I’m truly appalled by the law school’s decision to hire outspoken homophobe Dr. Li-ann Thio to teach, of all things, global human rights law. The decision is more negligent than intentionally offensive, given NYU’s otherwise stellar record on gay rights. Let’s remember – NYU Law is the school that took the U.S. Government to the Supreme Court rather than allow discriminatory military recruiters on campus, and to this day, per Dean Ricky Revesz, sends heartfelt apologies to the entire school whenever they visit. (We lost – hard.) Clearly, as Revesz concedes, Thio’s views are at odds with the culture of respect and decency that he has worked so hard to build during his highly successful tenure as dean.
Nor is this – as Thio tries to frame it – an “academic freedom” issue. There are principled, respectable arguments against both gay marriage and gay rights. Many such arguments have been raised on this site and, although I don’t credit them, I respect those who raise them. Thio’s objections, however, are neither principled nor well-reasoned, but rather stem from mere moral outrage (“misuse of organs”?!):
Listen to the full thing. She’s worse than Conservapedia.
Further, the angry defense Thio has mounted of her views is hardly a model of clarity. Absent some “universal norm” – which she herself calls “moral imperialism” – it’s hard to see how her case against gay rights holds together.
Because her views go to her quality as a scholar, rather than simply political correctness, she’s clearly not a good fit for NYU Law. That said, I wouldn’t expect the school to cancel her contract. I will, however, look forward to any number of symposia, where the school could allow her bigoted views to be torn apart by better minds. The entire faculty v. Thio — I’d pay to see that.
UPDATE: Thio, theoretically a law professor, doesn’t seem to know what “libel” means. At least she didn’t over the weekend, when she accused an NYU student of the same, simply for disagreeing with her.
Anyone who sends this post to Above the Law will be summarily executed. Seriously. – Ed.
Welcome “Crooks & Liars” readers! And thanks Mike for the link! – Ed.
“There are principled, respectable arguments against both gay marriage and gay rights.”
Bullshit. Name one.
-ToP.
Posted by TheoryOfPractice | July 11, 2009, 3:36 pmYeah, it’s hard :-/. I think the best argument against gay marriage is “it’s unproven and new, who knows how it’ll turn out.” I’m not convinced by that, by a long shot, but it’s at least respectable in that it doesn’t resort to bigotry.
Posted by ACG | July 12, 2009, 11:08 pmRegarding gay marriage, one COULD argue that marriage is a religious institution and thus up to each particular religion/sect/church to determine what they will and will not recognize. Civil unions, OTOH, lie entirely within the secular domain and as such, are all that the government should issue (for both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages). Provided that couples of all types are given the same rights and responsibilities of civil unions, let the churches recognize what they will, I care more for the civil issue.
Of course, whether you call what the government issues a “marriage license” or a “civil union license” we’re still going to keep on calling it marriage.
Regarding gay rights: I agree, there are no good arguments against it.
Posted by Anzezzle | July 13, 2009, 1:39 amArguments, those are easy.
P1. If the King James Version is the true and inerrant Word of God, then gay rights and gay marriage are bad.
P2. The King James Version is the true and inerrant Word of God.
C. Gay rights and gay marriage are bad.
The argument is great. Valid, even! Of course, there’s a small problem with P2…
Posted by Erik J | July 14, 2009, 2:45 pmAmes said that there were “principled, respectable” arguments supporting discrimination against homosexuals. Arguments that rely on hateful Bronze-age superstitions are neither principled nor respectable…
Posted by ThoryOfPractice | July 15, 2009, 10:18 amWell, it’s almost certainly not a sound argument, no, but validity is pretty respectable, as arguments go.
Assuming, of course, that we’re trying to be as charitable as possible to ACG’s initial claim, which I suspect was made out of reflexive politeness to bigots rather than sincerely held belief.
Posted by Erik J | July 15, 2009, 11:59 amAnzezzle, your comment points to why I think religions should not be allowed to conduct weddings–at least not weddings that are legally recognized by the state. A church refusing to marry, say, a white man and a black woman on the grounds of some religious belief or another would, of course, not be allowed to do so. I don’t see gay marriage as any different. Marriage is first and foremost a legal and civil matter (you might get married in church, but you have to be divorced in court…) and ancient superstitions, and the hates and prejudices they generate, have no place in modern legal affairs
Posted by TheoryOfPractice | July 13, 2009, 9:33 amI don’t believe that is true. Churches (1) do not receive governmental funds and (2) are private, not public accommodations. Therefore I don’t believe they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. It would not surprise me at all if some churches still *do* refuse to marry inter-racial couples.
Posted by SouthernQuaker | July 13, 2009, 12:07 pmI believe you are mistaken. Even if they do not receive government funds and are private, churches are still required to obey laws of general application. A church would still be subject to anti-discrimination laws where they do not affect the practice of religion. For example, a church can’t refuse to hire blacks as parish secretaries merely because they’re black.
Posted by D.F. Manno | July 13, 2009, 7:57 pmAll the more reason not to let them perform a civil/legal function.
Posted by TheoryOfPractice | July 13, 2009, 1:20 pmI’ve just watched the whole thing – 30 minutes! – it takes a long time to justify outright bigotry. There’s so much to choose from, but what I enjoy the most are her self-righteous assertions that 1) anyone who supports gay rights is a less rigorous thinker than she is, 2) the intolerant don’t bear the burden of proof – civil rights activists must exhaustively reassure the intolerant that rights can’t possibly be “abused,” 3) her argument that opposing a law because it’s outdated is “chronological bigotry,” followed later by the contradictory argument that gay sex is wrong because it violates community standards, 4) her equation of the sexual exploitation of children with consensual adult gay sex (an old chestnut) 5) all talk about the “gay agenda” and “homosexual propaganda,” including her claim that legality will lead to adult gay men preying upon 13 year old boys, 6) gay rights will lead to the degradation of women, 7) heterosexual sodomy is just fine, unlike the dirty, dirty gay kind, 8) her at-length discussions of “anal penetrative sex,” (which apparently make some in the gallery shift uncomfortably), and of course, 9) her claim that gay people should be treated fairly and her outrage that she’s not a bigot – despite her entire argument.
Since I’m new here, I’m not getting the Above the Law threat – they currently have a post up on Thio Li-ann’s letter to NYU. She’s so very, very offended. I’d be interested in seeing the full text of her speech here, even if much of it is old hat.
Posted by Batocchio | July 13, 2009, 2:05 pm