda of these sexual anrchists, and their attempts to con the public into accepting their sexual preference as equivalent to marriage. This is not about civil rights, homosexuals have every civil right as anyone else does. They are free to marry a person of the opposite sex just as anyone else is. Marriage has never been a civil right. Marriage requires a license, no license is needed to exercise any civil right.
Demeaning and dininishing Garvey’s views does not make them any less correct. Already the words homophobe and bigot are being thrown about. These two words together are a loser for same sex activists when they are used together to describe differing views of people.
Garvey is correct, the underlying agenda of these activists is to indoctrinate the children, and control religion.
Atagahi
@Ericka.Valladolid is incorrect. Miscegenation, interracial marriage, is a civil right that requires a license. Being a lawyer, doctor, plumber, hair stylist, all require licenses but at one time used discriminatory practices to exclude minority members.
While I agree that Prof. Garvey’s views are reprehensible, he has the right to exercise his free speech. As do we.
Freedom of speech only protects the speaker against government retribution on the speaker, not that of his fellow citizens.
In the same manner as he is free to speak his mind about us, we are free to speak our minds about him, his lies and intolerance. Absent committing a tort or a crime with our free speech, both sides are free to discuss things openly and with vigor.
That, Ericka, is how freedom of speech works.