Librarian attacked by profs for promoting 'Marketing of Evil'

[Stephanie]

Whats that about Free Speech???

Posted: April 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


In what is being called an "astonishing" and "shameful" case of campus persecution, Ohio State University's head librarian is being formally accused of "sexual harassment." His crime? Recommending that the school's freshman class be required to read WND Managing Editor David Kupelian's controversial best seller, "The Marketing of Evil."

Scott Savage is head of Reference and Instructional Services at the Bromfield Library on Ohio State University's Mansfield campus.


The school's Office of Human Resources put Savage under "investigation" after three professors – Hannibal Hamlin, Norman Jones and J.K. Buckley – filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment, saying Kupelian's book made them feel "unsafe."


In his role as a member of OSU Mansfield's First Year Reading Experience Committee, Savage had suggested new students read "The Marketing of Evil," as well as three other books – "The Professors" by David Horowitz, "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" by Bat Ye'or, and "It Takes a Family" by Sen. Rick Santorum.

But the attacks on Savage stem directly from faculty members' reaction to "The Marketing of Evil," according to the Arizona-based public-interest group Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending the librarian.




"Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads the group's Center for Academic Freedom. "It's shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university."


ADF sent a "Cease and Desist" letter to OSU Mansfield officials [pdf file] March 28 informing them of Savage's constitutional rights. In it, the legal group explained the attack on Savage:


After Mr. Savage suggested the four additional books, Professors Hamlin and Jones took issue with "The Marketing of Evil." They e-mailed the Committee and labeled Mr. Savage "anti-gay" and called his suggestions "homophobic tripe."
Jones did not stop there; he sent a private email to Mr. Savage's supervisor, questioning the integrity of the library staff. He sent another email to the Committee, arguing with Mr. Savage's academic opinions and quoting additional text from Amazon.com's review of "The Marketing of Evil." After this e-mail exchange, a non-committee faculty member, J.F. Buckley, emailed all faculty and staff at the Mansfield campus criticizing the book Mr. Savage mentioned, denigrating Mr. Savage's professionalism, and claiming that he felt threatened by Mr. Savage. ...

On Monday, March 13, 2006, at the routine faculty meeting, several faculty members accused Mr. Savage of sexual harassment and made a motion to file formal charges against him. The faculty unanimously passed the motion and appointed Professor Gary Kennedy to notify OSU's sexual harassment officer. Two days later the faculty met again and rescinded the motion (due to confusion as to whether the faculty had the authority to pass the origional motion), but instructed the complaining professors to notify OSU's sexual harassment officer individually. On March 16, 2006, Buckley, Jones and Kennedy filed a Discrimination & Harassment Complaint with OSU's Office of Human Resources.


To date, the university refuses to halt the investigation, saying in response, it takes "any allegation of sexual harassment seriously."


French is incredulous that faculty members are attempting to label a librarian as a "sexual harasser" simply because they disagree with his book suggestions: "It is astonishing that an entire faculty would vote to launch a sexual harassment investigation because a librarian offered book suggestions in a committee whose purpose was to solicit such suggestions," he said.

Note: Readers may read all the e-mail exchanges between the professors attacking Savage and "The Marketing of Evil" here.

Here are a few of the OSU professors' March 9 intra-faculty e-mail comments:


Hamlin: "On the matter of homophobia, I think you should be rather careful, Scott. OSU's policy on discrimination is not simply a matter of academic orthodoxy, but a matter of human rights. Re Kupelian's book, would you advocate a book that was racist or antisemitic [sic], or are you arguing that homosexuals are not in the same category and that homophobia is not therefore a matter of discrimination but of rational argument? And what are we supposed to make of the fact that Kupelian's Armenian family died in the holocaust? Does this mean that he then has the right to spout bigotry about other minorities with impunity?

Jones: "The anti-gay book Scott Savage endorses (below) falsely claims that 'the widely revered father of the 'sexual revolution' has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia." This is a factually untrue characterization of Dr. Kinsey and his work on every point. ... I am frankly embarrassed for you, Scott, that you would endorse this kind of homophobic tripe.

Buckley: "Rather than waste your time with the paucity of intellectual rigor that Kupelian brings to the table, I encourage you to visit his website, and see for yourself his unmitigated homophobia and xenophobia. In short, he is a pontificating, phobic, cultural atavism bemoaning the loss of an (Anglo) America that only existed on such shows as "The Lone Ranger." ... As a gay man I have long ago realized that the world is full of homophobic, hate-mongers who, of course, say that they are not. So I am not shocked, only deeply saddened – and THREATENED – that such mindless folks are on this great campus. I am ending now, with the hope that I have seriously challenged you Scott, and anyone who "thinks" as you purport to do. You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed."
Commenting on the controversy surrounding his book, Kupelian said: "It's disgraceful that this university's faculty members would destroy an innocent man by calling him a 'sexual harasser,' just because he recommended my book. What's ironic is that my book simply champions the traditional, Judeo-Christian values almost all Americans took for granted 60 years ago. But today, many of us, at least on our nation's college campuses, are in mortal combat with those same values."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49761

 

[jillian]

The book preaches homophobia. That ISN'T okay. If this same person had recommended a book talking about how Christians are evil (I'm just using that as an example, not saying Christians are evil).... then it would be appropriate to respond to that type of hatred as well.

 

[dilloduck]

The book preaches homophobia. That ISN'T okay. If this same person had recommended a book talking about how Christians are evil (I'm just using that as an example, not saying Christians are evil).... then it would be appropriate to respond to that type of hatred as well.

An eye for an eye?

 

[jillian]

An eye for an eye?

LOL! No. But it would be appropriate to voice an objection to such a book and I have no doubt the the objections would be vociferously stated.

 

[NATO AIR]

No rights to free speech for conservatives on college campuses like OSU. Its damn near the impossible battle for conservatives. I dread it when I go to school in 2008. The moment I open my mouth on something like abortion or multiculturalism, I may end up paying a steep price.

 

[Nienna]

The book preaches homophobia. That ISN'T okay. If this same person had recommended a book talking about how Christians are evil (I'm just using that as an example, not saying Christians are evil).... then it would be appropriate to respond to that type of hatred as well.

Students and faculty are free to disagree with the content of the book, and free to disregard the librarian's recommendation. Bringing a lawsuit goes far beyond "disagreeing." They are prosecuting a man for holding opinions sifferent than their own.

I don't know what your experience has been in the world of US universities, but anti-Christian books (or at least books that oppose Christian lifestyle and beliefs) are recommended DAILY. Haven't heard of any lawsuits brought by Christians simply bc someone RECOMMENDED that this stuff be read.

 

[NATO AIR]

Students and faculty are free to disagree with the content of the book, and free to disregard the librarian's recommendation. Bringing a lawsuit goes far beyond "disagreeing." They are prosecuting a man for holding opinions sifferent than their own.

I don't know what your experience has been in the world of US universities, but anti-Christian books (or at least books that oppose Christian lifestyle and beliefs) are recommended DAILY. Haven't heard of any lawsuits brought by Christians simply bc someone RECOMMENDED that this stuff be read.

Isn't that Sam Harris anti-religion book a huge hit among the college kids and profs?

 

[dilloduck]

Isn't that Sam Harris anti-religion book a huge hit among the college kids and profs?

Even a bullshit response to a bullshit premise is still free speech---It used to be anyway. Free speech consists of assertions, rebuttals ad infinitum. Disagreeing with speech does not stop it from happening.

 

[jillian]

Students and faculty are free to disagree with the content of the book, and free to disregard the librarian's recommendation. Bringing a lawsuit goes far beyond "disagreeing." They are prosecuting a man for holding opinions sifferent than their own.

I don't know what your experience has been in the world of US universities, but anti-Christian books (or at least books that oppose Christian lifestyle and beliefs) are recommended DAILY. Haven't heard of any lawsuits brought by Christians simply bc someone RECOMMENDED that this stuff be read.

Which is it? Are there anti-Christian books recommended? Or do these books specifically preach against Christian lifestyle?

Do you have a link to prove your assertion or is it just rhetoric?

BTW, the librarian didn't "recommend" the book, he wanted it to be required reading.

 

[Annie]

Isn't that Sam Harris anti-religion book a huge hit among the college kids and profs?

All sorts of things are 'biased', 'prejudiced', etc. One is SUPPOSED to study such in college. However, the left is only for their POV being 'mainstreamed' on campus.

I read The Communist Manifesto in political science. I read the 'Population Bomb' in high school. There is no hue and cry over revisionist history-which points out the 'sins' of the Founders, but negates to expand on the improvements they made for Western Civilization.

 

[insein]

No rights to free speech for conservatives on college campuses like OSU. Its damn near the impossible battle for conservatives. I dread it when I go to school in 2008. The moment I open my mouth on something like abortion or multiculturalism, I may end up paying a steep price.

You have to tread softly and make sure you have all A's before you open your mouth about those things. I know its hard but thats the only way you can defend yourself. That way when a proffesor goes off the deep end and tries to give you a failing grade, you can show the admin that you're a straight A student and that he is discriminating against you.

 

[insein]

The book preaches homophobia. That ISN'T okay. If this same person had recommended a book talking about how Christians are evil (I'm just using that as an example, not saying Christians are evil).... then it would be appropriate to respond to that type of hatred as well.

IT is absolutely ok to recommend any reading. ITs perfectly ok for the faculty to completely disagree with the librarian's opinions. It is NOT ok when the faculty tries to use false accusations to stifle a persons free speech. Instead of debating the librarian on his ideas, they tried to have him arrested for them.

This line right here sums up the liberal mindset.

To date, the university refuses to halt the investigation, saying in response, it takes "any allegation of sexual harassment seriously."

"With libs, It's not the nature of the evidence. It's the seriousness of the charge." -Rush Limbaugh

One look at the case for "sexual Harassment" that has no physical or verbal contact between the 2 parties should be all that is needed for the whole thing to be dropped. Instead with a liberal mindset of quieting all oposing points of view trumping any common sense, we are where we are with this.

 

[Annie]

You have to tread softly and make sure you have all A's before you open your mouth about those things. I know its hard but thats the only way you can defend yourself. That way when a proffesor goes off the deep end and tries to give you a failing grade, you can show the admin that you're a straight A student and that he is discriminating against you.

OK, I never thought of that. My advice: The first go round with universities-*ahem* awhile ago, I was deferential to my major professors, poly sci. and sociology, though I would NOT do their bidding about 'marches' against the Shah, who ended up in US, then the Hostage Crisis. I went to head of pol. sci. department over that. My essays on tests tended to regurgitate back what they had lectured.

In the more recent past, going for history degree, I openly challenged the professors, both in class discussions and in essays. Three of them, very leftists, are still my friends. I did get A's from all of them, then again, I could justify my stance.

 

[insein]

OK, I never thought of that. My advice: The first go round with universities-*ahem* awhile ago, I was deferential to my major professors, poly sci. and sociology, though I would NOT do their bidding about 'marches' against the Shah, who ended up in US, then the Hostage Crisis. I went to head of pol. sci. department over that. My essays on tests tended to regurgitate back what they had lectured.

In the more recent past, going for history degree, I openly challenged the professors, both in class discussions and in essays. Three of them, very leftists, are still my friends. I did get A's from all of them, then again, I could justify my stance.

From what ive encountered on my college campuses (only 2), most teachers with a slant are actually open minded. Ive had only 2 or 3 that were hardline communists that threatened you when you disagreed. My mistake was that in my first year, I wasnt doing good in their class (C average) and i disagreed with the teacher. That made it easy for them to justify giving me a failing grade or a D which is just as bad.

 

[jillian]

IT is absolutely ok to recommend any reading. ITs perfectly ok for the faculty to completely disagree with the librarian's opinions. It is NOT ok when the faculty tries to use false accusations to stifle a persons free speech. Instead of debating the librarian on his ideas, they tried to have him arrested for them.

Who arrested the librarian? I thought his job was just terminated. And no determination can be made as to whether he sexually harassed someone without an investigation.

This line right here sums up the liberal mindset.

Again, why should the university halt an investigation before the facts are gathered.

"With libs, It's not the nature of the evidence. It's the seriousness of the charge." -Rush Limbaugh

There also might be better ways to make a point than by quoting liars like Rush. And people who call anyone they disagree with "libs" really doesn't do much for one's credibility.

One look at the case for "sexual Harassment" that has no physical or verbal contact between the 2 parties should be all that is needed for the whole thing to be dropped. Instead with a liberal mindset of quieting all oposing points of view trumping any common sense, we are where we are with this.

Touching has little to do with sexual harassment as defined by law, otherwise it would be sexual assault. Sexual harassment is defined as

Sexual Harassment is not included in the legal definition of sexual assault, but sexual assault can be a part of sexual harassment. Within employment or school settings, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Federal law. Title VII defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome” sexual conduct that is a term or condition of employment (29 C.F.R. 1604. 11a). For more information about this type of sexual harassment contact University Harassment Compliance and Equity at http://uhr.rutgers.edu/uhce

Peer sexual harassment occurs in a variety of forms that may include sexual assault or criminal sexual contact. Other forms of this type of harassment include sexual comments, noises or gestures that threaten, scare, or make the victim uncomfortable. The behavior of the perpetrator would determine what crime was committed.

http://uhr.rutgers.edu/uhce

 

[Annie]

From what ive encountered on my college campuses (only 2), most teachers with a slant are actually open minded. Ive had only 2 or 3 that were hardline communists that threatened you when you disagreed. My mistake was that in my first year, I wasnt doing good in their class (C average) and i disagreed with the teacher. That made it easy for them to justify giving me a failing grade or a D which is just as bad.

You might be correct. I do ascribe some of my grades/results from being on a more even playing field, as I already had 2 degrees and was 'older.' I was also well read, but that was true the first time around.

 

[Annie]

Who arrested the librarian? I thought his job was just terminated. And no determination can be made as to whether he sexually harassed someone without an investigation.



Again, why should the university halt an investigation before the facts are gathered.



There also might be better ways to make a point than by quoting liars like Rush. And people who call anyone they disagree with "libs" really doesn't do much for one's credibility.



Touching has little to do with sexual harassment as defined by law, otherwise it would be sexual assault. Sexual harassment is defined as

With this post, I can see that I was wrong about the chance for intelligent disagreement. You are not open to discussion, thanks for making that clear. The indicators were already popping up, but this sealed it.

 

[jillian]

With this post, I can see that I was wrong about the chance for intelligent disagreement. You are not open to discussion, thanks for making that clear. The indicators were already popping up, but this sealed it.

I'm open for polite discussion. I'm not the one throwing around terms like "libs" am I? Though I am kind of curious why accurate definitions offend you so very much.

But thanks for letting me know that only a right wing pov is welcome on the board. I figured moderation, stated without rancor is acceptable in any circle.

Cheers.

 

[Annie]

I'm open for polite discussion. I'm not the one throwing around terms like "libs" am I?

But thanks for letting me know that only a right wing pov is welcome on the board. I figured moderation, stated without rancor is acceptable in any circle.

Cheers.

Cheers back to you, but no equating our ability to look at differing pov, in lieu of our own. I do, often. Have even changed my perspective. You however, so far, have proven wedded to an agenda. Which is cool, I just read you different, at first. No harm, no foul.

 

[jillian]

Cheers back to you, but no equating our ability to look at differing pov, in lieu of our own. I do, often. Have even changed my perspective. You however, so far, have proven wedded to an agenda. Which is cool, I just read you different, at first. No harm, no foul.

I am certainly open to changing my position with respect to certain things, given facts that make me change my view and actually did with respect to issues like gun control. But the way I see things, by the time we hit our 30's, we've got a particular way of looking at the world. You and I just see it differently. I don't expect to change anyone's ideology...don't expect anyone to change mine. I figure on a messageboard it's all about having civil debate, keeping the mind sharp and having some fun.