Perhaps because I had planned a short post on equality–and how gay leaders, in making that notion the watchword of our their movement have lost sight of the American ideal of freedom, that a post that Glenn linked caught my attention as I was preparing for bed.
It’s a story we’ve heard before; it’s just the facts are different. Students at NYU Law School protested the appointment of Dr. Thio Li-Ann, a law professor from Singapore because of her support for a law in her homeland criminalizing homosexuality. 748 students signed a petition including this paragraph:
By bringing Dr. Thio to NYU, the Law School is acting in opposition to its own policy of nondiscrimination and undermining its commitment to advancing human rights world-wide. This is a step backwards in the Law School’s longstanding support of the LGBT community.
In opposing Dr. Thio’s appointment, the students were discriminating against her point of view. Disagree with her I most certainly do, but shouldn’t people be able to challenge her positions through argument? I mean, isn’t law school supposed to teach students how to think and argue? You know that old Socratic method and all.
So, once again, the advocates of “diversity” and “tolerance” have shown themselves remarkably intolerant of different points of view. Academic freedom takes a back seat to political correctness. As Wendy Kaminer puts it:
. . . gay students (and members of other historically disadvantaged groups) are said to suffer actual discrimination when the administration hires faculty members who argue against anti-discrimination laws. This confusion of speech and action — of advocating for discrimination and actually engaging in it — is common in academia, where academic freedom is too often limited to the freedom to advance prevailing ideals of equality.
According to Kaminer in response to Dr. Thio’s withdrawing of her appointment,
NYU law school dean Richard Revesz smartly finessed questions about her appointment by noting that while her views should not have disqualified her, despite their variance from the university’s ideals, the quality of her arguments in support of her views were relevant to her evaluation.
(Emphasis added.) What is it about so many on the left that they’d rather shun or discredit their ideological adversaries than engage them? If they were so confident of their views, they would welcome such an adversary as it would give them an opportunity to show the strength of their arguments by contrasting them to the weakness of hers.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.