Homophobic lecturer

[Lilmy87]

I was reminded of this debate while responding to another thread. Following the debate surrounding the appointment of a law professor who held homophobic views, I was interested to find out what opinions anyone here may have.

For those not familiar with the story, Singaporean professor Dr Thio Li-Ann, an academic who was known to hold controversial views towards homosexuality and gay rights, was invited to teach a class on Human Rights Law in Asia at New York University Law School, to which many students responded by challenging the university’s decision to appoint her.

Professor Thio has undertaken much research on human rights law, and taught at a number of respected academic institutions around the world. She had also worked as a nominated MP in Singapore, during which time she strongly opposed the legalisation of sex between males, and towards this made a notorious speech, in which she crudely likened anal sex to "shoving a straw up your nose to drink." It is also reported that she campaigned for a TV channel, who presented a gay couple and their child as a valid family unit, to be heavily fined.


Many students and members of staff felt that, because of this, her appointment was inappropriate. It was widely felt that her role as a visiting lecturer threatened the school’s commitment to equality for gay people and anti discrimination. Students argued that gay people would be made to feel unwelcome, not only in her class, but within the whole institution, exposed them to the threat of actual discrimination and undermined the ethos of the school.


The Dean Richard L. Revesz of the New York University School of Law justified the university’s decision by stressing its commitment to the principle of academic freedom and intellectual diversity. It was in this spirit that they invited Professor Thio to teach at the school, seeking to expose students to the opinions, learning and experiences of a great variety of academics, coming from a range of ethical standpoints and cultural backgrounds. He argues that Professor Thio was appointed because of her academic work, and distinguished scholarship, rather than because of speeches or actions taken as a legislator. Revesz expresses that the law school was in fact initially unaware of her stance on gay rights, as these were not expressed within her academic work.


However, protesting against her appointment, students started a petition. Many wrote to the professor, in order to discuss her views. She had felt offended by much of this correspondence, and responded in a way that was upsetting and offensive. This conduct further compounded students’ beliefs that the atmosphere in her classroom would be hostile and uncomfortable.
Conversely, Professor Thio accused the students of creating a hostile atmosphere towards her,and, perhaps oddly, given some of her earlier political activities, argued that she was a victim of censorship. The outcome was that she decided not to teach the class.


So what do you think? Is this a classic case of academic freedom/freedom of speech vs equality and respect? If so, which is more important? Was the school right to invite her? Where the students right to respond as they did? Would you be comfortable to attend her class, if you were a student?
I find myself unsure what to think exactly; when the school appointed her, they didn’t know about her background, so once it was revealed to them, they no doubt had a serious dilemma. As journalist Wendy Kaminer expresses, exposing students the opposing views and moral codes of others teaches them how to argue more effectively and challenge those they disagree with, which is of course vital for future lawyers:

‘The refusal of law students even to hear opposing views, reflecting opposing moral codes, is particularly worrisome. I wouldn’t want one of these future lawyers ever advocating for me… Uniformity of opinion breeds complacency, close-mindedness, and a tendency to mistake attitudes for arguments.’

However, I strongly agree with the students that the atmosphere would be unwelcoming within her classroom, particularly to gay students, but also to all who value diversity and equality (which, as students of human rights, you would hope they all did!). Not only this, but her manner and response to criticism makes me think she is not the sort of person who would respond well to students. As an aside, I must say that Professor Thio’s refusal to attempt to defend her position, and resorting to insults, seems to weaken her conviction in her position. I’m not sure her appointment sits very easily with the school’s commitment to, and historical record of supporting gay rights.

I think that students should be exposed to controversial and different views, and have to engage in debate regarding these. However, I do think it is paramount that within any institution one can feel safe and free from discrimination. Perhaps, all things considered, it is a good thing that she stood down, or else some very difficult questions would have to be faced.

What do you think?

[Lilmy87]

Apologies if I put this in the wrong section, by the way.

[marshlander]

I have not heard of this situation, so this is news to me. Thanks for raising it, Lilmy and it is absolutely in the right section

I don't see any problem at all with students, particularly law students, learning to deal with opposition in the relative safety of their academic "home". The fact that this is an actual real-life stuation makes the prospect all the more intriguing. What better opportunity could there be for students of human rights issues to be able to prepare a guided response to homophobia?

Professor Thio would, one hopes, also benefit by having to deal head-on with opposition to her views within a cultural context where she would have to consider even more carefully how she constructed her arguments. Who knows, she may even have been forced to modify them. If, in an academic setting, we cannot construct a strong intellectual case in support of our rights our situation is very much weakened.

Bearing in mind I have not read any of Professor Thio's comments for myself my immediate response is that she has fallen into the common heterosexual trap of only equating homosexuality with what they imagine happens in the bedroom. What she and many others fail to grasp is that being gay is so much more than that and involves, for example, emotional responses, identity and culture in as full a way as those aspects of life do for everyone else. When I was once asked in an 'interrogation" what I thought being gay meant, the best description I could come up with at the time was that is a capacity to love and be loved by someone of the same sex. Professor Thio seems not to have understood this and is unlikely to have reconsidered her views if they have not been addressed on an intellectual and philosophical level.

This seems to be a sort of "Henry Ford Model T" approach to freedom of speech. You can have any colour you like as long as it's black!

[peterinmalaga]

I can tolerate anything except intolerance. And an intolerent person in a position of power, should be shown the door. The university failed in its duty to appoint the most appropriate person to this post. I am all in favour of freedom of speech and see no reason why Dr Thio Li-Ann should not come to the university to engage in debate with students and staff. But to put her in a position of power over students is unacceptable. Of course students should be exposed to conflicting views, however unpalatable but we wouldn't want a fascist as our boss or an ex-Nazi as the Pope, would we?

[Lilmy87]

Professor Thio would, one hopes, also benefit by having to deal head-on with opposition to her views within a cultural context where she would have to consider even more carefully how she constructed her arguments. Who knows, she may even have been forced to modify them. If, in an academic setting, we cannot construct a strong intellectual case in support of our rights our situation is very much weakened.

I certainly think that her unwillingness to do this was surprising and quite possibly telling. If she has such conviction in her views as to stand up for them within a political setting, why is she unwilling to discuss it with students? I must agree with your point that her pulling out denied both sides and opportunity for possible learning and development, in different ways. As Marshlander points out, it seems she has, for one thing, misuderstood the nature of homosexuality.

However it did seem that the a great amount of hostility had developed between both sides; I wonder if proper academic debate could be possible in that situation? All in all, it seems a shame things developed as they did. It is completely understandable that the subject was highly emotive and inspired much anger, but maybe more could have been learnt had each side appealed to rationale debate rather than greivance and arguing? However without knowing the content of the email correspondence from both sides, it is hard to comment on the value or appropriateness of what each side had said.

That said, I think it is entirely innappropriate that a lecturer had addressed students in an offensive and hostile ways, in correspondence. I think a line has definitely been crossed once ones ideological beleifs turn to real life manifestations of their behaviour, through acting in an intolerant way, and treating others unfavourably. Perhaps it was at this point that it became clear to both sides that it would have been difficult to engage in rational argument.

This seems to be a sort of "Henry Ford Model T" approach to freedom of speech. You can have any colour you like as long as it's black!

Yes! How incongruous that a woman can make a career of defending human rights, yet exclude a section of humanity from that. To oppose censorship yet beleive that gay couples should not be depicted on TV, in a positive way. That I would like to hear her debate.

[fredv3b]

I can tolerate anything except intolerance. And an intolerent person in a position of power, should be shown the door. The university failed in its duty to appoint the most appropriate person to this post. I am all in favour of freedom of speech and see no reason why Dr Thio Li-Ann should not come to the university to engage in debate with students and staff. But to put her in a position of power over students is unacceptable. Of course students should be exposed to conflicting views, however unpalatable but we wouldn't want a fascist as our boss or an ex-Nazi as the Pope, would we?

Why, in the grand scheme of things, is tolerance is a terrible thing? I am intolerant of thieves, should I loose my job? What jobs do you consider acceptable and unacceptable for someone who holds 'traditional views'?

[princealbertofb]

We aren't talking about the same thing here, Fred. Theft is considered a crime in our societies, as in most societies, I'm sure. I don't think that anyone could be thrown out of their jobs for requiring the law to be applied where theft is concerned. And surely it would be addressed consequently.

Homosexuality and homosexual acts between consenting adults is NOT illegal in most of the Western world. Therefore anyone saying that these acts are wrong or legally reprehensible should not have a position of power such as that of a university professor, where these views might be brandished as the truth. In fact, I'd say the only thing the professor might be entitled to do, would be to remind her students that such laws prohibiting homosexual acts exist in a certain number of countries. But she should also be able to teach that these laws are non applicable in other countries where even gay marriage is legal and allowed. And possibly teach about what arguments have been developed in both types of communities to further the implementation of the law. But creating an atmosphere in which any student might hear their very soul vilified would not do the job.

[marshlander]

I hadn't really considered Peter's point reminding us of the difference between a visiting lecturer and a longer term appointment to a professorship and the differences in the power relationships with students.

It does seem odd that the New York University Law School failed to notice that, for an academic who has such a distinguished track record lecturing in Human Rights, Dr Thio Li-Ann was also at the centre of some fairly high profile controversy.

I'd like to think that each side of the debate would be able to learn something from the other, but the heat of kneejerk and emotive reaction has all but made this impossible.

It's a pity. There is obviously a case to be made by Dr Thio Li-Ann, although she clearly inflicted damage on it with her own rhetoric. I just thought our "side" would be able to construct a better argument.

[fredv3b]

My point is where do you draw the line between points of view that are acceptable and points of view that are not? If you draw the line, as you suggest, at where the law currently stands then frankly we, risk a society, will have a society where the law never progresses.

I am sorry but I feel very strongly about freedom of speech and freedom of thought. If academics cannot think freely, and express those thoughts, then who can. If a Professor of Law cannot argue that a law is wrong, even if many other countries have similar laws, then frankly such laws will never change. The freedom of speech, of course, works both ways and students are free (even encouraged) to give their Professors a good academic and philosophical heckling (but not plain verbal abuse). Anyone who holds such views as Professor Thio and accepts a position at New York University should expect to be strongly heckled and be prepared to defend their position.

But creating an atmosphere in which any student might hear their very soul vilified would not do the job.

I would suggest that any student who wishes to avoid an atmosphere where they might hear such things should resign their US Citizenship and emigrate to somewhere where freedom of speech is not protected.

[marshlander]