apparently hinges on the right to harass and intimidate gays and lesbians. Meet the lovely Ruth Malhotra, who is thoroughly disgusted with feminists, vaginas, teh gay, and promotion of a “gender-neutral society” (the horror!).
Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she’s demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. “Christians,” he said, “are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.”
Oh please. No one is barring your right to be a Christian, unless you define “Christian” as “crazy guy who stands on the corner and yells about how teh gays are coming and we’re descending into Hell.”
I’m sorry, but not being allowed to trash gays and lesbians while you’re at school or work is not an infringement on your religious rights. Your First Amendment rights to freedom of speech protect you from the government, not from private institutions.
That said, I’m not a huge fan of these speech codes, but I recognize their necessity in the workplace and in schools. I wish they weren’t necessary, and that people could behave respectfully and professionally while at school and work. But apparently they can’t. And they’re suing for the right to act like jerks.
I think it’s worth pointing out that people like Ruth are asking for special rights here. It’s a generally understood standard that harassing someone because of any aspect of their identity is pretty unacceptable at work or at school. If someone makes it their personal mission to harass every Christian or Republican or redheard or whatever in their office, they should be told to knock it off. If they don’t knock it off, they should see some consequences. It’s disrespectful. It’s not appropriate in the workplace. These guidelines shouldn’t have to exist, but because people apparently insist on behaving as inappropriately as possible, they have to. What shocks me is that these people will actually take the time to sue for a “right” that no one else has at work, and that essentially says, “I’m a complete asshole, and I want the right to act like an asshole at work/school and actively harass my colleagues.”
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t have much sympathy.
The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they’re labeled intolerant.
Well… yeah. They are intolerant. I know it hurts to be called a bigot, but act like one and you’re gonna get a response.
“The message is, you’re free to worship as you like, but don’t you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church,” said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.
Certainly not. You can talk about it at home, among your friends, on the street, wherever. But most occupations require a modicum of professionalism. Avoidance of gay-bashing, along with avoidance of racism and sexism, are parts of that.
“What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn’t mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn’t work?” asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.
Exactly. Don’t they have “rights”?
Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
A lifestyle choice, huh? Ok, I’ll accept that. Kind of like, say, Christianity? That’s not exactly an inborn trait either, genius.
By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.
“Think how marginalized racists are,” said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “If we don’t address this now, it will only get worse.”
He does have a point. Poor racists. They really get treated unfairly!
And it sounds like the Georgia Tech student at the forefront of this lawsuit is a real winner:
Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of “The Vagina Monologues” with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it.
She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.
The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a “sex club … that can’t even manage to be tasteful.” It went on to say that it was “ludicrous” for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.
The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to “a constant barrage of homosexuality.”
“If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda,” the letter said.
She sounds pleasant, doesn’t she?
Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She’s even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. “Whenever I’ve spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I’m told is ‘You’re being intolerant, you’re being negative, you’re creating a hostile campus environment,’ ” Malhotra said.
Well, my friend, you are.
All I can say is, I’m glad this woman doesn’t go to my school. I already feel like I need to wash out my eyes just from reading the kind of filth that she writes.
{ 78 comments }
I love this.
Yikes.
At my school, we’re such hippie liberals that the Young Republicans’ Association has organized a “Conservative Challenge Week,” apparently to draw attention to the poor marginalized conservatives here on campus. But even they would probably say this chick’s full of self-righteous shit.
God, the Bible condemns adultery and fornication far more often, directly, and clearly than homosexual behavior. There’s only about five mentions of that in the entire thing, and some of those are pretty oblique. Yet these so-called Christians go after gays…if it were only about what the Bible says, they would never be that het up about it.
I’ll be praying for Malhotra and the rest of them — and sighing at the fact that progressive Christians have to do more and more work to dissociate themselves from such as these.
Hey, remember when speaking of Blacks as equal wasn’t tolerated? Oh, or how about when advocating for women’s suffrage was unpopular? Or when denouncing slavery was ‘crazy’? You’ve heard about that, right?
People disagree on things. That will, I pray to God, never change. These people are making a good point – some viewpoints are not just tolerated, they are actively promoted while opposing ideas suffer from prior restraint.
“Tolerance” is not measured by allowing people you agree with to speak, and promoting ideas you like while punishing ideas you don’t is not ‘championing free speech’. The measurement of free speech is to allow speech you disagree with, even speech you hate. The answer is not to silence such speech, but to speak freely *back*.
Preventing someone from stating publically that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean you are tolerant, it means you are chilling free speech. Advocating that “bigots” that disagree with you cannot freely share their thoughts doesn’t mean you are enlightened, it means you are supressing someone’s rights. Period.
What if it were a speech code that prevented advoating for gay rights? After all, Bob Jones University has such a code, doesn’t it? What, in the end, is the real difference? Who gets to decide what types of speech are to be “tolerated”? Nope, its too dangerous to go down that path. Neo-nazis have the same rights to speak their ideas, no matter how much I loathe them, as a gat pride activist. Every “F the President” sticker should prove that a “Liberals Suck” sticker is OK, too.
What, and she’s not subjecting anyone to a constant barrage of Christianity?
So, when what she does and says leaves gays and lesbians afraid to exist freely, what does she call that?
Oooh, look, she gets what she’s trying to inflict on gays and lesbians! Oppression oppression oppression!
It’s a mistake to simplify this to a case of conservatives being hypocritical assholes.
It seems more to me like a case of media-savvy conservative assholes trying to create attention-getting controversy. And succeeding. “Do not feed the trolls” is a good policy in places besides the internet. The right wing’s strategy involves manufacturing controversies (see Bill O’Reilly’s faux “War on Christmas”), allowing them to control the terms of debate and distracting progressives from more salient and important (certainly from an electoral strategic perspective) issues such as Iraq, health care, and economic justice.
Geez, and here I thought that whole Rob Corddry “pity the racists” bit on The Daily Show last week was a satirical exaggeration!
Jill,
I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand the point made by Baylor – having a negative opinion of homosexuality is *not* equivalent to being a racist. He is arguing that treating opposition to homosexuality (or opposition to a perceived ‘promotion of’ homosexuality) is actually not akin to racism because homosexuality is a choice.
Since you usually seem pretty perceptive, I suspect you are being disingenuous.
You would think they would spend their time and money in a more productive way than lawsuits to be assholes.
If one believes that homosexuality is, in fact, a choice. That’s far from a universally held position. I’d actually go so far as to call it bullshit.
Perhaps because we don’t all believe that people choose to be homosexual? It’s not like heterosexuals just decide “Hhhm. I’m going to fall in love with that person. Go!”
My understanding is that Georgia Tech’s policy is against harrassment, not against free speech. Problem is, many Christians are unable to distinguish free speech from harrassment.
Science doesn’t know, at least yet, whether homosexuality is innate, a choice, or some combination of both. Kinsey did have the scale (from 0-7 IIRC, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual, 7 exclusively homosexual, or was it vice versa. And found out that these two were, in fact, rarest). I personally suspect that social pressure pushes people who are somewhere in between on embracing either extreme, with personality/behaviour being decisive factor in which direction the push would be (I’d say an effeminate bi man would be pushed towards homosexuality, whereas a masculine bi man would probably find it a lot easier to just be straight).
The excuse “we hate homosexuality because it is a choice” is IMO lame. Consenting adults? Check. Problem? Zero.
with personality/behaviour being a decisive factor…
And obviously, even more decisive is the prefered sex of the partner, in other words, whether the person in question is more inclined toward heterosexuality or homosexuality.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that whether it is a choice or not should not matter, and I see no reason for dogmatic insistance (that lacks evidence) on claiming it is/is not choice.
Keep your temper, keep your temper.
If these “Christians” wish to testify, let them. And let the law condemn and punish their behavior. If they are right, they have no need of the state’s power.
In short, fuck ‘em.
Of course, I think punishing someone for saying publicly that homosexuality is wrong is just stupid and excessive use of state power. However, I don’t agree with that view. (Deep Thought beat me to punch in #5).
Oh my!
Punishing someone for not turning in an essay would also be a stupid and excessive use of state power…
You see where I’m going with this right?
No, Anna, educate me. I’m somewhat sarcasm-blind.
Hmm, Jill kind of has a point in
Your First Amendment rights to freedom of speech protect you from the government, not from private institutions.
But are all schools considered private institutions in the U.S?
What else would one call them? Christians? Conservatives?
The letter berated students who come out publicly wearing earrings, saying they subject others on campus to a ‘constant barrage of earring wearingness.’
No, when they demanded that she find a voice other than one of reactionary negation, she found she had nothing to say.
lurking for a while but felt compelled to post
the very word “tolerance” suggests that one disagrees with whatever one is tolerant of. You’re not tolerant of things you agree with!
Therefore they need to set up some way she can express her views without harassing others. Because there is a different between free speech and harassment, no matter how unpopular or repulsive the speech is – unless it’s naming individuals, or up close to particular people all the time, or actually inciting people to violence or harassment – well, its free speech.
I’m from the UK, and the things the British National Front (BNP) – a racist political party, can get away with, and where the line is drawn is fascinating to watch.
Campus life is odd because it’s not like a workplace, or life in public – she should be following the tolerance code in classes but it sounds like a lot of her activites are extra-curricular. can you legislate for every event on campus?
Deep Thought,
Disagreeing with a lifestyle choice is one thing. Openly harassing people about it in diverse environments (e.g. offices, classrooms), is wholly another. I disagree with Ms. Malhotra’s practice of her particularly toxic brand of Christianity, but I would never ridicule her for her faith in a professional situation. It’s ethically unsound, and more importantly, it’s just in bad taste.
Denying rights to others is not itself a right. Crying harrassment for being denied YOUR right to to deny the rights of others is just idiocy.
Anna,
I, too, would like to see where you might be going with that.
johnnieB,
I think the law should condemn and punish you for saying that – after all, you just negatively judged someone with public speech, right?
Tuomas,
Quoting Kinsey, who is known to have largely invented or twisted his data, is a problem, I fear. And you don’t care what two consenting adults do, but have a problem with what one adult *says*? That is a bit odd, isn’t it?
Freeman,
Since when is stating that certain behavior is morally wrong ‘denying someone’s rights’? If I were to wear a shirt saying “Democrats are morally repugnant”, who’s rights am I infringing? How about “Conservativism is a mental disorder” – who is being denied access to their rights by me wearing that as a shirt? “Communism Sucks”, “Capitalism is Vampirism”? How about “Heterosexism is Oppression”? Saw that one last month – as a heterosexual, can I sue that man for oppressing *me*? I have had (at last count) 7 people tell me (in various words) to my face that my large family was morally wrong since overpopulation is destroying the earth – was I being oppressed? Or did I just happen to meet 7 people exercising their free speech in a manner that demonstrates their personal biases?
Huh? Not really. So I’m intolerant if I personally don’t like opinions that declare homosexuality to be morally wrong? Since when is supporting Freedom of Speech the same as liking every opinion out there (right, it isn’t).
Like I said, I wouldn’t restrict that opinion.
Your comment seems like a total non sequitur, or you misunderstood me.
I don’t really know that much about the validity of Kinsey’s research. Do you have better research on the subject?
Correction: You didn’t say intolerant, but I fail to see the “oddness” in my position on the subject homosexuality, and anti-homosexual speech. To simplify:
1) I don’t think homosexuality is wrong, I don’t think it infringes upon the rights of anyone.
2) I think criticizing homosexuality should be allowed
3) I don’t personally agree with that criticism.
Show me the odd.
Here’s an easy moral argument (from Ronald Dworkin) that doesn’t rely on the substantive nastiness of the claims: In a free speech market, everyone’s voice/preferences gets to count.
But these sorts of claims demand that the claimant’s preferences count twice. That is, she demands that she be able to speak her mind AND that others cannot speak their’s. That’s unacceptable.*
There are problems with the argument, and its not the strongest, but it is elegant and doesn’t rely on substantive claims about what positions are morally correct.*
*For the record, fuck you homophobes)
A good one. Me like. :)
Like I said, I don’t like these speech codes. But the Constitutional right to free speech means that the government cannot infringe on your right to speak. It does not mean that in the private workplace, you are free to say whatever you please without consequences.
Look, if I showed up to work, approached a Christian co-worker and told them that their religion is wrong, they have a mental illness, they’re going to hell and that they’re evil, should I see some consequences? Yeah. That’s really innapropriate behavior. On my own time should I be able to publish articles online and talk to whoever I want about how much I hate Christians? Of course. I’ll still be an asshole, but there’s a time and place for it.
Bigots should be able to be as bigoted as they please without the government interfering. But arguing that they should be able to say anything they want to say in any context? No one has that right! “My boss is a total fucktard” is a pretty popular sentiment, but it’s not violating my free speech rights when I get fired for telling her that. Neo-Nazis have every right to organize rallies and speak in public and whatever else. Do they have a right to do so in the workplace? Do they have a right to publish their opinions in the New York Times? Do they have a right to access private universitives to share their views? No.
If we want to re-write the First Amendment to allow free speech in all contexts, and disallow any sort of intervention (even non-governmental), then let’s go for it. But as it stands, the argumenta of “Anti-harassment codes violate my right to free speech” or “Anti-harassment codes violate my religious freedom” fail on their face.
People don’t seem to understand what the purpose of tolerance is. It’s not about upholding one group above another. It’s about making sure everyone gets the fuck along and that no one is denied their basic rights just because other people *believe* that there is something defective/inferior about them. Not wanting to go along with it just makes you look like a bratty child.
I wish the religious would just get over themselves already. It seems to me that if they really believed all the stuff they claim to, they’d be a lot less concerned with the affairs of this world. I mean, hell, if you hate gays, just be silent: they’re going to hell for having the buttsex anyway, right?
Some quick internet research shows that Georgia Tech is part of the state university system of Georgia. Interesting.
Here’s the Georgia Tech policy on disruptive behavior. I think Malhotra is falling under this provision in particular:
Intimidating other students, calling their organization a “sex club” and encouraging the school to pull its funding? Sounds like attempting to obstruct their authorized activity.
As Nomie noted, Georgia Tech is a state school.
However, it has long been the case that the government can impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech in the public square. So, to use the classic example, one can be prohibited from yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater or harrassing people on the street.
Babygirl’s preferred manner of speech sounds an awful lot like harrassment, incitement, fighting words, what have you. A college campus is not the place for hateful speech designed to provoke. Frankly, if she can’t make a reasonable, measured case that homosexuality is wrong without using fear tactics designed to chill the expression of homosexual students or make them fearful of their safety, she doesn’t have much to go on.
Yes, Tech is a state school, one I drive past every day. Thus, a bastion of free speech, I hope.
zuzu,
There is a peace and justice group on campus that refers to Christian conservatives as “Theocon fascists”. Are they chilling my free speech and intimidating me with fighting words? ‘Cuz no one is talking about charging them with harrassment, or with bigotry. If a gay student were to write into the school newspaper complaining that the ‘rampant heterosexism’ on the campus made her feel uncomfortable and made her defensive and uneasy, would she be whining? Inciting? When the legions of people who do so point at ROTC and call is a ‘breeding ground for bloodthirsty babykillers’ are they to be expelled for disrupting classes and education? To be condemned for provoking hatred and negative seterotypes?
Kim,
Religious people want to make the world a better place, just like I hope you do (regardless of your feelings on religion). I personally think that it is much more important to discuss the issues of pre-marital sex, binge drinking, and rampant consumerism on campus. Of course, I’m not very popular there, either, am I?
You think ‘homophobia’ is wrong – do you speak out against it? Then why shouldn’t the people who feel homosexuality is morally wrong *also* speak out? I am a Catholic, and devout – when people tell me that I am homophobic, narrow-minded, bigoted, etc., are they labeling me as defective or inferior? Sure. Are they denying me my rights? Nope, I can talk back. Are they being tolerant? By your definition, certainly not!
Tuomas,
You are correct; I inferred something you didn’t actually imply. I am very sorry for the confusion and I hope you weren’t offended.
Do you not see the difference between the two?
People speak out against homophobia and racism because they are means to control and diminish other people based on inborn traits. They are means to deny people full personhood and civil rights. And where discrimination is allowed to exist and persist against any group, it means that the potential is there for other groups to be discriminated against. Homophobia and racism also hurt me, a straight white person, because as long as it is tolerated by the state, the means are in place to turn the state’s power against me should straight white people become a despised minority.
People speak out against homosexuality because they think that teh butt sex is icky or that the Bible tells them that it’s wrong. Yet I’ve never, ever heard anyone give a good argument that homosexuality among consenting adults hurts others. Nobody has come up with a convincing argument that allowing same-sex marriage affects the marriages of straight people.
Oh, are Christian conservatives a protected class now?
Deep Thought:
Thanks, I was more confused than offended. Dont worry, I play the target here frequently so I’m quite resilient. ;)
Deep Thought:
Certainly if you feel that the peace and justice group is obstructing or disrupting your right to teach or study, you may bring the matter to the attention of the authority. Likewise, if the members of ROTC are having their activities disrupted or obstructed by the name-callers, then they can bring it to the deans. That’s what the student who received the letter from Malhorta did, because he felt threatened and disturbed by her words. I assume someone also spoke to the deans when she set up her anti-feminism display outside the Vagina Monologues (and I wish the article hadn’t glossed over that part).
It’s all about whether those people feel that their freedom to learn and participate in the university community is being interfered with.
One last note: Complaining that someone is “defensive and uneasy” is a world away from calling a group a “sex club” and calling for their funding to be revoked.
Protected classes? What an anti-democratic concept.
Take it up with the Supreme Court, Brett.
i think some people are forgetting that power imbalances affect the power of words. for example, gay students make up what percentage of the population? maybe 10%? and how many gay people have been beaten up, harassed, killed, or fired for being gay?
then think about christians. what percentage of the population are they? maybe 70% (i’m guessing here). how many people have been harassed, killed, etc for simply being christian in the US? not so many. and they have greater numbers, so proportionately, a lot fewer christians hurt than gays. that means that when people are shouting homophobic things, they will be creating a climate of fear that doesn’t exist for christians, or straights, or whatever majority population you name. especially when the thing that christians are against is simply being openly gay, which is not the same as anti-christianity. these christians are anti-gay. openly gay students are not necessarily anti-christian.
also, i’m not sure what the situation is at georgia tech, but a lot of colleges require students to live on campus their first (or subsequent) years- which means people are having to put up with homophobic and possibly threatening behavior in their homes. i think that calls for extra sensitivity.
zuzu,
So if you aren’t in a pre-defined “protected class” you are second-class?
AS mentioned above by someone else, the decision is out on if homosexuality is innate, learned, etc. Unlike racism, homosexuality is based on behavior and outlook, neither of which is innate.
I am not too surprised that you are ignorant of or dismiss the arguments that homosexuality may be harmful to the self and others, but that is neither here nor there. After all, when I asked the “heterosexism is Oppression” guy about it, his argument boiled down to “I don’t like straights”. Fair enough; but a lousy or non-existant, argument for your beliefs is no bar to having them or expressing them.
Let me be much more blunt: here is my opinion – if someone else is saying things in a public forum you don’t like (and, according to the courts, that includes public universities, which Jill should know) then too effin’ bad, pal. You can respond, you can spout off in return, but as soon as you say ‘you can’t say that’ you have officially branded yourself a thin-skinned, anti-freedom, whiny fucktard whose opinions can largely be ignored as those of a thin-skinned, anti-freedom, whiny fucktard.
“Anti-hate speech codes” on public universities, IMO, thereby paint the faculties as a cluster of TSAFWFs.
Faculty members and students that support the offensive speech of one group but want to silence toehr groups (with the frickin’ hilarious argument of ‘those evil, narrow-minded, ignorant, stupid people are bigots!’) are thin-skinned, anti-freedom, whiny, hypocritical fucktards with a serious issues concerning justice.
Again, instead of my usual attempts to use use example and dialogue, this is my own, personal opinion. YMMV, although I don’t really give a shouted damn.
Listen, too many people have died to let us all speak freely in public to complain that ‘those whose speech makes people uncomfrtable should be silenced’. Abolitionists made people uncomfortable; MLK made people feel threatened; Suffragettes were called all sorts of names. Those examples of the *POSITIVE* aspects of this demand that we not just tolerate the negative aspects of White supremists, Aztlan proponents, and Amway conventions, they demand that we *encourage* it. Not agree with it, not stand in silence before it, but actually encourage it.
I say, let the nuts and kooks expose themselves early. let the mix of ideas cough up more new ideas. Mark those people we need to watch as well as those we should listen to.
Too many people are denied expression for us to join their opressors, regardless of our good intentions.
Deep:
Well since every major medical and psychiatric institution disvows the idea that homosexuality is harmful to the self and others, I think that zuzu is in good company. I too tend to dismiss theories that are unscientific, clearly biased, and/or have been proven wrong in multiple studies myself, for example, I don’t believe the earth is flat, I don’t believe that different races have smaller brains, and I don’t believe that being gay harms anyone physically, psychologically, or emotionally.
You’re welcome to belive that the earth is indeed flat or that the homos are really destryoing themselves, or that your invistable sky friend backs you up 100%. Whatever. But considering that there is no evidence for any of that, I think you’ll find yourself mighty lonely and you’re wasting your breath trying to argue those things here.
This is a remarkably sloppily constructed sentence. It’s also flat out wrong. Racism is BEHAVIORAL. Race is an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality (if we’re talking about it in the sense that it’s defined by attraction to members of the same sex) is also innate. If you’re going to try and act like homosexuality is a choice, then this discussion is going nowhere.
(Also, “outlook” seems to approach the idea that there’s some sort of homosexual agenda, which is one of the damn stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.)
Where did I say that?
Just because you don’t like what people have to say about your espoused ideas doesn’t make you oppressed by their saying it. Nor does being called a “theocon fascist” deny you your essential humanity or basic rights, even if “fascist” is a bit overused.
Being criticized for your views does not equal being put into second-class status. Being denied housing or employment because of whom you fuck does equal being put into second-class status.
And you’re surprised that someone who gets told that his sexual orientation makes him morally repugnant might not like straights?
But there is a difference is speaking against the practice of homosexuality and campaigned for persecution of homosexuals, no? Or perhaps promoting intolerance and exclusion?
Oops, hit submit too soon, sorry.
Deep Thought:
But there is a difference in speaking against the practice of homosexuality and campaigning for persecution of homosexuals, no? Or in perhaps promoting intolerance and exclusion? If you want to picket the Admin building with a sign that says DON’T HIRE FAGS. Not okay.
If you want to have a meeting of the Campus Christians and say, “Homosexual behavior is sin and nobody should do it.” Okay.
If your speech presents a “clear and present danger” of inciting violence against gays (or anybody). Not okay.
zuzu,
I was simply asking your opinion, which was unclear.
evil_fizz,
I am guilty of not proof-reading. I meant to type ‘race’ not ‘racism’.
Sarah,
Careful! I wasn’t advocating such arguments, just pointing out that some people think they exist. After all, until 1973 homosexuality was lsited as a mental illness by ‘every major medical and psychiatric institution’, wasn’t it? Who was right? When? Pointing to an set of experts and saying ‘they can determine who can speak/what can be spoken’ is to point to your potential masters.
Again, it doesn’t matter if homosexuality is innate AT ALL. This is about speech. In a ham-handed comparison, schizophrenia is an innate, inborn condition, too, largely expressed through outlook and behavior; does that mean that people who advocate medical treatment of schizophrenia are “intolerant” or “bigoted”?
Once you point to someone and say that they cannot speak, regardless of what they are saying or of your motivations, YOU are attempting to make them inferior to yourself. No, really.
The state cannot limit religious expression. It can prohibit behavior, which Malhotra et al. may believe they must do as a religious obligation. If they do this in violation of law, they may be convicted of that crime. This is civil disobedience 101. As Jill pointed out, speech and behavior can be legally restricted; it is this expression that is limited, not the opinion. As I understand it, this limitation may be on the degree or the circumstances of expression (no hitting!), and not to the expression itself. My religion may require the belief that the bishop of Rome is the Antichrist; I may say so publicly, post it on a blog, etc., but should I be allowed to picket outside the narthex at the 11:00 mass and yell insults, when that leads to me getting punched by an irate worshipper? If I’m arrested, does it mean the state prefers the Roman Catholic church to mine? I think not.
It’s a civil question, not a religious one. Under what circumstances may we restrict the right to speech and assembly? I am very skittish of restrictions, but am persuaded of the need in specific circumstances. If the GT policy is obscure or too general, it ought to be challenged and amended or replaced.
The view of homosexuality as a normal varient of sexuality, rather than an abnormal one such as pedophilia or beastiality, changed not because the APA had a divine revalation, but rather because they looked at the evidence and were forced to admit that homosexuality was not associated with any mental or physical problems except those due to societal pressure and prejudice. Once this was acknowledged, it was clear that homosexuality was not a disease and the definition changed accordingly. The evidence they used to make that decision is still out there. You can look it up yourself and decide whether you think it adequate or inadequate. Look up the web sites of any research university for medical and psychological databases. It’s not a matter of “the experts said” but rather of acknowledging that the experts have spent a lot of time thinking about this problem and examining the evidence and therefore are more likely to know what they’re talking about than, say, random priests or bloggers.
I see a six-figure think tank job in her future. She can go work with Scooter at Hudson …
Morons.
Dianne,
You are missing the key point I was making – experts are proven wrong all the time. An appeal to authority doesn’t work for Sarah appealing to the APA anymore than for Rev. Sunshine appealing to the Good Book.
We see unions picketing all the time saying “don’t hire scabs” – that’s OK. If I were to picket outside David Duke’s office with a placard saying “Don’t Elect Klansmen” would that be OK, or would I be inciting violence against bigoted lunkheads? If aa Pentecostal group wants to picket on public areas against, oh, women who wear pants it had *better* be OK.
I saw a protest march not too long ago that compared Israelis to vampires – OK or not? It better be OK. Let me put it this way – if *you* held the unpopular ‘obviously wrong-headed’ view, would you want to be silenced by the power of the state? If it was 1955, would you want to be the homosexual being told to shut up because you are obviously crazy and your words will just provoke pinheads into violence? MLKs words and speeches led to riots and beatings – should he have shut up?!
Don’t see the difference between “Don’t hire Klansmen” and “Kill All Fags,” Deep?
The Court is often wrong, Zuzu. That argument comes down to “might makes right,” which is neither liberal nor progressive.
I hope the question is taken to the Supreme Court again, some day, and that they get it right that time.
Brett, wishing that the Court will rule another way won’t make it true.
Believe me, I’ve tried.
And you’re wrong that protected classes boil down to “might makes right” — they’re protected classes because they got screwed over due to their minority status, not because they were the mightier.
Deep Thought: I can’t speak for Sarah, but I agree with the APA because I’ve seen their evidence and find it compelling. I disagree with authority all the time and see no problem with it. But if you’re going to disagree with experts in their area of expertise, it is best to have compelling evidence for why you disagree. If you want to argue that the APA is wrong and homosexuality is really a disease, I’d be happy to hear your evidence. But you should be prepared to have it scrutinized carefully and held to professional level standards.
As far as the question of what is and isn’t acceptable speech…My feeling is that making threats is the line that shouldn’t be crossed. “Don’t hire scabs” ok. “Kill the scabs” not ok. “Homosexuality is evil” ok (silly and wrong, IMHO, but ok to say). “Kill the fags” not ok. Just my opinion, of course.
Brett, zuzu, Deep Thought,
Don’t you mean “suspect class” rather than protected class? The short version is that if a group is deemed a suspect class, the court scrutinizes more closely statutes that single that group out. This type of analysis hasn’t exactly been used to reach progressive outcomes. Gays, for example, aren’t a suspect class in the court’s view.
As for them “getting it right next time,” don’t hold your breath. They have an opportunity to overturn it every single time an equal protection case comes up, and in 50 years they haven’t taken the opportunity.
zuzu,
See the difference between “I think homosexuality is morally wrong” and “Kill the Fags”? I do.
See the difference between “I think homosexuality is morally wrong” and “Heterosexism is Oppression”? I don’t.
Dianne,
Please re-read what I wrote – I never said yea or nay about homosexuality being a mental illness; I just pointed out that some people agree with the APA, some don’t.
And your argument is still (in my personal opinion) totally inadequate. After all, millions of people read and agreed with the APA when they DID classify homosexuality as a mental illness, didn’t they?
And my argument has NEVER been “threats are OK”. It *is* that “disagreement and opposition are not hate”.
I do. Because heterosexism is not the analogue to homosexuality.
Heterosexuality is.
Just as racism is not the analogue to blackness, but whiteness is.
I disagree with such subjective, postmodern view. How do we know when racism has ceased to be analogue to whiteness, for example?
Who gets to define that? (If you don’t advocate/support laws based on this, then my point is moot, and you are free to your opinion).
Whiteness is like Pooh. It just is. So is blackness.
Racism is a learned behavior; that it is associated with the dominant racial group in this country, whites, has less to do with whiteness itself and more to do with the fact that whites are the dominant group.
Note I said “dominant,” not “majority,” because the same dynamic has held in colonial societies where whites were in the minority but held all the power.
Also, Tuomas, laws don’t really address racism or prejudice because those are thoughts. Laws address the tangible effects of racism and/or prejudice, which are biases and discrimination. You may never eliminate prejudice or racism by law, but if you punish discrimination, you at least achieve a state in which racism has no real effect.
That’s all true, but hard to control for in the court of law, IMO (yeah, I’m arrogant to tell you that. Well.).
In other words, how can the strength of the white dominance/racism possibly be measured?
Okay, I crossposted with this. I supppose this is good, but the burden of proof is tricky (how to prove that the motive for bias and discrimination was racism in the real world).
Disturbed by the thought that if the common agreement was that something was mentally disturbed at some point and is not now that perhaps they had it right the first time. Aside from denying any advance in human behavior and comprehension, it would be a basis to posit that sufferage for all was unjustified. There are still people who think that women should not be able to vote. (Or are not capable) and still people who think that non-anglos should not be able to vote. Would you argue those points as well? Or is it only in the realm of sexual politics that you think it might be okay?
Not really. There are well-developed legal standards, like disparate impact — if members of a minority group are promoted less on average than members of the majority group, or if a member of a minority group was passed over for promotion or not hired or disciplined where a less qualified/more problematic member of the majority group was promoted/hired/not disciplined, there can be a prima facie case for discrimination. Then, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to come up with a legitimate reason why this was done and why it’s not discrimination.
It’s pretty straightforward, and most companies, even though they have at-will employment standards, cover their asses by creating extensive employment and discipline files, doing detailed performance reviews, etc.
leslie,
That was to illustrate why an argument by appeal to authority is insufficient to be logical.
zuzu,
“Whiteness” “just is”? “Blackness” “just is”?
OK; I am 1/8 Black – am I Black, or White? I was White because that is what my father put on the birth cert. Of course, if I had been born in Louisiana I would have been legally Black (as would my grandchildren, at the time). Which am I? I have a cousin who is 1/2 American Indian, too – is he Black, Indian,…? He doesn’t “look” like either with the fair hair and the hazel eyes, so who can say? With my complexion and hair everyone from my drill sergeants to my first employer to my college admissions counselor thought I was Hispanic – if I am treated like a Latino, is that the same thing as being Latino?
Deep Thought, this article from the NYTimes may interest you.
It’s about the use of DNA tests to claim privileged status for admissions, scholarships, job applications and other things.
One little tidbit:
[Apology: Yes, I know this is a little off topic. But this discussion of group rights--Christian rights, Gay rights, and now black and white rights--has made this article relevant. The point is that however a person self-identifies he may not fit easily into a group that gets special protections.
When reading the comments above about minority gay rights against majority Christian rights, I wondered "what about gay Christians?" They've really gotta be a minority.
Disclosure: Yes, the NYTimes article is being discussed over at Jeff G's place. That's where I saw it first.]
DT, read the comment. I know, you’re eager to find something to bludgeon me with, but you know very well that I was drawing a distinction for Tuomas between the immutability of physical characteristics of skin color and the impermanence of racism.
But then, you’re having trouble with that heterosexism concept, so I should have expected you’d be huffing about something.
As to what you should consider yourself, you’re going to have to work that one out for yourself.
zuzu,
I’m not trying to bludgeon anyone. If I was trying, I assume I wouldn’t need any logical reason to do so.
I am aware of the definition of heterosexism; that isn’t the topic, any more than the determination of racial identity. That main issue, as seen in this thread and the ‘Right to be a Christian” thread is simple – who gets to tell people to shut up in public? My position is – no one.
As you are almost certainly aware, every single public university ‘hate speech code’ taken to court has been struck down as unconstitutional. Every one. The ACLU points out that the speech codes have been used to silence everyone from Tools of the Patriarchy such as myself to, yes, gay activists.
And that is my argument – it is dangerous to say “that person/group’s rights have precedence over that other person/group’s rights’ (as well as the obvious permutation of ‘that person/group is inferior’). The laws against ‘fighting words’, slander, ‘incitement’, etc. have been around for generations and are clearly understood. Every attempt to add ‘hate speech codes’ has resulted in an erosion of rights, usually of groups far more varied than White Christian Straight Males, too.
I spend a lot of time trying to help liberals, xonservatives, atheists, Christians, etc., etc. actually talk to each other face to face. It isn’t easy. One of the toughest hurdles is often a claim by progressives that a conservative that they disagree with has no right to state their opinion. The conservative walks away from an encounter like that convinced that the progressive has no real interest in learning, nor in freedom of speech. In my opinion, such attacks on freedom of speech are the source of the meme that liberals want to use the courts to force things on the populace.
I usually see this as a bigger wedge than the entire ‘the bible says homosexuals are going to Hell’ bit. Most Christians of that stripe will still listen to gays, and the great majority truly want to help, as they feel is needed. But many gays of my acquaintance simply won’t listen.
Again, the plural of anecdote is not data, but telling someone that stating their opinion is a crime is no way to get them to listen to *you* with an open mind.
I just love that she’s soooooo anti-feminist, yet she’s a woman at Georgia Tech. Shouldn’t she be married and at home baking cookies?
So do you not believe harrassment is innappropriate? Would you be okay with a Baptist group constantly telling you you’re going to Hell because you drink, you worship Mary, statues, etc?* Tried to get CCM kicked off campus because Catholics are going to Hell?
(* I know this is bullshit, so please don’t think I’m agreeing with these ridiculous statements.)
I don’t think the purpose of hate speech codes is to say that one group’s rights are more important than another. If a gay activist was harrassing Christians it would entirely appropriate for them to be punished as well.
Molly,
Baptist groups *do* tell Catholics that they are going to Hell, and they *do* try to get Catholics out of all sorts of things. We don’t try to prevent them from exercising their rights, though, because we have long memories – it wasn’t that long ago that being a Catholic in America was to be the outsider. We were often silenced then and we fear any tool that could later be used against us.
So should you. What happens if there is a resurgence of conservatisim in colleges and 30 years from now Gays are prevented from protesting Baptist-inspired policies because the *gays* are being intolerant? Seem far-fetched? Well, is not far enought for me.
Ever hear of the McCarthy guy? His efforts were very mainstream at the time, weren’t they?
I know. Oh believe me, do I know.
I can see your point in this instance, because the article could have been clearer on exactly what her actions were. However, I still maintain that while people have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to harass others.
While what occurred in this case may not have been harassment, I do think that universities have the responsibility to provide a safe environment for all their students. In my book, that means being able to walk to class without someone constantly telling you that you are an abomination and are going to Hell.
Heh. This reminds me of my undergrad where we had a guy who would come and stand on the lawn in front of the library and “preach.”
We called him “Preacher Bob”, though that wasn’t his real name. He came by once a week usually in the warm months. He had a special hatred for Catholics since we were “leading all the other Christians astray.” Also, he had a deep hatred for sorority chicks (who he said were sluts) and for men with hair that came down past their ears (who he said were going to hell). He would call out people as they passed and told them what was wrong with them that would keep them out of Heaven.
He was more of an amusement than anything else. Each year he had to get a permit (like every on-campus speaker) from the Student Union. He was kicked off of campus for a year because he touched a student (pushing the student away, I think). But he came right back the next year. Man, could that guy draw a crowd.
You folks sure are tolerant. Intolerance is the only thing we can’t tolerate, what is wrong with this picture?
Comments on this entry are closed.