But she believes that homosexuality is a gender identity disorder and can be cured. How can she even teach human rights, even as a “theory” if she doesn't even acknowledge the basic premise with respect to gays and lesbians?

Well, the same way she would teach any other theory. “This is the argument for it, this is the argument against it. Please, critique them both.” Honestly, it isn't that difficult. The question, actually, isn't whether she can teach something she doesn't believe, but if she is willing to do so. A good bit of bigotry gets by under the rubric of “intellectual freedom,” so she might not. I disagree with any number of things in The Anti-Federalist Papers, but not only do I teach them regularly, I require my students to read them and to argue both for and against them.

Here's something to think about. Several years ago I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who teaches psychology and he informed me that he had participated in the working group that defined PMS as a diagnosis in the DSM-IV (which means it is classified as an official mental health diagnosis). He said that at least one committee-person – a woman, in fact – fought very hard against its inclusion because she didn't actually believe that PMS exists. In fact, this is quite common – several of the harshest critics of ADHD actually helped draw up the diagnostic criteria for it. They approached it from an intellectual standpoint of “If this disorder that does not exist actually did afflict people, how would they behave?”

Again, I'm not saying this person should be given the job. I'm simply saying that her statements against gays – offensive as they may be (and I believe they are incredibly offensive) – should not stop her from being considered for the position. They may provide cause for the administration to inquire about how she plans to deal with the subject (which is a very good idea). But if she can manage to leave her hostility to those times when she wears an activist hat, then she might well be able to lead a very good classroom discussion or two – and I'm sure that students would learn quite a bit from her.

But she believes that homosexuality is a gender identity disorder and can be cured. How can she even teach human rights, even as a “theory” if she doesn't even acknowledge the basic premise with respect to gays and lesbians?

She's just a bigot with a college degree.

But she is outspoken in her beliefs. As far as I can tell she would not teach about human rights in a positive manner with respect to that gays and lesbians.

My whole point is that the degree to which she is outspoken does not equate to what she will or won't teach in class. You may be right and she will use her podium to preach her faith, so to speak. But I am also very outspoken in my beliefs, and I do not want my teaching job to depend on how well they synch up with the administration's – or, even worse, with people who are not even going to attend the class.

It is possible for a professor to argue a point strenuously, and yet challenge his or her students to dig into the subject and argue better points. My religious beliefs were honed by sitting in theory classes with devout atheists who challenged my thinking repeatedly – but, in the end, I knew that they respected my decision (or at least respected the right for me to make that decision).

Teaching at a University is not about proselytizing. It's about teaching people to think and exposing them to conflicting theories about how things work. Then, one stands aside and lets them reach their own conclusions and allows them to apply the those conclusions as they wish. We cannot have a university system that denies people jobs simply because they hold unpopular beliefs, not matter how unpopular they are. In fact, the university community depends on allowing such unpopular beliefs to be expressed – and therefore, challenged.

Well, you're right it isn't about gay marriage, but the two are closely related. Some people might call marriage, as an expression of two people's commitment to each other and a way to honor God, as a fundamental human right.

But once one does start taking away basic human rights from groups of people because one doesn't like them, then other rights are soon to be taken away, too.

So you're right, it isn't about other gay rights issues, per se, but I think at the end of the day it is. If one is imprisoned for being gay, then one can't really enjoy any other liberties around other “gay rights issues”.

For crying out loud, people are taking away rights of gays and lesbians. The best case is the fact that gays and lesbians did have the right to get married until the religious conservatives banded together and took that right away. That's a huge harm in many ways.

But she is outspoken in her beliefs. As far as I can tell she would not teach about human rights in a positive manner with respect to that gays and lesbians.

An aside:
I find it interesting that Thio Li-ann went on a rant about America trying to impose it's values on Singapore by backing the repeal of 377A. She insisted that other countries should leave Singapore laws alone ..
I find that ironic and problematic.
Why so? Well, because 377A isn't a Singapore law. It's a law that was imposed on Singapore by the British during the old colonial days. Prior to the British colonization period, Singapore didn't take issue with homosexuality.
That is to say, homosexuality, prior to colonization, was a non-issue.

Laters,
Ghost

Now here's the mind-stretcher. Ready? People in favor of normal reproductive sexuality have just as extreme reservations allowing gays to affect [instruct] other people in the same capacity.

She is entitled to her views. She is entitled to speak her mind about them. As offensive as it is for gays to hear it is just as offensive to people who agree with her point of view that gays would take offense. This issue is clearly at loggerheads. You either accept and promote unnatural non-reproductive sexual fixation or you don't. There is no gray area and both sides have the right to as strong of feelings as the other has.

Gays plead that what they do doesn't hurt anyone. We've all heard this argument. Yet they now plead to suppress this woman's POV because they believe that her POV could hurt people. How could it? Unless gays themselves believe that any strong viewpoint on either polarity of the issue has the potential to 'convert' others to think their way.

As someone who is philosophically liberal, I have quite a collection of conservative theorists on my bookshelf – because I want to understand my “enemy” and because I want to be sure I do their point of view justice. My job isn't to turn out “good little liberals.” It's to turn out functioning people who engage their mind to solve the world's problems.

Well said. However it all starts somewhere and personal belief is where it starts. I don't think it's possible to teach anything you don't believe with total objectivity.

That's like teaching the ABC's but stopping at the letter “M”.

Not at all. Not even similar, actually.

There are people who manage to get through their primary education and still end up functionally illiterate. I don't know if that's because their reading teacher didn't believe in letters after “M” or just didn't manage to teach it, but the effect is the same. Illiteracy. The cause isn't the teacher's belief (I seriously doubt anyone doesn't believe in “N” at the very least). It's because the teacher didn't adequately cover the material.

The same principle applies for human rights. A person can be a racist and have a complete understanding of theories of racial equality. So a person can believe that gays are not entitled to any legal protections but still teach that they are. It isn't a matter of what she believes, but the material she covers in her class. Any academic worth their salt should be willing to entertain theories that compete with what they believe. If she is willing to include readings in gay/lesbian rights, and she is willing to let students hold and defend beliefs different from her own, then she should be allowed to teach the course.

It isn't about what she believes or what she does on her own time. It's about what she does in the classroom.

That's like teaching the ABC's but stopping at the letter “M”.

The problem comes when someone teaches their personal beliefs as fact. To be blunt, someone can belong to the KKK, and even give speeches at Klan rallies, and I don't care. What is important is what they say inside the classroom – and if they are passing Klan ideology off as being fact, there's a problem. If they don't, then it shouldn't matter.

In the end, people have to be given the freedom to believe and speak. We really don't want to become thought police, running around and taking away people's jobs because of their beliefs. I'd much rather have someone teaching human rights who cares enough to openly oppose equal rights for gay people than have someone teaching human rights who doesn't care what happens at all – or someone who believes homosexuality is wrong but is afraid to speak their mind (repressed beliefs have a way of finding their way out in the worst possible way).

Anyway, here's an idea – perhaps being exposed to the openly gay community in NYC will soften her stance. Perhaps not. But one of the things we give up for freedom is the power to tell others what to believe.