Indiana University Orders Prof's Homophobic Postings Removed From Web
On September 5, the University of Indiana removed gay-hate postings by a professor to a Web log that was hosted on the school's server.
On September 6, the postings were restored to the university server and the professor was given permission to continue his web log.
There's no denying that the writings of Professor Rasmusen are extremely offensive (read some of his comments below). From doing just a little searching on the web, I can tell that Professor Rasmusen has been saying these kinds of things for awhile now. But, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to say them. The university did the right thing in allowing the professor to continue with his posts. I think there may be an issue of his posting on university servers (public property, since the University of Indiana is a public university), but that's for the university to decide.
My feeling is this... give people like that enough rope, and they will hang themselves. There is a truth to be discovered. The truth does not lie in historical teachings of how homosexuals have been treated in the past (something Professor Rasmusen seems to enjoy researching, based on some of his posts). The truth lies with homosexuals themselves (and all of us, for that matter). The truth to behold is the person each of us holds inside. There is no higher truth than that. If you are a decent human being (the highest aspiration any human being can hope for, I think), that will speak volumes. The fact that you may be homosexual may or may not be important to some people. In a perfect world free of prejudice, it wouldn't matter at all.
On September 5 (news source 365gay.com):
(Bloomington, Indiana) Indiana University has removed gay-hate postings by a professor to a Web log that was hosted on the school's server.
Professor Eric Rasmusen who teaches business used the Web log or blog, to condemn gays and call for gays and lesbians to be removed from jobs as teachers, elected officials and doctors.
In one posting Rasmusen stated: "A second reason not to hire homosexuals as teachers is that it puts the fox into the chicken coop. Male homosexuals, at least, like boys and are generally promiscuous. They should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires. Somewhat related is a reason not to hire a homosexual as a doctor even though you would hire him as a lawyer: you don't mind if your lawyer has a venereal disease such as HIV or hepatitis, but you do mind if your doctor is in a class of people among whom such diseases are common."
On September 6 (news source Indystar.com):
Indiana University is allowing a professor to continue posting through the school's Web site a personal log with criticisms of homosexuals despite complaints from some staffers.
A university attorney determined that the log did not violate any school policies, a day after the business school dean asked economics Professor Eric Rasmusen to remove it, IU spokeswoman Jane Jankowski said Friday.
In Rasmusen's Web log, which was linked to from his IU biography, he expressed his views about why homosexuals should not be teachers, elected officials and doctors.
.....
Doug Bauder, coordinator of IU's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender services, said a staff member called his office and brought the site to his attention."It's not an easy Web page to look at," Bauder said. "From what I read, it is very offensive."
.....
"I did not know it was so controversial to provide arguments for why homosexuals should not be employed as school teachers, but it seems that people at universities get excited about opinions that are common, perhaps even the norm, elsewhere in the United States," Rasmusen wrote in an e-mail to the Indiana Daily Student newspaper.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Thomas,
You put my feelings into words extremely well! I have long since stopped going to church, mostly because of the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, it would seem, is one of the most difficult traits for me to accept in anyone.
I've often been perplexed at the fact that one standard applies to heterosexuals and yet a totally different standard applies to homosexuals. People seem to treat the Bible like a menu, and pick ala carte what they like and what they don't like. If some straight couple seem to enjoy anal sex, it seems to be acceptable to them, despite what else they believe in the Bible. For that same couple, if you try to apply the same rules to homosexual couples, suddenly, anal sex is wrong, because the Bible says so. Yet, they can't seem to see their own hypocrisy. Or, perhaps they can and, as you suggested, it all comes down to simple bigotry, which seems to require little analysis (no pun intended) to be acceptable without argument.
Thank you for your post. Very insightful!
Bill
I agree with what you say. Rasmusen is typical of the Christian right in lacking the spirit of Jesus. It's all in the interpretation and God calls upon believers to study and reflect. Unfortunately some Christians never make it past the Old Testament.
Theologians have found subtle ways of adapting these ancient obscurities to contemporary needs. One of their tricks is to make a distinction between the ethical and the metaphysical: the ethics of the Bible reflect its historical origins and can be reinterpreted; the metaphysics reflect eternal truth that cannot be tampered with.
So, the subordination of women to men and the prohibition on divorce - both clearly stated in scripture - can be modified to adapt the church to contemporary society; but the doctrine of the Trinity remains sacrosanct because it reflects the unchanging nature of God, not the flux of human history.
But we run up against a mysterious roadblock when we try to apply this sensible interpretative division to homosexuality. That bit is apparently still commanded by God, though he has let us off discriminating against women and condemning the divorced to lifelong celibacy. Christians will happily wear polyester & cotton shirts and other mixed fiber garments; they will also pay interest on bank loans and accept that slavery is wrong, regardless of what the bible tells them.
Why is the conviction so solid on gay sex, when it proved so flexible in all the other areas? Given that there's hardly anything about homosexuality in the Bible, but a great deal about the subordination of women, the conclusion has to be that there is something atavistic going on here - straightforward bigotry. England’s Archbishop of Canterbury, a deeply spiritual man, filled with the love of Jesus has said, the Bible condemns adultery not loving monogamous relationships, and it's worth remembering that with the current prevalence of divorce, many gay partnerships have more longevity than heterosexual ones. Furthermore many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex and straight men do find it particularly stimulating. In some countries anal sex is used rather than contraception as a means of preventing pregnancy. So why the obsession with genital acts and why are only gays to be condemned?
I get the impression that many Christians pick and choose the bits of scripture that suit their own prejudices.