Dr. Li-ann Thio v. Random NYU Law IT Guy
When last we checked in on the saga of Dr. Li-ann Thio, the incoming NYU Law visiting professor who equated anal sex to drinking by shoving a straw up your nose, Dean Richard Revesz was defending the invitation extended to her.
But over the weekend, an information technology professional who works for NYU law (and who is also an NYU student) asked the dean to reconsider. Here’s part of the letter from Malik Graves-Pryor:
While I can understand your position and reasoning in displaying solidarity to the larger NYU School of Law community regarding Hauser Global’s decision to bring in Professor Li-Ann Thio … I must state my strong objection to her appointment and the official NYU Law defense of said appointment.As an African-American man working in the LawITS department, and simultaneously a student at NYU, I could never imagine the day would come when NYU would allow the appointment of a legal scholar who held the opinion that African-Americans practice acts of “gross indecency”, that African-Americans who strive for diversity should be rebuffed because “diversity is not a license for perversity”, describing the private intimate acts between African-Americans as trying to “shove a straw up your nose to drink”, among other intellectually and morally shallow absurdities.
In response, Dr. Thio unleashed an 18-point defense that she sent to the entire NYU Law faculty. Apparently, she feels unfairly maligned:
1. I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position. I was going to stay above the fray but given this insidious attack on my academic reputation (aside from many ad hominem insults), I feel I must cast some clarity on certain issues.
More fighting after the jump.
According to Thio, she does not hold any personal animosity towards gays; she just believes that the “gay agenda” is out to get her. By the time we get to point 17 (subsections C and F), she expresses her frustration with the bullying she feels she is being subjected to:
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.…
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores. Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague (a) be removed from her job (b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training (c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated). We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
But Dr. Thio also feels that the NYU community just isn’t treating her in a very friendly manner:
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral dis agreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Welcome to New York, Dr. Thio.
Of course, where you come down on this issue probably depends on whether you believe Dr. Thio’s arguments are an honest exploration of an intellectually controversial issue, of if you think that Thio espouses a bigoted and immoral belief structure. Graves-Pryor seems to believe the latter. In his letter to the dean, he equates Thio’s views to those held by the Klu Klux Klan:
It is my sincerest hope that you truly do not believe the intellectually dishonest and bankrupt position that no other scholars among the 6-billion people who populate this planet have the legal heft, and offer the same benefits, that Professor Li-Ann Thio brings to NYU Law, but without her incendiary belief structure regarding valued members of this community (faculty, administrators, student body, parents, friends, alumni, etc).Suffice it to say I could not imagine your defense of Professor Li-Ann Thio being made regarding a legal scholar who was an avowed supporter of the KKK, or one who publicly and legally sympathized with the violence and vitriol espoused by Al-Qaeda, for example.
The full Thio letter (reprinted below) goes into great detail about the conservative nature of Singapore’s culture, and the difference between acting as a politician in Singapore versus a law professor in New York.
But you have to wonder if Dr. Thio has a skin that is thick enough to take slings (and straws) of outrageous NYC fortune. Take it from me, you can’t blast out an 18-point memo every time some student writes down all of the ways in which he believes you are a terrible human being.
Seems to me that if you believe in free speech in an intellectual environment, you also have to support the right of students to express their displeasure about your political beliefs.
Read the letters from Graves-Pryor and Dr. Thio below.
NYU LAW SCHOOL — LI-ANN THIO AND HER ANTI-GAY LEGAL OPINIONS
Greetings Dean Revesz,
cc: members of Hauser Global, Professor Li-Ann Thio,
While I can understand your position and reasoning in displaying solidarity to the larger NYU School of Law community regarding Hauser Global’s decision to bring in Professor Li-Ann Thio (see attached email), I must state my strong objection to her appointment and the official NYU Law defense of said appointment.
As an African-American man working in the LawITS department, and simultaneously a student at NYU, I could never imagine the day would come when NYU would allow the appointment of a legal scholar who held the opinion that African-Americans practice acts of “gross indecency”, that African-Americans who strive for diversity should be rebuffed because “diversity is not a license for perversity”, describing the private intimate acts between African-Americans as trying to “shove a straw up your nose to drink”, among other intellectually and morally shallow absurdities.
I would also never imagine the day in which a legal scholar who held the opinion that African-Americans are inferior to Whites or any other racial/ethnic group would be granted a platform here at NYU Law, simply due to interest in not squelching “other” views.
In fact, I can state the unequivocal belief that that day would absolutely never come. Not only would the members of the Hauser Global group and any other group at the Law School not stand for it, I feel absolutely confident that neither would you Dean Revesz.
As a Gay man as well, however, it seems that it is still an acceptable position within academia to hold these opinions about LGBT individuals and community without repercussion.
You stated:
“Needless to say, the value of the program would be seriously diminished if the visiting scholars all thought of legal issues in the same way. Much of the benefit of engaging with the world lies in confronting profound differences in viewpoint and experience. We can learn from these visitors, and-we hope-they can learn from us.
……..
To be clear, the Law School categorically rejects the point of view expressed in Professor Thio’s speech, as evidenced by our early and longstanding commitment to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet we believe academic freedom requires that this disagreement express itself through vigorous, civil debate, rather than an attempt to suppress those views.”
It is my sincerest hope that you truly do not believe the intellectually dishonest and bankrupt position that no other scholars among the 6-billion people who populate this planet have the legal heft, and offer the same benefits, that Professor Li-Ann Thio brings to NYU Law, but without her incendiary belief structure regarding valued members of this community (faculty, administrators, student body, parents, friends, alumni, etc).
Suffice it to say I could not imagine your defense of Professor Li-Ann Thio being made regarding a legal scholar who was an avowed supporter of the KKK, or one who publicly and legally sympathized with the violence and vitriol espoused by Al-Qaeda, for example.
In short, this is not an issue of perceiving “legal issues in the same way”. This is an issue of fundamental human rights, human dignity, and human respect. Until the day comes in which these so-called “opinions” regarding the LGBT community are no longer tolerated in polite company, the blot on those who provide intellectual shelter and comfort, in this case, NYU Law and Hauser Global, to those who espouse anti-LGBT views will continue.
It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is highly disappointing for an institution such as NYU, which has most certainly been a member of the vanguard on these and other civil rights issues, to willingly allow this to pass.
I ask that you rethink your official position and take into consideration the harmful effects someone of Professor Li-Ann Thio’s stature has, not only on members of the NYU community, but the LGBT community in Singapore which continues to suffer gross oppression at the hands of their government. An oppression which the good Professor strongly desires continue.
Her unnecessary appointment does nothing but tarnish the LGBT-positive legacy that NYU has built over the past several decades.
That said, I welcome discussion on this matter going forward and sincerely hope that in the end NYU Law will take the right course of action and terminate its relationship with Professor Li-Ann Thio and all others who hold these incendiary viewpoints regarding minority groups, whether they be by sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, or religion. Thank you for reading.
Malik Graves-Pryor
NYU LAW — MEMO — DR. LI-ANN THIO
Dear Sirs and Madams,
1. I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position. I was going to stay above the fray but given this insidious attack on my academic reputation (aside from many ad hominem insults), I feel I must cast some clarity on certain issues.
2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US - I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is (a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and (b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue, it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.
3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching,
and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.
4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)
5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.
6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.
7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are sni
ckered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?
8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I
am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.
9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?
10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject. I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree. As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains. We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.
11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.
12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.
13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.
14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.
15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?
I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name
16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.
17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context
a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.
b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?
e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores. Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague(a) be removed from her job (b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training (c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated). We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.
I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
Earlier: Dr. Li-ann Thio: The good professor speaks — and so does NYU Law School
NYU Professor of Human Rights: Not a Fan of Gay Rights? Also: Is anal sex like ‘shoving a straw up your nose to drink’?
(308) Comments
Comments
Please fight to legalize cannabis.
"I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving."
How does she think homosexuals feel when she tells them they are perverts?
not first
Quite the filibuster on Thio's part.
Anyone who thinks homosexuals are not perverts should go see the recent documentary Bruno. It is a real eye-opener!
yawn
FIRST to say NYU should move to censor Malik Graves-Pryor. No one cares what he thinks.
Wow. She is a fantastic writer. After reading the utter crap posted on ATL daily (complete with numerous typos and other errors), this comes as a breath of fresh air...
Where would one get this "homosex sensitivity training"?
Thio: On noez! Someone applied my bigoted beliefs to a racial group and figured out that I'm a bigot hiding behind the mask of academic freedom! They are so mean! Stop telling me to stop being bigoted!! Your expressions of freedom are trampling my freedom of expression! Stop being mean or I will go back to Singapore where gays aren't allowed to talk!!
Never heard of a law professor being this whiny. Not even Feldman.
She is lucky she is at NYU instead of Chicago because the whole "stop bullying me" thing would have been laughed off by pretty much every single damn person in the building. A person basically slamming your opinion on logic and reason is not an ad hominen attack, lady. If you can't defend yourself without playing the stop bullying me card, then you might want to revisit the strength of your own convictions. Just sayin'
If she can't handle people getting in her rankles, she surely picked the most passive, "nice" law school to try to pull that off. Good luck with that.
This bitch is crazy.
There is a difference between one's race, which one cannot control, and one's sexual conduct, which one can control. Race is immutable. Sexual orientation is immutable. All conduct, however, is a result of free choice. The comparison to African-Americans in inapposite. She is not calling for discrmination on the basis of sexual orientation. She is calling for a ban on specific conduct.
Is it really correct to use the term "saga" when all you're referring to is a handful of posts on this page that no one really cared about? So a controversial academic is being invited to speak or teach at a law school less than one-tenth of one percent of your readers attend. Who cares?
it's weird, but the fact that nyu is willing to invite a professor with these views that are drastically different than most academics, and knowing that her views will certainly cause such an uproar, but still doing it anyway, makes me respect nyu more as an institution.
Malik Graves-Pryor = Roxana
Sounds like things have gotten out of HAND for TTThio.
What the hell does being black have to do with Thio's opposition to homosexual sodomy? I mean, seriously. Just because this IT dude is black he assumes that his opinion should be granted greater moral authority when it comes to being gay? Come on.
And don't give me that "he knows what discrimination is like" bullshit. So what, by virtue of being non-white, you have cart blanche to use your race as a moral sledgehammer when it comes to gender, disabilities, national origin, socioeconomics, etc.?
The endless parade of victims makes me sick. Make your own way in life.
I'm a NYU Law student, and initially I didn't mind her coming. As a NYU Law student I'm obviously a flaming lib, but I have enough respect for freedom of speech and the academic discourse to accept the fact that it's beneficial to all of us to hear different viewpoints, especially when those viewpoints are shared by potentially the majority of the world.
However, the more I read and hear what this woman has to say the more I'm disappointed that they chose such a hateful and--let's face facts--stupid person to come teach here. Wasn't there a better anti-homosexuality PhD out there who could better explain his or her position??
Academic freedom is not a license to oppress. Shame on NYU.
It is really not smart of her TO GO ON THE ATTACK.
This is a public relations issue not a legal one.
Does Dr. TTThio secretly like to drink at the sweet sweet honey pot?
The fact that Dr. Tho responded to some insignificant student with an 18-point diatribe is a little bizarre.
testing
Obviously a lesbian coming to grips.
I couldn't follow this post because I can't get beyond her man-hands.
I support Thio's appointment to the NYU faculty but, given the emotions it has raised, I am no longer confident that she can facility legal education at this institution. It is clear that NYU students cannot maintain an open-minded approach to academia. As such, I fear that Thio's continued presence will only be a distraction.
12-
what about a ban on sex between african americans? I think that was the point.
Sneaky how she tries to re-characterize her old arguments as being about the "homosexual political agenda."
And, again, even though she was the one espousing intolerance to be enshrined in policy, she claims to be the victim.
First to say, who cares?
BUTT SEX RISES
SOMETHING SOMETHING
QUINN REMAINS
god damn mongorians. tear down my city wall
Don't you just love lobster?
27 -- a ban on heterosexual sex between African-Americans would not be kosher, because one cannot control one's race.
As has been mentioned above, it is painfully obvious that this chick is a lesbian herself. That's the angle you're missing here, Lat and Elie. How about you try and step up from being just bloggers and do a little investigative reporting and find out her girlfriend's name?
SotomayOR's lunch break burrito has given her bad gas. She will not be returning to her confirmation hearing this afternoon.
Malick's views are immaterial as he is not a law student. When a law student writes a well reasoned opposition to her then I will read it.
Hopefully it will address the points of view I encountered in law school espoused by professors that I disagreed with but wasn't able to ban. See death penalty not applicable to child rapists et al for an example.
shes not a lesbian... her "Friend" is an "exgay"
The professer tells it like it is.
I'll take nine Li-ann Thio's over one Sonia Sotomayor.
In the present day with the economy the way it is and all the Millions of people out of work. This might not be a good time to do this. It is better to have a job then to be unemployed currently. Unemployment is currently at 9% or better and it does not look like it will change soon.
Small business will have to let people go and large corporations will not hire or they will send jobs overseas.
I am being realistic not going on emotion or what we would all like it to be.
I like how she points out how "some" Asians "may" be nicer than us (non-Asians?) after all (see #12)? Rude.
I was on her side (not about on the issues - but on her right to teach), but I agree with Elie here...she seems like she's being super sensitive and going all Sarah Palin and taking this too far. If she's going to have these extreme views, she needs to be able to deal with the fall out. I guess they don't have the phrase "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" in Singapore.
Yep. What's with the victim, oh poor me stuff? If you can't handle people criticizing your ideas, you should have taken a visiting faculty position at Regent or Oral Roberts.
Man, she really lost it. Does she have any perspective?
As Andy Sandberg said on SNL "You're in New York now baby" - if you can't stand the heat she shouldn't have come to the kitchen.
She's going to be very busy if she fires of a treatise every time someone fires off an email that she finds offensive. Wait 'till she faces the open hostility in class and on campus.
If she wants academic freedom and free speech, she's about to get a big heaping dose.
TTThio was turned down for a speaking engagement at Florida CoasTTTal.
NYU was next best choice.
FREE SPEECH FOR LIBERALS ONLY!!!
Holy sausagefingers!
Holy sausagefingers!
Too bad the professor is not a white male, would have ended this whole ridiculous thing on complaint 1.
I thought people learned from the campaigns of PETA comparing jews (and then blacks) to animals to focus on the speech and not on the speaker when determining political correctness.
10, totally agree. I am imagining Frank Easterbrook picking food out of his beard and laughing. Hard.
quinn remains = hilarious
Any way you slice it, this woman is a biggot.
I cannot believe an institution like NYU would invite her to speak in the first place. Disgraceful!
You gotta give her a hand, that's a long email for someone with gargantuan hands. Do we think she has a specially equipped keyboard?
...and not once did she even attempt to refute the incendiary comments about her UNAMBIGUOUS MAND HANDS.
Yawwwwn.
Is this still a legal tabloid?
...and not once did she even attempt to refute the incendiary comments about her UNAMBIGUOUS MAN HANDS.
i bet she could dunk a basketball with those hands
Wow, in Singpore the Gays live in posh highrises, that cater to them, so they should be happy to stay pariahs. Are we talking about Jewish merchants in the 30s in Hamburg or something going on today? I think ignoring insane bigots wielding syllogisms is the best way to usher them into oblivion, but this lady is a piece of work.
Can someone please explain to me precisely what social calamity will ensue if gay couples had the rights of heterosexual couples? I don't want to hear about what the bible, or the Malaysian parliament, says, but rather, real events. The wave of gay marriage statutes in the states hasn't affected my marriage one bit, but I'm willing to admit that my case may be exceptional. And please don't say terrorist attacks of meteor strikes.
But I have to give her credit for typing that long ass letter with those gigantic hands.
People - its ok if she has man hands, I just don't want to see her flaunting them in public. There are very nice homes in NYC where she and her hands can lead a very private life. Just don't bring them out into the public sphere and she'll be fine.
The letter below - written by the NYU law student who asked J. Scalia whether he sodomizes his wife - has some real relevance to the instant case.
Fellow Classmates,
As the student who asked Justice Scalia about his sexual conduct, I am responding to your posts to explain why I believe I had a right to confront Justice Scalia in the manner I did Tuesday, why any gay or sympathetic person has that same right. It should be clear that I intended to be offensive, obnoxious, and inflammatory. There is a time to discuss and there are times when acts and opposition are necessary. Debate is useless when one participant denies the full dignity of the other. How am I to docilely engage a man who sarcastically rants about the "beauty of homosexual relationships" [at the Q&A] and believes that gay school teachers will try to convert children to a homosexual lifestyle [in oral argument for Lawrence]?
Although my question was legally relevant, as I explain below, an independent motivation for my speech-act was to simply subject a homophobic government official to the same indignity to which he would subject millions of gay Americans. It was partially a naked act of resistance and a refusal to be silenced. I wanted to make him and everyone in the room aware of the dehumanizing effect of trivializing such an important relationship. Justice Scalia has no pity for the millions of gay Americans on whom sodomy laws and official homophobia have such an effect, so it is difficult to sympathize with his brief moment of "humiliation," as some have called it. The fact that I am a law student and Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice does not require me to circumscribe my justified opposition and outrage within the bounds of jurisprudential discourse.
Law school and the law profession do not negate my identity as a member of an oppressed minority confronting injustice. Even so, I did have a legal point: Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence asked whether criminalizing homosexual conduct advanced a state interest "which could justify the intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Scalia did not answer this question in his dissent because he believed the state need only assert a legitimate interest to defeat non-fundamental liberties. I basically asked him this question again--it is now the law of the land. He said he did not know whether the interest was significant enough. I then asked him if he sodomizes his wife to subject his intimate relations to the scrutiny he cavalierly would allow others--by force, if necessary. Everyone knew at that moment how significant the interest is. Beyond exerting official power against homosexuals, Scalia is an outspoken and high-profile homophobe. After the aforementioned sarcastic remarks about gay people's relationships, can anyone doubt how little respect he has for LGBT Americans? Even if no case touching gay rights ever came before him, his comments from the bench (that employment non-discrimination is some kind of "homosexual agenda," etc.) and within our very walls are unacceptable to any self-respecting gay person or principled opponent of discrimination. The idea that I should have treated a man with such repugnant views with deference because he is a high government official evinces either a dangerously un-American acceptance of authority or insensitivity to the gay community's grievances. Friends have forwarded me emails complaining of the "liberal" student who asked "the question." That some of my classmates are shallow and insensitive enough to conceptualize my complaint as mere partisan politics is disheartening. Though I should not have to, I will share with everyone that I am neither a Democrat nor Republican and do not consider myself a "liberal" except in the classical sense. I hope that we can separate a simple demand for equality under the law and outrage over being denied it from so much dogmatic ideological baggage. LGBT Americans are still a persecuted minority and our struggle for equal rights is still vital. Four out of five LGBT kids are harassed in school--tell them to debate their harassers. Suicide rates for them are much higher than for others. We still cannot serve in the military, have little protection from employment and other forms of discrimination, and are denied the 1,000+ benefits that accrue from official recognition of marriage. I know some who support gay rights oppose my question and our protest. Do not presume to tell me when and with how much urgency to stand up for our rights.
I am seventeen months out of a lifelong closet and have lost too much time to heterosexist hegemony to tolerate those who say, as Dr. King put it, "Just wait." If you cannot stomach a breach of decorum when justified outrage erupts then your support is nearly worthless anyway. At least do not allow yourselves to become complicit in discrimination by demanding obedience from its victims. Many of our classmates chose NYU over higher-ranked schools because of our reputation as a "private university in the public service" and our commitment to certain values. We were the first law school to require that employers pledge not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Of Scalia's law schools that have "signed on to the homosexual agenda," our signature stands out like John Hancock's. We won a federal injunction in the FAIR litigation as an "expressive association" that counts acceptance of sexual orientation as a core value. Those who worry about our school's prestige should remember how we got here and consider whether flattering those who mock what we believe and are otherwise willing to fight for appears prestigious or pathetic. We protestors did not embarrass NYU, Scalia embarrassed NYU. We stood up to a bigot for the values that make NYU more than a great place to learn the law. I repeat my willingess to discuss this issue calmly with anyone who respects my identity as a gay man. I have had many productive talks with classmates since Tuesday and I hope that will continue.
if your hand is as big is your face, you are gay
Should she really be able to say "butt out?"
Ans what's with this neo-colonialism and "Asians are more polite" screed?
51,
Yes. It is pictured here.
http://img.zdnet.com/techDirectory/_TCMKEYB.GIF
Over seven hundred small-handed East Asian children were killed during the construction of the original prototype.
Only a lesbian could hate gays that much. Just ask Colonel Frank Fitts.
She should be made the Provost. She is smarter than everyone there.
So when are they going to change the name of this blog to "Thio Watch"?
This makes me feel slightly less guilty about the "turd burglar" jokes I used to tell in elementary school.
Wow, I disagree with her views on homosexuality, but not with her views on democracy or free speech. No one should be criminalized for holding different or even wrong views. What is criminal is trying to silence a person with ad hominem (or worse) attacks rather than engage in mature discussion or debate.
Who gets more pointless posts on ATL: Thio or Kwiki Camara?
Did she say something specifically about gay black people? Because I don't understand this IT guy's complaint.
I'm not a homophobe...some of my best friends are ex-gay
Sorry 12, that logic doesn't fly.
You don't hate the PEOPLE, you just hate the behavior that defines that group of people. Thats cool. =P
I don't hate CHRISTIANS, I just disapprove of people practicing Christianity. I ain't no bigot!
I am a Seton Hall summer at Orrick. Should I be scared?
The example provided by the IT guy was inapposite. Fail.
DR. LI-ANN TTTHIO ATTACKS RANDOM NYU IT DUDE IN A LENGTHY SCREED!!!
ok, just had to say it.
i love how she keeps calling it homosex
Religion is by no means an immutable characteristic and is essentially defined by conduct, but we don't allow discrimination on such a basis. Is this the only argument the anti-gay bigots can muster?
I am a Seton Hall summer at Orrick. My butt hole has been violated by three partners. Should I be scared?
Fascism and thought police .... It's not just for conservatives anymore!!!!
Bitch Be Crazy.
I used to snort coke through a straw up my nose but the ice cubes always got in the way.
This really diminishes NYU's reputation. Not for having invited a homophobe to speak or teach -- many universities have done that. But for having invited such an obviously stupid and verbose one.
12, 27, 33
Would a ban on interracial relationships be permissible if it were shown to be in the interest of public safety? Such a restriction would not be a ban on immutable characteristics, but a ban on specific conduct.
75 - Umm I think you are confused, I am actually on your side here. Maybe analogy would have been better as "I don't hate Irish people, I just disapprove of people practicing Catholicism and think the government should discourage it." Not perfect either but whatever.
70
Why are her hands so big? Is this a Seinfeld episode?
#70. Above the Law uses the same logic. They did a post about dumb Polacks and then in the same post they put a disclaimer stating that they did not condone such comments.
How many ATL editors does it take to screw in a lightbulb? LOL
Really, Thio? Your First Amendment rights are violated when private citizens call your comments stupid? Congratulations, Professor, you possess the exact same understanding of the Bill of Rights as ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean.
Don't confuse free speech and open discourse with a University paying and giving a platform for someone. The student has a point, of the six billion people on earth, they are choosing to give the position to this lady? But now NYU is in a pickle because if they cannot give in. The best solution would be a universal student boycott of her courses. Let her lecture to an empty hall.
80 is spot on.
81- I think they have such a ban in Israel
She is dangerous because she is a woman, and Asian. We need to explain to the NYU community that in her heart, she is a white male. Barring that, we need to destroy her. She cannot be allowed to have these opinions.
She's a racist!
wow...she reminds me of my five year old nephew - cry, cry, cry...grow up.
Oh, c'mon, professor Thio -- all of this is just "robust" democratic debate, ins't it? You advocated criminalizing "sodomy." This NYU student advocated disinviting you to teach at NYU based on those views.
You think being gay is a choice. In this student's view, being gay is an innate, "immutable" characteristic, like race.
So, what's with the outrage about his views? You find his exercise of free speech "abusive"? Well, guess how "homosexuals" in Singapore (and elsewhere) feel about your views that the law should criminalize and discourage their sexuality?
Oh, and I couldn't resist this statement:
"'unfit to teach human rights?' That's libel." Actually, no, actually that's a non-actionable statement of opinion. (See, this country really loves its freedom of expression).
She is dangerous because she is female, and Asian. We need to convince NYU (and America) that in her heart, she is a white male. Barring that, we need to destroy her. She cannot be allowed to have these views.
I would pay large sums of cash to see her and Sotomayor jello wrestle in string bikinis.
Large Farva
89 is spot on!
81, but the ban on miscegenation would be neutral and consistent with the 14th Amendment---restricting all races equally. Loving was wrongly decided, they whisper. So a ban on "sodomy" would be fine. That's the effed up logic of Neutral Principles for you, which is the so-called logic of bigots like TTThio, who think separate but equal is perfectly fine if we in the majority find your "practices" objectionable.
My objection is not to homophobes; it is towards the nature of the homophobic political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say "some" because there are homophobes in Singapore who (a) agree that homophobia should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with acceptance of homosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of whining and pretending to be a victim of intolerance.
So Thio is happy with gays as long as they're not uppity gays, right?
I NAILED IT!
Welcome to New York, beeyotch.
Thio = NYU's own Stepford Secretary
lets bring it down a notch.
Intellectual discussions aside, that really is a freakishly large hand.
I saw that #84. Kash's dumb polak comment was odd. Imagine if it was a gay straw snorting Polak who was dating a lesbian Puerto Rican. Kash would have a field day.
I like the lightbulb comment. Did you hear about the one armed ATL editor who fell out of a tree? I waved to them.
Wow -
is she related to Sarah Palin?
She sure seems to like playing the victim.
58 = Roxana
26 = Thio
If Northwestern University can give tenure to a professor who teaches that the holocaust never happened in the name of academic freedom, then NYU can extend the same Freedom of Speech principals to their professors, regardless if you agree with them or not. Other universities have teachers who are members of he Nation of Islam, who still believe that the whie man is the devil. point being, we're always going to face professors who have views that differ from ours. Saying homosexuality is wrong is as old as the Bible itself. Millions of people around the world would agree with her (Jew, Muslim or Christian). Give it up already. I agree with number 1 - LEGALIZE WEED!!!
If Northwestern University can give tenure to a professor who teaches that the holocaust never happened in the name of academic freedom, then NYU can extend the same Freedom of Speech principals to their professors, regardless if you agree with them or not. Other universities have teachers who are members of he Nation of Islam, who still believe that the whie man is the devil. point being, we're always going to face professors who have views that differ from ours. Saying homosexuality is wrong is as old as the Bible itself. Millions of people around the world would agree with her (Jew, Muslim or Christian). Give it up already. I agree with number 1 - LEGALIZE WEED!!!
If you dare say I 'm unfit to teach human rights,
I'm gonna sue you!
So gays are slaves to cock? WTF is this IT guy talking about? Now random morons are doing second-hand selective citing?
Anti-miscegenation and gay marriage ban are completely different. Interracial marriage bans were part of a widespread campaign to suppress AfAms. Are gays prohibited from forming contracts, using water fountains or restrooms, or enrolling in schools? Loving was just a piece of that remedy. Comparing gay marriage to that is just a fallacy (or phallusy?)
I'd like to see a concerted campaign where people rally and send straws to the NYU administration until they get Dr. Li-Ann Thitler to withdraw and stay in Sing-Sing for good.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
This lady is nuts. No business teaching at any law school in the US other than Regent.
Women shouldn't be allowed to teach law or have socially conservative views.
How does someone educated at Harvard and Oxbridge employ such malapropisms as "ironical," "oppose to," and "homosex"? Also, focusing on one speech is not "narcissistic," but perhaps "single-minded." A better example of narcissism is an 18 point attempted counterattack which attempts to justify illogical bigotry.
112 = titcr
It was ridiculous of NYU to even consider a Member of Parliament from Singapore to teach a class in Human Rights in the first place. First of all, the law that she was supporting was passed in 2007 and it changed the existing sodomy laws to specifically make oral and anal sex criminal ONLY as to homosexual men. The Parliament went out of their way to change the laws so that they discriminated against homosexuals. Second, this is a country that punishes many offenses by caning. Remember Michael Fay? His punishment for vandalism was caning, which is a routine punishment for crimes in Singapore. Caning would clearly qualify as cruel and unusual punishment in the United States. Finally, Singapore imposes the death penalty for drug trafficking. The death penalty is mandatory for possession of 0.53 ounces or more of heroin. This is another clear case of cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have Ms. Thio as a visiting professor teaching some other course, but it was a gross oversight for NYU to invite her to teach Human Rights.
36 = FAIL
"As an African-American man working in the LawITS department, and simultaneously a student at NYU..."
RIF
i could never date a woman like that. Her hands would make me feel even tinier.
117 = FAIL.
Signed 117
Anybody who needs a job and has a tech background and really really good grades, go here: https://accounts.craigslist.org/post/shwpst?pii=1263403703&db=lv
Is it just me, or is she doing exactly what she accuses everyone else of doing. Why is she the allowed to espouse her "views" but those who have different views are just attacking or bullying her? She believes that being gay should not be normalized. Others believe that view is discriminatory towards, duh, gay people. Why can't she have a debate about that without calling her opponents names?
Otherwise, she's really stacked the deck in her favor. "I must be allowed to espouse beliefs that some find discriminatory, but if you call them discriminatory or make any argument comparing them to other forms of discrimination, I will cry BULLY"
Lame
"Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate" how does that work out?
109 - anti-sodomy laws were on the books to do nothing but discriminate and create a hostile environment for gay people. I believe the Texas law didn't even apply to opposite sex couples.
Look, there is not comparison to the weight of the struggle for African American rights and gay rights. But it can be an informative comparison when properly tempered.
Gay people can not get married, To each other. Can't adopt children in some states. Don't have the right to visit their partner in the hospital. Don't benefit from the multitude of tax benefits afforded straight couples. Its not just about the sex - there is a significant amount of entrenched discrimination against same sex couple in this country. Can it begin to compare to what African Americans have endured? No, but there is still a very significant amount of discrimination nonetheless.
109, thanks for a considered response, I think. And thanks for the laffs, I think. I won't call "remedy" a freudian slip since I don't know you. But Loving is apposite, my friend, with regard to Virginia's stated justification for its law. The ban on gay marriage impacts everyone equally---no one is allowed to marry within his/her sex. Wether there is a "widespread campaign" against gays is not relevant to the analysis, unless you surmise that the intent to oppress drives the scrutiny, separate from the distinction being made. And I don't think that's so.
Here's a thought. How about we support both free speech AND gay rights in this country. To follow the debate you'd think we had to choose between one or the other.
I notice that no one is defending thio the person now, only her right to teach. I think the intellectual depth of her verbose whining exposes her as not competent to teach at a top tier university. Her credentials be damned; if she can't put up a good non-whiney argument against a non-law undergrad, how will she handle debating against some of the smartest and well prepared kids in the country? What is she going to do? Ask people who don't agree with her to leave the classroom? Charge them with slander? Ask they be flogged?
Nyu really dropped the ball with this hire. If you are going to hire someone for the purpose of challenging peoples views, you gotta hire a roberts, not a thomas.
I agree with the poster above I recommend everyone who disagrees with her views or her competence to send a pack of straws to nyu law school deans office. And no one should register for her class. Or more devious, fill up her class and then add/drop out, be creative.
She has every right to have her rediculous views in this awesome country. Just don't expect a school to pay you for it
116 - "First of all, the law that she was supporting was passed in 2007 and it changed the existing sodomy laws to specifically make oral and anal sex criminal ONLY as to homosexual men."
On the assumption it is true, I'm not surprised. Wtching women express their love each other can often be a thing of beauty!
Angry liberals feel threatened by someone, so they whine and name-call and accuse of being a bigot, racist, homophobic, kitten murdering, child molester. Instead of attacking her arguments, they go after her character and beliefs. After all, if you can tear down the person, you don't have to challenged their ideas (which would actually require them to think about what she has said).
"What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake 'liberal neutrality'"
Wait, so NYU is a totalitarian society ruled by an IT guy who imposes his fake liberal neutrality on the professors? Wow, things have really gone downhill there, I guess...
122, she means to point out that Singapores anti-gay Jim Crow laws do not forbid gays learning to read.
Well, yes, she means to say that since they have all the money, and tend to be well educated, the Jews, sorry, I mean, the gays, don't need to have their religion, I mean, sexual orientation, recognized unless they convert. And, anyway, why do they have all that property anyway, when we can confiscate it, for the good of the country?
128 - her arguments have been left in a smoldering pile of ruins in other threads. Keep up.
106, 107 - the holocaust-denying Northwestern professor (Butz), teaches electrical engineering. I think that is a little different than having a person who hates gays teaching classes on human rights.
In her speech, Thio had used public health as the justification for the sodomy laws, but in her 18 point memo she is talking about an altogether different phenomenon: "My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say "some" because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm)." Coercive teaching has never been part of any "so-called homosexual agenda" (in this phraseology she shares with Scalia dissenting in Romer). Rather, it is the heterosexual agenda that has coercively been promoting its own superiority. Thio would do well to read Adrienne Rich's "compulsory heterosexuality." Moreover, where would the harm lie in teaching the existence of homosexuality alongside heterosexuality? If gayness is something that can be taught and innocent heterosexual schoolchildren/teen seduced away from the rightful path, then perhaps heterosexuality was never firm to begin with? Thio evinces a view of homosexuality as a contagion, a view which is highly problematic in the context of basic tents of human rights to say the least, and this slippery slope argumentative style should have been corrected in her fancy English boarding school papers. That she makes such arguments with a post-graduate education, before Parliament, and to an audience of law faculty is laughable. (Incidentally, her arguments on the consequences of allowing homosexuality reveal her to be hysterical, and one theory of hysteria in women is that it arises from repressed homosexuality.)
mystal ended a sentence with a preposition
While liberal douchebaggery has reached all time heights at most top law schools, I think NYU is the worst. It has truly become a festering TTT.
Am I the only one who finds this hysterical???
"c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say "some" because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats."
Is she really saying that she's ok with gays so long as they accept their position as inferior to heteros?
I am also at a loss to see how some people think that "condoning" sodomy will lead to some torrent of ass sex everywhere you turn. Seriously. I'm gay. Love women, but I've got no interest in sleeping with them. I figure the vast majority of straight guys are cool with men but have no interest in sleeping with men. What's so scary then about letting willing men sleep together without fear of government reprisal?
Mystal has succeeded in drafting a post that did not bring a mountain of calumny upon his writing, research, and reasoning. Good show.
What's perverted about sex between two men?
What's perveted about sex between a man and a woman with giant hands?
What's perverted about sex between a closeted woman from Singapore and another woman?
The constitution makes NYU pay you to say whatever you want?! SWEET! I knew I should have read that thing.
Another AdHANDimum attack!
to: 106-07
re: NU prof
Nope. Close, but no.
Signed,
15 second Internet search
Damn, that dude was pwned. Stick to IT and straws in your nose.
Gays are rich in Singapore, Asians are polite, and thus they don't need rights! Well, I'm glad we worked all that out.
I think she needs to stop reading ATL.
Honeybunch, if you can't stand the (ATL) Heat, stay out of Hell's Kitchen - and every other New York neighborhood - please!
I note how she relies on her unidentified Gay Friend who opposes the "gay agenda." Is that like, "Doctor, I have this friend who experiences tremendous pain when she pees?"
Thio=Lat in a wig
none of the law students that are getting all worked up about this will have the balls to take her class and confront her. they'll all be too worried about getting a bad grade and ruining their gpa. True convictions? I think not
142, the IT guys wasn't pwnd. At all. If anything Thio looks like a lightweight.
146 = pass/fail? Also, doesn't that concern, in and of itself, justify a closer look at the hiring decision?
Thio's remarks are based on reason and logic. Her opponents are, for the most part, shallow ad hominems. She sees functionality and purpose in human body parts, and thinks people should act accordingly. Her opponents emote and compare her to the KKK.
If those defending same-sex intercourse cannot defend their position with reasonable arguments, they should remove themselves from public debate.
Gay
142 - As an IT professional, I find that racist. I hereby declare you a bully!
149 are you being ironical?
@ 86:
Her class has five primary bids and four alternate bids. Her seminar has one primary bid and four alternate bids. Close to an empty hall, but I'm embarrassed that we'll be on her resume.
"She sees functionality and purpose in human body parts, and thinks people should act accordingly. "
So do I and they are a lot more fun than a straw!
I could put her hands to good use.
149--no--an example of an ad hominem attack would be saying Dr. Thio has great big nasty man hands. Everyone from Bryan Leiter, to the NYU administration, to homely atl posters have questions the logic and sense of Thio's arguments. As to your comment about the functionality of body parts, would you have sterile couples, old people, and sensible people practicing birth control jailed or prohibited from marrying? Didn't think so. When you jack off into your tube socks, are you putting your member to the use for which it is intended?
TTThio has man hands
she also looks and sounds like a self hating closeted lesbian.
I was also on the e-mail exchange in question, and I sent a rebuttal of her laundry list, which she has already responded to with another laundry list--I think this one might be even longer! I will not be posting it to abovethelaw, but somehow she thinks www.firstamendmentcenter.org is a gay activist website.
I wonder how either one of these people would do in a smack down with the Kung Fu King of 63 Wall Street? The MMA grounding could be mistaken for a Singapore Sling
@88 -- What the hell are you talking about? Do some research before saying things such as "I think Israel has a ban on interracial relationships". At least you are using "I think" and thus positioning yourself as an idiotic fool rather than a liar.
I hereby christen this Singaporean scholar
DR. LI-HAND THING
(with "Thing" of course referring to the Adam's Family pet: http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/pun/190/thingaddamremote1.jpg).
149: See here: http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2009/07/liann-thiao-nyus-antigay-bigot-and-visiting-professor.html
The opposing argument has been fiercely advocated and litigated over the past fifty years, in a variety of fora. You have to be kidding. Thio's position has lost and continues to lose in every country in which it is attacked. Read some of those opinions before you sound like an idiot again.
"What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as "bigoted" and ignorance or "hatred" "
Well, that's what it is. There is no such thing as "principled moral opposition" to homosexuality. That's like "principled moral opposition" to grass. Perhaps this speaks to how far human rights dialogue has to come. Welcome to New York, Professor. I hope you keep an open mind.
don't let the door hit you on the way out, thio.
Wait, 162, you mean there is not "principled moral opposition" to people or groups I don't like? How ever will social conservatism survive?
157 - Prove it. On the assumption she didn't kick your ass in the debate you guys had over email, and assuming she didn't ask you to keep it to yourself, I can't see any reason why you should not post it (since it buttresses your argument). Otherwise, the irresistable inference here is that she nailed the argument and you just want to rant on this site and pick on selected parts of her argument because you lost the overall debate.
This whole debate might be pointless.
Bidding on classes - this new horrendously misguided ABRA debacle - ended last night, and Dr. Thio's classes are embarrassingly empty. Her two-credit Constitutionalism in Asia Seminar garnered a whopping 5 bids - 1 primary and 4 alternates. Her 3-credit Human Rights Law in Asia class earned itself 5 primary bids and 4 alternates.
NYU has canceled classes with more interest than hers. Let's see how they respond to this.
I think it is funny and sad that the gay community has gained the apparent moral high ground in the debate about the legalization of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. It is ridiculous that an abhorrent and deviant practice that for nearly all of history has been universally condemned is now a moral positive.
But, I guess there can be no moral condemnation in a morally bankrupt society. Way to go gays!!!
I am 157. I am not the ITS employee. My argument was separate.
Apparently I am "narrow-minded," "recklessly ignorant," "malicious", a "bully," "intimidatory," "blunderbuss," "disappointing," "designed only to denigrate and harm," "ridiculous," "insidious," "snide," "disgraceful," "foolish,"impertinent," "sad," "lop-sided, "motivated by both malice and a blatant disregard for accuracy," "vicious," and "very good at sneering." Also I apparently make a "liberal use of abuse and smear tactics to illiberally oppress others."
Is there anything left in her thesaurus?
BIGOTTED NYU VISITING PROF FROM SGP IS A BIGGOT
168 (and 157) - would be great if you could post it; if she resorted to name calling, then what's your objection to posting the entire email rather than continually giving us excerpts which are prone to misinterpretation?
Is it just man on man sex she has a problem with or all homo sex? Does she have a similar nose/straw analogy to two chicks tonguing each other?
167 = complete failure at history, knowledge, reason, rationality and tolerance. 167 is likely that fat conservative white male in law school with the butt-ugly wife, no job prospects, and permanent spite against the modern world and all of its "moral bankruptcy." Just know that everyone laughs at how pathetic you are, 167.
Additionally, for a sample of how ignorant 167 is, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
Haha 157, I'm 153 and I would love to read that.
@ 166 - I don't think the ABRA results make this pointless: the more people know about her, the less registrations she'll get. There's still plenty of time for her to get a horrible showing in the next few rounds of bidding.
partners at quinn are subjected to homosex sensitivity training all the time. it is no big deal.
quinn stud (ex-gay)
With those hands maybe she is a guy...wouldn't that be interesting.
168/157 again. To all those concerned, she has apparently learned to not use the word homosex, as I discovered in her e-mail to me. Congrats Thio!
Does anyone have any other pictures of this lady? I'd really like to vet the size of those paws.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20957920@N07/2040584722
Reactionary art to her straw/nose analogy
168 - you're lying.
168 - you're lying.
You've got something on your face, Jerry. Let me get that for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL4cmFW_GU
@162, though I agree with your stance, I must disagree with your semantics. Technically you could also say one has a "principled moral opposition" to murder or rape just the same as grass or homosexuality or Thio or Teletubbies or whatever other noun/verb you want to insert.
I for one agree as far as one can't technically have "moral opposition" in a physical universe devoid of good and evil. Please excuse my tone emotion-ridden conservatives and liberals, I am in a somewhat nihilist/apathetic mood at this moment.
It's pretty strange for Dr. Li-Ann Thio to hide behind the benefits of free speech, she doesn't seem to understand that she is a bigot, and that is why people are upset.
Should academia open its doors to Holocaust deniers under the guise of open and frank discourse? Perhaps, but the academic should expect a torrent of abuse, rightly so.
Go back fifty years, and I can see Dr. Li-ann Thio arguing fervently against the repeal of anti miscegenation laws. After all, diversity is no excuse for perversity, a full blooded Singaporean marrying a Laotian is like building a museum inside a ghetto.
Using the same logic as most of these posts, there is also no moral justification to speak out against fornication.
124 - HAHA I didn't even read the sentence that way. Good catch.
"Loving" was based on a broad law from 1923-ish that sprouted from the eugenics movement. Virginia's justification was directly tied to that racial purity farce. SCOTUS upheld it in 1927-ish for a different context. It was only struck as part of the broader civil rights movement to eradicate Jim Crow side-steps.
Better or worse, our cases are based on stating specific controversies with specific parties. That means that one plaintiff can't take on every racially prejudicial component of a racist system. That also means each controversy component is subject to selective citing. Phrases are taken out of context and factual background is ignored. And judicial law is useless (as well as unconstitutional) w/o facts.
To make the race rulings apposite, all G&Ls need to do is convince everyone that G&Ls are deserving of special protections as a special class. But that controvenes the "we just want to be equal" public relations onslaught.
So til then, it's just a matter of screaming BIGOT & HOMOPHOBE at people.
184- Or adultery for that matter.
Ironic that each paragraph of Dr. Thio's statement says she's "tired" because damn I'm exhausted reading that missive. It's a little early to be so "tired" of this debate. Anyhow, talk about buckshot approach.....she should find a decent theme/platform on the topic and stick with it. She throws out so many "defenses" of her position, many of them hilarious, like:
1. Don't worry about gays in here Singapore....they're doing their anal stuff in fancy condo's in A/C and we aint even bothering them right now.
2. Many of my friends are ex gays.
3. NYU is guilty of mistreating me by failing to shut down the internet where a bunch of people are picking apart my illogical comments.
159-touched a nerve did I.
Halakha prohibits marriage of Jews to non-Jews. The Rabbinate in Israel will not perform a marriage between a halakhic Jew (one born of a Jewish mother or Jewish by conversion) to a non-Jew or to a "non-halakhic Jew", even if the non-halakhic Jew is considered a Jew under Israeli civil law, such as a person of Jewish paternal descent. This is regardless of whether the halakhic Jew is Orthodox. [122] Multi-faith couples must get married outside of Israel to avoid this discrimination, most often in Cyprus.
She is totally Palin-ing. this is getting embarrassing for females everywhere
Mystall is being unfair. why can't she "blast out an 18-point memo every time some student writes down all of the ways in which he believes you are a terrible human being"? So a student and a gay activitist entitled to freedom of speech, but she as someone opposing the homosexual agenda is not entitled to free speech? The coverage of the debate has started to become gross.
uh, 190, she could write a 100000 word email every single damn time. But she's not going to have time for all of the "scholarship" and "teaching" (ha) she is supposed to do. Dude. Are you special needs?
140 = win
191: unfortuantely, opposing homosexual legislation is one area of her scholarship research. Responding to students and helping them learn her views is her responsibility as a professor.
She should have written much more and should respond each time she thinks a student misunderstands her or needs correction. That's not only her freedom of speech rights but also her professional calling (as a legislator and as a professor).
AbovetheLaw has not been in a neutral position in covering the debate from day 1. But I guess it is a good way to silence people by depriving them their freedom of speech rights. In this sense, abovethelaw is really making itself ABOVE THE LAW.
That is a good question. DOES Dr. TTThio think hot girl on girl action is like inserting a straw into your nose to drink?
homosexual is sin, because the Bible says so.
For those of you who think Lawrence v. Texas is more authoritative than the Bible, answer these:
1) Why supreme court justice swears in, they have to place their left hand on the Bible, and not on Lawrence v. Texas?
2) If Supreme Court justices are more correct than the Bible, why do they even need the Bible when they swear in the President of the United States?
193; it isn't. In fact, she wrote "Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now"
Again. I have to ask. Are you special needs?
195 FTW.
As usual, the Left on the whole and the Academic Left in particular has no tolerance for dissenting views. Indeed, typically, the Left believes that those who adhere to the Leftist program are morally superior, and those who do not are merely expressing prejudice.
In sum, not only has (most of) the Left given up on liberal education and reasonable, civil, open debate, the Left now poses the greatest threat to it.
For the Left, there is nothing but personal condemnation of those who dare to think differently.
27 - you jokingly suggest a ban on sex between african americans. how about instead, i donnow, abortion on demand. 15 million unborn black babies dead so far. like a halfway ban on sex, really. what the segregationists could never accomplish, the self-righteous progressives have accomplished in just a generation or so.
195 - the stupidity of your statement is beyond belief.
A member of Congress has also taken the oath on *Thomas Jefferson's* copy of the Koran. Are we now governed by that as well?
Care to try any of the other non-sensical arguments that they taught you in right wing nut job camp?
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2007/07-001.html
198, does reasonable, civil and open debate include referring to a group of people as "perverts" who engage in "unnatural" sex habits, akin to "sticking a straw up one's nose to drink?"
I'm all for reasonable, civil and open debate, but I have yet to see the anti-gay crowd here, including La Thio, engage in it. One cannot engage in name calling and other immature tacitics, like Thio, and then accuse the opposition of similar tactics.
And as Elie mentioned, free speech goes both ways. She gets to spew her ignorance and we get to respond. You cannot shut down a debate that you started by yelling free speech. That's just ridiculous.
The fact is that the view of Thio and many anti-gay posters is not grounded in reason and logic. It is grounded in disgust for all that is "unnatural." So don't cry about pro-gay posters making emotive arguments and not using reason and logic. Reason and logic are on our side -- there is no rational basis for discriminating against gays. Only years and years of disgust taught by various religious institutions which have been handed down from generation to generation. It "skeeves" you out. Certainly not a rational explanation for discrimination.
As for the public health canard, let's say that I wear a condom every time I have anal sex. I'm HIV negative. I am less of a threat to the public health system than a straight person, such as yourself, who probably does not wear a condom every time you have sex. Should we only discriminate against the gays that don't wear protection? Should we also then discriminate against the straights who don't wear protection?
You have no arguments to support your positions other than the Bible says its so and it makes me feel icky. And that is not a reasoned argument. It is a make believe story.
-- Lawyer Gay
Lawyer Gay -
Your statement is an example of the Leftist intolerance I described. You wrote:
"The fact is that the view of Thio and many anti-gay posters is not grounded in reason and logic. It is grounded in disgust for all that is 'unnatural.'"
In other words, you are absolutely certain that (1) not only is she incorrect, but (2) she is irrational. But perhaps you only disagree and there is in fact a reasonable case for her position.
Perhaps you consider calling particular acts "perverse" irrational, but quite a few educated persons do not. Perhaps there is such a thing as perversity. Perhaps there is such a thing as "unnatural." And perhaps, the homosexual act is "perverse" or "unnatural" (it might be one but not the other - or neither).
Let's hear the arguments rather than deciding a priori that the side we happen to disagree with is mindless.
202 - its so easy to shoot holes in your "argument" that they really aren't arguments at all.
If our government wants to be in the business of regulating "perversion" between two consenting adults, then it needs to apply to straight people too.
Its a simple proposition - ALL anti-gay arguments boil down to "I don't like thinking about wht you do in the bedroom" or "the Bible/my priest/the televengelist tells me that being gay is wrong." Neither of those are vlid legal arguments or based in any was in reality.
Lawyer Gay is simply asking for any sound argument that doesn't rely on one of these two assumptions. Otherwise, you can't argue against hate or a discrimination-fueled point of view.
There is a rational and non-religious case for discouraging homosexuality under the law.
I would try to explain one version of that case, but you've made it clear that you've already decided that no arguments against what you believe are valid.
If you are truly interested in seeking out such arguments and pondering them, you will be able to find them in any university library (and probably on the internet, too).
204 - that was easy. See ya later.
true - it is always easier to keep yourself from thinking.
I'm going to avoid stepping into the substantive waters of this debate, because I don't think that ATL readers have the brainpower to tackle the issue in any productive manner. But two quick points:
1. I would say, however, that the argument above doesn't get anywhere when one side just calls the other ignorant, while the "ignorant" side whines about being a victim rather than engaging the issue.
2. People seem to be ignoring Thio's primary point: she doesn't seem to be attacking the substantive results of the "gay agenda" (what a stupid term, but it'll do), but rather the means used by "gay advocates" to achieve their objectives. I think that's a decidedly different issue.
I'm just surprised with all this bickering, even the anti-gay crowd has not stooped so low as to compare consensual adult sodomy in the privacy of one's bedroom to beastiality, sex with minors, or bigamy/polygamy.
Thank you.
And in the end, I have to say that this blog did some good. People were made aware of the person and honestly the only people that signed up for TTThio were either the 4 only conservative people at NYU or people that don't read this blog.
I would say this blog has an expansive readership:P
Hey 204, if it's so easy and straight forward, would you mind sharing it?
204 - I think 205 was viewing your response as a cop out because, well it sounds like one.
There's this really nifty thing called a hyperlink - point us to a modern source that makes a case against the legality of gay sex that doesn't have at its core a religious argument or one of not liking to think about gay sex.
Then, show me how the impact of that argument could be fairly applied to all people - not just gay people. Because if you only want it applied to gay people, we are back to square one on the "I don't like thinking about it" point.
For example, let me help you out. If you would like to argue that there are public health costs associated with not criminalizing gay sex, you have to show me why the same doesn't hold true for straight couples. Which you can't do.
If you want to argue that society has an interest in supporting reproduction and families, then you need to argue (and try not to be too Brave New World about it) why, as a logical extension of that argument, straight people should be allowed to engage in sexual relationships while taking steps to avoid pregnancy. Of course, this ignores the entire line of counterarguments about the quality of parenting provided by same sex couples of adopted children...and doesn't society also have an interest in encouraging adoptions?
You see, I must admit, gay people have an inherent advantage in these discussions. When you grow up and various people are constantly telling you that being gay is "wrong", "perverse", "gross", "a choice", etc... you spend a lot of time thinking about their arguments.
So, its not that we want to keep ourselves from thinking. Its that, drilling down to the core of the anti-gay arguments you see that they are all rooted in "hate" or religiously driven hate.
More importantly - we want you to think.
Crickets, crickets
Waiting for the inevitable "but they're icky" or "but they're deviant" or "but they'll make me gay too" or "but think of the children (whose heterosexual parents are perfect)" or ...
1 - 211: Roxana
FOR THE LAST TIME, one cannot argue with or debate social conservatives using the powers of reason and rationality. Social conservatives must be laughed at, pitied, and generally ignored. Much like they are in everyday life in cities large and small across America and the western world.
As the minister said about Gov. Sanford,
I'm sure the university feels the same.
"We pray that Dr. Thio goes into a more silent mode"
If you want to think about the rational and non-religious arguments against treating homosexuality as equal to the love between men and women, there are many works, ancient and modern, relating to the question.
You might start by thinking about why even very homosexual friendly societies - e.g., ancient Athens - have never allowed homosexual marriage. Plato, who did not seem to think that there was anything immoral about homosexuality, proposed many radical ideas in his works that relate to love, the family, and rearing children (see, e.g., the fifth book of the Republic), but he never proposed homosexual marriage. This despite the fact that he has Aristophanes make an argument for love in The Symposium that embraces homosexual love as equal to other kinds of love, at least in terms of its psychological and erotic union, and this argument goes uncontradicted.
That's one starting point.
Another starting point is this book review:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1511/article_detail.asp
But these are just two of many rationalist and non-religious starting points. It's just a matter of looking for them.
Of course, even if one is against homosexual marriage, it doesn't also require criminalizing sodomy. But one might understand better the argument against holding homosexuality in equal regard as the love between men and women.
Wait, if she had the support of the "vast majority" of Singaporeans when she gave her speech, then why is she patting herself on the back for not bowing to the "intimidatory tactics" of the "homosex activists"? What's so courageous about agreeing with a bigoted majority that a sexual minority group should continue to be oppressed? Oh that's right, absolutely nothing. Shut it Thio.
Is 204 serious? "I totally have a GREAT answer that would totally shut you down. But too bad, I don't feel like telling you. Hmph, so there."
I had the pleasure of challenging Dr. TTTHIO to an arm-wrestling contest, but her grip was over the top and unbeatable!
By the way, did anyone catch perhaps the best line in the manifesto: "We do not tolerate such... intolerance in Singapore!"
215 - I appreciate the references to Republic & The Symposium. However, it would have been highly unlikely for Plato to have been able to even conceive of same sax marriage as a viable possibility. To say that he didn't make an argument for something is not to say that he considered it and rejected it on sound moral and philosophical grounds. I presume that he didn't also make an argument against space travel or commercial aviation, but that doesn't mean he actually considered it.
Moreover, Plato would have been significantly more liberal and accepting in this respect than the Good Professor. Keep in mind, that she is not framing the debate in terms of whether same sex marriage should be accepted, but whether the very act of gay sex should be a criminal act.
Next, its a little challenging to make an argument against Ms. Graglia, because she is such a right wing mouthpiece herself. It is quite interesting that someone who was able to go to Columbia law school because of feminism and equal rights initiatives would then go on to criticize women for pursuing similar actions.
That being said, the central theme of her argument appears to be that allowing for same sex marriage will be yet another nail in the coffin of traditional families in this country, and contribute to the continued downward spiral that we are on.
Of course, that presupposes the fact that the country, from a moral point of view, is progressing negatively and not positively. In many respects, I would disagree with that. If women still stayed at home and were unable to obtain gainful employment in professional positions, do you think George Bush would not have affirmatively decided to torture our enemies (a cheap shot, I know). To the contrary, I find the general moral trajectory of our nation and the world over the past 50 years to be generally positive. Women have gained more equality. African Americans have a long way to go but we do have an African American president.
But, the fundamental problem with the argument is one of unfair application. If you really buy the Graglia argument that society must be saved, than our policy makers would need to regulate and "undo" the long line of actions that Gragliia undoubtedly also blames for the undoing of our society. Simply because gay people are an easy target with relatively little true political power, does not entitle her to pin her thesis and the alleged hopes of this country on not permitting gay marriage. For, we all know, that if similar actions were to be proposed to require women to stay at home, the roar alleging illegality would be deafening. As well it should be - it would be unconstitutional.
So, here we have a thinly veiled policy argument against gay marriage. What is so troubling to gay rights activists is the fact that, decades of stigma, allow people to make these types of arguments against us with a straight face. However, we are late to the party on this argument and the real underlying explanation for Graglia's perceived social ills - women's equality - would only generate a handful of posts agreeing with her analysis. However, blame the gays, and its a field day.
The good Dr. totally takes in the can.
At what point exactly did the tactics of gay advocates become the focus of her opposition? Presumably she didn't initially support the criminalization of a private sexual act between consenting adults because she was bullied by the dreaded "homosex" fanatics? If she continues to stand behind her support for a criminal prohibition of sodomy, then I'm sorry, but it's completely incoherent for her to say that her primary objection is to the bullying ways of gay rights advocates. Her objection is to the private expression of gay sexuality. If she doesn't have the guts to say so plainly, then she doesn't even have the integrity to stand up for her own bigoted views.
At what point exactly did the tactics of gay advocates become the focus of her opposition? Presumably she didn't initially support the criminalization of a private sexual act between consenting adults because she was bullied by the dreaded "homosex" fanatics? If she continues to stand behind her support for a criminal prohibition of sodomy, then I'm sorry, but it's completely incoherent for her to say that her primary objection is to the bullying ways of gay rights advocates. Her objection is to the private expression of gay sexuality. If she doesn't have the guts to say so plainly, then she doesn't even have the integrity to stand up for her own bigoted views.
This seems to be the most sensible approach to this problem for NYU:
Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he would not advise NYU to rescind the invitation to Thio to teach there. But he said that it would be legitimate to raise questions about whether she should be teaching human rights.
"Academic freedom protects you from retaliation for your extramural remarks, but it does not protect you from being prohibited from teaching in an area where you are not professionally competent, and there are doubts on whether she has the competency in human rights," Nelson said. He said that there is in fact an "international consensus, save a few countries like Iran" that gay people should not be treated as criminals.
What she is actually qualified to teach is somewhat unclear to me.
Are her classes going to be cancelled - given the lack of any real interest?
224 here - that last sentence was an editorial addition by me.
At a recent NYU social event at nearby Bowlmore Lanes, there was an awkward moment when Dr. TTThio's fingers got stuck in the size 13 bowling ball.
you have committed fornication
but that was in another contry
and besides the boy is dead
where have you gone perry ell
my fashion lover and all my lovers gone
what have you to tell me now
cheeks n buns is made fer fun
nuttin else'l do
How does America reconcile the Bible's teachings on homosexuality with the current permissive stance towards the same?
When you finally get to meet and share your views with Thio Li-ann, please note that her views against homosexuality are derived from what she perceives as God's word. Her various intellectual arguments on point are only ancillary to what she truly believes. She needs to be confronted at the source of her beliefs; engaging her on the other arguments are less likely to be productive as she is otherwise pretty intelligent and quite capable of smoking the audience out.
Do note that during the 2007 Singapore parliamentary debates, several Members of Parliament from the ruling party proferred intellectual and moral arguments for decriminalizing sex between men. So even the ruling PAP was not united on this issue and Thio represented the single most extreme voice then. I think she clearly has a lot of issues and a lot to prove, as (sorry) with some who are zealously religious. Please understand that I am not criticizing religious liberty or anything like that; it's just that questions need to be asked when someone goes over the top based on her own interpretation of religion to the extent the perception of reality is distorted.
How can a professor of law advocate for a particular law and then argue that it's good law because it will not be routinely enforced??? Doesn't that diminish the legitimacy of rule of law altogether? Or worse yet, doesn't it permit the enforcer to selectively enforce it against those who do not agree with him or her? And she must have some seriously self-hating gay friends if they support her position on sodomy...
SHAME ON NYU.
Next they'll be hiring KKK PhDs.
SHAME ON NYU.
Next they'll be hiring KKK PhDs.
222-win. That is exactly the point. Dr. Theo's statements -- the ones she's catching shit for -- do not lambast the tactics and political platforms of the LBGT community. She objects to where a person places his genitals in private. Not only does she object to that private act, she wants to keep a law that would make that act a crime in Singapore. Very different than being annoyed/against the "LBGT agenda." She'd like for a gay guy to be at risk of arrest for making love to his partner, but ironically, SHE'S portraying herself as the victim of an "agenda." Once again, an embarrassment to the NYU community in that she is illogical, inconsistent and very publicly so.
I'm about 212 comments too late, but 18 is the credited response. I'm all for academic freedom - particularly hearing divergent points of view. But this [bigoted] bitch is dumber than a box of hair - she should stay in Singapore on that basis alone.
What most people in the States + Europe fail to realize is that politicial correctness is purely a Western construct. We try to force views like teaching the legitimacy of homosexuality on the rest of the world, but they laugh at this. Prostitution is also sex between two consenting adults. Recreational drug use is also an act that is an individual choice. However, overt homosexual behaviour, prostitution and drug use also have effects on society. These things have been regulated (to varying degrees in different societies) throughout the world for hundreds of years.
I love the U.S., but I hate American academia... such a stifling environment and it breeds graduates who have no idea how to interract with the rest of the world and who, despite their professed assertions otherwise, still believe themselves to be culturally superior to the rest of the world.
235: If not subjugating, demeaning, criminalizing and selectively prosecuting a large class of people solely based on who they love and choose to engage in sexual relations with means that America is "culturally superior" to countries that do do such things, then FUCK YEAH, America is culturally superior. I'm proud to be an American on that front.
Also, comparing prostitution to same sex relationships is absurd. You should be ashamed of yourself.
236: Would pedophelia be more appropriate? Both staples of the great Roman empire.
Yes, pedophelia [sic] would be more appropriate, 237, you ignorant waste of oxygen.
The fact is that, as a general matter, no one in Singapore (or China or India or countless other countries) is going into peoples' bedrooms and dragging people out to arrest them, but it's activity that is not condoned by Singaporean law or society. Bestiality can also be the sharing of affection between two willing parties, but it's not helpful for society (I won't go into detail on the disease spreading aspect, etc.), so it's not publically condoned.
Anyway, America is what is is, but recognize that most of the world is not and does not want to be.
220 - It's not just Plato and ancient Athens - No society has ever had homosexual marriage. I realize such a fact doesn't deter "progressives" who think that their insights are inherently superior to any other ways of thinking simply because they were born more recently - but it should at least cause us to ask why this might be the case. What is it about marriage that it has always been between the opposite sexes.
Even accepting that the law is not readily enforced in any of those countries, the criminalization of sexual conduct between two men means MUCH more than that the conduct is not publically condoned; it means that the lives of homosexuals are demeaned and expressly regarded as criminal. As J. Kennedy said in Lawrence, "[w]hen homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." 239, you are wrong and your analogy to bestiality is not even worthy of a response.
220 -
I see someone just responded to you in one way. I would like to make two different points.
First, the argument was over whether there exists a rational and non-religious position against treating homosexuality as the same as the love between a man and woman. A number of commenters denied out of hand that such a position exists. I provided two examples. You didn't find them persuasive, but the point remains that they are rational and non-religious positions. And they are just two of a number of possible approaches.
Second, I knew already that you disagreed, and I wasn't thinking I would persuade you in a few moments. I was pointing out that there are different ways of approaching the issue than the ones that commonly define the debate now. Obviously, your opinion on the matter is at least as strongly held as mine. But that should not stop either of us from making independent inquiries so as better to seek out the truth, separate from the political contention of the moment.
Respectfully,
215
Hey, 195 (and 310/349 from Friday's post) -
I would hope that you, like a lot of people on ATL, are just a troll, but you seem stupid in a way that would be hard to fake. To answer your questions, Lawrence is more authorative, because we have a Constitutional government, not a theocracy. See U.S. Const. Art. III & Amend. Art. I. And check out the rest of the Constitution. The only place Christ or the Lord comes up is in the date.
And FYI, they don't need to swear on the Bible. Washington did, and it kind of stuck. But, in case you're wondering, Obama didn't swear on the Bible. Not officially. The first time, when Roberts flubbed it and Obama didn't say the oath exactly right, yeah, there was a Bible. But the second time, in private, when he got the oath right, he didn't use a Bible. But then you probably think Obama is a Muslim who doesn't have a valid U.S. birth certificate, you ignorant fuck.
Note two things I'm not doing. I'm not claiming you are an ignorant fuck from Kansas, Alabama or any of the other places ATL commenters like to trash. There are plenty of smart people in both those states and all the other red states. And there are plenty of ignorant fucks in blue states. But wherever you're from, you're an ignorant fuck.
The other thing I'm not doing is shouting you down, you ignorant fuck. I wholeheartedly support your right to say whatever you want, you ignorant fuck, and whatever you think, you ignorant fuck. It's just that you're such an ignorant fuck that I figured you might be ignorant of the fact that you are, in fact, an ignorant fuck. Therefore, I am telling you, you ignorant fuck, that you are an ignorant fuck, and I am telling you repeatedly, because you're so fucking ignorant, I probably have to repeat it for you.
Ultra-liberal NYU Law student here. As part of being a liberal, I value rights. Bundled within those rights is that of free speech. Let her say whatever she wants, and hopefully she will let you rebuff them as much as you can.
This reaction is a little overboard, in my opinion. There are probably professors at every law school in the country who share these views -- however, not all of them held public positions where their every word was tape-recorded. Let's not lose sight of ourselves here and think that learning from a bigot is really going to change anything. If anything, it should help you learn the counter-arguments to your position and place you in a better spot when faced with those arguments.
Let's see how her first year goes and allow her to prove herself before going further. For all we know, she could be a fantastic professor. Firing her because she has a disagreeable view would be one-hundred and eighty degrees from what the law is supposed to be: an open forum for debate.
241: There are lots of behaviours that are not condoned by a society, and of course the societal prohibition has an impact on the affected individuals. But ultimately, it's a society's decision.
We'll see what the next several hundreds of years bring for the globe. Maybe the whole world will become "enlightened" and politically correct. But to persecute one woman who has espoused the views that the vast majority of societies have espoused for many millenia (and still espouse today) because she is somehow "unreasonable" is in itself not "reasonable". You'll note that parallels to race are not very applicable here, since only a few societies have had anything comparable to legally enforced segregation, while rarely enforced prohibitions on homosexual activity are actually the norm.
237,
Is that Hamlet's 8-year-old girlfriend?
243 ftw.
Dr. Li-ann is a Cunt. Sorry, but that is all. Cannot have a rational debate with an apologist (for Singapore fascism) lunatic.
(I feel less bad using the "C" word given her man-hands.)
I'm conflicted.
On the one hand, Thio's critics might have a point. Her views might be beyond the pale. They might really be offensive...
On the other hand, at NYU I had to sit through a lot of the same leftists who are attacking her for three years of law school at while they acted like jackasses to people who had far less offensive views than her . . .
NYU is soon to be the employer of Richard Epstein.
In deference to lord Epstein, I'll refrain from petty vindictive bullshit that a lot of people I dealt with seemed to prefer to open debate and liberal values of free speech.
238, 248: Thanks so much for the helpful comments. Name-calling really contributes to the debate, and it's great to know that right-wing bigots don't have a monopoly on the practice! =)
This just in: NYU Law students plan to protest by locking Thio in a classroom with "Bruno" on repeat. Psst, Ms. Thio, the safe-word is "fabulous!"
@58 == Sorry that I'm late to the party. You need to take a writing class and/or get a good editor. But the sentiments you expressed are right on. If we live in a free society, you should be able to say what you want, just like Scalia can when he preaches hate under the cover of "originalism."
But seriously -- do you think Scalia fucks his wife up the ass? Seriously, the good Catholic boy has something like 9 kids. I say he does Missionary Position exclusively. May we have an ATL poll on that? Please? Pretty please?
Hey 50 -- Trying to make a joke. Sorry if I'm not funny. One of the risks you run with the First Amendment. Real democracy is not pretty. Nor are the Prof's man-hands or her political views.
Hate is not funny. But she can spew her hate. And I can mock it.
In the words of the Prophet: Fuck You.
I'm with Thio!
Very interesting. She argues in favor of retaining sodomy laws in Singapore because she thinks law is necessary to enforce social norms--informal enforcement (shunning, boycotting, disesteeming, expressing social disapproval, to use the words of Prof. Richard McAdams) is not enough.
Here is a great example of the enforcement of informal social norms in action, just as Ellickson describes. Those who disapprove of her arguments express that social disapproval, by shunning, shaming, boycotting, etc. Seems a bit silly then for her to run to the law to argue that she shouldn't be taunted for her remarks.
I suppose one could argue that there is a competing social norm in academic discourse that means we ought to treat her arguments with civility. But I am all for selective application of that norm only to arguments that are of the sort about which there can be reasoned disagreement. Some arguments--incendiary political arguments of the type that one sees in holocaust denial, segregation advocates, and this one--are not the sort of reasoned scholarship that we should ordinarily treat with the norm of academic civility.
In short, all's fair in political discourse and social norms. Welcome to the US, Dr. Tho.
Because of her, I will now give much less credence to academic degrees and long CVs. This woman has either fried her brain in academia or her stupidity was always overlooked because of her privileged family and credentials.
Her speech in Parliament is weak on logic and long on bigoted casuistry. It might have something to do with her college conversion to Christianity -- she claims she actually heard god call her name when she started to leave religion talk at Oxford.
Or maybe this thin-skinned [but man-handed] egghead protests too much -- even though the Singaporean law targets only men.
58 - Interesting, I didn't know about that. I really like the reminder that sometimes it's important and necessary to be impolite. Thio is either very cynical or just doesn't get it. When someone tries to use the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence against you (by criminalizing gay sodomy), I think being impolite is called for. (I think it should go without saying, but I don't include death threats in the category of merely impolite.) I also think law students can be comically sycophantic when it comes to judges.
128 - I know you were being hyperbolic for effect, but have you read her speech? The child molesting bit you tossed in is something she said in all seriousness. She folds NAMBLA into what she calls "homosexual activists." Well, if man-boy love is part of what she sees as the homosexual agenda, it's no surprise that she could find gays who oppose that agenda. (I don't think she accused us of murdering kittens, though.)
215/242 - I don't agree that your arguments are sound, let alone persuasive. (I'm not 220.) It does not follow from the fact that Plato doesn't endorse (or even mention) same-sex marriage that he or the argument he makes opposes it or sodomy. The other argument (the one you linked to), while more logically coherent, is unsubstantiated. It's too facile to allege that something will have a negative effect on families or the morals of society and lead to corollary problems. Rather than looking at the incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births in countries with more tolerant laws toward gays and comparing those incidences with other countries over the same timeframe, finding a statistical correlation and then doing randomized surveys among divorcees and others who might be incidentally affected by the legalization of gay marriage or analogous policies (or something similarly scientific), the author appears to rely solely on what he perceives as a whole bunch of negative shit that happened to marriage dating back to decades before Lawrence. Maybe gay marriage or legalized sodomy or some other gay-friendly law has had some measurable effect on marriage for everybody else, but if so, who's measured it? It's at least a testable hypothesis, but for as vehemently as many people oppose gay marriage, one would expect to see some real evidence if it existed.
But, 215, you at least tried to make a reasoned argument (not meant sarcastically). Thio didn't even do that. She dismissed whatever scientific evidence is out there on the inherence/immutability of sexual orientation as hopelessly politicized (again, it's in her speech). If she wants to be a professor in the U.S., is it that much to ask that she actually be willing to do her homework? I respect her right to think and speak as she does, and if she's competent to teach anything other than human rights at NYU, then I think she should. But she either is an intellectual lightweight or has a blindspot as big as her hand when it comes to sexual orientation.
248 - Yeah, that furthers the debate (meant sarcastically).
This woman has clearly lost it with that lengthy email. But is it just me reading it wrong or is she at the brink of declining NYU's invitation:
"But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to "sharp disagreement" with their views, is the order of the day"
[No fair, you've all really hurt my feelings now so why should I go.]
"If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so."
[If I'm not given the respect I deserve, I can't care less if I teach at NYU or not.]
"Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me."
[Dean, you had better clear my name or else I will tell my mommy. Worse, I'll just not show up as your students are too stupid to understand my point of view anyway.]
Thio espouses a bigoted and immoral belief structure. End of story.
Dr. Thio
Do not go to NYU. It is filled with gays that practice much anal sodomy and call it love making.
Try Stanford or U of Chicago instead.
In fact do not go to New York City at all except for day trips and an occasional Broadway show.
Personally I did not apply to NYU law because it isn't a top school and I am not gay.
260--Thio's email would get her completely slammed at Stanford (my alma mater) and Chicago (where I was a bigelow). Stop bullying me. Ha! It's not some conspiracy by the leftist movement to show the elite legal academia that this woman is an utter lightweight.
111 took it out of my mouth
God those man hands make me cringe
If you looked liked her you would hate everyone too!
She's a Nazi. I mean really, she rants about the "bullies" in the "pro-gay agenda," but c'mon - when the GOVERNMENT passes laws condemning your lifestyle/beliefs/whatever - I'd say that trumps bullies. She argued on behalf of her government to oppress people. Congrats, she's a Nazi. I'd LOVE to see NYU Law, or anyother law school welcome a professor who advocates a return to slavery. I mean, why not? Why not appoint someone who argues that, "hey, it was in our country's past, it was, at one point constitutional (very conservative belief), let's bring it back." You'd never see this - why? Because it's wrong. This woman is wrong, and NYU is wrong for inviting her for this position (visit human rights professor, really?). If she were invited for any other reason, sure, why not, have at. But inviting her for "human rights" is just a wrong.
Those "death threats" she keeps on about are...IS actually just one email from a gay poet who wrote something about looking forward to pissing on her grave. Understandable, if you ask me - right after her straw-up-nose speech and you know how emotional poets are + he was probably high or drunk.
Anyway, she's a lawyer, her parents are big time lawyers, she threatens an expensive lawsuit against the (not so rich) poet. He caves. Gave a public apology and she magnanimously forgave the dude.
So she's been squeezing this one thing as "death threats", plural. Good grief.
http://pseudonymity.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/alfian-saat-vs-thio-li-ann/
Is saying one wants to "piss on ones grave" really a death threat? Maybe in poor taste, and that's a stretch. What lawsuit? How would that NOT be thrown out in court under the 1st Amendment???
I read the e-mail. Hardly a "death threat". She is such a liar.
This is getting out of hand.
YOU ARE ALL STRAW-STUFFERS.
SINGAPORE SECURE
Given the size of her paws, thought it was worthwhile to dig this one up
http://www.legalreader.com/archives/003557.html
244 - You haven't been in law school very long. Pretty soon you'll start to notice that everyone sounds like you, except this fruitcake.
She's like a fat bridesmaid that makes you feel thin and smart!
272 - Roxana
267 - what 1st amendment dude? that's singapore. they throw gays in jail over there.
She is brave and righteous! God will protect her and be her strength if she teaches at NYU. This is a religious battle and God will prevail as HE always does.
275 - please save it for Pat Robertson's blog. This is a legal blog and we are not living in a theocracy - despite your best efforts.
>>>It's not just Plato and ancient Athens - No society has ever had homosexual marriage. I realize such a fact doesn't deter "progressives" who think that their insights are inherently superior to any other ways of thinking simply because they were born more recently - but it should at least cause us to ask why this might be the case. What is it about marriage that it has always been between the opposite sexes.<<<
I hope I don't need to point out to a lawyer that until quite recently marriage was an exchange of property (a woman.) Allowing same-sex marriage is altering an institution that is barely 100 years old.
277
I recommend putting down the Foucault and reading histories by - well, just about anyone else who's not a Marxist or post-Nietzschean.
If Dr. Thio's hands caress my private parts, would I be gay?
She is a cunning witch.
1. She tries to pitch the gays against the gays.
2. She didn't now says that she wanted all practising gays in Singapore to be jailed, which she advocated.
3. She tries to play the victim now while she and her groups/church is doing just the opposite.
4. She is trying to use New York to further her causes.
Go get legitimated in New York!
She is a cunning witch.
1. She tries to pitch the gays against the gays.
2. She didn't now says that she wanted all practising gays in Singapore to be jailed, which she advocated.
3. She tries to play the victim now while she and her groups/church is doing just the opposite.
4. She is trying to use New York to further her causes.
Go get legitimated in New York!
Dr. Thio -is- a bigot, she -is- anti-gay, she -is- a homophobe, and she -is- a monster.
Basically Thio believes not that just that she has rights, but that she is actually owed something by NYU just because the people she harms object to being harmed.
This is the tactic that is most on the upswing in the anti-gay attack groups. They attack, and then claim victimization when they run into a defence, or even a cry for help. It is pure cynicism.
Homosexuality is not a choice. And it's not a disease or disorder that needs to be 'cured.' Diseases and disorders are bad things, homosexuality is not a bad thing.
These so-called 'ex-gays' will always be homosexuals, no matter how hard they try to change that. But if they want to go through the charade of 'curing' themselves, fine. Whatever floats your boat. But I still feel sorry for them. You must have to come from a truly screwed up environment to hate yourself that much.
Peace.
Ms Thio writes a pretty letter and I would be swayed if I had not watched her speech.
I cried as I watched, at the hate that poured from her mouth. I have never felt so emotionally and morally raped.
But having said that, she should continue in her time in NYU. Those of us in Singapore are bound from engaging her politically - thus perhaps driving some to deplorable ways of justifiable, if misguided, vengeance - NYU law students can do more, and engage her bigoted (straw???) views.
Ms Thio writes a pretty letter and I would be swayed if I had not watched her speech.
I cried as I watched, at the hate that poured from her mouth. I have never felt so emotionally and morally raped.
But having said that, she should continue in her time in NYU. Those of us in Singapore are bound from engaging her politically - thus perhaps driving some to deplorable ways of justifiable, if misguided, vengeance - NYU law students can do more, and engage her bigoted (straw???) views.
so when will she arrive at nyu?
As a Singaporean, I would like to just say that Thio's views are considered repugnant and intellectually bankrupt by many in her own country as well. Unfortunately her views are supported by quite a few in Parliament.
We plead with NYU to NOT rescind her appointment as we eagerly look forward to her being tarred and feathered every single day of her New York tenure by everyone who finds her views similarly unacceptable. Give her hell on our behalf please. She deserves it.
" I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans"
Dear Americans, please do not believe the above, in particular the part about democratic process. We are just so ashamed that she has spouted so much hate from our shores. And the majorityof Singaporeans are looking forward to seeing her off at the airport.
NYU should also know that Thio's family and friends used their fundamentalist church to launch a power grab at a Womans's organisation called "AWARE" to implement their fundie agenda. They were eventually exposed by the press and leaked emails and video evidence, resulting in a vote of no confidence that kicked them out. Thio kept a low profile in the incident, but one would be naive to think theres no link in ideology. This cast doubts on her integrity as an academic.
Hi all,
Ms Thio made a police report when she received a perceived "threatening" letter. See attached:
http://pseudonymity.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/alfian-saat-vs-thio-li-ann/
She is not fit to be lecturing human rights when she is not even able to comprehend what human rights is all about. If she is willing to even promote the idea of intentionally cutting off certain quarters of their basic rights, I do not see how she is fit to lecture on the subject.
Dear Professor Thio,
Please read Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health (MA) and Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (CT)- two cases from the highest State courts which touch New York. Thereafter, you will realize that your "gay agenda" theory IS really bigotry and discrimination in the eastern United States, a place where you were appointed to educate students and future lawyers.
These cases should also explain why so many people are rightfully outraged with your dismisal of an important human rights struggle in the United States, one for equal treatment for gay people.
Please also point us to any conclusive study that "ex-gays" have "cured" themselves from the gayness choice, as you describe it. Certainly this theory should eliminate most, if not all, genetically transmitted conditions in individuals. Have you thought of a career in medicine instead of law?
Furthermore, please familiarize yourself with the case, Lawrence v. Texas if you really believe that sodomy laws should be enforced in the U.S.
Thank you.
Signed - A student you are supposed to "teach."
How can someone who writes like this (Dr. Thio) get an LLM from Harvard?
I am a graduate of NYU School of Law, a gay man, and someone who has worked in Singapore. I would suggest that the professor knows very little about the actual oppression that lesbians and gay men feel every day in Singapore, and that her allegedly "ex-gay" friends there are telling her what she wants to hear rather than what she needs to know. And what a joke that all of the gays in Singapore are affluent! She probably should not come to teach at NYU, nor should she return to Singapore as a scholar who has lectured at NYU. This woman is simply an uninformed and ignorant bigot.
Looking forward to the next NYU alumni event . . . .
I am a graduate of NYU School of Law, a gay man, and someone who has worked in Singapore. I would suggest that the professor knows very little about the actual oppression that lesbians and gay men feel every day in Singapore, and that her allegedly "ex-gay" friends there are telling her what she wants to hear rather than what she needs to know. And what a joke that all of the gays in Singapore are affluent! She probably should not come to teach at NYU, nor should she return to Singapore as a scholar who has lectured at NYU. This woman is simply an uninformed and ignorant bigot.
Looking forward to the next NYU alumni event . . . .
Dr Thio,
You can word your words and thoughts in every way that suits your own self, but people can see through your point of views. You can cry foul for all you want, with all kinds of labelling, but eventually, the sign-up for your class is pathetic and that reflects on how your views is irrelevant, absurb, and unwelcomed. Perhaps academically, you are great, but that is not the only thing that the students were looking at, but the relevance of your paper qualifications as well.
You see, in the world full of prejudice and hatred, we don't need another view trying to flame the fire of discrimination. Sure, you've mentioned along the line of hating the sin, but not the sinner, but come on, please get real.
So yes, the students have spoken. Your presence is unwelcomed due to your views. Call it hostile, doesn't matter if you are offended, or whatever, but that's exactly what democracy is all about. It's about choice, and they have made their decision that your class would have been irrelevant, discriminating and downride nonsense. You can make all your remarks for you want, but that would just come about as how hard you are willing to swallow your pride, to accept open discussions, and to have your views challenged.
Dr Thio,
You can word your words and thoughts in every way that suits your own self, but people can see through your point of views. You can cry foul for all you want, with all kinds of labelling, but eventually, the sign-up for your class is pathetic and that reflects on how your views is irrelevant, absurb, and unwelcomed. Perhaps academically, you are great, but that is not the only thing that the students were looking at, but the relevance of your paper qualifications as well.
You see, in the world full of prejudice and hatred, we don't need another view trying to flame the fire of discrimination. Sure, you've mentioned along the line of hating the sin, but not the sinner, but come on, please get real.
So yes, the students have spoken. Your presence is unwelcomed due to your views. Call it hostile, doesn't matter if you are offended, or whatever, but that's exactly what democracy is all about. It's about choice, and they have made their decision that your class would have been irrelevant, discriminating and downride nonsense. You can make all your remarks for you want, but that would just come about as how hard you are willing to swallow your pride, to accept open discussions, and to have your views challenged.
Dr Thio,
You can word your words and thoughts in every way that suits your own self, but people can see through your point of views. You can cry foul for all you want, with all kinds of labelling, but eventually, the sign-up for your class is pathetic and that reflects on how your views is irrelevant, absurb, and unwelcomed. Perhaps academically, you are great, but that is not the only thing that the students were looking at, but the relevance of your paper qualifications as well.
You see, in the world full of prejudice and hatred, we don't need another view trying to flame the fire of discrimination. Sure, you've mentioned along the line of hating the sin, but not the sinner, but come on, please get real.
So yes, the students have spoken. Your presence is unwelcomed due to your views. Call it hostile, doesn't matter if you are offended, or whatever, but that's exactly what democracy is all about. It's about choice, and they have made their decision that your class would have been irrelevant, discriminating and downride nonsense. You can make all your remarks for you want, but that would just come about as how hard you are willing to swallow your pride, to accept open discussions, and to have your views challenged.
All this is VINTAGE AMERICAN PC hypocrisy and self-righteous intolerance of any dissenting point of view a la Catholic clergy!
This does hit the nail on the contemptible and loathsome hypocrisy of the American liberal academic establishment whenever academic freedom is exercized in opposition to its sanctimonious dogmas!
"12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all."
Ms Thio and her mom have gotten away with this anti gay crap and has led the efforts to discriminate against LGBT people in Singapore. They are part of the fundamentalist church who have attempted to take over a feminist organization AWARE for promoting what they purport to be "homosexual agenda." Clearly behaviors have consequences in a global society. I'm glad that there has been an uproar and a termination of her contract at NYU.
Oh please....not the same old victim-playing "don't bully me" card.
Perhaps Thio should reconsider the strength of her beliefs, instead of schemingly 'turning the tables' on how 'tired' she is of the 'bullying' like as if she is 'too matured' for that. That is the biggest and most detestable, high-horse, cheap-shot behavior one can typically expect.
It is always easy to play the "i'm too matured for this rubbish" maneuvre everytime when there's nowhere else to go when SHE HERSELF ENTERED THE ARENA in the first place.
I am not surprised she didn't dare to go anymore. Call me a prick, but truths alone (not even the greater ones) are 'pricks'.
@301 Why tell only your side of the story?
The truth is, AWARE has been covertly propagating their homosexual agenda through the CSE to brainwash our children through schools without the consent and knowledge of parents. They had been exposed, thanks to Dr Thio Su Mien.
As a result, a petition by parents collected over 7000 signatures and the Ministry of Education has since banned AWARE.
It is unthinkable that NYU students can be so easily misled by just a video, and without knowing the context and socio-political background here in Singapore, forced her to drop the assignment.
Great loss to NYU.
116 - You wrote, "...It was ridiculous of NYU to even consider a Member of Parliament...".
She is not now nor we she previously a Member of Parliament. Goes to show how little you and, as I have observed, many others know about the facts relating to Dr Thio, the background to the video, and events in Singapore.
This further goes to show that those of you who criticize her so readily aren't really interested in getting your fact rights, but only in getting rid of her.
Many of the comments here are lies and ad hominem attacks and I wonder if this is the standard of thinking and rigor required of NYU law students.
Dr Thio, you made the right decision. I am glad to have had you as our Nominated Member of Parliament.
Dean Revesz behaved stupidly, Malik Graves-Pryor is simply stupid and Provessor Li-ann Thio is too smart to associate with either of those jerks.
Dean Revesz behaved stupidly, Malik Graves-Pryor is simply stupid and Provessor Li-ann Thio is too smart to associate with either of those jerks.
what ever u think she's done (good/bad) pls dun equate it to singapore/singaporeans.that is jus hypocritical....
im lgbt,but im also a singaporean.yes,shyt happens anywhere,but i can feel we are moving forward.i do not deny hetreo IS the majority but oso dont deny our existance.she may have "bring this upon herself" but still she deserve basic respect.at least u dont see her doing what the westbro phelps are doing.i think those ppl are the ones people should stop them....lols....
peace out :)
--from a pink singaporean
i find it funny how Li ann Thio obviously decided too late to enter this website and post some bogus comments showing support for her absurd and racist views.