Anti-Gay Human Rights Prof Backs Out of Teaching NYU Course In The Fall
Following up on my two earlier posts on the topic, Dr. Thio Li-ann, a professor at the National University of Singapore and a member of that country’s Parliament who graphically and stridently opposed the repeal of a law there that criminalizes sex between men, this week backed out of teaching a human rights course at NYU’s Law School in the fall:
In a statement released on Wednesday night, Richard L. Revesz, the N.Y.U. law school’s dean, said that Dr. Thio had changed her mind about teaching because of “the atmosphere of hostility by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes.” As a result, “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.”
NYU OUTLaw, the law school’s gay group, has the student response from throughout the controversy on its blog. Singapore’s Electric New Paper News details Thio’s 18-point e-mail to NYU Law School dean defending herself before she withdrew. Above the Law has the full statement from Dean Richard Revesz. It reads in part:
The position taken in the speech should have been irrelevant to our evaluation of Professor Thio, although the argumentation supporting the position might properly have played a role in that evaluation.
Professor Thio’s position in that speech is inimical to the Law School’s position against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Nonetheless, I do not believe that Professor Thio’s opposition to our institutional position should have played any role in our evaluation of her. Leading academic institutions benefit greatly from a diversity of perspectives, not from hiring only people who share the same views.
At the same time, our evaluation of Professor Thio’s strength as a scholar might have been usefully informed by an assessment of the analytic cogency and methodological integrity of the arguments and evidence she marshaled for her position. It would be up to the individual faculty member to determine what, if any, weight to give to the speech to Parliament in judging her as a scholar.
The text of her speech is here, the video is on YouTube in three parts; here and here and here. What’s noteworthy about the Dean’s academese — if I can make it out — is that while what she said isn’t relevant the quality of her argument is.
Well, sure, I’m happy to split that hair.
If NYU Law had subjected the speech to some small fraction of the legal and academic rigor they have at their disposal, this whole brouhaha might have been prevented. What I saw in her speech was a strident, rambling, incoherent, assemblage of opinion all gussied up in academic regalia.
Her defensive playing of the victim card when students reasonably objected to her teaching human rights was equally weak. I have no idea how the withdrawal came about but beyond the online petition objecting to her appointment, students declined to sign up for her class.
As odious as I find her views, I think having her speak — not teach an entire course on human rights — may have provided insights of some real value.
Thanks, Holly!
22 Responses to “Anti-Gay Human Rights Prof Backs Out of Teaching NYU Course In The Fall”
“As odious as I find her views, I think having her speak — not teach an entire course on human rights — may have provided insights of some real value.”
I always find it difficult to be generous to someone who wants to criminalize what I do in bed with a fellow consenting adult.
What a shame. I'm sure the vast majority of America would like to hear her instruction. It would have been good to have a camera on her lectures for C-Span and PBS. It’s been a one sided argument for far to long. Our nation needs a little leadership on this issue.
Father_Time, “Our nation needs a little leadership on this issue.”
Which issue?
SBSF, Her topics were to be Human Rights in Asia and Constitutionalism in Asia. She is certainly familiar with the topic having served as an appointed member of the Singapore Parliament. Her views have been widely circulated in Asia. Better understanding them and the ability to directly interact with and question her would inform my own arguments in favor of lgbt people receiving all of the same rights and responsibilities of any other citizen.
Joe, I understand what she was to teach and the merits of having her views heard. I think you're generous in wanting to hear her speak in one speech. And that's very well and good and you should be applauded. Personally I find it difficult to be just as generous towards bigots who want to criminalize my actions. That's what my comment was geared to. Depending on my mood, some days I'm better at being generous towards bigots than other days. Though I strive to be equally generous just as much. Thanks for your moderation. I believe it was the second post I commented on, in which I thought the gay and lesbian community who wanted dialogue with her was to be commended. Particularly since they did not want to censor her. As I recall. I thought they had a very mature reaction.
It will be interesting to see which of the various issues in the post Father_Time feels we need some leadership on. The subject of the post was her backing out of the teaching position. I don't think Father_Time was suggesting that is the issue we need some leadership on….
Playing the victim card, and a suggestion for NYU…
The recent back-and-forth between students of NYU and Dr Thio Li-ann over her visiting professorship to teach human rights has shed more light into the tactics and mentality of our local legal scholar than that of the NYU students. One of the most illu…
I wouldnt pay too much attention to FTttt (Fa. time) as he thinks the “vast majority of American would like to hear her instruction.” Sez who Ftttt? Vast majority by what measure? Or is that Fttt sound just you gassing off again
StockBoy.. read up on the definition of bigotry; you're as much a bigot as Thio is for insisting that you're views are right. And for your information, sex between men is illegal in her country.
What should be interesting is that in Singapore, anal sex between heterosexual is legal. That represents discrimination. You either ban all or accept all; and should not discriminate against sex or sexual preference.
But then again, what more can we expect from a Government that practice double standards on the treatment between the elite and non-elite classes of citizens.
noobie, I've seen those terms more and more lately. Elite and non-elite. Who are the elite classes and do I want to be one of them or not?
[...] Anti-Gay Human Rights Prof Backs Out of Teaching NYU Course In The …The position taken in the speech should have been irrelevant to our evaluation of Professor Thio, although the argumentation supporting the position might properly have played a role in that evaluation. Professor Thio’s position in that … [...]
noobiedick…. you're new here and don't know my views, so I'll cut you some slack. I could care less whether as an individual she is pro or anti gay. However when she believes in criminalizing behavior or making it illegal then it is SHE who forces her views upon others. In other words I'm more of a “live and let live” sort of guy. I will always push back against people who tell me how to live. If she doesn't want to have lesbian sex, then she does not have to. She could have lesbian sex with a thousand and one virgins, complete with all sorts of toys. I could care less. But I'm not calling for such actions to be criminalized. However she believes in forcing her views upon others by calling for the criminalization of what I do in bed. So it's not that she's anti-gay that most rankles me. It's the fact that she meddles and tells people she doesn't even know how to live their lives.
I know that anal sex between men in her country is illegal. But she was going to teach a class in HUMAN RIGHTS. I thought the whole point of fighting for human rights was to change laws which suppressed human rights.
Oh let me help.
Ye old issue of Gay rights. Specifically, the political opposition to such rights.
pacatrue–
ahem….you are a sheep. Sheep do not participate in human class distinction. I’m afraid that you cannot join, whether you want to or not.
StockBoySF–
Actually, you are an extreme minority and subject to the whimsical powers of the vast majority. Just as I am on some issues.
I believe, based on moral interpretations, that people of your sexual choosing, should a community democratically wish it, ban you from its community entirely or by whatever degree or control they wish. I do not believe that, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender rights”, is a legitimate civil rights issue. This is my honest and sincere belief.
Father_Time: “I believe, based on moral interpretations, that people of your sexual choosing, should a community democratically wish it, ban you from its community entirely or by whatever degree or control they wish. I do not believe that, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender rights”, is a legitimate civil rights issue.”
First of all there is no “choice” in sexual preference. And you can not say there is a choice unless you have made such a choice for yourself. Assuming you're a straight man, do you have strong sexual feelings for other men but choose to have sex with women, even though they don't turn you on? Or does the idea of two men together turn you off? (If it does, don't think about it- no one is forcing you to think about having sex with another guy.) Do you know why you are turned on to some women, but not others? Would you have sex with any 19 year old girl? Or any 85 year old woman? What about a woman who weighs 400 pounds, or a woman as skinny as a twig? Would you find them all attractive? If not, then how can you say that who one has sex with is a choice? If you find that all women turn you on, regardless of looks, age, etc. then you can make a case for sex as being a choice. But if you don't find every woman sexaully appealing, then how can you state that you know what turns other people on?
Second of all I guess you would support the right of people to put forth a law which would ban heterosexual sex and marriage. To be clear, I think such a law would be silly. But if you think such a law is silly for straight people, then why is not equally silly for such laws to be applied to gay people? We're talking about consenting adults who do no harm to others here….
As far as me being in the minority. You're right with that. However this country was founded with the idea that people could live freely, free from persecution for political, religious and other reasons. The US is a civilzed society, largely respecting of others' beliefs. It becomes uncivil when one group discriminates against another group simply because of personal beliefs.
Wow, StockBoy, you are certainly a lot more measured in your response than I would have been. Kudos.
“First of all there is no 'choice' in sexual preference.”
I'd like to expound on this idea a little more, because I'm not entirely certain it's true. For many or even most out gay people, it is certainly true that being gay is not a choice. But I also think that there's a much larger population of bisexual people out there than are willing to be honest about it, and for whom there really might be a choice to ignore a part of their sexuality. So when those arguing for gay rights talk about that moment the supposedly totally straight person made the choice to be straight, I think more than a few of them actually have had same-sex fantasies or even experiences. The inability to admit to same-sex curiosities is in great part due to the idea that a masculine man cannot be attracted to other men without being stained as gay — to the delicate flower that is masculinity in this country, that is seen as entirely unacceptable, and for those who are also equally turned on by the opposite sex, it's something that can be easily hidden.
I'm totally with you on most of the argument you make, StockBoy, and I don't mean to nit-pick it, nor to erase your personal experience which I have no reason to doubt. I just worry about setting up a movement based on only those who didn't have a choice, when I think the vast and beautiful landscape that is human sexuality has the room to accomodate those who did. The rights of loving couples to marry, adopt children, and live their lives unafraid of persecution and shame should not, in my estimation, be based on whether or not that person was born with certain preferences or if those preferences were chosen or cultivated over time.
father-timmie at it again. Your opinion lacks facts, as usual. Few would want to live in your world dada.
That you claim sincerity and purloin honesty does not excuse your complaining and whining over who you dont like. I imagine your associates at work, would love to hear your takes on both hispanics and gays, right? Surely your co-workers must agree with you, right?
Speaking of justice, should you be be using your employer's computer at work for your oh so personal use?
“I believe, based on moral interpretations, that people of your sexual choosing, should a community democratically wish it, ban you from its community entirely or by whatever degree or control they wish. I do not believe that, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender rights”, is a legitimate civil rights issue. This is my honest and sincere belief.”
StockBoySF Thank you for your sincere reply.
First off you make a good argument with the women of different attractive attributes, ect.. Unfortunately deviant sex, that which is abnormal, is a moral judgment in every human's mind. Each person has their moral limits and are pretty much offended by those whom practice a morality outside those limits.
Sexual moral limits if viewed as a spectrum beginning with normal heterosexual behavior and descending deeper into immorality, are heavily divided at the same sex limit line as popularity would describe.
When you state that your abnormal sexual choice is not really a choice, then you are telling me that abnormal is normal in your mind. This would suggest that you are mentally ill, (which is a good thing). Your “women of different attributes” analogy would hold within normal sexual behavior, not abnormal sexual behavior.
I will try to create a simple analogy as a descriptive tool for you, as you did for me;–A child discriminating his/her food between candy, apples or popcorn would be normal choices. A child discriminating his/her food between candy, apples or bricks would include an abnormal choice. Though all three may actually be eaten, bricks is something an adult would certainly want to keep away from a child that does not yet understand or a child that is mentally ill and may never understand.–
Concerning sexual behavior, abnormal behavior is either immoral or a mental illness. For the immoral, the degree of immorality is directly proportional to the degree of sexual abnormality, not so with the mentally ill because the mentally ill have no choice.
You ask America to simply turn the other way and ignore you and your, (I'm assuming gay), immorality or mental illness and fully accept you into the general community. People can indeed do this as long as you accept some overt label maybe like “mentally abnormal“, (a little gentler than mentally ill), because choosing an abnormality is immoral and immorality is a threat against that which we would give our lives to protect. However a benign mental abnormality is not a choice, and therefore not a threat.
When you suggest a same sex lifestyle as a choice, then you suggest an alternative lifestyle for others to become abnormal as a sufficient alternative to normal. This cannot be allowed. If your abnormal lifestyle is indeed not a choice then something is wrong in your mind because you are forced to live an overtly abnormal lifestyle by no fault of your own. You are abnormal, but honorable. No one would want to choose a mental illness as a sufficient alternative lifestyle. If you are strong enough to openly admit your abnormality, like a person with one leg is forced to admit their deficiency, then all things are acceptable, marriage, inclusion, specific protections, ect.. Otherwise Americans would be accepting moral degradation just to accommodate your minority demand for equality.
My computer? At work? What?? You pose no possible threat to me or my work.
Hmmm…methinks Silhouette changed his or her name to Father_Time.
FarterTime: threat? what threat you nutcake? Maybe that's why you're the equivalent of mailboy at work. Your blathering without ever having put your life on the line, proves it. You've put your life on the line right? Yeah, I'll bet. I can see your big old butt from here. Your hatred and now your paranoia. tsk tsk. Pat pat, there there FarterTimee.
Human rights depends on people taking a helpful view toward people who suffer. You seem to think youre the one whose suffering by having all these 'howwible, tewwible people' around your squat life and tiny mind. Like I said, pat pat. Calm down FartTime, you'll never win a debate with intelligent people.
And if you've had a cybersexchange operation, well, that would be in keeping with other lies you tell, wouldnt it FartTime
roro80
you are seriously smart