This is a bald-faced lie!
Even the article itself, while quoting William Donohue who tries to make that argument, proves that the argument is a lie!
Let's look at the facts:
1) "Dr. Thio Li-ann, professor at the National University of Singapore, was invited to teach at New York University Law School this fall." So far so good. She has been a very vocal opponent of homosexuality in her homeland. She has worked hard to keep homosexuality a criminal offense in Singapore. The law she fought so hard to keep in the books was as follows: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section." So a homosexual couple could spend anywhere from 10 years to life in prison for their love.
2) "Revesz has allowed the anti-free speech bullies to score a victory. He seems to love diversity, except for the only kind that should count on a college campus—diversity of thought. When it comes to conservative Christians, Revesz’s interest in inclusion comes to a screeching halt," Donohue said. Donohue is making it out that the college itself dismissed Thio. This is simply not true. From the same article, "After it was discovered that the Christian professor, while serving as a Singaporean lawmaker in 2007, opposed a repeal of the law proscribing homosexual acts, NYU students and alumni organized to protest her appointment. She subsequently withdrew her interest in teaching at NYU." So which is it Mr. Donohue? Did the school dismiss her because of her political and religious beliefs or did the students protest her appointment which led her to withdraw from her appointment? From the Straits Times online article database comes an article dated July 24, 2009 that states: Her human rights class for 45 students received 12 bids after the first round of bidding, while her seminar class, with a capacity of 25, had six. On Tuesday, an online petition at NYU against her appointment gathered 808 signatures. The next day, Prof Thio cancelled her teaching stint. She cited "low attendance" as a factor in her decision to withdraw from NYU's Law School. And what of the Administration's response to all this? In the same article from the Times, "On the same day, Mr Revesz defended her appointment as a visiting professor, saying it was "based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator". He also stressed NYU's commitment to gay rights and rejected Prof Thio's anti-gay views. However, he called for "vigorous, civil debate" in the name of academic freedom." Mr. Donohue, which is it? Did the school try to stifle her opinions or did the free marketplace of ideas decide they did not have room for her views? And before you answer, remember that the champions of the free marketplace of ideas were Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, both conservative republicans!
3) Mr. Donohue continues his lies with this statement: “You also say that ‘she replied to them [critics of her appointment] in a manner that many member [sic] of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful.’” I asked Revesz to identify “a single sentence that is at all untoward.” There is none, and he knows it." Let's see, here is one that I consider untoward: "The controversy took a turn when Prof Thio, in an e-mail interview with Inside Higher Ed, an online publication about college and university issues, said it is "moral imperialism" to suggest there is a universal consensus on gay rights." (From the Straits Times article again.) Let's look at that one statement for a moment. She is basically saying that NYU's Law School's students protesting her appointment is somehow a claim that "there is a universal consensus on gay rights". And that that thought alone is somehow the school itself trying to be a moral dictator. How is that not untoward?
So once again Mr. Donohue has tried to lie to the American people and the conservative religious community. But remember this is the same Donohue who did just what he claims NYU did to Thio to a student named Webster Cook:
In July 2008, a controversy arose surrounding a Communion rite altercation involving Webster Cook, a student and member of the University of Central Florida (UCF) student senate. Cook attended a Catholic mass on campus and was given the Eucharist but walked out without consuming to protest the use of student funds for organized worship in the student union hall. In Catholic doctrine not consuming the communion is a form of desecration. Cook was proposed for censure by the student senate and was criticized by local media. He also received numerous death threats from enraged Catholics.
On Pharyngula, biologist and University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) professor PZ Myers publicly expressed support for Cook as well as outrage that Fox News appeared to be inciting readers to cause further problems for the student; he also ridiculed reports that armed guards would attend the next mass. Myers invited readers to acquire some consecrated Eucharistic hosts for him to be treated "with profound disrespect."
The Catholic League accused Myers of anti-Catholic bigotry and asked UMM and the Minnesota State Legislature to take action against Myers. Myers then also received death threats and hate mail. The Catholic League also called for Cook to be expelled from the university, with Donohue describing his confiscation of the Eucharist as a hate crime as well as a form of kidnapping. Donohue also accused those who supported Cook of anti-Catholic bigotry, and sent a letter to the UCF asking them to take legal action against Cook. A week after the initial communion Cook apologized and returned the wafer. The Catholic League, however, continued to lobby the university for his expulsion.
Very open-minded and forgiving, Mr. Donohue. Any other kettles you would like to call black?
No comments:
Post a Comment