Student Response to Anti-Gay Human Rights Prof’s NYU Invitation
In a post yesterday I asked, Should someone who teaches Human Rights support human rights for lgbt people? The question is raised by NYU’s invitation to Thio Li-ann to teach Human Rights in the fall. Thio is an outspoken opponent of gay rights who has argued repeatedly and graphically that her country should continue to criminalize gay sexual acts.
While I quoted extensively from the Inside Higher Education piece, I did not quote any of Dr. Thio’s fiery response to the concern over her invitation. Before we get to the students’ statement, here’s some of what Dr. Thio said via email to Inside Higher Ed:
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion, free conscience, free thought — that is a cardinal principle for every academic community. I hold to it, in my own law school, and I would expect the NYU law community to do so as well. We can be united in commitment to this principle, without slavishly bowing to a demanded uniformity or dogma of political correctness set by elite diktat. I cannot say I am impressed by this ugly brand of politicking which I hope is not endemic,” she wrote. Thio added that she “was encouraged when the president of an NYU student organization committed to free debate wrote to welcome me and to point out that the negative, prejudicial and frankly, hostile views expressed are not representative of everyone in the student body. [...]
“Do some Americans by appropriating the rhetoric of human rights assume they can impose their views on another sovereign state? Is there a human right to sodomy? Is this a core right or a contested one? There are countervailing views that this is the wrong way to characterize the issue — so do students who dislike this view refuse to engage with dissenting views? Or seek to censor views they disagree with? That’s hubris. I think certain Americans have to realize the fact that there are a diversity of views on the subject and it is not a settled matter; there is no universal norm and it is nothing short of moral imperialism to suggest there is. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no consensus on this even within the U.S. Supreme Court and American society at large, even post Lawrence v. Texas.” (The court case is the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that barred states from criminalizing consenting sexual acts between adults of the same sex.)
Maybe “some Americans” want to censor Thio. NYU’s lgbt law students do not. The board of NYU OUTLaw, the law school’s lgbt student group, issued its official statement today. It reads in part:
[W]e ask NYU School of Law to make a public statement condemning her remarks made in Singaporean Parliament, reassert its commitment to diversity, and assure that the concerns of LGBT students be considered in future hirings.
Nonetheless, the Board thinks it best to fight Dr. Thio’s offensive views not by silencing her but by engaging in a respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights. This fall, we plan to hold events to explore issues of academic freedom, LGBT rights, and human rights in Asia, and we look forward to Dr. Thio’s participation in the discussion. We very much appreciate the comments from students, alumni, and other concerned parties, and we expect the passion and interest to continue as we plan our events for next year.
President Obama recently invoked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to affirm his belief that the “arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” From the cornfields of Iowa to the street markets of India, history is moving towards equality for the LGBT community. We are confident that tolerance and diversity will triumph over hatred and bigotry.
In my few comments yesterday I said that I thought the students and faculty quoted in the Inside Higher Ed story got their response about right. That early opinion goes doubly for the student statement today.
Bravo!
Me, I have no desire to censor Dr. Thio’s views. I wouldn’t be offering her a teaching spot at NYU, but that’s not just because of her views. Read the text of her speech arguing that homosexuality should be illegal. (YouTube video of the speech is available in three parts — here and here and here.)
She’s no intellectual heavyweight. The broad circulation of her views will lead to a detailed, credible debunking. The more those views are “debated,” the better for those of us who believe that lgbt people are deserving of all of the rights and responsibilities that every other citizen has. And I believe lgbt citizens are deserving of those rights and responsibilities both here and in Singapore.
LATER: NYU Law student Jim McCurley writes an open letter. Li-Ann Thio replies that she wants to meet face to face. And David Bernstein at The Volockh Conspiracy takes issue with comments from Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors.
15 Responses to “Student Response to Anti-Gay Human Rights Prof’s NYU Invitation”
Mommy, why are those two men pretending to be mommy and daddy?
Laws can be reversed. I find Dr. Thio's remarks remarkably interesting in a field where there don't seem to be enough educated thought applied to this issue.
I suggest that its time to start pushing back against the, “Lesbian” “Gay”
“Bi-SEXUAL” “TRANSGENDER” extra rights movement.
I want to know EXACTLY what they want and where it ends. No Generalizations and no Rhetoric attempting to associated LGBT with RACE.
Race has no choice. Whom you have sex with IS a choice!
<frustrated snark>That's why Father_time also wishes to push back on freedom of religion, since it's a choice. I await his comments on why any religious majority has the moral right to ban other religions and denominations. Since Judaism is a choice, then it's appropriate to push back against the freedoms of Jews if the majority so chooses. Jews demanding the right to practice their religion freely is a horrible imposition on others.</frustrated snark>
pacatrue–
Freedom from religion I have. Freedom to Suppress Dr. Thio, you don’t have.
…and there she is teaching at NYU. The tip of the sword.
Jews? Oh good grief no they don‘t bother anyone. More like reverend Phelps and his home grown Baptists, but then you would have to agree with me on a point. God Forbid.
When did I say she wasn't allowed to speak her mal-informed, idiotic stuff? She can have at it. Naturally, you assume I want to suppress her free speech rights because… gays are out to get you, I think.
My point is that just because people can physically refrain from doing something, it does not give the majority the moral right to outlaw it. Almost everyone now accepts that it is wrong to ban religions you don't adhere to, or even that you think are wrong, because of the fundamental importance of religion in life. Surely love is something rather fundamental to a person's identity, life, and happiness as well. But what did Thomas Jefferson know?
The student response is great!
Good. I'm glad you're ok with banning interracial marriage, too, since it is after all a choice.
Father_Time, “Whom you have sex with IS a choice!”
Hahaha…. that's obvious. Some people prefer to have sex with women and some people prefer to have sex with men. Why do you have sex (assuming you do) with the people (or person) you do? And why should you care who someone you don't even know is having sex with? What difference does it make?
Yes, the PC campus brownshirts predictably are out in force. (In a kinder, gentler, way, such as not wanting a book banned at a book store, or engaging in the typical leftist campus stunt of seizing and destroying un-PC publications on campus, but rather “merely” insisting the bookstore officially post a sign next to the book saying “THIS BOOK IS WRONG”)
It's still PC campus brownshirt stuff, and entirely predictable.
If the opponents have any decency and normality they will not attack or disrupt the professor or the classes (nor harass the students, obviously*) — but simply boycott the classes.
* Which would be typical hypocrisy and worse if they did — shooting the professor not required…
“Whom you have sex with IS a choice!”
If only the wanton use of capitalization and exclamation points could get that thought airborne you might have a point; unfortunately, every credible study done on the subject begs to differ.
Unless you mean homosexuals could force themselves to have sex with someone to whom they are not attracted. Even if you would wish that kind of loveless and sexless marriage on me, though, why would you wish it on your daughter?
By Thio Li-Ann's own reasoning, such as it is, the human rights of (straight) minorities, for which she works so hard, are and should remain completely elective everywhere until and unless there is ever unanimity on the subject of granting them. What an odd thing to have made her life's work, given her laissez-faire attitude on the subject.
Um, isn't the question of whether sexual orientation is a human right itself controversial in US and the World? The latest push to have a UN declaration on sexual orientation met with substantial oppositions from almost half of the world's countries. Unless we consider US having weighted say on this matter the way Western countries have at the IMF and World Bank, we should curb our moral imperialism.
Sexual orientation is an elusive term – why include or exclude one orientation or sexual behaviour and not the next? Why accept or reject homosexuals, lesbians and not voluntary incest or under age sex? Our laws draw lines at every point, laws embody specific moral values. Let's not pretend. What is at stake here is whether we like someone else's sexual moral viewpoints. What's the difference between the following assertions:-
1. It is right for one to engage in sexual activity with another person of the same sex.
2. It is wrong for one to believe that marriage should be betweeen people of opposite sex.
3. It is right for a law academic to support legalized homosexual sex.
4. It is wrong for a man to have sexual relations with a legally under-aged person (why does 1 day or 5 months make a difference?)
5. It is illegal for a man to marry his sister or mother.
Are the above not normative assertions? Why should one position be superior to the other? How do we decide this in a democratic country? Or are we no longer interested in what another has to say?
If the Asian law universities' communities have warmly received and heard diverse views of their Western counterparts, surely, we can do the same without calling our opponents names and saying that they are not competent to teach?
Prof Thio has spoken to constitutional and human rights issues. We should examine the merits of her arguments (and she has written on many issues not just sexual orientation) instead of engaging in inaccuracies and name calling so characteristics of American politics.
Let's be more than 'moderate' – let's be accurate and not engage in slanderous and vindictive personal and professional attacks against the individual.
In the name of freedom of speech and conscience. This should be applied both ways.
I want to hear how would Father_time reply all the comments above!!!
Erm…if FT doesnt turn out, no problem, coward or not it s his CHOICE in the end.
Who you marry is a choice, so we could say it isnt a human right to marry a black man if you are a white woman. I could also tell you that your RELIGION is a choice, and based on your argument, I can now discriminate against Jews, Catholics or ANY religion.
@beyondbigotry
A bit of education here (which google can also provide you with should you bother).
Incest is against the law because it has been scientifically proven that children born out of incestuous relationships are very much more likely to suffer from birth defects. One could say outlawing incest is not so much based on moral arguments but economic ones, where insurance companies and the public health sector face a higher economic cost should incestuous relationships be legalized.
Coming to sex with underage individuals – children are deemed less able to make wise, logical choices of their own until they reach a legal age. As such, setting a minimum legal age for sex would ensure that the act is carried out with full awareness of possible consequences and of course, consent from the individual under the condition that he/she is wise enough to make his/her own choices. If you would like to go further and argue about what the age set by the law should be, you can decide to educate yourself with the help of a search engine.
The reason why many feel that gay rights (i.e the right to have consensual sex with another individual of the same sex, provided both are of legal age) are basic human rights is because heterosexual 'straight rights' (term coined by self) are deemed basic human rights as well and gays are no different from heterosexual people, except for their sexual orientation, much like skin colour. Or if you'd like to argue that it is a choice, much like religion.