Search News


Browse Archives

News

Furor Over Anti-Gay Blog

November 13, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Bert Chapman knows that his reason for opposing what he calls "the homosexual lifestyle" -- that it differs from his view of Biblical norms -- won't win many arguments these days in the secular world. So Chapman, a blogger who is also a librarian at Purdue University, turned to economics. And at his Conservative Librarian blog, he argues that gay people are an economic drain.

He cites the billions spent on fighting AIDS "without recognizing the morally aberrant sexual behavior ... causing its spread" and the "sad practice" of colleges and other employers offering domestic partner benefits in a way that "prevents them from providing additional coverage to those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards"; he goes on to say that gay people are causing economic problems in fields such as real estate and divorce law.

"Guess who has to pay for these increased costs and potentially lower investment returns? We do, regardless of whether or not we approve of the homosexual lifestyle. The next time some one tells you how wonderful is the 'progress' gays have made in recent decades ask them if they have ever thought about the multiple economic consequences of this 'progress' as described in this posting," he wrote.

The blog runs not on a university Web site, but at Townhall.com, a conservative news site. On the site, Chapman's biography notes his job as the political science librarian at the university, but also says: "Views presented on this blog are the author's personal opinions and do not represent the opinions of my employer."

But as word of the blog spread at Purdue, the campus has seen petitions and protests, with many calling for Chapman (who has tenure) to be fired. His critics say that what he writes is so hateful and inaccurate that it raises questions about his ability to do his job.

One sophomore wrote to The Purdue Exponent, the student newspaper: "That’s right. I’ll call for his job. As a student, as a lesbian, as a human being, I believe with every fiber of my being that Purdue University in no way should affiliate itself with the hateful, bigoted opinions of Professor Chapman. It would serve Professor Chapman well to know that there are quite a few 'sexually deviant' students on this campus and they just happen to pay his salary.... Imagine that Professor Chapman’s blog had been titled, 'An Economic Case Against Interracial Marriage' or 'An Economic Case Against the Disabled.' How would the Purdue administration react if they knew a professor was convinced racial segregation should still be in place or that the disabled should just stay home because building a ramp to a library would cost too much money?"

Another student wrote: "Bert Chapman surrendered his position at Purdue the moment he decided to publish such intellectual diarrhea on his blog. There are those who would defend this atrocious man by claiming that political correctness has conspired to snatch away his free speech, but this is not so. Dr. Chapman has the right to believe that homosexuals are immoral, just as it would be within his rights to believe the same about any other group of people.

"The issue is not Dr. Chapman’s views of homosexuality, bigoted and wrong-headed though they may be, but that he has abused his authority as a scholar and an expert to disseminate hate-filled propaganda. Professors are expected to use their studies to search for the truth, but Dr. Chapman appears to feel more at home making up his own facts about AIDS, prison sex and other such matters he falsely connects to what he calls sodomy. He is using these lies to extinguish the essential rights of a group that accounts for an estimated 5-10 percent of our nation’s total population. It should not be merely Purdue’s LGBT students and faculty that are offended by this, but every single decent soul on this campus. Dr. Bert Chapman is not just a homophobe, I think he’s a liar, and it’s about time he start looking for a job elsewhere."

Others -- including some who would join in condemning Chapman's views -- have said that they worry about the rush to demand his dismissal. A column in the Exponent by a self-proclaimed "libertarian-minded liberal" accused liberals of refusing to recognize Chapman's right to express himself. "Students’ outrage at Chapman’s blog is understandable, and, more importantly, merited. But once Purdue liberals proposed that Chapman be removed from Purdue for voicing his opinions, a line was crossed from democracy into fascism," the column says.

Kevin Casimer, a student who has been involved in organizing the protests against Chapman, said via e-mail that he isn't calling for the librarian's dismissal, but for a more forceful response by the university. "What I am primarily calling for is for all members of the Purdue community who think that Chapman's comments are damaging to say so publicly." He said that all of the talk about free speech -- while understandable -- is diverting attention from the need to confront and condemn Chapman's views. (Casimer details his views on the debates on his blog.)

The university has rejected calls to fire Chapman. "The university asks its faculty to make it clear that the viewpoints they express do not necessarily reflect those of the university. Mr. Chapman has gone out of his way to do this with a very clear disclaimer. He also took an extra step and posted his blog on a server not owned by the university," said a spokeswoman. "The university has a policy prohibiting harassment if it unreasonably affects a person's educational or work opportunities or affects his or her ability to participate in a university activity. This does not meet that standard. The First Amendment clearly allows him to state his opinion. The best response is to speak up, which is exactly what our students and some faculty are doing."

In a brief interview on Thursday, Chapman said he didn't want to talk about the situation at length because he wants the controversy to die down. He did say that the angry responses have been hurtful to him, and to his wife. He said that his supervisors at the university, consistent with the institution's statement, have not taken any action against him. But he said that he contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, just in case.

FIRE's Adam Kissel said that the organization is monitoring the situation and "has been pleased with Purdue's statements in defense of professors' freedom to publish their personal views on the Internet. This is a great learning opportunity for those students and faculty members who think wrongly that Purdue should censor or punish the professor."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Furor Over Anti-Gay Blog

  • First Amendment
  • Posted by David on November 13, 2009 at 8:15am EST
  • I continue to be astounded by the intollerance of those on the political left. Is it not obvious that the First Amendment is intended to protect speach that some would find repugnant? There is no need for protecting speach that goes along with "popular opinion."

  • Don't Fire Poor Bert!
  • Posted by Diogenes on November 13, 2009 at 8:15am EST
  • The man is entitled to his opinions, silly and hateful as they are, and he has a right to be recognized as a public moron with limited reasoning skills and dreadful bigotry. Townhall,com is a good home for his ravings. He fits in with so much of their lunacy that's he practically invisible. That's why fish school. But I'm amazed that he's surprised by "hurtful responses!" Guess he forgot that the Bible teaches that if you sow the wind you reap the whilrlwind. Or yes and that other gem, "By their fruits you will know them." Yes BC when you insult and demonize tens of thousands of people with your hate and bigotry, when you mock their illness and suffering, and laugh at their deaths they do have a tendency to be bit "hurtful" in return. Gay people are an economic drain? Then so are fundamentalist churches that suck up 10% of their parishioners hard earned money to blow it on hate campaigns, right wing politics, creationists museums, and the occasional pastoral Mercedes and gated community. Like stereotypes? You're soaking in them!

  • Posted by jim on November 13, 2009 at 8:15am EST
  • Students, especially very young ones can be excused for letting their emotions run away with them. Maybe not excused but I can understand it more than from the more mature and level-headed faculty. The university seems to be acting in the only justifiable way in refusing to fire Mr. Chapman.
    If he were failing to fulfill the responsibilities of his position then he should be let go but not for his ideas, attitudes and his publication of those ideas and attitudes. If his attitudes have led him to confront or otherwise to interfere with the library-using activities of LGBT students and professors then his attitudes are interfering with his job. Otherwise, his case is a bit like that of the professional football player, Michael Vick who while behaving in a personally repugnant way is nevertheless still employing his considerable skills on the gridiron. The two arenas are different!

  • Diogenes
  • Posted by politicallyincorrect , Financial Aid at Lycoming College on November 13, 2009 at 8:30am EST
  • The only hate I see is yours.

  • Blind leading the Blind.
  • Posted by Diogenes on November 13, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • Oh God that's a hoot! Nice drama queen response PoliticallyIncorrect. Were you shaking with righteous indignation and rage when you posted your comment? Are you shaking your Bible at me? And, of course your type of response is expected. Its been the rhetorical habit of the right to call any one that calls them out for their own hate and bigotry "full of hate". Its known as "accusation in a mirror." Grow up. It's a childish tactic. The man deserves the flak he's getting after mocking the deaths and illnesses of gay people for cheap political points with his townhall.com pals. And he shouldn't be fired for it. Its his opinion. You shouldn't be fired either for supporting him. But that doesn't change what you are. Or what he is for that matter.

  • left intolerance
  • Posted by aisler on November 13, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Amazing that the left is called "intolerant" while the right continues to work to block a group from obtaining basic civil rights. That, to me, is the definition of intolerance. And why should I be tolerant of someone's efforts to deny me the right to see my partner in the hospital or to adopt children together?

  • Outrage
  • Posted by KornCan , Plato's Fly at Bible Undo U on November 13, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • Mr. Chapman shouldn't be offended by the response he's getting. He shouldn't be fired either. You post it and you have to stand by it. The sad part is how little research went into Chapman's blog entry. Obviously, he doesn't care about facts which is pretty disheartening since he's supposed to help people with their research. He says his views don't change his behavior on the job. Nonsense. Purdue University is a campus that is trying to emphasize diversity and inclusiveness. Does Chapman have the courage to meet with the gay and lesbian organizations on campus and discuss his views with them, or have those organizations invited him to do so? Now that's primary research.

  • Plenty of intolerance right here on this comment page...
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on November 13, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • David, I ran this story by my teenage son this morning when it hit our local (Indiana) paper. For the record, we are both left-wingers. For the record, his reaction and mine were identical: Chapman's views are abhorrent to us but his job should be secure. Please don't assume all left-wingers reflect the "intolerance" you describe. I am disappointed by your rush to paint an entire political wing with the same brush of intolerance. It only makes you look equally intolerant -- irony of ironies.

    Diogenes and PoliticallyIncorrect, take your squabble off line.

  • A Good Stoning
  • Posted by PNorthElba on November 13, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • The conservative librarian points out: "However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms". I agree and think we should bring back public stonings and crucifictions.

  • A question
  • Posted by Will , President at College Access Counseling on November 13, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • Librarians get tenure???

  • on bigotry and free speeach
  • Posted by Neeraja Sankaran , Visiting Asst Professor, Core Curriculum at The American University in Cairo on November 13, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • Kudos Diogenes. You hit the nail on the head. Yes of course Chapman's views are bigoted, wrongheaded and all that, but he has a right to express them on his own blog, that's for certain. In fact he should be encouraged - in the hopes that given enough rope he will hang himself and save us the trouble. Meanwhile, I don't believe that he should be fired, either. In keeping with the whole - I hate what you say but will fight with my life for your right to say it - spirit. I'm just saying...

  • Read further
  • Posted by Just thinking on November 13, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • Hey, Diogenes...since you quoted scripture, you left out Leviticus references, and in the New Testament, in Romans, that specifically speaks of the perversion of homosexuality. Romans 1:26ff

    Thankfully, you and I both have the right to openly debate the issue, and so should Mr. Chapman. Unfortunately, it has been made a political issue in this country, much like abortion, when it is in reality, a moral issue.

  • Wow
  • Posted by Euphorix on November 13, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • How about we all follow his line of reasoning and use the same kind of logic to advocate the euthanasia of idiots, so we can finally be rid of this disgrace?

  • Thank you, Diogenes
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on November 13, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • I know I knew the line, but I had forgotten it. "By their fruits you will know them." My Biblical memory source is quite weak, but that is one that is very useful. I have always held that regardless of their stupidity, insensitivity or even hatefulness, comments someone makes should not be censored. This statement will justify my principles. I love the fact that Rush Limbaugh claims he is the de-facto head of the Republican party. By listening to him babble on, the majority of our population will recognize him for his stupidity, insensitivity and even his hatefulness, and will then vote for the progressive candidates on their ballots. Thanks, Rush, and I am glad we don't censure him.

  • Purdue's stance?
  • Posted by Tem J. Sedgwick , Housing and Residential Life at UNLV on November 13, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • Perhaps Purdue has come out more forcefully and those statements weren't included with this article, but I'm hoping the institution, or the President, has condemned the statements issued by this professor. While he certainly shouldn't be fired for his blog (and he showed more common sense than many by keeping it off the P.U. server and including the disclaimer), publicly recognizing the bigotry behind the comments would show support for GLBT students/staff/faculty on campus.

    That said, Purdue is a conservative campus. If anyone has seen an institutional comment, beyond what was included in this article, please link.

  • much ado about next to nothing
  • Posted by bradley bleck , English instructor at Spokane Falls CC on November 13, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • Calling for the firing of the writer is silly unless he actually advocates for direct violence. All this hew and cry does is give his views credence, that the Bible loving folks of the country are being persecuted for their faith while many of them are actually using the Bible to do their own persecuting. I know from where I live (near a former Aryan Nations compound) that just ignoring such speech and activities doesn't work, but neither does going over board in the other direction. Intelligent responses, not vitriol, are what is needed, but also what is lacking in just about all that passes for dialogue nowadays. Selective Bible quoting won't do either, because, if it is God's word, he clearly was like Walt Whitman, large and full of contradictions.

  • Bible Flame Wars with Light Sabres Drawn with Hate!
  • Posted by Diogenes on November 13, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • I know all about Leviticus. Please burn your house down if it has a spot of mildew. I guess that's a moral issue rather than political one as well! This isn't the late bronze age. And while you mention the very few scriptures that even engage the possibility of homosexuality, maybe I can remind you of the few thousand scriptures that condemn the right wing war on the poor, condemn greed and accumulation of wealth as a standard of righteousness, and condemn not comforting the strangers in our land that some how some call "illegal aliens" as though they were not human at all. And the fact remains that not one scripture speaks of abortion. Is that a spec in my eye? Take the log out of yours first! Oh, and by the way, the Sin of Sodom is one of the few sins that the Bible actually discusses in great length. You should read it. You'll find it of great interest: Ezekiel 16:46-50. Hmmmm. Nothing about homosexuality or gay marriage there. Just selfishness and greed. Amazing book the Bible. Every time you use it to attack someone, and be turned right back at you! Or me for that matter. So let the laddy keep his job and post on his blog. Bigots need to eat too and are protected by the first amendment. As are his detractors and supporters.

  • "Progressives" and "Hate"
  • Posted by Ronald A. Amerson , Auxiliary Operations Analysis at UW Madison on November 13, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Whenever "progressives" want to push their agenda against anyone who does not think, and live like they do, they use one or both of two words: "Hate" or "Offended"!! This is suppose to somehow give them the power to suppress the rights and opinions of others and even the right to punish them for their opinions!!! (Like in getting them fired!)

    Yet the "progressives" are free to "hate" and "Offend" anyone they choose under the laws of political correctness.

    Yet the left is the most intolerant of lifestyles and beliefs that differ from theirs of any group I know of.

    RA

  • Posted by AL on November 13, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • This reminds me of the late 70's at Northwestern University when Arthur Butz, tenured associate professor of engineering, published his Holocaust denial(The Hoax of the 20th Century). Inside Higher Ed has an article about Butz in 2006 when he "resurfaced". http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/08/butz

    Then president Bienen responded as follows:
    In that statement, Bienen lamented that he could not fire Butz:""Butz is a tenured associate professor in electrical engineering. Like all faculty members, he is entitled to express his personal views, including on his personal web pages, as long as he does not represent such opinions as the views of the University. Butz has made clear that his opinions are his own and at no time has he discussed those views in class or made them part of his class curriculum. Therefore, we cannot take action based on the content of what Butz says regarding the Holocaust - however odious it may be - without undermining the vital principle of intellectual freedom that all academic institutions serve to protect..""

    As repugnent as Butz was and is,in my opinion, Bienen was exactly right in his decision. It is the same in this instance.

  • Don't fire him, but...
  • Posted by NM mom on November 13, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • I find it troubling that he appears to use his academic credentials at Purdue to lend credibility to his poorly researched claims. At the very least, he should be barred from listing his affiliation, since his writing could be harmful to the research reputation of his employer. This would be true whether his extreme views came from the left or from the right.

  • On first looking into Chapman's homer
  • Posted by BertW on November 13, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • Look on the bright side: Now everyone knows Chapman is a bigot. Secret enemies are always more dangerous than the unmasked.

  • Posted by talleyrand on November 13, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • I find it ironic that the only tolerant and open-minded voice quoted in this article belongs to the administration.

    Is this the new role of university administration, to be the ones working out of their cerebral cortexes while faculty and students dig in to slug it out as hatefully as possible over their competing fundamentalisms?

  • Posted by Kate on November 13, 2009 at 2:15pm EST
  • I am offended at his views, but do not believe he should be fired for them. I'm surprised no one has quoted Voltaire. People have a life outside their work, and if it's not connected to their work, then it should be left alone.

    I am however supremely disappointed that a librarian, who is supposed to help others find unbiased, authoritative resources, would believe such inaccurate nonsense. Straight people get AIDS, too, and not always for "immoral behavior." If he gets fired, it should be for an inability to perform his duties-with examples at Purdue, not on his blog.

  • "Right Winger" and "Hate"
  • Posted by Diogenes on November 13, 2009 at 2:15pm EST
    •  

      Whenever "right wing nuts" want to push their agenda against anyone who does not think, and live like they do, they use one or both of two words: "Hate" or "Offended"!! This is suppose to somehow give them the power to suppress the rights and opinions of others and even the right to punish them for their opinions!!! (Like in getting them fired!)

      Yet the "right wing nuts" are free to "hate" and "Offend" anyone they choose under the laws of political incorrectness.

      Yet the right is the most intolerant of lifestyles and beliefs that differ from theirs of any group I know of.

      Diogenes

    • See how easy it is to say nothing twice? Ideology is a poor food group RA.
  • Could we just stop the generalizations please??!
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on November 13, 2009 at 2:30pm EST
  • Ronald Amerson has an impressively large acquaintaince, since apparently he has met ALL progressives and knows them ALL well enough to call ALL of them intolerant.

  • To Will
  • Posted by Jarod HM , Graduate Student, Lynch School of Education at Boston College on November 13, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • Research librarians, regardless of where or not they teach in a Library Science program, are sometimes eligible for tenure. They are considered faculty like everyone else and are held to similar service and publication requirements. Staff librarians are generally not eligible for tenure. The rules of tenure of librarians differ from institution to institution.

  • Chapman Rebutted?
  • Posted by Eric Rasmusen- , Business Economics at Indiana University on November 13, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • I've seen comments saying that Chapman's article is completely, awfully, terribly wrong, but without any details. Has anyone actually addressed the points he makes about the costs of homosexuality? I'd be especially interested in hearing about differing estimates of the monetary cost of AIDS.

  • Will's Question: Answered
  • Posted by David C. Murray , Reference and Instruction Librarian at Temple University on November 13, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • Will, many academic librarians have tenure or tenure-like protection via "continuing" or "regular" appointment. The "Academic Librarian Status" wiki (Google it, if desired) categorizes U.S. institutions by the professional status offered to librarians. Several reasons are often cited for why an institution might wish to extend such protections to librarians, one of the most common being academic freedom and/or freedom of expression. The role played by librarians as mediators of information in the complex world of scholarly communication is critical to the core research and teaching mission of any university. No academic who understands the term would wish to see a librarian censoring herself in the classroom, or second guessing herself about the purchase of a controversial book. Give it a little thought, and I'm sure you'll see why it might be important for librarians to have tenure.

    Though the arguments in Professor Chapman's blog post are unsubstantiated, poorly reasoned, and highly offensive, the post itself is certainly nowhere near sufficient grounds for dismissal. A well-reasoned statement in opposition to the arguments expressed by Mr. Chapman, and signed by the majority of his colleagues, would provide a more effective and appropriate rebuke.

  • Posted by straight and married on November 13, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • I find it astonishing how those anti-gay commenters here can never spell or write properly. Not good at learning; not good at thinking. Clearly. Their intolerance is appalling, as is Chapmans.

  • Posted on November 13, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • In his Academic Librarian blog, Wayne Bivens-Tatum looks at the rhetorical and logical problems with Chapman's post: http://blogs.princeton.edu/librarian/2009/11/not_economics_but_justice.html

  • Re rebutting Chapman
  • Posted by Bear , Student Retention on November 13, 2009 at 5:30pm EST
  • Should we also look at the costs of maintaining family courts throughout the country to assess the economic drain of breeders marrying and divorcing? I'm going to sound rather Malthusian, but the real economic drain (not to mention ecological disaster) is the continued favoring of overreproduction of offspring by heterosexuals ( E.O. Wilson once rightly lumped humans with rats and dandelions as being a form of weed). Just think how much worse off we'd be if that nasty 5-10 percent of the population joined in?

    And, how can anyone, almost 30 years on, still equate HIV/AIDS exclusively with homosexuals? Don't fire Chapman, but keep a close eye on how he is training those impressionable political science students on how to evaluate sources. Opinion not based on evidence is prejudice (I learned that in a political science class way back).

  • Posted by Mary of the Prairie on November 13, 2009 at 5:30pm EST
  • Dear Eric,

    In response to your question above,
    Has anyone actually addressed the points he makes about the costs of homosexuality?
    Let's hear first about the costs of heterosexuality, please.

  • Another gay for freedom
  • Posted by Gregory Barton , History Department at Macquarie University on November 13, 2009 at 7:15pm EST
  • The call to fire Bert Chapman are a sad reflection of the bigotry and hate that is approved, top down, by our elites. And sadly of course, academics seem determined to uphold the dominant narrative of repression. I am a gay man, I talk about it in my classrooms, I enjoy making connections between history and sexual orientation. How did I get such freedom in my classroom? Because at one time, we all had the right to discuss issues openly, to disagree, to be controversial. Gays were perverts, "cock suckers" in Hollywood films, fired from our jobs, driven from the classrooms, and from, yes, the libraries. We still have more work to do obviously, but have come a long way.

    So, thanks to the freedom to discuss the love that dare not speak its name, I enjoy expressing my opinions in public and in private. But now that such freedom is won, others should be denied? Fired? Punished? Driven from classrooms and libraries? Repressed for their faith? Their conscience? Given forced lobotomies? Object to Mr. Chapman if you choose, of course, that is your right. But call for the brutal suppression of ideas in the name of others and not, thank you very much, for the protection of gays and lesbians. We got where we are with freedom. We will lose everything again when Hollywood and the dominant narrative shift against us and we are brutalized once more by those who wish to silent dissent. We need freedom. All of us. It is primary, and precedes any particular issue. And when we will need it most, of course, there will be those wanting to deny us freedom. So please, brutalize and suppress people who disagree, hate and punish opposition, in the name of some else. As a gay man I know that we will need freedom again. And we will need in desperately. (Don't we all?).

  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on November 13, 2009 at 10:30pm EST
  • I agree with Gregory Barton. And with Ronald Amerson. What the comments demonstrate is fierce intellectual intolerance from the politically correct Left. The vitriol in these letters, especially from Diogenes but far from limited to him, is disturbing. I do not find BC's views monstrous. Homosexuality is and wil remain an open topic, open to discussion on all levels. It is also not surprising that the Left commenters, in defending homosexuality, attack our Christian churges. Well they might, given that Holy Church in all its traditional denominations condemns "usus contra Naturae ordinem." We need to respect freedom of speech and to respect the other side in these debates, not to lambaste them with venom, dare I say: diogenous venum?

  • Bert Chapman... and freedom of speech!
  • Posted by JulieS on November 13, 2009 at 10:30pm EST
  • I do not support what Bert Chapman has said about homosexuality and I abhor bigotry. However, this said: this man has the right to express his opinion. Actually, he was really courageous to do so. Too bad, he is using his right to free speech to express such hatred. We have to respect the fundamental right to speak publicly. Let's honor that: too many countries suppress that right. So let's not take away our right to free speech for the sake of a hateful bigot who has spends all his time spewing hatred. He's been punished enough by the outrage surrounding him and hurting him and his family quite a bit. Crucifying him is only making a martyr for a cause which is a despicable as the man himself!
    Thank God we still have the right to free speech... even if some people regularly abuse it!

  • Posted by chaosakita on November 14, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • I find people who make statements like that of Chapman very confusing. However, I don't think anyone should get fired for being that. The thing is, being a librarian isn't just some random title. It's his job. Perhaps it would be different if Chapman was harassing students while at work, but I don't see why anyone should have to lose their livelihood because they make ignorant statements in private. If he does get fired, in this economic climate, he is probably unlikely to find another job as a librarian, or even worse, the right will use his situation their further their ideas. But whatever the result might be, the Constitution's first amendment is that of freedom of speech, and the public university system of Indiana should work to uphold it.

  • Posted by Gary at University of Kentucky on November 14, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • I take Chapman's blog posting for what it is--the hateful blatherings of a deeply-closeted man. My advice to Chapman? If you don't like gay sex, then don't have it--but you have no business telling others how to live their lives.

    And "David" who posted at 8:15 am--I'm not listening to anyone who can't even spell-check their work before posting.

  • how does this affect his work?
  • Posted by Julie , Prof of political science on November 14, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • No one seems to be discussing what impact his beliefs may have on his capacity to do his job effectively. I gather he's a research librarian for political science for the university? My own research is on sexuality and politics, and I've sometimes had occasion to work with research librarians to develop secondary and primary source lists. I wonder how effective Bert Chapman would be if I asked him to assist me in a project studying the potential parallels between bans on same-sex marriage and bans on interracial marriage? Or on the political and institutional effects of maintaining hierarchic forms of civic membership based on sexual orientation and gender identity?

    This is an empirical question, but the answer seems pretty important in this debate.

  • To Dr. Anonymous
  • Posted by Leftist Cat on November 14, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • You write, "I do not find BC's views monstrous." Nor do I. And as one on the left myself, I quite sympathize with your condemnation of "the vitriol" of commentators on the Left.

    What I find interesting in this instance of free speech (the consensus here) is not just Chapman's right to a moral indignation of gay sexuality as a cultural practice but his appeal to the notion that homosexuality is an economic drain on society.

    This, to me, reflects a scapegoatism reminiscent of so many versions thereof throughout history, especially when economic anxiety throws fuel onto long-smoldering cultural animosities. BCs views may not seem to you all that "monstrous" at the moment. But I wonder if some of the vitriol apparent here is not a grave concern that--should our economic crisis worsen--such a scapegoat mentality might well escalate into something monstrous indeed. If it did, I prefer to think that you and BC would be among the first to the rescue.

    We usually think of free speech as a given in democracy. But we fail to consider that free speech can exist in certain kinds of tyrannies as well, especially where it can merely serve as a "safety valve."

    SCAPEGOATING IS ALWAYS THAT FORM OF PROTEST THAT ENTIRELY MISSES THE DEEPER ISSUE. Regardless of varied views on any number of cultural questions, we are not practicing democracy--only "free speech." How may we know? Our acquiescence to gross inequalities of wealth and power. BC, in my view, has identified the wrong enemy.

  • Ignorance
  • Posted by kb on November 14, 2009 at 3:30pm EST
  • It is inevitable that the dolt Rasmusen shows up as an entry inquiring about the validity of the "cost of homosexuality". What about the cost of ignorance and stupidity? What about the cost of heterosexuality? Various estimates place the cost of heterosexual divorce as over $100 billion per year in lost productivity, legal costs and added burdens on social and medical systems. Let's write the "Economic case against heterosexuality" and see if we can sound as dumb as Chapman, Katz and Rasmusen. Why is it that the most productive and technologically savvy cities in the US have the largest gay populations (The Economic Geography of Talent, Richard Florida)? Perhaps Katz and Rasmusen can get a copy after Chapman figures out how to find it in the library. There is some economic benefit of homosexuality for you Eric!

  • This Is A Question of Totalitarianism or Freedom
  • Posted by Bret , History on November 14, 2009 at 7:30pm EST
  • This whole question revolves around our current conceptions of 'hate', a creeping intellectual and legal notion that should have no basis in law. The category of hate is essentially an attempt to deny free speech by suggesting that a view or argument is so utterly wrong, and also dangerous, that a person who says it can only be coming from a bigoted, biased perspective, but they are also not an equal participant in civil society. Then people can hold up political or social notions -- e.g. 'gay', 'white', 'black' -- and suggest that these notions have essential categories and features that are universally accepted and cannot be challenged. So if I write that homosexuality is an economic detraction, or maybe even that it is a moral revulsion, no matter how well reasoned the argument, or how salient some of its points, this argument can categorically be considered 'hate', and thus the person punished, fired, put in jail, and imaginably, killed.

    Hate laws and discussions kill free speech. There is only one way around this, and that is to take an extreme free speech position, or else the slippery slope of political definitions of speech that ban people from criticizing or espousing certain topics will happen. Look at Europe -- it has already determined that some speech is not acceptable, and its political leaders just passed a constitution against the desire of its people. I bring the EU precedent to also suggest that the speech laws passed by elites are often not desired by the majority of people. By politicizing and enforcing Enlightenment and liberal categories we are in essence creating a soft, and sometimes hard, totalitarian political and intellectual structure. The US has a constitution that enshrines freedom of speech, thankfully, but this is being chipped away slowly but surely. 

    In reference to this case at Purdue, academics should be allowed to say whatever they want and the market-place of ideas can take care of them. The cry of 'empiricism' offered by Julie is a mere cover for a certain political assumption that, however informed it is by empiricism, is still an intellectual construction, and a biased one at that. There are no 'universal' opinions and beliefs that are agreed upon by all, no matter how many university professors agree. There are, in my opinion, far more poorly argued and empirically research arguments coming from pro-gay and pro-women scholars than anti-gay or anti-women scholars. In fact, if there is any dissent, as in this case, there are articles written and dozens of responses. No one is worried when affirmative action is pushed by administrators against the will of a faculty -- there are few insidehighered articles about that -- but any chip to liberal hegemony, which is backed up increasingly around the world by hate laws curbing free speech, that it gives one pause for wonder. 

    This is not about empiricism, Julie, but about the future of the world: we either throw our lot with free speech, and the good and bad that comes from it, or we await the slow totalitarian creep that is ensuing. While you may be happy with the current categories that we define as hate, or you may happily pursue a witch hunt against your current enemies, without ensuring free speech, it may be you or me next. It is only through selfishness and a lack of historical perspective or empathy that we accept happily our own professional and personal safety while we crucify those we dislike to the stake of political correctness. Discussions about empiricism, as anyone who has studied an ounce of philosophy or even science knows, hides ideology more often than not. 

  • Posted by galefan2004 on November 14, 2009 at 8:15pm EST
  • The world would be a perfect place if every time someone said something we disagreed with we could just remove them from the face of it. Unfortunately, we can't do that. All this drama is going to do is add even more weight to what was said in the first place. As a gay man, I'm tired of constantly apologizing for left wing nut cases that think every time something bad is said they should rise up to complain about it. All it does is reinforce the ignorance of even more people. Gay men and women are making a name for themselves as the biggest whiners on the planet. When someone has to apologize to me every time they use the word gay in my presence its gone a little to far.

  • Posted by Anti-Social at TESC on November 15, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • Why is it that the most productive and technologically savvy cities in the US have the largest gay populations (The Economic Geography of Talent, Richard Florida)?

    With that turn of logic, why is it that most productive agricultural areas have large populations of heterosexuals? We could spend all day having these kinds of bullshit questions. Freedom of speech isn't always pretty nor should it be, nor does it require my agreement with the speaker of his/her message. Those that think differently are the real enemies, not Chapman.

    Freedom of speech comes with the good, the bad, the ugly, and the pinheaded.

  • What We Have in Common
  • Posted by Leftist Cat on November 15, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Bret and Anti-Social:

    It appears that the cultural left and cultural right are legitimately concerned about totalitarian tendencies in each others' rhetoric.

    As I state above, the danger of totalitarianism seems greatest in those historical moments when the disparities between rich and poor are greatest.

    It's a global thing. There is an argument that from colonialism through postcolonialism the northern hemisphere has effectively enslaved the southern hemisphere.

    It's fine to have free speech about vital cultural issues like sexuality. We're talking about minorities being who they are in an often hostile climate.

    But BC brought economics into the discussion in a way that obscures a much larger and even more important issue: the growing gulf between the world's rich and poor, a recipe for totalitarian "answers" if ever there was one.

  • Missed Point
  • Posted by Prosehack65 , English Prof at Local Community College on November 15, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • I think the missed point in all of this is...does that expressed opinion have any effect on his job? In other words, in his interactions with students and faculty, does his professed homophobia lead to inequity in treatment, grade assignment, etc.? If so THEN he has crossed an acceptable line and I believe whole-heartedly that he should be fired.

  • Gay people don't cost any more than straight people...
  • Posted by John on November 15, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • In fact, given their numbers, their average socio-economic level and income, and the amount that well-off gay people contribute to charity and public projects, volunteer work, and their respective professions, gay people contribute more per capita (in both taxes and voluntary contributions) than any other demographic group in the country. Dr. Chapman, besides being a bigot and a religious zealot, is also just plain wrong--the latter perhaps being the worse offense in a supposedly qualified "scholar." If he were to be fired, it should be for incompetence, particularly if he's teaching his students these same questionable research "skills."

  • Gregory Barton. Leftist Cat, et.al.
  • Posted by DFS on November 15, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • Gregory Barton:

    As a history topic, do your students sign up for the history of you, or perhaps just History?

    I don't discuss my sexuality in my classroom. It's just inappropriate.

    And you say to please suppress anyone who disagrees with your stance? Even violently?

    Both of these questions point to your right to talk about this, but is the classroom the place to do it?

    I know that you enjoy academic freedom. Can you still conscientiously profess your professionalism?

    Defend yourself, but not at the expense of captive audiences, please. I suppose that your students therefore must state in some work to be graded that they agree with you, else they would be penalized. After all, it's there in their faces, extracurricularly, from you.

    Leftist Cat: If all income was instantly distributed 'fairly,' and another generation passed from this event, people's attitudes would not be changed.

  • The Real Issue
  • Posted by Heather , Graduate Student at Oregon State on November 16, 2009 at 5:30am EST
  • Thank you to JULIE, above, who is one of the only I've seen commenting here about what I consider to be the real, practical and tangible issue of whether or not we should be concerned about this hateful person keeping his job or not, which is NOT about 'freedom of speech' but is... Can he really do his job?

    Julie brought up the fact that he, for all intents and purposes, might be worthless to those of us who do work around women, gender and sexuality studies in political science. That seems to be a given.

    And what about all of the queer students who would NEVER be able to ask for assistance from this professor, knowing that he hates us? How is a student to attempt to engage this librarian, and have a productive work environment, when he has been openly, loudly hostile? It's one thing for this man to think these things... It's a whole other thing for him to make them well known, so that students are aware of the fact that he is spreading hate speech about certain populations of which the student body is comprised.

  • Heather, DFS
  • Posted by Leftist Cat on November 16, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • Indeed, Heather. And what remains scariest to me is how economic anxiety (exhibited by Chapman) COUPLED WITH HOMOPHOBIA can equal scapegoatism turned violent in times of increasing economic crisis. History shows patterns where anti- this or anti- that group talk is tolerated over decades or centuries and then erupts into genocide or lynching when the times, hard times, are ripe. Free speech is for talking ourselves through and out of such ghastly tendencies. As a leftist I don't just blame the rich. No more reigns of terror! In my free speech I would put forward the notion that perhaps the super rich are like alcoholics and the rest of us are enabling their addiction at society's expense. (Hint: the opposite of scapegoatism is when we can acknowledge our various roles within our institutions.) I understand, for example, that if society could impose a 30% tax on the trillions in tax-shelters owned by the upper 1/10th of 1% of the population it would generate some 285 Billion a year by which people in the third world could eat, get medical care, send their kids to school and create industry (though against the rules of the IMF, World Bank, G-20, etc.) and fairly quickly declare independence from that self-same upper 1/10th of 1%. That along with the upper 1/10th of 1% forgiving third-world dept, which history shows has been an ongoing loan-sharking enterprise to keep the third world dependent, allowing the theft of its mineral and agricultural resources and of its labor. But if you think average people can't put a stop to such, just look at Bolivia a few years ago when they successufully resisted the privatization of their water.

    DFS: I admire your penchant for brevity, but I'm not always quite clear what you're driving at. Forgive me if I miss your point.

    Mine is that economic inequality is tantamount to political inequality. Enlightenment Libealism was supposed to have corrected the injustice of European feudalism. It did. And it didn't. More often, it translated ongoing injustice into sanitized terms for similar policies and coercions by which to keep marginalized populations at home and in the colonies dependent on the masters. But read Hegel's "Lordship and Bondage" for an insight into the anxieties of the master, how he's no more free than the slave and is himself dependent on slavery and thus driven further into his "addiction." It's about institutions. How did we come by the institutions we have? We invented them. We can strive, democratically, to invent alternative ones.

    It is our abdication of that democratic responsibility that leads to all forms of SCAPEGOATISM based on religion, sexuality, gender, race, class, and so on.

    In a democracy it should be fine for a professor "to profess" from the area of her or his experience and expertise. History is made up of histories, including that of sexuality. I should think it hurts students more NOT to study a given dimension of history than to have it submerged within something called "History." Without these histories, History is not the history, the whole history, and nothing but the history.

    Respectfully submitted, LC.

  • "Affluent" gays
  • Posted by Metzengerstein on November 16, 2009 at 5:30pm EST
  • John, I don't know you or where you are coming from on this issue, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to intention. But your comment, in its own way, is actually almost as bad as Bert Chapman's. How do you know what the "average socio-economic level and income" of gay people is? You are buying into the stereotype of "wealthy gays," a stereotype that some homophobes have used to argue that we are already too priveleged and don't deserve any rights. This is, by the way, and echo of the Nazis -- rich Jews owned all the banks, insurance companies and stores, don't you know.

    In fact, some of the scholarly work that has actually used rigorous methodology has found that gays of both sexes may have significantly lower incomes, due to a wide variety of factors affecting career choice and working conditions.

    Anyway, an argument about civil rights based on economics is morally repellent on its face, no matter what group is being discussed. Engaging in rebuttal of it would simply be letting the bigot set the terms of the debate and falling into his trap.

  • Dump him
  • Posted by Randy on November 16, 2009 at 6:30pm EST
  • Note: There's no such thing as free speech. Otherwise, there would be no laws against libel/slander, no copyright, no trademark, no obscenity/pornography laws, no laws against incitement to riot, no "free speech zones", no "Don't Ask Don't Tell", no movie ratings, no FCC, no MPAA, no restrictions on political (or other) advertising, etc. etc. etc.

    So let's be honest about that, at least. Then it comes down to what kind of speech are we willing to tolerate. The line must be drawn at intolerance, otherwise the whole point of toleration is wasted.

    Dump this guy.

  • This one's a no-brainer
  • Posted by Don Heller , Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State on November 17, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • As abhorrent or repulsive as one may find his views and comments, there is no rhyme or reason - legal or otherwise - for Purdue to take any personnel action against this man based solely on his blog postings. Those in and outside of the Purdue community are free to - and should - respond to and criticize his words if they disagree, but they have no basis for which to call for his dismissal or other personnel action. This has been well settled by the federal courts.

  • to Heather
  • Posted by talleyrand on November 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EST
  • Queer students do not know "that he hates us" based on this blog post alone. All that is really known is that he has an opinion most in academia find repugnant. How are you to ask for help? It would be a start just to ask for it. The response queer students got to that request would be real data. Responding to his anxiety with anxiety of your own leading to a flat refusal to deal with him just makes matters worse.

  • Speech and Action
  • Posted by Frank , Associate Professor/Government at Lone Star College on November 18, 2009 at 7:45am EST
  • I would agree with those who argue that this professor should be premitted to speak freely, however I would be concerned about putting him in a position in which he supervises or evaluates the job performance of others. I assume this would include those comming up for tenure in the Purdue Library system. In most universities the tenured faculty in a department have a voice in deciding tenure cases. I question his ability to fairly judge those he hates so much he is willing, by implication, to allow to die of a horrible disease before he spends the money to help them.

  • Leftist Cat
  • Posted by DFS on November 19, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • Well, it's like this.

    Say we shuffled the deck again right now, and took from the rich and gave to the poor enough so that everyone was "equal" in their monetary status. You know, redistribute that income.

    Let another generation ensue.

    Do you think that any significant proportion of anyone's attitudes would have changed sufficiently in order to embrace the implied remedy?

    I don't think so -- there is still too much cultural inertia, in one generation.

    No -- such a redistribution must be followed by several, or many, generations of time so that living memory can be lost.

    Still unfortunately, since some things remain instinctively possible, even after a few centuries people may infer that that redistribution was wrong; they only need to look at their future history, realize that socialism/communism was an abject failure (as it always will be), that political 'correct'ness was a silly attempt to indoctrinate (as it always will be), and that the nature of humankind will always to be free and unfettered.

    I hope that's enough words to imply some of the points I previously tried to make.

  • And by the way, Leftist Cat,
  • Posted by DFS on November 19, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Don't say that you admire my "penchant for brevity" when you do not. (Slap back.)

    This does not reflect favorably on you in your obvious attempt to marginalize my statement. After all, I was not attempting such a leftist technique towards you. But, since you wanted to do it to me, I'll instead do it to you, if IHE allows it.

    As we all now have unfiltered information available to us through via the internet, this kind of cheap 'yellow journalism' doesn't work any longer.

    Since scholars are still supposed to be scholars, we can interpret information without historical 'filters.'

    In other words, welcome to the Real World. May it long continue, especially in resistance to any suggested 'control' of the internet.

    You would probably gain more footholds through valid points, instead of what you've been taught by your professors as the now 'dinosaur' leftist technique of obfuscatiion and marginalization.

    Been there, and done that?

    The information is out there, after all, to paraphrase Chris Carter.

  • Note to jim (3rd comment)
  • Posted by Jen , Grad student on November 19, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • Technically, your comparison to Michael Vick is flawed.
    What this man did was not illegal, whereas Vick broke the law. There is a difference.

  • Dismal Failure
  • Posted by Leftist Cat on November 19, 2009 at 11:15pm EST
  • DFS: Our fundamental disagreement is that capitalism, too, is a dismal failure. That raises the next question. Why don't we look at what capitalism and Bolshevism and Maoism all have/had in common? Could it be their top/down structures which prohibit human freedom?

    There was a study that showed (white) Americans were at their happiest in 1957 when, after the Depression and WWII, they had reached a balance of prosperity and other conditions that maximized it. (I would say they still weren't all that happy.) But then the overwork/overconsumption started and happiness levels have dropped ever since.

    But the way to see the true devastation of capitalism (and the legacy of colonialism that capitalized capitalism in the first place) is by looking at the planet as a whole. It's not a pretty sight. And it's no accident the poor remain poor. Look at the policies of the G-8, or G-20 if you prefer.

    Arguably WWI and WWII and the Holocaust and the Stalinist purges--all were outgrowths of and responses to an inherently exploitive mode of production begetting all kinds of ills. Capitalism is a success for a few, a dismal failure for the many, even the middle class, in my view. We've all been colonized, and it makes us uncomfortable and we don't know exactly what to attribute it to.

    For you there's no better alternative. For me there just might be as more and more people form cooperatives run bottom up instead of top down. I SAID BOTTOM UP INSTEAD OF TOP DOWN. But you can't believe in anything but Big Brother. That's because Big Brother is oppressing you now if you could but admit it. Big Brother is two-faced, one side "conservative/capitalist-libertarian, the other side liberal.

    Anyway, such firms already exist and thrive, despite a hostile climate for them. Such firms can be multi-ethnic, multi-sexuality, multi-faith, functioning with gender equity. Why not?

  • Furor over Purdue librarian commenst
  • Posted by Robert , Director at College association on November 20, 2009 at 2:45pm EST
  • Isn't tenure in part to protect the tenured person, allowing him or her to say what they believe without fear for their job?

    With or without tenure, any student, faculty, or staff on a campus should be able to speak their mind. Hired people must be careful to note when they speak for the university, or speak for themselves.

    Those who believe this is "hate speech" when it is one person's application of biblical scripture would seem to be close to identifying the bible as "hate speech". Be very careful lest this become an issue of religeous rights. You say it is "hate speech"; I say it is simply quoting from "the book". I really hope we won't get into that war.

  • Leftist Cat
  • Posted by DFS on November 25, 2009 at 4:15pm EST
  • Interesting rejoinder. Not what I expected.

    It's late in the postings, and IHE will probably regard this conversation as Closed, but let me just try to say that you are wrong about my worship of capitalism as a philosophy.

    Your ideas about what should be required are relevant to what I know must be the eventual evolution of or from capitalism.

    I don't worship capitalism just for its sake. However, I recognize that the human condition has been most improved through capitalism. It's not perfect, but capitalism does not equal colonialism, either.

    It will change, and it should. It must. But, I reject human advancement from the launchpoint of socialism or communism.

    Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

  • DFS
  • Posted by Leftist Cat on November 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • DFS: I would say that Late Capitalism, the phase we're in now, is concomittant with Post-or Neo-colonialism. Not a pretty sight.

    Of course, "capitalism" is a dirty word to some. "Socialism" and "communism" quite justifiably have horrific connotations to some while others will insist on saying, "It depends, What kind?"

    Monstrous things have been done to humanity in the names of all these terms. We are sort of stuck with them, though. Capitalists and Post-Modernists have been very effective in arguing a slippery slope to totalizing systems if we think in terms of, say, socialism. They use such terms to stop folks from inquiring in certain directions alternative to capitalism. That is, if it's not capitalism it must be socialism which can ONLY lead to Socialism then Communism. As one on the Catholic Left, I share that concern. But it doesn't stop me staying up late into the night discussing with others alternative systems.

    Like you, Marxists have always greatly admired capitalism's productive energies, ingenuity, increased life span (for its middle classes) and so on. Their problem with capitalism is that it continues to develop very unevenly, exerting negative forces on some populations, even as it wins the support of those populations that materially benefit. And as I said, it is the economic mode of production that eventually produced a totalitarian "Left" in the first place, even as it also produced a totalitarian "Right," epitomized by Stalin and Hitler, respectively.

    As Marxist theorist Fredric Jameson puts it, "We must hold in our minds two seemingly contraditory ideas at once: that capitalism is at one and the same time the best thing ever to happen to the human race--and the worst" (The Political Unconscious).

    I am for government as long as it is representing the population at large (i.e. We the People), not just corporations that are legally recognized as "persons," which I find ludicrous. Our Founding Fathers (and later, our Founding Mothers) did not have corporations in mind as "people." Perhaps it is certain popular pressure that corporate interests label as "creeping socialism"-- popular pressures for government to serve needs left behind by big private interests.

    These same interests are also good at disguising the harm done to average people and making them think it is just "Big Government" oppressing them like Big Brother. (Actually Orwell was on to this, so that 1984 is actually a double allegory.) I'd like to see popular movements promote policies not so much to re-distribute wealth but to re-structure the economy, including the promotion of cooperatives that accomodate indivudual and group initiative. Read William Bradford's _Of Plymouth Plantation_ in which the governor stops centrally planning the economy and instead gives each family a plot of land based on the size of the family. They stop starving then and get to work, happily and productively. This has been called capitalism. It is not. It is libertarian socialism. The early Marx seemed in favor of such; the later Marx didn't think it would work without a State first which could then "wither away." I think that State "withering away" must be that of capitalism. We don't need to go through Communism first, as the later Marx argued. Heaven forbid.

    There is also the problem of continued economic growth on transnational corporate terms. The earth is our host and we are its parasites. David Korten says, "Imagine if every Chinese household had two cars." Jameson explains that capitalism is the rationalized, indeed rational, means to irrational ends.

    I think we all are afraid of Big Brother because he dominates us under capitalism the same as he would dominate us under Communism or Socialism (with caps, designating central planning).

    I also believe it is possible for us to take the good things capitalism has given us as well as some of the better features of its value/virtue system while also supplanting it as a mode of production, inventing another in its place: an alternative that preserves individual responsibility and increases social and environmental responsibility. It isn't a matter of one side winning out over the other, nor even of compromise with the answer somewhere "in the middle." Rather, the dialogue should push us BEYOND, onto a different plane.

     

     

  • Chapman On The Money
  • Posted by Richie Farmer on November 30, 2009 at 10:15pm EST
  • Professor Chapman and his beliefs on the queer lifestyle and its negative implications on society as a whole are refreshing and very thought-provoking. For too long, academia and its overwhelming "educrat" bias for soft-headed, liberal-only viewpoints has been a major embarrassment for American higher education.

  • The Truth!
  • Posted by frankly speaking on December 1, 2009 at 4:00pm EST
  • All of my adult life I have been told by the intellectual elite that there is no absolute truth, only shades of grey. Yes truth is an ever moving target, ever changing progression. Language and commuication are just political plays for the status quo by the powers that be. What is true for one may not be true for another. Yet the lesbian woman above seems to be arguing from the point of view of some kind of ultimate sociological truth. Amazing indeed. Sounds more like dogma to me.

  • On Intellectual Elites
  • Posted by Major Major on December 2, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • You mean like Geitner, Summers, Greenspan et. al.?

    But see Gerald Graff, "Hidden Intellectualism": "Only later did it dawn on me that the sports world was more compelling than school because it was MORE INTELLECTUAL THAN SCHOOL, not less. Sports after all was full of challenging arguments, debates, problems for analysis, and intricate statistics that you could care about, as school conspicuously was not" (_They Say/I Say_ 301).

    As far as absolutes, See Terry Eagleton's _After Theory_: "For conservatives (Geitner, Summers, Greenspan) there is that in the world which cannot be tampered with, known as property. For radicals, too, there is that which is beyond our meddling, known as the autonomy of others. It is this which grounds our notions of objectivity. Liberals (Obama, the Clintons), characteristically, back both horses, believing in both property and autonomy" (139).

    The question is which "intellectual elites" do you hold with. It won't do to tar your guys with the pejorative term "elites," will it?

  • OMG
  • Posted by Idealist on December 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Mr. Chapman posted an OPINION on a BLOG. It is certainly protected by the first amendment and academic freedom for that matter. It amazes me at the intolerance and hate exhibited in the posted comments. Grow up! Your opinions are your opinions! Opinions although they may be accepted by many, aren’t facts. Morality is an individual attitude and how some have moved that to a left and right issue is amazing. For those that believe firing, crucifying or stoning is just, you may need to consider looking closely at your values. You just might be a little warped.