Librarian attacked by profs for promoting 'Marketing of Evil'

[Dr Grump]

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

hhhhmmmm..dunno. It's more like calling somebody a racist because they hate black people and then they turn around and call you a bigot for calling them a racist...doesn't wash IMO. It's all about marginalizing people who do not agree/conform with a differing POV....

 

[dilloduck]

hhhhmmmm..dunno. It's more like calling somebody a racist because they hate black people and then they turn around and call you a bigot for calling them a racist...doesn't wash IMO. It's all about marginalizing people who do not agree/conform with a differing POV....

If I say something as simple as " the side of town where the black live is dangerous at night", I will be judged a racist. You hypersensitivity to what you think is hatred blinds you from the truth.

 

[jillian]

If I say something as simple as " the side of town where the black live is dangerous at night", I will be judged a racist. You hypersensitivity to what you think is hatred blinds you from the truth.

Those aren't the types of things that generally get people called racist. Usually, it's far more subtle than that.

 

[dilloduck]

Those aren't the types of things that generally get people called racist. Usually, it's far more subtle than that.

Cmon---people get called racists for MUCH more bizarre and silly comments as the one I just proposed. Havent you listened to any black (insert minority of your choice) speak ? When the Frito Bandito gets thrown on the pokey for being racist, we really have hopped on the wagon to the nuthouse.

 

[Dr Grump]

If I say something as simple as " the side of town where the black live is dangerous at night", I will be judged a racist. You hypersensitivity to what you think is hatred blinds you from the truth.

Yeah, that is a bit silly if statistically it is true. I don't think it is hypersensitivity especially going by the responses from the anti-homosexual posts by some on these boards. do you?

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah, that is a bit silly if statistically it is true. I don't think it is hypersensitivity especially going by the responses from the anti-homosexual posts by some on these boards. do you?

So now people must back up their opinions with statistics in order for them to have a valid point. What is wrong with having the opinion that Homosexuality is wrong? It's one thing to disagree with that opinion, quite another to suggest anyone and everyone of that opinion is a bigot or homophobe.

 

[jillian]

So now people must back up their opinions with statistics in order for them to have a valid point. What is wrong with having the opinion that Homosexuality is wrong? It's one thing to disagree with that opinion, quite another to suggest anyone and everyone of that opinion is a bigot or homophobe.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when that opinion seeks to marginalize an entire group of people, then it is bigotry. One can hold a personal view of homosexuality being wrong without making it part of their political agenda. Frankly, I've never understood why anyone really cares about the issue other than the fact that it's between two consenting adults and hurt no one if they are life partners who have the same rights as heterosexual life partners, including the option of something which legitimizes and legalizes their status. I don't think that's too much for any person to ask. Just my opinion.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, that is a bit silly if statistically it is true. I don't think it is hypersensitivity especially going by the responses from the anti-homosexual posts by some on these boards. do you?

I'm not denying haters are out there---you just have the numbers way higher by judging people unfairly-- something so HATED by the left----do you see the hypocrisies committed by the judgemental, hate mongering left?

 

[Bonnie]

Jillian..Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when that opinion seeks to marginalize an entire group of people, then it is bigotry. One can hold a personal view of homosexuality being wrong without making it part of their political agenda.

Hmm... well not if they represent a group of constituents that hold the opinion that marriage should be designated for a man and woman only. Many people feel deeply gay marriage does in fact due harm to the institution of marriage and has nothing to do with marginalizing an entire group of people. What you seem to be doing in fact is actually marginalizing people that hold that opinion by implying they hold those views simply because they are uptight, backward, and homophobic.
BTW...
I could care less if gay couples wish to have a legal marriage but I would be very opposed to that happening in my church and would sure make it my business to make that known to my parrish officials, and that in no way shape or form makes me a bigot.

 

[jillian]

Hmm... well not if they represent a group of constituents that hold the opinion that marriage should be designated for a man and woman only. Many people feel deeply gay marriage does in fact due harm to the institution of marriage and has nothing to do with marginalizing an entire group of people. What you seem to be doing in fact is actually marginalizing people that hold that opinion by implying they hold those views simply because they are uptight, backward, and homophobic.
BTW...
I could care less if gay couples wish to have a legal marriage but I would be very opposed to that happening in my church and would sure make it my business to make that known to my parrish officials, and that in no way shape or form makes me a bigot.

OK...now you've hit the difference. Government could never tell a church that it had to sanction marriage between homosexuals. That is in the sole purview of the Church....and if someone doesn't like it, they can find another church to go to. It's the effort to prevent people from being married civilly that is the focus of the political efforts of the far right. And that's where I think the discrimination is. People can pick and choose their churches and ideologies. But government can't take a position with regard to any of those beliefs.

 

[dilloduck]

OK...now you've hit the difference. Government could never tell a church that it had to sanction marriage between homosexuals. That is in the sole purview of the Church....and if someone doesn't like it, they can find another church to go to. It's the effort to prevent people from being married civilly that is the focus of the political efforts of the far right. And that's where I think the discrimination is. People can pick and choose their churches and ideologies. But government can't take a position with regard to any of those beliefs.

Are you claiming that it is only religious people who oppose gay civil unions?

 

[jillian]

Are you claiming that it is only religious people who oppose gay civil unions?

Most people don't care enough to be activist on the issue one way or the other. It takes a special button to be pushed for someone to take an active position one way or the other. It appears that it is the religious right that seems to "get out the vote" on this issue on the con side, while it's only the folk at issue, gays, who "get out the vote" on the pro side.

 

[archangel]

I am religious but it has nothing to do with my religious preference...I am against any marriage or civil union for immature sexual relations and quit with the two people love BS...I love my dog,my horse,my Jeep,my boat,my kids and grandkids...but I sure as hell don't want to marry them...it just isn't right no matter how you try to flower it up...end of story!

 

[Gem]

Getting back to the topic, if I may, I am stunned that people are willing to look the other way at this simply because they don't like this man's opinions.


The librarian was selected to be on a panel and each panels was to recommend books. Were they good books? Thats up for debtate. But the fact of that matter is he was asked to recommend books that he felt the incoming freshman should have a knowledge of in order to receive a well-versed, wide variety of opinion on issues before starting college.

If you believe that the University is a place where all opinions are welcomed and diversity of thought is respected...what is the harm in reading a book that might demonstrate that some professors are not so interested in diversity of opinion? (Horowitz's book)

If you believe homosexuality is just an alternative sexuality that deserves as much respect and recognition as heterosexuality that where is the harm in reading about an alternative viewpoint? Many, many people in this country do not support homosexuality, so why not educate yourself about why they feel that way? You might put the book down going, "Wow. That guy is an even bigger moron than I originally thought!" But you might also say, "Wow. I still disagree with his premise, but at least I know a bit more about his argument." Or scarier still, you might say, "Wow. That guy made some interesting points...I don't think I agree...but I'll definetly have to THINK ABOUT IT some more now that I have read an alternate opinion."

This man was not criticized for picking non-scholarly books (although they are now pointing to that as a "side issue" to the real point). This man is being sued for even suggesting that people read a book with a viewpoint that is offensive to someone.

Think about that, people.

The man is facing LEGAL repercussions because he had the audacity to suggest a book with unpopular views.

And some people on this message board are OK WITH THAT?!?!??!??!?!

Do I agree with this guys choices? No, not all of them. But I don't think that recommending a book or two that give an alternative opinion to what many of the students are going to encounter on campus is a bad thing.

Frankly, I'm horrified that someone in this day and age would be ok with the knowledge that if you read the wrong book you can be fired and sued.

Is it just that this guy didn't jive with YOUR beliefs...so its ok that he's being tarred and feathered over this?

Imagine if a librarian was fired because he recommended the Communist Manifesto or Dude, Where's My Country on an incoming freshman reading list? Imagine if someone came out and said, "His book choices demonstrated a really hatred for America and what has made America great...and because of that, I really felt unsafe with him on my campus because he is against everything I stand for and am."

You'd laugh this person out of the building...and you'd congratulate the librarian on picking books that "really made people think. Books that spawned conversation and intellectual debate...just like universities are supposed to do."

But the political flavor of these books isn't to some people's liking...so you're just fine with him being fired and accussed of sexual harrasment...all because he had the audacity to suggest that people should learn about other peoples thoughts and opinions....

You do not have to agree or like this man's beliefs to find what is happening to him terrifying.

 

[Darwins Friend]

When the Frito Bandito gets thrown on the pokey for being racist, we really have hopped on the wagon to the nuthouse.

(this has got to be the quote of the month!)

 

[jillian]

Getting back to the topic, if I may, I am stunned that people are willing to look the other way at this simply because they don't like this man's opinions.


The librarian was selected to be on a panel and each panels was to recommend books. Were they good books? Thats up for debtate. But the fact of that matter is he was asked to recommend books that he felt the incoming freshman should have a knowledge of in order to receive a well-versed, wide variety of opinion on issues before starting college.

If you believe that the University is a place where all opinions are welcomed and diversity of thought is respected...what is the harm in reading a book that might demonstrate that some professors are not so interested in diversity of opinion? (Horowitz's book)

If you believe homosexuality is just an alternative sexuality that deserves as much respect and recognition as heterosexuality that where is the harm in reading about an alternative viewpoint? Many, many people in this country do not support homosexuality, so why not educate yourself about why they feel that way? You might put the book down going, "Wow. That guy is an even bigger moron than I originally thought!" But you might also say, "Wow. I still disagree with his premise, but at least I know a bit more about his argument." Or scarier still, you might say, "Wow. That guy made some interesting points...I don't think I agree...but I'll definetly have to THINK ABOUT IT some more now that I have read an alternate opinion."

This man was not criticized for picking non-scholarly books (although they are now pointing to that as a "side issue" to the real point). This man is being sued for even suggesting that people read a book with a viewpoint that is offensive to someone.

Think about that, people.

The man is facing LEGAL repercussions because he had the audacity to suggest a book with unpopular views.

And some people on this message board are OK WITH THAT?!?!??!??!?!

Do I agree with this guys choices? No, not all of them. But I don't think that recommending a book or two that give an alternative opinion to what many of the students are going to encounter on campus is a bad thing.

Frankly, I'm horrified that someone in this day and age would be ok with the knowledge that if you read the wrong book you can be fired and sued.

Is it just that this guy didn't jive with YOUR beliefs...so its ok that he's being tarred and feathered over this?

Imagine if a librarian was fired because he recommended the Communist Manifesto or Dude, Where's My Country on an incoming freshman reading list? Imagine if someone came out and said, "His book choices demonstrated a really hatred for America and what has made America great...and because of that, I really felt unsafe with him on my campus because he is against everything I stand for and am."

You'd laugh this person out of the building...and you'd congratulate the librarian on picking books that "really made people think. Books that spawned conversation and intellectual debate...just like universities are supposed to do."

But the political flavor of these books isn't to some people's liking...so you're just fine with him being fired and accussed of sexual harrasment...all because he had the audacity to suggest that people should learn about other peoples thoughts and opinions....

You do not have to agree or like this man's beliefs to find what is happening to him terrifying.

You raise very good points. But not having all of the facts, I suspect there is more to the story. Given that, I'm not willing to yet criticize the university's actions, particularly where it appears that they're just "investigating". (At least that's how it appeared to me).

Thanks for getting back to the topic at hand, though.

 

[Annie]

You raise very good points. But not having all of the facts, I suspect there is more to the story. Given that, I'm not willing to yet criticize the university's actions, particularly where it appears that they're just "investigating". (At least that's how it appeared to me).

Thanks for getting back to the topic at hand, though.

Actually the university cleared him, which I posted 2 pages ago:

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]

Actually the university cleared him, which I posted 2 pages ago:

Got caught up in the discussion and missed that. Thanks.

See...the system works and the "lib" university did what it found was the right thing.

So all's well that ends well... :happy2:

 

[Annie]

Got caught up in the discussion and missed that. Thanks.

See...the system works and the "lib" university did what it found was the right thing.

So all's well that ends well... :happy2:

Oh it might have had a bit to do with a lawsuit being threatened...

 

[jillian]

Oh it might have had a bit to do with a lawsuit being threatened...

Which wouldn't have been an issue if they thought they were doing the right thing.

Off to home now... laterz!