The odd case of the Purdue University bigot who posted a ridiculous attack on providing health care--among other things--for homosexuals on his blog has turned into a brouhaha over free speech.
I find this befuddling.
In yet another case of mixing proverbial apples and oranges, the principle of free speech is exploited to excuse and justify incompetence and professional malfeasance--much in the way freedom of religion has now become a bizarre sanctuary for American bigotry.
Between the Bush years and the cultural terrorism now practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Christianity, the United States Constitution has been mangled almost beyond recognition.
The Purdue University faculty member's blog entitled "an economic case against homosexuality" has triggered a debate over free speech when in fact it should be about his professional competence as an educator.
Professor Bert Chapman is the author of a blog called the Conservative Librarian.
For two years he has written about historical to contemporary politics without much notice from the students or faculty he works with. But a recent post about homosexuality has set off calls for him to be publicly reprimanded or even fired.
Free speech simpletons are up in arms. Yes, simpletons.
Professor Chapman has a responsibility to uphold certain values and principles as an educator; if he does not he should be fired.
"The most concrete way to protect the university's reputation against academic dishonesty and mediocrity is for him to resign," said senior Kevin Casimer, who has been organizing a signature campaign that states Chapman is embarrassing and detrimental to the university's reputation.
Chapman is a 15-year professor of library science and government information and political science librarian. He has written three books about the military and is a self-described conservative Christian. Chapman said he started the blog to express his views.
In the Oct. 27 post, "An Economic Case Against Homosexuality," Chapman argues that money invested on AIDS would be better spent on other public health initiatives, such as cancer or heart disease, and that the current health care debate needs to address the economic costs of homosexual behavior.
And while Chapman may have the right to state this point of view, the University has an obligation to defend its students and its campus from bigotry and stupidity.
Chapman, 47, has been taken aback by people's response to his blog. Posting on social network sites and several letters to the Purdue Exponent, a student-staffed newspaper, have called for him to be fired. "My wife is really upset about the reaction," he said. While he disagrees with the gay lifestyle and its political agenda, Chapman said it would never get in the way of doing his job, which is to provide reference and research assistance.
"It is sad we live in a time when truly free and open debate on controversial issues is characterized by such virulence," he said. "If gay rights opponents advocate removing First Amendment rights of gay rights proponents, there would be justifiable outrage over attempts to abridge their constitutional rights."
Now here's the part that I find befuddling. Where in the first amendment does it say that free speech comes without responsibility or consequence. Say what you will without fear of censorship or government intervention, but saying what you will at the expense of the well-being of your fellow citizens and your professional responsibilities does not protect you from a loss of professional standing and credibility.
Casimer said he and others are not attacking Chapman's right to say what he wants. But he said Chapman's views and presence may dissuade students and others from wanting to associate with Purdue. "People have confused what we are doing as attacking free speech," he said. "But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."
Democracy at work Yvonne Pitts, an assistant professor of history who specializes in constitutional history, said the First Amendment supports Chapman's right to express views, even if they are unpopular and can make some feel uncomfortable. "We must have a free trade in ideas in order for democracy to work," she said. Pitts, who is lesbian, said if Chapman were reprimanded for his views it could chill the rest of the Purdue academic community. "I would be disturbed if he lost his job because I would fear that my job could be in jeopardy for my activism," she said. "It is really good for student to be having this debate. But you can't call for his job. "And I totally disagree with everything he wrote."
Purdue spokeswoman Jeanne Norberg said Chapman is acting within university policy by making it clear his viewpoints do not necessarily reflect those of the university. "There are many things on the Internet that would be offensive to many but that are protected by the First Amendment," she said. "The best response is to speak up, which is exactly what our students and some faculty are doing."
Norberg said Chapman's writings do not violate the university's policies against harassment. These must be fascinating policies. Purdue's policies all a professor to engender a hostile atmosphere that threatens the safety and basic human rights of his students?
Professor Chapman's blog post:
As a Christian, I agree with the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms. To defend traditional sexual morality against the encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression, we need to be able to do more than cite Bible verses.
Fortunately, there are plenty of economic reasons for being against this lifestyle and I think as conservatives we need to be able to articulate why our nation cannot afford the extremely high financial costs of this lifestyle at a time when we are confronting dangerously high budget deficits, national debt, and personal debt.
Let's start with AIDS. U.S. Government expenditures on this disease have risen from $200,000 in Fiscal Year 1980-1981 to $23.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2008. These figures have increased steadily over nearly three decades and probably exceed $100 billion. When you factor in what countries all over the world have spent on seeking to diminish this disease, without recognizing the morally aberrant sexual behavior (including heterosexual promiscuity in Africa and elsewhere) causing its spread, we are probably looking at U.S. expenditures of over $1 trillion dollars. I can't even begin to calculate the potential global expenditures on this.
Think of how much constructively such money could have been spent on public health issues such as improved sanitation, immunizations, and other more worthwhile programs instead of promoting immoral and self-destructive behavior through needle exchanges and widespread condom distribution. The money invested on AIDS research could be returned to taxpayers or transferred to more worthwhile areas of public health research such as cancer, heart disease, combating pandemic conditions like H1N1 flu, and promoting responsible sexual behavior such as monogamy within heterosexual marriage.
Our ongoing U.S. political debate over health care reform also needs to factor in the economic costs of homosexual and other sexually deviant behaviors on our health care system in terms of pharmaceutical drugs, tainted blood supplies, and requiring doctors and nurses to treat sexually transmitted diseases which would be less likely to occur if people practiced chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and monogamy within such marriage. As human beings, we are actually capable of such restraint. Anyone who studies prison conditions knows that AIDS is a reality in many correctional facilities due to the occurrence of rape. I'm not sure how systematically the Justice Dept's Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps track of prison rape statistics or other instances of same sex sexual assault, but that also has economic implications not to mention the psychological trauma experienced by all rape victims. I have seen one Bureau of Justice Statistics study indicating that 90% of prison rapes are from male on male sexual activity. This particular problem was serious enough to cause Congress to pass legislation in 2003 creating a Prison Rape Elimination Commission which issued its report earlier this year. The presence of sex offender registries, which require significant law enforcement staff time and expense to update and maintain, is another demonstration of the high economic costs of sexually deviant behavior.
The sad practice of so many companies and universities adopting domestic partner benefits in a misguided effort to attract employees drives up insurance costs for these companies and prevents them from providing additional coverage to those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards. It also requires these companies to pass on the costs of their goods and services beyond normal inflationary trends. Additionally, it also probably makes it more difficult for them to expand their businesses and create additional jobs in an economy coping with near double digit unemployment rates. The 2002 Corporate Resource Center's study Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Economic Sense? (available at their website) demonstrates that such investments are counterproductive to good business sense for most employers and that it's more economical for employers to promote healthy employee marriages because married employees are generally more dependable and motivated workers. The homosexual lifestyle also affects areas such as life insurance, estate planning, real estate, divorce law if same-sex marriage occurs on a widespread basis, and investments as firms providing these services have to factor in how to treat same sex domestic partner issues into their cost calculations. Guess who has to pay for these increased costs and potentially lower investment returns? We do, regardless of whether or not we approve of the homosexual lifestyle. The next time some one tells you how wonderful is the "progress" gays have made in recent decades ask them if they have ever thought about the multiple economic consequences of this "progress" as described in this posting. These may be inconvenient truths to some as the primarily infantile ad hominem attacks this posting has received below indicate. They are substantive realities which cannot be denied. I welcome suggestions from readers as to other possible economic costs of the homosexual lifestyle which I have forgotten.
I wonder how Purdue University would react if the Chapman post dropped out homosexual and replaced it with Negro; and if AIDS were replaced with cardiovascular disease? The latest science suggests that the disproportionately high rate of cardiovascular disease among African Americans is mostly not genetic but rather caused by lifestyle habits and bad nutritional practices. Clearly, Chapman would demand that the American health care system cease and desist from delivering medical care to blacks. I'd wager my life-savings that if Chapman had dished up a racist version of his blog, he would have been sent packing within 24-hours.
This would have been about clear grounds for dismissal, not free speech.
Disgusting. No matter how carefully the language is dressed in academic clothing it is still hate speech.
Posted by: Alan down in Florida | Tuesday, 24 November 2009 at 10:56 AM