Can this be the last story on this topic please? It's stale.

Good riddance Thio! We don't play that disrespectful BS in NY. Hate on homosexuals some where else!

I'm done with this story and disappointed in ATL.

This is a shame.

Leftists love to talk about being open to others' ideas, but once again, this goes to prove that leftists only want to be only open about ideas they believe in. There's not much diversity when you shut out dissident, regardless of how hurtful it might be.

All great writers use "and/or."

I wonder if she has any ethical comments on the "rusty trombone"

Somehow, I'm having difficulty seeing someone with man hands as a martyr.

THIOBREAKER!

It's a shame the way liberals manHANDled Dr. Thio!

"However, the conditions no longer exist to proceed with the visit, given the animus fuelled by irresponsible misrepresentation/distortions and/or concerted invective from certain parties."

Christ. She writes worse than Elie.

Aside from the language being clunky in places, this was actually a pretty reasonable response from Thio. She commended NYU for not rescinding her invitation, realized that given the circumstances she wasn't going to be effective (as in, any teaching she could have done would have been overshadowed by protest, and condemnation of her), and lamented the fact she wouldn't get to interact with those NYU students (whether agreeing with her beliefs or not) who actually wanted to hear what she had to said and debate issues in human rights with her.

Good riddance. I never agreed with her views, but her petty back and forths and now her resignation just shows how little intellectual mettle she really possessed.

Thats right.. as i pointed out in post 284 yesterday...

Silence this slut.

I'm not interested in hearing about her dumbass "viewpoint"

I think its fair to say that she puts it best when she states that "Diversity is not a license for perversity"

Basically, having a diverse set of ideas does not mean its ok to have these unnecessary or unpleasant views... why don't we debate child porn, isn't that academic freedom?

Thats right.. as i pointed out in post 284 yesterday...

Silence this slut.

I'm not interested in hearing about her dumbass "viewpoint"

I think its fair to say that she puts it best when she states that "Diversity is not a license for perversity"

Basically, having a diverse set of ideas does not mean its ok to have these unnecessary or unpleasant views... why don't we debate child porn, isn't that academic freedom?

Agree with 5. Don't have to agree with her viewpoint, but why not have an open, civilized, intellectual conversation? Could have been a great opportunity, perhaps, to move her an inch toward greater tolerance.

Why is it that a professor who only makes public comments advocating the criminization of homosexuality garners such a negative response and is hounded off campus, while John Yoo, who actually twisted teh law and helped the illegal TORTURE of people is allowed to teach at Boalt with very little protest.

Kick John Yoo off campus! He didn't just 'advocate' like Thio did, he actually took concrete actions to torture people, violating international human rights as well as both US law and international treaties. Thio may not deserve a prestigious teaching position at NYU, but Yoo deserves to be jailed as a war criminal!

http://www.tinyghosts.com/johnyoo/

So it seems Thio is coming out of this with nothing.

But, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool HAND.

Meanwhile Dealbreaker is always so much better than Above the Law

See here:
http://dealbreaker.com/2009/07/ex-hedge-fund-employees-holdin.php

and here:
http://dealbreaker.com/2009/07/eliot-spitzer-the-federal-rese.php

Lawyers are so freakin boring.

"Could have been a great opportunity, perhaps, to move her an inch toward greater tolerance."

Is that really a goal sufficient to justify investing NYU $$$ and students' time? Who cares what this bitch thinks?

"Shoving a straw in the nose" is an analogy, people. It's an acceptable form of argument. If you can't understand the argument, then please stop whining.

For those of you who did not study philosophy, she is arguing that a portion of the body is being used contrary to its functionality. Just as a nose is not used for drinking, but rather for smelling, so the sexual organs are not made for sodomy, but for sexual acts correlative to procreation. You may not agree with the argument, but it's perfectly logical once you agree to the unspoken assumptions (which are shared with Darwinists, by the way).

I have to say, Elie, you've risen in my estimation today. It's not everyone who would put themselves in front of all the criticism you've been exposed to. I read this blog daily and it occurs to me that I come back every day because you guys consistently come up with engaging stuff. No small feat. Nice job ATL.

And at the 11th hour, she plays the race card. Classy.

And, once again, the liberals show their class by calling her a bitch and a slut. Even if you think her beliefs are reprehensible, it doesn't really help your moral high ground by denigrating her personally based on the fact that she's a woman. This is the typical liberal MO -- all about respecting women, minorities, homosexuals, etc. when they're towing the liberal ideological line. But, when they have beliefs different than yours, all the vicious, offensive, non-PC attacks come out. Ex, Thomas being an "Uncle Tom," and now, Thio is a "slut / bitch" apparently. You stay classy liberals.

I think Thio's letter proves one thing: the Class of 2011 is the lost generation.

22 = Mrs. Mystal

24th!

There are more typos in her letter than in one of Elie's posts (and not all of them are Britishisms).

21 -

Brilliant analysis, but her particular analogy also conjures up, intentionally, the comical image of someone trying to drink through his nose. The intention is also to *ridicule* homosexuality .

And you don't know shit about Darwin. Go and read "Moral Animal," or at least its Wikipedia entry.

If she did the dance from Madonna's "Vogue" video, it'd look like a freight elevator opening and closing.

I will never read ATL again for its biased coverage of the Thio saga. This is just another example of liberals only tolerating opinions that agree with their own, and then resorting to protesting and name-calling against anyone who disagrees with them. Bottom line is that Dr. Thio should be permitted to believe what every major religion in the history of mankind has held for thousands of years, which is that homosexuality is a social disorder (the CDC classified it as such as recently as 1993 until the MTV-generation brainwashed society into thinking otherwise).

I find it amusing/disturbing (or should that be, amusing and/or disturbing...) that judging from some comments, some who didn't want her at NYU now criticize her for resigning. WTF?

Also, and I don't think many comments in any of the too-many posts on this subject have noted, you don't have to AGREE with a teacher to LEARN from them. Indeed, some of my best learning experiences in law school were with professors with whom I had profound disagreements, because I thought more and examined my preconceived notions. I guess I'm just more open and tolerant than most posters on this board, and more interested in LEARNING, than those who use tolerance as an excuse for their own intolerance and narrow-mindedness.

This blog sucks.

27 - EPIC FAIL

Typical liberal fascism stifling opposing viewpoints.

It'd be funny, because it'd look like she was trapped in the elevator.

Totally self serving statement.

1. She teaches at a pluralistic environment? Give me a break. I was a student at the law faculty in the National University of Singapore in the late 80s and was a supporter of opposition (i.e., non-ruling party) politics. I was basically told by other students to shut up because they were worried their grades were going to suffer if someone "reported" that they were associating with me.

2. A Parliamentarian? She was a NOMINATED member of parliament - meaning in Singapore, she was nominated by the party in power to fill a seat because the opposition in Singapore has been cowed.

3. Is she implying that her views are more worthy because she was educated at the finest institutions? One can only guess how many people in the past have graduated from Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard and gone on to perpetuate bigoted policies here or abroad.

4. I guess she does not seek controversy because she may not be able to deal with it?

Glad this is all over.

Liberal fascists - 1
Freedom of speech - 0

This is good news indeed. Let us all now be thankful for ChiaObama and worship it accordingly.

21: Between 10 and 20% of every species' population is homosexual: the Darwinian response to preventing overpopulation. So I don't actually think Darwinists agree with this woman. Creationists probably do.

What's with the cries of censorship. Students chose not to take her class and criticize her speech.

Meanwhile, she argues in Parliament for fining a television show because it showed a gay couple.

Apparently to commentators, if you do not choose to take a professor's class you are censoring her.

Go on with your bad self, Li-ann. You one crazy asian tranny. Luvs you.

Thought police win!!

THE-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E ... THOUGHT POLICE ... WIN!!!!!

Wow. She feels like her speech was stifled and she is persecuted? How does she think the homosexuals feel whose intimate activities she has outlawed? Maybe she should talk to them and get a sense of what real, government-sponsored persecution feels like.

21,

You would have a point if she hadn't simultaneously voted in FAVOR of reversing the same sodomy ban for heterosexuals.

She went a little nuts with the thesauras in her letter. Big words don't make you look smart. This woman is an ineffective lawyer, NYU is lucky not to have her anymore.

Geez, what's with the rabid anti-ATL today? If you don't like it, don't read it.

If I fail the bar, do I have to pay to re-take barbri in Jan?

"Wee, thought police!"

Go back to your Ayn Rand porn and come back when you know what censorship is.

maybe she need somebody eat her asshole out

maybe she need somebody eat her asshole out

For the censorship geniuses out there, if someone disagrees with your views, mocks them, and doesn't want to take your classes, that isn't censorship. That's freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

Your freedom of speech does not require me to shut up and listen. I know that burns your authoritarian souls that you can't make people just listen--but you can't. I know if burns you that you cannot tell people to shutup when they argue that you are wrong and are disrespecting the autonomy of fellow human beings--but you can't.

48

We dont know. we all passed the bar.

Henry Louis Gates IV, Duke of Breminshire

Don't all conservative or even semi-conservative Christians share her views? Are there no conservative Christians who teach at institutions of higher learning? You'd have to be pretty backward and ignorant to share her views, but so what: we still have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. We all should have the right to be taught by idiotic lunatics such as her. What a bummer that NYU is going to be deprived of this opportunity to engage in low-brow, mediocre (but oh, so open!) dialogue.

What a comeback!! Go Elie! I like how you succintly identify the bottomline. She wants respect but holds views patently disrepectful to others. It's what we all recognized but didn't have the ability to put into words. That's a great writer for you.

53,

You're most unhelpful on every post. I just want an answer. Ye of great olde wisdom should either have one or STFU.

-You know who
PS I don't need to pass I just want to pass

Heap hate on those who dare question your beliefs. Mount a campaign of character assassination. Exclude them from society. Exclude them from employment. Silence them. Do it publicly to instill fear in any who might challenge the dominant social narrative.

Of what are you so afraid?

@48 Yes. Sucks to be you.

Wow, all of you liberals who support homosexuality are smarter than God and wiser than all of the major religions that have existed for thousands of years. You are so enlightened! Why don't you just write your own bible or other book for us to follow?

Good luck facing your Creator!

@57: And then let Atlas Shrug!

lack of tolerance?

OH THE IRONING

58-

Thank you.

-The crazy kid who now knows it will cost him a few grand when he fails

Nobody "heaped hate" on her, you melodramatic sap. Disagreeing with someone, and saying that his or her views are disrespectful to other people's dignity is not hating on them. It is pointing out his or her own hateful conduct. What, exactly, was she afraid of? What threats were leveled against her? What jobs were she fired from? Would you be just as pissed if she had low enrollment because students started a whisper campaign that she was boring?

Jesus, grow up.

Human rights are "contested concepts"? Maybe in Singapore.

"a tolerant, serene environment where different viewpoints emanating from a variety of worldviews are heard with mutual respect and carefully evaluated, in a civilised fashion"? Yes, her comments in Parliament certainly were serene, tolerant, mutually respectful, and carefully evaluated. She can dish it out but she can't take it. Cowardly "academic."

Oh, and "the ireful campaign against me has negatively affected class enrolment, a sad commentary on this present noisome state of affairs." Er, no. It is the publication of your views that has negatively affected class enrollment. Some people apparently did not want to take a course on human rights taught by a bigot. It is their prerogative not to do so, just as it was the prerogative of other to sign up. It seems that there were more of the former than the latter.

59: "Why don't you just write your own bible or other book for us to follow?"

Because that would be stupid.

Those who disrespect other people should never be allowed to teach. Open dialogue is meaningless if one side has a plainly wrong viewpoint. She and her ilk should be sequestered on a remote island, where they can't infect the mindless populace (read: the right).

Thank goodness this ignorant feeble-minded wo-MAN isn't allowed to spread her foul hatred in the sanctity of a law classroom, which requires decorum and the absence of criticism of others' beliefs.

"Above the Law's commitment to bring you all of the latest details about the crazy saga of Dr. Li-ann Thio first is unmatched. "

Is Elie allowed to snark Lat now? Walang hiya.

Anyway, her complaint that the "campaign" against her led to low enrollment is hilarious. She was scalped by the IT dude.

Awesome how a one time parliamentarian was brought low by the rhetorical stylings of tech support. She backed out because she is embarassed. Blog commenters and irate gays on campus had nothing to do with her demise. How could she show her face after being mauled by some wikipedia-raiding hack. Rather, her own frantic ,angry attempts to parry every solitary sentiment of disagreement exhausted both her credibility and her dignity. That episode, and this final desperate lunge at getting in the last word, reflect the paranoia typical of megalomania and, frankly, a lack of balance.

@59 -- What a freakshow you are. Why don't you move to a theocracy? I hear Iran is nice.

59,

Umm, if you've ever had sex with a menstruating woman, leviticus says you're a dead man (even if it was your wife! on accident!), turning over your daughters to be raped is an okay response if the men in your town want to perform man-on-man rape of some angels (sodom and gomorrah---and I say man-on-man and not gay because most rapists of men are straight men), wearing a cotton poly blend, working on the sabbath, refusing to marry your brother's widow, and eating pork are also all sins, some of which are punishable by death.

If the bible is legit., you can't just forget the parts that punish by death behavior YOU enjoy.

50-51 are the funniest thing I've read today.

In short, I love bacon too much too be a biblical literalist. Blended fabrics are also very convenient.

Thio looks like a man

General Thio's chicken is spicy on the outside but causes diarrhea when chewed up and swallowed.

partners at quinn shove straws up their nose to drink all the time. it is no big deal.

quinn stud

54 - Don't be ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between e.g. thinking homosexual behaviour is wrong or sinful (which not all Christians do, incidentally) and thinking it should be criminalized.

I know many Christians who may think homosexual behaviour is wrong, but agree it should not be criminalized between consenting adults. I strongly disagree with her stance on criminalization, but recognize as other posters have noted the ridiculousness bordering on hypocrisy to have a problem with her and not e.g. Yoo (forget politics, even if you agree with the treatment of detainees, anyone who can write memos that stupid shouldn't be teaching law). Not to mention visiting instructors from many Arab countries, African countries, etc., are their backgrounds investigated to make sure they've never spoken in support of their home countries' criminalization of homosexual behaviour? Or in support of oppression of women? There are guest female African lecturers at U.S. colleges (not in law, I hope) who e.g. defend female genital mutilation as being cultural and say the "west" should stop complaining about it. So being a guest lecturer who's in favour of mutilating children is okay but Dr. Thio isn't? Idiocy.

this story is gay

Wait, does she mind when lesbos munch on each others' boxes? I doubt she does because that's something the whole world can enjoy.

"Take it from someone who knows: holding controversial views does open you up to criticism."

Really? Take it from someone who knows? A little pretentious don't you think? Most comments on ATL are open to criticism because they are asinine.
You fake self righteous outrage at perceived discriminatory behavior yet have no problem with practicing it yourself (ie ATL comments about dumb Polacks, making fun of down syndrome babies,thumbing your nose at grads of lower tiered schools, your love of the Jonas Brothers over Miley Cyrus)

Stay in China you stupid bitch! No one signed up to take your classes anyway.

52 has it exactly right. Those who do not understand why neither freedom of speech nor censorship was at issue here are analytical lightweights.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, bitch. On second thought, let it.

Ahhh...the false "freedoms" of liberalism:

freedom of speech, unless I am offended

freedom of thought, unless your viewpoints are wrong

mutual respect, unless you challenge our dogma

an end to racism, unless you are discriminating against whites

an end to sexism, unless you oppose radical feminists

I find it quite ironic that the "intellectual" liberals here are the first to resort to irrational, emotional rants and ad hominen attacks.

Which is more "hateful": Arguing practicing homosexualality is not a civil right or calling people who express such opinions "dumb whores and bitches?"

59, there are no ghosts. And ironic that you cite other religious to back you up in homophobia when you certainly believe that each one of them is fundamentally in error. Behold the inescapable hypocrisy of your particular cultural chauvinsim cast as religion.

man, who knew NYU law students were such H*MOS. both literally and metaphorically.

This letter is blatantly dishonest. While she appears to be Asian, I doubt she's really a woman.

LOL @ 50/51

#22 written by Mystal

Typical tactics of the liberal intelligentsia...label someone with whom you disagree so you can avoid intellectual argument on the merits.

Thus..anyone who holds the opinion that sodomy is not a civil right is a "homophobe"; anyone who disagrees with affirmative action is a "racist"; anyone who believes in the right to life is a "religious zealout"

i bet gay guys would love her huge hands, with those big fingers, as long as bananas, curled up into a fist. yes, i'm talking about fisting. and please don't moderate this comment. the practice is protected by the constitution thank u very much.

21 is a dumb ass. Under your line of thinking any sexual act other than one designed for procreation would be an "unnatural" use of the sex organs--no hand job, cunnilligus, fellatio, dry humping, whatever. Certainly no self pleasure. Taken one step further, any heterosexual who is aware that procreation cannot be achieved because the couple is using brth control, one or both parties is infertile, the woman is pregnant or the woman is menstruating, then the act should be regarded as "unnatural" because use of the sex organs would be not for your single proscribed intended purpose--procreation. Your view is a very limited view of "intended use". I would say that the sexual organs of either men or women have at least tow purposes--1. procreation and 2. sexual pleasure. I suppose you would say that if I use my feet for kicking then that is an "unnatural use" because feet are only for walking.

FIRST to say the new "Herbstreit" article has been up for nearly half an hour, and that fat fuck can't figure out to turn on comments.

Elie = fail. Can he even prove he passed the bar?

You are all prejudice against people with large hands

Some of our greatest Americans had large hands
Abraham Lincoln for example> My boy scout troop leader as another....

88,

Got Milk?

80: You are correct. This is not an issue of censoship or freedom of speech. It IS an issue of academic freedom and societal tolerance of different viewpoints.

Vic

Tory

Take a bow, Elie.

90: That is the official position of the catholic church you realize, right? Any sexual act not intended for procreation is a sin.

57 and all other posts like 57(like 82 and other people calling liberals facists , etc. etc.)

14 here... you make some great points and you pose a very interesting question...

The answer.. history... thats what we're afraid of.

I like cheese.

I didn't know faggots were allowed to attend law school let alone have the right to an opinion.

57--funny thing about the faux outrage of conservatives when they decry "fascistic liberals" is that they decry a small sampling of what you conservative assholes having been doing to everyone else our whole lives. In sum, go fuck yourself...on second thought that would be "unnatural"

While some of us are conservatives and some of us liberals, all of us agree that: Class of 2011 is the lost generation.

First to say I went to Ohio State as an undergrad and it was fucking awesome.

82,

Let me clarify things for you.

Speech --- Not implicated by criticism of ideas. Not even when you think your particular views give you legally protected precedence in discourse or freedom from being told to shut up.

Thought -- Thoughts can't be criticized unless espressed. As expressed, see above regarding speech.

Respect -- Not obliged to respect those who ridicule and deny my humanity, and attempt to have my basic social relations and relationships outlawed. Not in the least.

Racism -- Your lot's convenient passion for Perfect Neutrality is too late to be credible, and way too effective in preserving ill-gotten gains to let slide in a society attempting increase social stability, cohesion, and to repair results of savagery marring almost all of its history. Go play with your formalisms in algebra class.

Sexism. See Speech.

OK, Good talk.

WTF Elie,

Your Herbstreit headline is ridiculously misleading. Also, don't insert your fat ass commentary about our storied OSU/Mich rivalry. You don't know a goddamn thing about it.

Moritz rising 3L.

I agree that NYU students have the right to speak out against her views; however, consider the NYU students that may have wanted to take her class (whether they agreed with her or not). While her views may be abhorrent to many (including me), tactics like this simply allow a vocal majority to limit the educational experience of others.

I experienced this phenomenon frequently at my very liberal college. Any conservative speaker would be protested so vigorously that it was usually impossible to hear them speak. In many cases, presentations by conservative speakers were cancelled. While I don't dispute that the protesters have a right to express their viewpoint, as in this case, we set a bad precedent when we accept the notion that volume is an indication of right.

In this case, I thought Outlaw's initial letter was right on point. They highlighted her views, expressed their disagreement and urged students to inform themselves. Why that wasn't sufficient is beyond me. Let every student choose for themselves without creating an environment so hostile to minority viewpoints. There are others who are harmed other than Thio.

@104:

Your "storied rivalry" ain't gonna mean much after your humiliation on September 5th.

GO NAVY!

82 here:

I am amazed by the assumptions here. For the record, I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian and an atheist. I do not oppose civil rights for gays, even though I do not personally like the behavior.

I do however, oppose the attempts of any group to silence the viewpoint of another group. Human knowledge and understanding is the product of rational debate--the hallmark of a civilized society. This requires tolerance of viewpoints that you disagree with, dislike, hate, or find offensive. Only ideas can defeat ideas.

Both "conservatives" and "liberals" suffer from the same intellectual defect....the inability to seperate what you approve of with what should be allowed.

But why engage in thoughtful rational debate when it is much easier to throw around pejoratives and make such interesting remarks as "shut the f!ck up." It is truly a sad state of affairs when after 7 years of post-secondary education, that is your first response to a divergent viewpoint.

NYU students banded together to boycott Dr. Thio's class. Harvard students will now surely band together and boycott Prof. Gates class, for insulting ('yo mama' - are you kidding me - is Prof Gates actually Huggy Bear from Beretta?)/verbally assaulting a police officer.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

90--I am aware of that. The news that the Catholic church is myopic in its thinking will not be news to most of the world though nor does it help 57 (who is still a dumb ass) out

@106

Should I be more worried about Navy or USC coming into town the next weekend? I seriously don't know the answer.

-104

103--that was a completely nonsensical response.

"Speech --- Not implicated by criticism of ideas.

Thought -- Thoughts can't be criticized unless espressed."

Do you fail to grasp the obvious fallacy of circulus in probando inherent in that response?

"In this case, I thought Outlaw's initial letter was right on point. They highlighted her views, expressed their disagreement and urged students to inform themselves. Why that wasn't sufficient is beyond me. "

Umm. What do you mean it wasn't sufficient? Students decided they didn't want to take her class. 14 people, total signed up for TWO of them.

Seriously. "Afraid for my safety?"

"Noisome protests?"

The woman bsaically said she can't stand to go to a school where people think she's a bitch.

But. You know. Somehow there was a machivallian scheme of censorship, so conservatives can jerk offf about how the true villains here are students who decided with their feet they didn't want to learn human rights here and comfort themselves about what hypocrites gays are.

I really pity the sad, bitter conservatives who post on this blog. Can you not wrap your feeble minds around what happened here? Responding, protesting, debating and criticizing views that one finds offensive is not fascism (do you even know what the word means?). It's not an offense to academic freedom or free speech. In fact, the behavior of the law school and the vast majority its students (even OUTLaw, which criticized Professor Thio's views but expressly rejected calls for her appointment to be revoked) was a perfect example of what free speech is all about -- open debate and criticism. Get it? Oh wait, of course you don't.

103

You're a fucking moron. I bet you pondered over that little tirade for at least 25 minutes, perfecting it like as if it were a peach cobbler for your boo because you are the bitch in the relationship.

And that "relationship" you consider so basic? Puh. It's not basic at all. You're a diseased soul who obviously needed the comfort of your own sex to stave off self-destruction.

I only wish you queers would turn the "day of silence" into an "eternity of silence." The lack of incessant whining would provide a great relief to everyone.

You don't deserve respect. You deserve to have your ass sewed shut.

Libertarians = more assholes who want the government to do exactly what they want the government to do.

We're all sick of conservatives claiming libertarian status as if it's stylish or noble. Bunch of fucking assholes -- you can bet your expensive shoes that most of the directors at corporations drowning the invisible hand in bailout money are "libertarians". Did you know Adam Smith was a proponent of the death tax?

114 = Hitler.

-Jesus Christ

"Responding, protesting, debating and criticizing views that one finds offensive is not fascism"

I agree. Telling people they have no right to express those views in the first place is, however, facist.

My complaints are not with the school's response. Rather, my complaints are with the responses here. I have no political or legal objection to students refusing to take a class because they disagree with a professor's viewpoints (although I do have an intellectual objection to outright refusal to hear opposing viewpoints). I do oppose those here who believe the school should have revoked here appointment.

114 = latent homo or latent serial killer

This thread is exactly the reason ATL should ban guest comments and require registration. Yes, I know I'm being hypocritical.

21:

Your argument assumes that the genitals (and the anus, and the nose) are "made for" some purpose. The viewpoint expressed by your argument is therefore far closer to religious than "Darwinist," whatever that's supposed to mean.

118 = wishes he/she were 114

I just tried drinking by shoving a straw up my nose.

And you know what? It felt just like a penis in my anus.

Reading her letter is like verbal diarrhoea.

She needs to stop using highfalutin words (and the thesaurus).

123

Thank you! I never knew how to spell highfalutin.

Whew! And I thought today was finally going to be the day I didn't learn something new.

Thesaurus much?

"Libertarians = more assholes who want the government to do exactly what they want the government to do."

Ummm... actually, no. I don't want the government to do anything for me. I don't want the government to regulate private behavior, period. I believe in legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, and legalization of any activity voluntarily engaged in between two consenting adults.

"We're all sick of conservatives claiming libertarian status as if it's stylish or noble"

I am not a conservative. I did not vote for Bush. I opposed the patriot act and the war in Iraq. I loudly protest the violation of civil liberties in the name of national security, and I do not attempt to force my nonexistent religious views on anyone. I happen to despise conservatives as much as liberals.

I do not particularly care for the "libertarian" label in any event. I use it only because traditional political descriptors have become bastardized. I tend to prefer neo-classical liberal. But it takes too long to explain that to others.

Thio--please come. Please ignore the haters. You need to get the 37,000 ft cornholio. We will take up a collection and fund your visit. You can teach your class in Wash Sq. Park. Please come for the mile high cornholio. I beg you.

118, 114 here. ;) Does that wink scare you?

"Ummm... actually, no. I don't want the government to do anything for me. I don't want the government to regulate private behavior, period. I believe in legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, and legalization of any activity voluntarily engaged in between two consenting adults."

You just described exactly what you want the government to do.

But you seem like a reasonable person otherwise, so excuse the rest of my earlier tirade.

@104:

Keep talking, bub. I'm sure your friends in Ann Arbor asked something similar when Appy St. came to town.

The riots on High Street will make the 2002 win over UMich look like a lawn party.

so. great fact pattern. Can NYU sue her for breach?

129:

Wow. You just blew my mind. Please explain how opposing action (i.e. supporting government nonaction)constitutes approval of government action. Inaction is, by definition, the failure to act--which cannot constitute "doing."

Did you ever take a logic course?

114,

No. You big homo.

118

132: Hehem, pardon me. You described the exact limits you'd like to place on government action.

It's all semantics. If you were poor as shit, you'd want the government buying you funnel cakes.

This Comment section would be much more amusing if all those right-wing fascists who don't like it here - would just leave! Stop threatening and go!

Just like in high school, the vast majority of people here don't like you anyway! Masochists...

129:

See..this is where we disagree on the basic functions/purpose of government. In the views of most liberals and conservatives, the "function" of the government is to "make society better" by enacting laws proscribing certain behavior or mandating other behavior. You assume regulation is the status quo. In my worldview, all activities should be legal--i.e. not proscribed--unless harming someone else. My freedom to act stops only when I attempt to restrict yoru freedom to act.

Thus, when i saw drugs should be legalized, I am not saying I want the government to "do" anything, because I do not believe the government has any right to regulate it in the first place.

136, you can believe in unicorns all you want, but ain't none of em gonna eat your asshole out.

134: How do you know my economic status? I happen to be one of the non "big-law" posters here. While I am not "poor," I am by no means rich. I am probably one of the useless unwashed mass of tier II lawschool lawyers in your book. I did, however, grow up poor; yet, strangely, I have never wanted or felt entitled to any assistance from the government to improve my economic status.

The last unicorn ate my asshole out.

That's why there's all gone now.

138, I have no idea whether you're rich or poor, but I'll echo my earlier/137's sentiment. Enjoy wishing the government wouldn't regulate you.

If only the other half of the U.S. were as enlightened as this ATL community. You all are quite lucky to have found some hidden knowledge which has opened up to you the truth of the heretofore debated topic of human sexual morality.

118,

1. I'm a girl.
2. I've been told I'm really hot.
3. I'm engaged to a hedge fund manager
4. Lots of my friends in the city are gay.

-114

140:

Quite frankely, I find 137 sophmoric comment to be indicative of his or her lack of intellectual rigor.

But, yes, I shall go on believing in freedom and liberty.

Shouting down those who speak unpopular ideas. Marginalizing those who wish to debate the dominant narrative. Intimidating those who might question the status quo. That, 113, is the very essence of fascism. Try reading some history. Or maybe that's where you got your script.

Today in my law school prep class, I learned that, under Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 90, you can sue for something called promissory estoppel. Can someone explain this? Does this mean that if someone offers you a job and then revokes it you can sue and win money?

114 = definite closet-case

140: There shall come a day when the tree of liberty shall again be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrnants.

140: The day shall come when the tree of liberty shall once again be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

143,

Shit in one hand, and wish a unicorn would eat your ass out in the other.

137

Can someone explain why people think 114 is a closet homo? Or is this some inside joke ATL commenters have that the rest of us may not be privy to.

147-148, please see 149.

She can go down on Palin as the these two quitters ride off into the sunset. Unless that would be like shoving a straw up her urethra to take a piss.

144 - try a dictionary first. fascism is a form of governance, not criticism of other viewpoints as an individual. unless you think 113 is a government in and of him/herself, you might want to reread history as well. true, people can be fascISTS as individuals, but they are people who advocate for fascism, i.e., authoritarian GOVERNANCE.

the problem with conservative hyperbolic rants is that they never involve intelligible arguments.

151: Do you not now see the inner hypocracy inherent in liberalism? Why is believing in freedom and liberty justification for insults and crude sexual insults?

142 = 114 baiting me with bizarre misogyny that would only offend a highly insecure frat boy.

150 = 114 having "I'm not gay, am I?" crisis.

You're a self-loathing gay frat guy. It's not the end of the world. There are tons of you.

118

TTThio, you suck! (I'm making a differnece by commenting on a blog. Damn, this feels good.)

I made a difference once, but then everyone joined me and now it is all the same.

TTThio used "which" in the same sentence twice. And she didn't use a comma even once. Damn. That's hardcore.

69=Buzzkill

This calls for a quote from The Big Lebowski. And, by the way, 159=PE.

This calls for a quote from The Big Lebowski. And, by the way, 159=PE.

This calls for a quote from The Big Lebowski. And, by the way, 159=PE.

The winner of this post goes to 50-51. 116 comes in second.

Conservatives still claiming that Thio and posters such as 114 were engaging in reasonable and logical debate as to the rights of gays to engage in the anal sex.

Now, that's rich. Just because you type something, it doesn't make it so. Dear.

-- Lawyer

Three words for Frau Professor Doctor Thio.

"Get the butter."

149 wins.

114,

1. I'm a girl. - So are lots of people. It takes more to be a woman.
2. I've been told I'm really hot. - After crying to your
parents, "Why are all my ex boyfriends gay"
3. I'm engaged to a hedge fund manager - Will soon be in prison
4. Lots of my friends in the city are gay. - As will be your hedge fund manager fiancee after prison

BREAKING NEWS: Both Google and Microsoft's new Bing have SCRUBBED stories about Obama's missing birth certificate; previous top entries from the only organization covering the issue (WorldNetDaily) were dropped to the bottom of the search and REPLACED with lefty links to the HuffingtonPost, MediaMatters, Snopes, Factcheck.org, and host of others.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104947

If I fantasize about being fisted by Dr. Thio, does that make me gay?

A Big Asshole

alright, i agree with her on the gay thing. like what the f*ck man. bunch of weirdos. BUUUUT i'd like to hear her views on lesbian. too bad she won't be teaching in the fall...

Disappointing. NYU should be ashamed for its intolerant behavior. How hypocritical.

Is this letter written in Singlish?

You sound like a fat gay, Elie. She didn't insult NYU Law students to their face. She was supposed to teach a class on Human Rights IN ASIA. Hint: It may not include gays.

There are no human rights in Singapore or elsewhere in much of Asia. This would have been a short course.

She seems like a woman who feels like she has to demonstrate her intellect through the use of big words. I bet she's never gotten laid.

114 = Thio

PS: Your hatred is the only truly diseased thing infesting this thread.

114 = Thio

PS: Your hatred is the only truly diseased thing infesting this thread.

114 = Thio

PS: Your hatred is the only truly diseased thing infesting this thread.

liberal intolerance personnified
sub specie aeternis

She ain't no real Doctor.

DO NOT EVER, EVER, EVER put "AND/OR" in any document, especially a legal one.

Notice that I just violated my own rule, but hopefully everyone knows what the 'use/mention' distinction is.

153, you need to look beyond whatever on-line dictionary you looked in. Fascism is what comes after socialism, or any other form of collectivist utopian vision, inevitably fails. The disillusioned turn to authoritarianism and the first thing they do is to harry those who try to investigate their claims. The end stage of the false belief is signalled by the argument that "you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet".

153, you're a standard-bearer of a vile and malicious creed responsible for unimaginable human suffering and death. There's no point denying it. You and yours have lost control of the narrative and the truth is out.

Wow. Someone had her thesaurus out when writing this letter.

149 = Hitler

184 = Godwin

182/144 - see 153 again. no matter how much hot air you blow out, saying fascism is everything you disagree with doesn't make it so. nor does telling someone online that they are the "standard-bearer of a vile and malicious creed" make you sound intelligent, especially when you don't know them.

I just want to say that I rove everybody at Above The Raw, and you are arr arways wercome to come to Singapore for manhand fisty fisty wanky wanky.

Yours sincerery,

Ri-ann Thio

I'd go with "lercome" and "sincelery", but really other than that it was lights out. Well played. Cheerio

--maybe she need somebody eat her asshole out

Her writing style is very similar to a Nigerian 411 scammer. I expected the letter to conclude with a request that NYU assist her with liquidating the $11,230,000 estate of her recently deceased father, Sir Hampton Pearson Welkersley, III.

Leftist pro-gay rights NYU '09 grad here. I have to say #5 got it right (grammar notwithstanding). As a pro-gay rights liberal (grew up in Berkeley), it angers me to see "liberals" campaigning to keep Thio away from the school. For god's sake, we're right and we know we're right, so why do we have to chase away dissenters? Thio coming to NYU would have been one of the best things to happen to the pro-gay rights movement in years. Thanks for setting us *back* that many years instead.

I can buy the argument that she shouldn't be offered a permanent seat on the faculty, because that raises other issues. But inviting a legitimately qualified (uber-qualified, actually) professor with ridiculous ideology to teach here gives us a far better opportunity to see why we're right and she's wrong than we get sitting by ourselves here in Greenwich Village. I don't know about you, but I'll feel so much better about myself when I lay the smack down on her stupid ideas than when I do the same to an ignorant, uneducated homophobe roaming the streets.

I wonder how many "liberals" would object this vehemently to the appointment of a visiting law professor from a Muslim country who specializes in (and supports) Sharia law. Traditional Sharia law has tons of ideology I find at least as abhorrent (including, you know, death sentences for homosexual acts), but that doesn't mean we should refrain from inviting faculty from around the world to share knowledge. That knowledge transfer occurs in both directions.

188, you creary rack a proper understanding of AZN Engrish ranguage. The consonants "L" and "R" are quite simirar and we AZNs typicarry come from ringuistic backgrounds that rack the "L".

Some of us ovelcompensate and occasionally make them all Ls.

But we don't just switch them for the fun of it.

Yours sincerery,

Ri-Ann

I two grown men agreeing to shove their penises in each other's asses is acceptable behavior, then why is polygamy illegal?

Mystal - you read Thio's statement wrong. She wrote that she wants views to be "heard with mutual respect and carefully evaluated, in a civilised fashion."

She did not ask that anyone "respect her beliefs," in the sense of agreeing with her in the end, but that her beliefs be heard and evaluated with respect.

As usual, you keep using Dr. Thio as a way to make all opponents of homosexual marriage look bad.

We'll know that Above the Law editors are actually interested in serious debate when they address the many arguments presented by Prof. Lynn Wardle, one of the most prominent and most scholarly defenders of marriage.

http://www.law.byu.edu/Law_School/Faculty_Profile?140

13, read 14 and then tell me which side has been petty in this "debate."

21 - good point. About time someone pointed that out (after countless crass jokes about it).

190 = one of the few sensible comments in the whole thread (and i say that as someone who disagrees with the political viewpoint expressed).

oh so typical of the leftists who preach that we should keep an open mind until they disagree with us. Sorry folks, the majority of Americans (and probably the world) think homosexuality is wrong. Oh! did that offend anyone? Here's another newsflash. Most people think lawyers are jerks.

This fuckin' broad is pretentious.

194 -- Two questions:

1. Is it fair to say that Shawn Bradley was a rich man's John Koncak?

2. if I read your horseshit, do I get my own planet?

194 - Defenders of marriage? Does he advocate banning divorce? Because it is a well documented fact that divorce ruins more marriages than homosexuals who seek to marry each other.

I think you mean "defenders of the traditional definition of marriage"

Big difference.

201 - No, I meant marriage. Marriage cannot exist between a man and a man, nor between a woman and a woman.

I know you would like it if all defenders of marriage called themselves defenders of "traditional marriage," because that already cedes ground to your side by making it seem obsolete.

But this isn't just an old tradition we're talking about. It's a universal practice. Marriage has always been between the two sexes, not within one sex - not just in America, nor in the West, but everywhere, even in societies that have been very friendly to homosexuality.

What this resignation really shows is how little courage Dr. Thio has for her convictions. She's afraid for her safety? Please. What she's really afraid of is the dint to her reputation coming to NYU would have caused. She's afraid of protestors, and intellectual engagement on her backwards point of view.

Sure, it was easy for her to stand on the floor of parliament in conservative Singapore and argue for the criminalization of homosexual conduct. But when the opportunity came to stand her ground on American soil, she turned her tail and ran at the first sign of disapproval. This is not a case of "liberal fascism," as some conservatives posting here have stated; no one forced Dr. Thio to go. What happened at NYU is fully in line with our best democratic traditions: LGBT students, rightfully upset by this woman's legal position on homosexual rights, exercised their freedom to object to the appointment. People made choices about whether or not to enroll. NYU's invitation still remained. This is not a case of Censorship -- this is a case of Cowardice -- of a person shamefully hiding from the true intellectual and moral scrutiny that would have come from teaching a human rights class at NYU Law. There is no reason to feel sympathy for this woman. The real people to sympathize for here are the homosexuals in Singapore who will continue to face arrest and prosecution for following their hearts and enjoying the freedom to love whom they chose. Dr. Thio helped deny them that basic human right, and for that, and it is fitting that for that reason she should be publicly shamed.

What this resignation really shows is how little courage Dr. Thio has for her convictions. She's afraid for her safety? Please. What she's really afraid of is the dint to her reputation coming to NYU would have caused. She's afraid of protestors, and intellectual engagement on her backwards point of view.

Sure, it was easy for her to stand on the floor of parliament in conservative Singapore and argue for the criminalization of homosexual conduct. But when the opportunity came to stand her ground on American soil, she turned her tail and ran at the first sign of disapproval. This is not a case of "liberal fascism," as some conservatives posting here have stated; no one forced Dr. Thio to go. What happened at NYU is fully in line with our best democratic traditions: LGBT students, rightfully upset by this woman's legal position on homosexual rights, exercised their freedom to object to the appointment. People made choices about whether or not to enroll. NYU's invitation still remained. This is not a case of Censorship -- this is a case of Cowardice -- of a person shamefully hiding from the true intellectual and moral scrutiny that would have come from teaching a human rights class at NYU Law.

There is no reason to feel sympathy for this woman. The real people to sympathize for here are the homosexuals in Singapore who will continue to face arrest and prosecution for following their hearts and enjoying the freedom to love whom they chose. Dr. Thio helped deny them that basic human right, and for that, and it is fitting that for that reason she should be publicly shamed.

202 -- hehem, my planet?

For the vast majority of history, no one recognized marriage between mormons.

202 - ok then, how about "the defense of the definition of marriage" That's fine with me. My point is not whether something is "traditional." It is that you, Prof. Wardle and others are not defending "marriage." You are defending a definition of what marriage is. And by the way, that definition would not change your ability to engage in your definition of marriage. So your marriage itself is not under attack, your definition of marriage is. Again, big difference. I understand why you say you are defending marriage instead of defenging a definition - it sounds better. But it is misleading.

And I'm still wondering what you and Wardle are doing about outlawing divorce, which seems to pose a much larger threat to actual marriages, as opposed to a definition.

207

If you are wondering about Prof. Wardle's position on divorce, I encourage you to read his writings.

I can tell you that I agree that easy divorce has hurt marriage more than anything else (so far). I don't think the solution is to ban divorce entirely, although it could be made more difficult to obtain, especially when children are involved, as indeed it was before the 60's and 70's.

But just because one thing has hurt marriage more than anything else (again, so far) doesn't mean that providing for homosexual marriage won't hurt marriage at all. In fact, I think it will hurt marriage gravely.

As for your point about the definition of marriage, I think I see your point, and I thought about it. I still disagree, however. By opposing homosexual marriage, I believe that I am defending marriage, period. And if the government/society changes its view of what marriage means, it makes it harder for anyone to engage in marriage under its previous form. Altering the very purpose of marriage changes everyone's marriage.

We have already seen this happen because of easy divorce and illegitimate births, among other things. Marriage has become more and more like any other contract between individuals, and this has led more and more people to treat their marriages as lightly as they treat other contracts.

208 -- What century do you live in? If anything, people should be forced to live together for a year before they marry -- not forced to live together after separation. Shave your beard, take off that silly hat, and lose the horse, you simple fuck.

208 -- What century do you live in? If anything, people should be forced to live together for a year before they marry -- not forced to remain married after separation. Shave your beard, take off that silly hat, and lose the horse, you simple fuck.

208 wrote: "if the government/society changes its view of what marriage means, it makes it harder for anyone to engage in marriage under its previous form. Altering the very purpose of marriage changes everyone's marriage"

This is a common argument made by anti-gay marriage folks, but it lacks any vestige of logic or sense. Why does allowing a homosexual couple to commit themselves to a marriage and a family make it any harder for a straight couple to do so? And what is this nonsense about "altering the very purpose of marriage?" I am assuming you're talking about procreation - but there are many other purposes to marriage besides that: companionship, fidelity, love, building a life with another person. Should we outlaw marriages between women and men after menopause, because those women can't have birth and that would "alter the very purpose of marriage?" 208, your argument is a bunch of nonsense, dressed up to disguise prejudice against gays that has no place in our civil society.

How revealing that those favoring gay marriage are quick to call their opponents bigots (e.g., 211) and to make nasty personal attacks (e.g., 209, among many others).

212- both sides can point to extremists on the other side (see the "God hates Fags" contingent of the republican party), but this does little besides trying to instigatye an unproductive argument and proving little besides the fact that neither side has a monopoly on wingnuts (see., e.g., Anne Coulter, Al Sharpton).

Many people in the debate generally and on this site have engaged in reasonable discussion.

-207

212 - I never called anyone a "bigot." I said that unreasonable and poorly thought out attacks on gay marriage are thinly veiled prejudice - opinions about groups of people which are made without thought or reason. No amount of bickering over name calling can gloss over the fact that the anti-gay marriage contingency is intellectually bankrupt, using specious arguments about "altering the nature of marriage" to gloss over their real objections to gay marriage, which have nothing to do with what's just in a civil society, and have everything to do with religious beliefs that should not dictate public policy.

To # 114:

1. I'm a girl. [ OK - nothing wrong with that.]
2. I've been told I'm really hot. [Does that make you a better human being? More valuable than others?]
3. I'm engaged to a hedge fund manager [Awesome, you are engaged to the very worst of the worst worst worst. You should be very proud.]
4. Lots of my friends in the city are gay. [OK - nothing wrong with that.]

Something for all you "opposing gay marriage is the same as favoring segregation" folks to think about:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/offthepage/post/?q=MjYxMzE4NThmNjAzNGY1ZDVjMWNiM2MwY2ZmOWI4NWQ=

It's short, and it's a video, so you don't even have to read anything.

214

LOL. "I never called anyone a bigot; I just said that 208 is prejudiced against homosexuals."

Brilliant.

207

YOU have engaged in reasonable discussion, and I and surely others, too, appreciate that. I don't think you can argue, however, that your approach is the general rule in light of the multitude of comments on this thread (and every other Dr. Thio thread) exhibiting a personally hostile approach to those who disagree.

Nor should this surprise anyone. Only the leaders of one side of this debate have routinely called their opponents "bigots" and compared them to segregationists.

218. Darlin', only one side of this debate IS being bigotted, and only one side of this debate IS proposing to deprive a group of people of a fundamental right, segregating them from the rest of the population.

Think about it.

Thank you for making my point.

There is extensive literature from African-American leaders, scholars, and commentators who reject on eight different grounds the "Loving analogy" to same-sex marriage. African-American voters have similarly rejected the analogy as they have voted against same-sex marriage overwhelmingly in proportions exceeding that of other groups of Americans generally. The "Loving" analogy for same-sex marriage misapplies Loving and infringes upon the fundamental principles of Loving v. Virginia.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1226303

213: Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is actually a Democrat who worked on Al Gore's campaign and routinely attacks Republicans like Bush and Pat Robertson. Nice try.

NYU gay-law students have a hissy fit:
end of story.

Maybe some bull-dykes on campus could have disabused her or even seduce her--win-win to nth power