July 27, 2009
Don lost the chance to field her arguments in marketplace of ideas
IN THE wake of Professor Thio Li-ann's decision not to teach at New York University (NYU), much as been made of a lack of tolerance of diverse views in that university. Both Prof Thio and Mr Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University have cited the sequence of events as a display of intolerance.
With respect to both the learned professors, I feel this is a mischaracterisation of what transpired at NYU. A right to express one's views freely comes with the right of others to disagree with those views, and one must take courage to defend what one believes in.
The NYU position throughout this unfortunate sequence of events has been that while the faculty may disagree with Prof Thio's position, it believes that academic freedom should be respected. Even when alumni threatened to boycott future fund-raising events unless Prof Thio was refused access, the university was steadfast in its position that it would not force Prof Thio to withdraw. �
It is disingenuous to paint the disagreement as a suppression of alternative views. Surely one cannot be naive to the fact that the attitude in the United States towards homosexuals is significantly different from that in Singapore. Just as Prof Thio was entitled to her view that homosexual acts should be criminalised, so were the NYU faculty and students entitled to their view that such discrimination is abhorrent.
In many ways, what happened at NYU has been disappointing. By cancelling her courses, Prof Thio has lost the chance to field her arguments in an open marketplace of ideas. The NYU students too have lost the opportunity to be taught by someone who, all views aside, is an extremely intelligent academic with a great presence in the classroom.�
Leon Michael Ryan
-----------------
July 27, 2009
Don's withdrawal from NYU: Don't be too quick to claim victimhood
I REFER to the reports, 'Thio Li-ann cancels teaching stint at NYU' (last Friday) and 'American social activist support Thio Li-ann' (last Saturday), regarding law professor Thio Lin-ann's withdrawal from her teaching stint at New York University (NYU).
The reports imply that Professor Thio felt she had to withdraw from NYU after she was intimidated by the hostile atmosphere there. This should be examined more closely.
At no point did NYU rescind its invitation to Prof Thio. Likewise, the gay university campaign group OUTLaw did not ask for her invitation to be withdrawn. It sent an e-mail message to students stating its position on her homosexual issues, with links to videos of speeches she made in Parliament in 2007. In OUTLaw's own words:
'While respecting Dr Thio's right to her opinion and without questioning her teaching abilities, OUTLaw believes it is important for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.'
There was also an online petition that expressed 'deep disappointment' at NYU's decision to appoint her as Global Visiting Professor of Law. The petition, which drew about 880 signatures, did state that the 'decision to appoint Dr Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach 'Human Rights in Asia' is inappropriate and offensive'. But there was no explicit call for her invitation to be rescinded.�
Prof�Thio�is quick to claim victimhood. But when�she accepted the invitation, she must have been aware that her views would not be popular at NYU, a famously liberal university. She should have been prepared for NYU undergraduates to express their opposition strongly.
Bert Wee
-----------------
NUANCE, A SO-CALLED MEMO AND THREATS ...
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009
I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).
First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".
Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).
Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.
Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?
There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.
Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.
This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.
I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.
It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.
To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.
An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.
Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.
Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?
Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU.
-----------
Prof Thio,
"Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic." Very well said. You are a very capable, eloquent academic. Too bad I disagree with you about homosexuality.
The next time anyone says that homosexuality is "anti-family", please help us all tell them many gays can and do love their families a lot. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
The next time anyone says gays are responsible for AIDS/HIV, please remind them the virus spreads because of promiscuity and unsafe sex, not because of a person's sexuality. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
The next time someone equates supporting homosexuals as supporting incest, rape, infidelity, murder, animal sex, please help us all tell them those are wrongful, vulgar accusations. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
Posted by: wugui1977 at Mon Jul 27 10:33:45 SGT 2009
Don lost the chance to field her arguments in marketplace of ideas
IN THE wake of Professor Thio Li-ann's decision not to teach at New York University (NYU), much as been made of a lack of tolerance of diverse views in that university. Both Prof Thio and Mr Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University have cited the sequence of events as a display of intolerance.
With respect to both the learned professors, I feel this is a mischaracterisation of what transpired at NYU. A right to express one's views freely comes with the right of others to disagree with those views, and one must take courage to defend what one believes in.
The NYU position throughout this unfortunate sequence of events has been that while the faculty may disagree with Prof Thio's position, it believes that academic freedom should be respected. Even when alumni threatened to boycott future fund-raising events unless Prof Thio was refused access, the university was steadfast in its position that it would not force Prof Thio to withdraw. �
It is disingenuous to paint the disagreement as a suppression of alternative views. Surely one cannot be naive to the fact that the attitude in the United States towards homosexuals is significantly different from that in Singapore. Just as Prof Thio was entitled to her view that homosexual acts should be criminalised, so were the NYU faculty and students entitled to their view that such discrimination is abhorrent.
In many ways, what happened at NYU has been disappointing. By cancelling her courses, Prof Thio has lost the chance to field her arguments in an open marketplace of ideas. The NYU students too have lost the opportunity to be taught by someone who, all views aside, is an extremely intelligent academic with a great presence in the classroom.�
Leon Michael Ryan
-----------------
July 27, 2009
Don's withdrawal from NYU: Don't be too quick to claim victimhood
I REFER to the reports, 'Thio Li-ann cancels teaching stint at NYU' (last Friday) and 'American social activist support Thio Li-ann' (last Saturday), regarding law professor Thio Lin-ann's withdrawal from her teaching stint at New York University (NYU).
The reports imply that Professor Thio felt she had to withdraw from NYU after she was intimidated by the hostile atmosphere there. This should be examined more closely.
At no point did NYU rescind its invitation to Prof Thio. Likewise, the gay university campaign group OUTLaw did not ask for her invitation to be withdrawn. It sent an e-mail message to students stating its position on her homosexual issues, with links to videos of speeches she made in Parliament in 2007. In OUTLaw's own words:
'While respecting Dr Thio's right to her opinion and without questioning her teaching abilities, OUTLaw believes it is important for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.'
There was also an online petition that expressed 'deep disappointment' at NYU's decision to appoint her as Global Visiting Professor of Law. The petition, which drew about 880 signatures, did state that the 'decision to appoint Dr Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach 'Human Rights in Asia' is inappropriate and offensive'. But there was no explicit call for her invitation to be rescinded.�
Prof�Thio�is quick to claim victimhood. But when�she accepted the invitation, she must have been aware that her views would not be popular at NYU, a famously liberal university. She should have been prepared for NYU undergraduates to express their opposition strongly.
Bert Wee
-----------------
NUANCE, A SO-CALLED MEMO AND THREATS ...
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009
I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).
First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".
Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).
Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.
Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?
There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.
Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.
This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.
I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.
It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.
To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.
An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.
Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.
Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?
Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU.
-----------
Prof Thio,
"Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic." Very well said. You are a very capable, eloquent academic. Too bad I disagree with you about homosexuality.
The next time anyone says that homosexuality is "anti-family", please help us all tell them many gays can and do love their families a lot. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
The next time anyone says gays are responsible for AIDS/HIV, please remind them the virus spreads because of promiscuity and unsafe sex, not because of a person's sexuality. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
The next time someone equates supporting homosexuals as supporting incest, rape, infidelity, murder, animal sex, please help us all tell them those are wrongful, vulgar accusations. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
Posted by: wugui1977 at Mon Jul 27 10:33:45 SGT 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment