Librarian attacked by profs for promoting 'Marketing of Evil'

[Hobbit]

No one should be intimidated for what they believe. But perhaps there's a difference between someone advancing acceptance of diverse groups and someone disseminating material which tries to marginalize a segment of the population, like gays?

Just throwing that out there....

Also, I'm not sure what "Yale fiasco" you're referring to.

See, this is where we collide. Right now, gays are not trying to gain equal rights. They're trying to gain special rights and force the populace to tell them that there's nothing wrong with what they do. However, nearly every world religion says that, yes, there is something wrong with what they do. Then, there's the fact that this wouldn't have been an issue if he'd been recommending books with titles more like "White Devils," "America the Oppressive," or "101 Reasons Why Bush is the Anti-Christ."

The Yale fiasco refers to the fact that Yale University currently has enrolled as a student a spokeman for the Taliban who doesn't even have a high school level education

 

[Mr.Conley]

Has anyone been struck by the fact that the books this librarian recommended really are not books of a calibar worth making required reading for Freshmen. Instead of having students read "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis," which I'm guessing is about how the Europeans and Arabs are out to get us, why not assign a book on World History or Mideast Studies. How about instead of assigning student's a book about the 100 "most liberal" professors in the world (I doubt any are in Ohio), have them read the writings of Plato and Socrates. Maybe instead of assigning a book by Senator Santorum telling students that if they don't get married they'll go to hell, let the Freshmen go to college to learn, rather them have a worldview stuffed down their throat. Now I realize that one of you is going to retort, "but I think the evil liberals are doing the same," so I ask does that justify either case? Let the kids get a decent education rather then being told what to do by crazy librarians or professors

 

[dilloduck]

Has anyone been struck by the fact that the books this librarian recommended really are not books of a calibar worth making required reading for Freshmen. Instead of having students read "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis," which I'm guessing is about how the Europeans and Arabs are out to get us, why not assign a book on World History or Mideast Studies. How about instead of assigning student's a book about the 100 "most liberal" professors in the world (I doubt any are in Ohio), have them read the writings of Plato and Socrates. Maybe instead of assigning a book by Senator Santorum telling students that if they don't get married they'll go to hell, let the Freshmen go to college to learn, rather them have a worldview stuffed down their throat. Now I realize that one of you is going to retort, "but I think the evil liberals are doing the same," so I ask does that justify either case? Let the kids get a decent education rather then being told what to do by crazy librarians or professors

cool--self paced and self graded?

 

[Mr.Conley]

cool--self paced and self graded?

You know exactly what I mean. Don't try to make something from nothing.

 

[dilloduck]

You know exactly what I mean. Don't try to make something from nothing.

No--I seriously dont----how are kids going to to a decent education without a teacher?

 

[jillian]

See, this is where we collide. Right now, gays are not trying to gain equal rights. They're trying to gain special rights and force the populace to tell them that there's nothing wrong with what they do. However, nearly every world religion says that, yes, there is something wrong with what they do. Then, there's the fact that this wouldn't have been an issue if he'd been recommending books with titles more like "White Devils," "America the Oppressive," or "101 Reasons Why Bush is the Anti-Christ."

I disagree, obviously, on the gay issue. I think if people are life partners, they should have the same legal rights as a married couple. (Now, mind you, I don't think most gay people care if you call it a civil union or a marriage or something else).... But the minute people get married, they can inherit from each other, have rights to each others pensions/benefits, can make medical decisions and visit if one has to go to the hospital. They're entitled to each others' social security benefits if something were to happen to one of them. Gay people don't have any of that. You think by asking for what heterosexual couples get, they're asking for "special rights". I think if you look at it objectively, you'll see they aren't.

The Yale fiasco refers to the fact that Yale University currently has enrolled as a student a spokeman for the Taliban who doesn't even have a high school level education

Ah...ok. I can't say I know enough about it to comment. But thanks for answering my question.

 

[Kagom]

I disagree, obviously, on the gay issue. I think if people are life partners, they should have the same legal rights as a married couple. (Now, mind you, I don't think most gay people care if you call it a civil union or a marriage or something else).... But the minute people get married, they can inherit from each other, have rights to each others pensions/benefits, can make medical decisions and visit if one has to go to the hospital. They're entitled to each others' social security benefits if something were to happen to one of them. Gay people don't have any of that. You think by asking for what heterosexual couples get, they're asking for "special rights". I think if you look at it objectively, you'll see they aren't.

Ah...ok. I can't say I know enough about it to comment. But thanks for answering my question.

Speaking on behalf of myself, I don't care what it's called. I just want to be able to enjoy these rights with the guy I happen to love and be with.

A retort you will see (probably shortly) is "They have all those rights, just not with people of the same gender."

 

[Avatar4321]

I disagree, obviously, on the gay issue. I think if people are life partners, they should have the same legal rights as a married couple. (Now, mind you, I don't think most gay people care if you call it a civil union or a marriage or something else).... But the minute people get married, they can inherit from each other, have rights to each others pensions/benefits, can make medical decisions and visit if one has to go to the hospital. They're entitled to each others' social security benefits if something were to happen to one of them. Gay people don't have any of that. You think by asking for what heterosexual couples get, they're asking for "special rights". I think if you look at it objectively, you'll see they aren't.

Ah...ok. I can't say I know enough about it to comment. But thanks for answering my question.

How many times do we have to go over this?

Gay couples have just as much right to inherit the property of their parties as anyone else. All it takes is them writing a will. Heck your freaking cat can inherit the property if you write it into a will. You can give anyone including your "gay partner" the right to attorney to amke decisions in hospitals.

So stop bring up red herrings and acting as though they can't do this already. The simple fact is they have not given society any reason to recognize their relationships as special or beneficial to society. Until they do there is no reason to give them special protected status and recognize them legally. And if you are going to continue to argue that they are disenfranchised from things they can already do and ignore the actual problem with recognition, you will never persuade people to vote in favor of it.

And if you try to implement it any other way than convincing the hearts and mind of the people, and instead try to force it upon people from the unelected branches of government despite what the clear will of the people is, you are going to see people get alot more hostile against it.

We have a representative system for a reason. its to keep people like you from forcing things upon us.

 

[Dr Grump]

The simple fact is they have not given society any reason to recognize their relationships as special or beneficial to society. Until they do there is no reason to give them special protected status and recognize them legally.

Who says they want their relationships recognized as special or beneficial to society? Who says they want protection? From what I see, all they want is to be treated fairly and equally and until they are, there will always be a militant side to the gay agenda.

And if you try to implement it any other way than convincing the hearts and mind of the people, and instead try to force it upon people from the unelected branches of government despite what the clear will of the people is, you are going to see people get alot more hostile against it..

Well, the clear will of a lot of the people in the southern states pre 1861 (and some of the northern too) didn't mean they were right. A great thing about a republic is that it can protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, no?

We have a representative system for a reason. its to keep people like you from forcing things upon us.

And people like you (if I am reading you correctly) are not forcing your way of life/POV on others?

 

[Annie]

Ah...ok. I can't say I know enough about it to comment. But thanks for answering my question.

If you want to find out, follow the links:

April 17, 2006

YALE TALIBAN UPDATE:

Yale now doesn't even attempt to claim that Mr. Hashemi has changed. In conversations with donors, president Richard Levin has fallen back on two arguments: that Mr. Hashemi currently is a nondegree student, and that the State Department issued him a visa. But Mr. Hashemi's application to become a sophomore in Yale's full degree program, the same type of program that Mr. Farivar graduated from at Harvard, is pending before Mr. Levin. That makes his continued presence at Yale especially relevant as Yale's Board of Governors, the body that supposedly runs the university, prepares to meet this week.
Many in the Yale community are appalled at the damage university officials have caused by their failure to address the Hashemi issue after seven weeks of controversy. "That silence has provoked bewilderment and anger among many," David Cameron, a Yale political science professor wrote The Wall Street Journal last week. "Yale appears to have no convincing response to those who ask why, given the nature of the Taliban regime, his role in it, its complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and his apparent failure or refusal to disavow the regime, Mr. Hashemi has been allowed to study at the university."

Even some who defend the right of Yale to make its own admissions decisions now say it went too far with its Taliban Man. Mark Oppenheimer, a Yale grad who edits the New Haven Advocate, an alternative weekly, says he has "finally come to the conclusion" that "Yale should not have enrolled someone who helped lead a regime that destroyed religious icons, executed adulterers and didn't let women learn to read. Surely, the spot could have better gone to, say, Afghani women, who have such difficulty getting schooling in their own country."

Read the whole thing. Plus, a related article from the Yale Daily News:

Former Taliban diplomat Rahmatullah Hashemi's presence as a non-degree special student at Yale has put pressure on administrators to expedite ongoing efforts to clarify the difference between the Non-Degree Students Program and the degree-granting Eli Whitney Students Program.

If Hashemi intends to gain degree status next year -- as he told the News in February he would seek to do -- his application to the Whitney Program must be received by the May 1 deadline. Some students within the degree program have questioned in internal e-mail messages whether Hashemi's background merits his acceptance, and Assistant Dean William Whobrey, who oversees both the Non-Degree and Whitney programs, said that, pending approval, next year's Yale College Programs of Study will attempt to clarify the distinctions between the two.

This really represented an appalling lapse of judgment on Yale's part.
posted at 07:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[Annie]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_04_16-2006_04_22.shtml#1145329284

Tuesday, April 18, 2006
[David Bernstein, April 18, 2006 at 8:32am] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
On the ABA's "Well-Respected Tradition of Accrediting Law Schools":

In defense of the ABA's role in accrediting law schools, under fire for the ABA's pending insistence that all law schools use racial preferences even if they are illegal under federal or state law, Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, says: "The ABA has a long, well-respected tradition of accrediting law schools." That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that the ABA has a long history of trying to cartelize the profession through accreditation standards, and that historically part of the purpose of these standards was to exclude Jews and other non-WASPs. From an article by James Moliterno in the Wake Forest Law Review:

One way the elite tried to exclude outsiders was through its attempt to set higher educational standards and higher bar admission standards. The elite lawyers were troubled by the influx of immigrants and Jews into the legal profession--many of whom went to law school by night or via correspondence courses. Night schools, observed the Dean of the Wisconsin law school, enrolled "a very large portion of foreign names." An ABA committee recommended that the character of the bar could be improved by raising educational standards in order to "purify the stream at the source."

And need I mention the irony of Mr. Henderson's comment in light of the fact that the ABA excluded African Americans from membership until 1954?(!)

Related Posts (on one page):

1. On the ABA's "Well-Respected Tradition of Accrediting Law Schools":
2. ABA Accreditation Standards Supercede Contrary State Laws

0 Comments
Monday, April 17, 2006
[Eugene Volokh, April 17, 2006 at 11:01pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Scott Savage Cleared:

Many thanks to commenter OSU Grad Student for pointing me to this Inside Higher Ed item from today:

Ohio State University officials on Friday cleared Scott Savage, a librarian at the Mansfield campus, of harassment charges filed against him based on his recommendation of an anti-gay book for a freshman reading assignment. A conservative group had threatened to sue the university if the charges were not dropped. They were dropped the same day that the group went public with its complaints about the way the librarian was being treated.

Delighted to hear it, and especially pleased that the university acted so quickly.

Related Posts (on one page):

1. Scott Savage Cleared:
2. Interesting Tidbit About the Ohio State (Mansfield) Controversy:
3. Suggesting Anti-Gay Book for Inclusion in University Reading Program = Sexual Orientation Harassment?

 

[jillian]

How many times do we have to go over this?

Gay couples have just as much right to inherit the property of their parties as anyone else.

Not social security and not pension and health benefits.

you are going to see people get alot more hostile against it.

Racists, homophobes, anti-semites and others who hate people based on their group affiliation get really cranky about being told they don't have the right to force their views on the vast majority around them or to marginalize entire groups of people.

We have a representative system for a reason. its to keep people like you from forcing things upon us.

And unless this Court totally destroys the Constitution, luckily we have that to protect us from the "representative" system. :usa:

 

[theHawk]

I disagree, obviously, on the gay issue. I think if people are life partners, they should have the same legal rights as a married couple. (Now, mind you, I don't think most gay people care if you call it a civil union or a marriage or something else).... But the minute people get married, they can inherit from each other, have rights to each others pensions/benefits, can make medical decisions and visit if one has to go to the hospital. They're entitled to each others' social security benefits if something were to happen to one of them. Gay people don't have any of that. You think by asking for what heterosexual couples get, they're asking for "special rights". I think if you look at it objectively, you'll see they aren't.

This has nothing to do with gays earning the right to inherit property from their 'mates'. Once the government 'blesses' gay marriage, then gays will be able to things like adopt children....since it would become illeagal to deny them that if they are a "married couple".

 

[theHawk]

Racists, homophobes, anti-semites and others who hate people based on their group affiliation get really cranky about being told they don't have the right to force their views on the vast majority around them or to marginalize entire groups of people.

Or maybe those poeple are getting cranky because someone else is trying to force their views on them. And yet again we see another typical liberal ploy to lump in words like "racists" with "homophobes". Being born of a certain race/gender/nationality is beyond anyones own control - thus it is wrong to judge people based soley on those things. However we should be able to critize/condemn people that do an action they feel is immoral. Being a homosexual isn't like being a race, it is someone who engages in a certain type of activity. Some think that activity is wrong, others don't care - which is fine. But its disingenous to label someone a 'x- phobe' as if they are judging a person for what he/she is, not by what they do.

 

[dilloduck]

Not social security and not pension and health benefits.



Racists, homophobes, anti-semites and others who hate people based on their group affiliation get really cranky about being told they don't have the right to force their views on the vast majority around them or to marginalize entire groups of people.



And unless this Court totally destroys the Constitution, luckily we have that to protect us from the "representative" system. :usa:

Do you hate Racists, homophobes, anti-Semites because of thier group affiliation?. Even stanger about this phemonenon is the YOU are the one who judges them as a member of these groups. You assume because a critic takes on ONE aspect of these groups they hate them all.

 

[jillian]

Do you hate Racists, homophobes, anti-Semites because of thier group affiliation?. Even stanger about this phemonenon is the YOU are the one who judges them as a member of these groups. You assume because a critic takes on ONE aspect of these groups they hate them all.

I think people who are racists, homophobes and/or anti-semites make their views fairly well known when they attempt to marginalize or endanger such groups or prevent them from having the same rights as everyone else.

It isn't "hate" to call those people on their hatred. It's just calling it what it is.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

YES to everything you have posted here!!!!

Bottom line is free speech for anyone but Christian Conservatives!!

 

[Bonnie]

I think people who are racists, homophobes and/or anti-semites make their views fairly well known when they attempt to marginalize or endanger such groups or prevent them from having the same rights as everyone else.

It isn't "hate" to call those people on their hatred. It's just calling it what it is.

So tell me Jillian where exaclty do we draw the line on free speech? How far do we take lawsuits filed because one group doesn't "like" the opinions of another??

 

[dilloduck]

I think people who are racists, homophobes and/or anti-semites make their views fairly well known when they attempt to marginalize or endanger such groups or prevent them from having the same rights as everyone else.

It isn't "hate" to call those people on their hatred. It's just calling it what it is.

No---It's a JUDGEMENT. That word you hate so much.

 

[Dr Grump]

So tell me Jillian where exaclty do we draw the line on free speech? How far do we take lawsuits filed because one group doesn't "like" the opinions of another??

It depends on what is said and the result of said speech....