Dr. TTThio.

Admit it, you secretly long to lick the sweet puss puss.

How would we feel about her if she argued in favor of anti-miscegenation laws?

I like her faux British accent in the YouTube videos.

Comment removed by moderator.

Three points.

1. People said the same sort of shit about inter-racial dating/marriage. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

2. This woman apparently has no problem with pegging. So it isn't the sex act; it's the actors she wants to outlaw.

3. If I was paying NYU's overpriced tuition, I'd be hella pissed if they hired someone who advocated for the criminalization of my family and friends. Lady, you're in America. I'm shocked she got hired.

I don't know Dr. TTThio, but based on her public statements, it is my opinion that she's a closeted, self hating lesbian.

4 - It's not "faux"; she studied there (Oxford and Cambridge).

Thio must have some friends in the NYU administration. How else could she have gotten hired?

I thought Michael Jackson was dead.

Is the good Dr. Thio aware that our Supreme Court has struck down laws criminalizing sodomy?

Watch the YouTube videos. She is glib but not very substantive.

Nothing about the article's subject matter, but just wanted to say it's so nice when Lat makes a post here. His stuff's actually coherent -- dare I say, well-written? -- and is usually quite fair.

Unlike a certain Editor (the one sans ass lobsters).

I disagree (vehemently) with pretty much every conclusion that Scalia has...but he's brilliant. His opinions make me so angry because he actually "shows the math" that lead him to what I believe are erroneous decisions - and the math isn't exactly wrong - I just have a different interpretation of it. But could you IMAGINE refusing to have Scalia as a visiting professor because of his ideology? Clearly SCOTUS and some Professor from Sinapore isn't the same thing, but the point remains - if she's not spouting rhetoric that isn't based in some sort of logic or jurisprudence, then she should teach.

And I should mention, I'm a HUGE gay rights supporter. I believe gays should have the same rights, including marriage. They should be free to adopt, etc.

Free speech isn't for speech you like, it's for speech you hate. And learning institutions should not be built with only one political ideology in mind (See: Liberty University...Ava Maria...) Not to mention, students are free to NOT take her class if they so choose...I see no problem with this appointment.

Lat,

Funny that you quote basically the only conservative American politician on the planet who's willing to endorse gay rights.

How does it feel to be part of a party that completely rejects your lifestyle? Why do you continue to support conservatives when 98 percent of them would reject who you are out of hand, and about 65 percent of them would beat the crap out of you if they could get away with you?

Liberals demand tolerance for dissenting views - as long as you agree with them.

Isn't that right, Perez?

I think Lat is gay.

Buried lede here: a prof from SINGAPORE teaching human rights law??? This is not only the country that criminalizes gay sex but whips your ass for spitting chewing gum. And bans the sale of any publication that dares to question the unfaltering godliness of Lee Kuan Yew. Seriously, they're nothing but a TTT China wannabe.

15 - Care to throw out anymore fabricated statistics for our entertainment, or is two per post your limit?

So, apparently she's never taken it in the butt?

Or maybe she has and didn't like it.

Anal sex is WAY more fun than shoving a straw up your nose to drink.

-- Someone Who Has Tried Both

I second 19.

6 - She makes very clear in her speech that she isn't in favor of criminalizing people, just CONDUCT.

Dr. Thio should be commended for her correct views in light of all the gay rights hoopla that is taking over the PC spectrum. The only difference between homosexuality and bestiality is that one act involves animals. Both acts are immoral and will be castigated in God's kingdom. The fact that homosexual sodomy has been legalized by an imperfect society does not minimize the wrongness of the act. NYU School of Law has lost its luster in the past 20 years. Allowing Dr. Thio to become a member of its visiting faculty is a step in the right direction.

ATL is on fire today after a long weekend. These posts have more substance than weeks past. Do you think she has a horizontal butt-crack?

Third for 19. Vote 15 off the island for being a flaming bag of poo.

Ultimately, this boils down to the existential question: does the tolerance afforded by academic freedom require academic institutions to tolerate intolerance? I say "no," but I'm willing to be persuaded.

Wow, good thing she is a non-white female, or she'd be booted out in a second and relegated to speaking at KKK meetings or Sunday Mass.

I don't like the poll question. I "support" the right of NYU to invite her, and her right to teach.

But I don't think she was the best person to find to teach human rights law. Surely they could have found someone better!

If she advocated white racial supremacy or denied the Holocaust, she would be total toast at NYU; the fact remains that it's socially acceptable to be homophobic, even in polite and ostensibly "progressive" academic circles. If the NYU School of Law really is truly committed to a wide open academic debate on various and sundry issues of the day, perhaps the dean should invite David Irving to co-teach a course on human rights with Dr. Thio. . .

Umm... why is it that in the past few years it's become the case that if you don't agree with liberal social policy, you are castigated?

If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage, or interracial marriage for that matter, they should be able to preach that viewpoint loud and clear.

As someone who is on the fence about several of these moral issues, this blatant liberal superiority complex is seriously turning me off to the causes they fight for.

I am pleasantly surprised by the reader poll results (currently showing about 60% of readers in support of NYU/Dr. Thio).

Funny that liberals always seem to discover that academic freedom and freedom of speech have limits when conservatives show up at their picnics.

God I love Partner Emeritus' posts.

Dr. Thio is highly offensive.

Please moderate.

Oh, and what's with the gigantic paws on this lady?

-32

Her analogy is bad for the following reason. She compares an activty necesarry to survive(drinking water) unnaturally performed (snorted) to another activity necesarry for survival (sex) unnaturally performed (anal entry). Last time I checked anal sex isn't something people need in order to survive as individuals. Neither is any sex as most often practiced (read: for pleasure) for that matter . Drinking water of course is. The dissonance in her analogy ignores the elephant in the room: that people engage in all sex generally because it provides enjoyable stimulus of the genitalia. Go us and dolphins. The consequence of this enjoyment is that people have a biological imperative (it feels good) to experiment sexually (read: put it where you've never been). On the otherhand there is to my knowledge nothing enjoyable about finding creative ways to consume water: enemas aren't pleasant. For those in the back, the analogy is bad because it ignores why people don't snort water (it hurts) and in doing so assumes the reason people don't snort water is that its unnatural.

Comment removed by moderator.

She completely misses how much fun it is to be the "straw" going "up the nose."

So the LGBT are going to let Thio's prior arguments affect their registration decisions? Imagine if the conservatives did that at college--they wouldn't be able to attend a single class.

She completely misses how much fun it is to be the "straw" going "up the nose."

32/34: Schools don't like the homophobes for the same reason we don't like racists. That hate and ignorance based ideology has very little academic value. In case you haven't noticed, very few people who believe the world is flat are invited to teach at NYU as well. (They're still welcome at Fordham)

Her analogy is bad for the following reason. She compares an activty necesarry to survive(drinking water) unnaturally performed (snorted) to another activity necesarry for survival (sex) unnaturally performed (anal entry). Last time I checked anal sex isn't something people need in order to survive as individuals. Neither is any sex as most often practiced (read: for pleasure) for that matter . Drinking water of course is. The dissonance in her analogy ignores the elephant in the room: that people engage in all sex generally because it provides enjoyable stimulus of the genitalia. Go us and dolphins. The consequence of this enjoyment is that people have a biological imperative (it feels good) to experiment sexually (read: put it where you've never been). On the otherhand there is to my knowledge nothing enjoyable about finding creative ways to consume water: enemas aren't pleasant. For those in the back, the analogy is bad because it ignores why people don't snort water (it hurts) and in doing so assumes the reason people don't snort water is that its unnatural.

32 - to quote Wanda Sykes, if you are against same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Otherwise, stop denying gay couples the personal and economic benefits afforded to straight people - many of which stick straws up their nose to drink, as it were, all the time.

Having a member of the Singapore parliament talk about "human rights" is laughable. Singapore is one of the most autocratic, Big Brother-esque regimes, even as pertaining to the standards of the very illiberal Asia.

What irks me is that people complain about the homosexual issue, but realize that this is part-and-parcel of the Singaporean clamp-down also on Christians, and also the sky-high taxes. Her politics are probably fairly similar to Obama's, and I'm sure he'd be welcome at NYU.

32: Yeah, right. As opposed to, say, the Christian right's open-minded embrace of differing moral standpoints.

PE is a virgin.

good quesion 3, Also, How would we feel about her if she argued to the Singaporean Parliament against gun ownership?

how has no one noticed her GIANT MAN HANDS?!

"does the tolerance afforded by academic freedom require academic institutions to tolerate intolerance? I say "no," but I'm willing to be persuaded."

Let me try to persuade you. What is the value or meaning of academic freedom if it prohibits any speech deemed by some Dean to be intolerant? What if the Dean thinks the Bible is intolerant? Don't hire any law professor who believes in it. What if he thinks opposition to affirmative action is indicative of intolerance? Don't hire any professor who won't support affirmative action. What kind of world would that be? (pretty much the one we have now).

Can we have a poll on whether "anal sex is like shoving a straw up your nose to drink"?

6: three countries in the history of the world outlawed interracial marriage: the United States, South Africa, and Nazi Germany.

In contrast, up until a decade ago, every single country in the world outlawed same-sex marriage.

The two aren't even comparable.

Signed,

URM

If we are going to teach this, then let's find a professor to invite that says Hitler was right; that slavery should exists; and that Americans are infidels worthy of death by the dirtiest and dullest of swords. And let's not forget to make the little chinamen start building us a better rail system.

Intolerable, incredible, and outright stupid to think such a person can teach HUMAN RIGHTS!!! She is a credit to all HLS idiots.

"Further, we are planning on having a panel discussion this fall addressing the limits of academic freedom and the effect that racist, sexist, or homophobic comments should or shouldn't have on academic appointments."

Oh my gosh, this is Newspeak for "a discussion on who should be forcibly shut up." Thank you homofascists.

If she were teaching a course on legalizing pot or abloshing statutory rape laws, the university would have no problem with it. As long as the topic jives with liberal academic views, she is fine. As soon as she wants to take a view in opposition to those in power, she is chastized for it. Liberals are in favor of burning the flag to protect the freedom of speech, but heaven forbid you ever take a position in opposition to the liberal viewpoint. You'll find your 1st amended right constrained mighty quickly.

Can we please drop the fallacious "liberals are doing X, if conservatives did x, liberals would claim y" argument?This line of thinking wouldn't pass muster in a sophomore logic class at a community college in some of this country's less prosperous regions.

Just because you assume that the liberals' and conservatives' "X" is truly equivalent, does not make it so.

I'm on a boat!

- Captain Stabbin

Who gives a shit? Seriously. Who gives a shit what some professor says, and how offended (stamp foot) some student organization is?

Gawd, so glad I am not in law school any longer.

If we are in the right, then we shouldn't be afraid of Dr. Thio and her ilk.

- gay rights supporter

53: Your premise is wrong. Lots of places have had laws on interracial marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Sorry that you're not very smart.

Could someone please explain why her analogy is bad.

53: false. Check many middle eastern countries, many colonial empire in the 1800's. Dumbass.

Comment removed by moderator.

57: Could you please rephrase that screed? I got lost.

Why do liberals constantly revert to the following: "based on her public statements, it is my opinion that she's a closeted, self hating lesbian?" Apparently, if one advocates against "x", they must secretly love "x."

That's like saying, "Liberals bash Christian views. Liberals must be closeted Christians." Not logical.

"What do you think about NYU's decision to invite Dr. Thio to teach human rights law? Take our poll:"

No thanks, Lat. I have no interest in taking your pole. Wait a tic...you said poll, didn't you? Well just to be on the safe side, not thanks anyway.

First they came for Norman Finklestein . . .

53 - doesn't that imply that gay people have a history of even more entrenched oppression?

61: ethnicity and religion are different from race. Sorry Wikipedia is, as usual, incorrect. Sorry you can't read. Additionally, most of those "laws" are generic attempts to discourage particular kinds of relationships, not outright prohibitions.

63/64: there's one "post" button.

I a straight male that greatly enjoys anal sex with women. I also like to masturbate to anal sex.

But, then again, I do not believe in the god fallacy. It is funny to think that their are still educated people in the world who want to criminalize people for simply loving each other.

To be balanced, some non-gay group from NYU should point out that there are a bunch of people at the university with pro-gay sentiments. Right? That's essentially what OUTlaw did.

It annoys the hell out of me when schools send around these types of emails. She is free to her opinion, as the school acknowledges. However, there are very legitimate reasons and arguments why gay marriage and extension of gay rights should not be supported.

50, see 37.

Liberals: This woman is arguing in a non-U.S. country, regarding a non-U.S. law. Try a little of that cultural relativism you love so much and stop trying to impose your U.S. values on other countries. Liberal american imperialists!

69: as are pedophiles? OHHH, I CAN MAKE ABSURD AND IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS, TOO!

69: See 65. Does that now imply that gay people don't have a "history of even more entrenched oppression?" I think you would say no. You're a shifty bugger. The fact is that your side will probably win, because gays represent the power structure. Might will make right.

Shut up 57.

-56

Diversity is a good thing. Period. This woman has a lot to offer besides her ridiculous views on homosexuality.

Besides, who knows? Maybe her time at NYU will change her. Everyone is always growing. Maybe she'll have some new experiences that will loosen her up. I've seen her type before. Give me a little quality time with her... my nice, smooth straw; her sweet little asian nose; some peanut oil. I'd loosen her up.

Side question about her analogy. Is it also illegal to be so perverse as to put a straw in your nose in Singapore?

Who knows? Maybe NYU can learn a thing or two from this woman. Everyone is always growing. Maybe a new professor will bring in better ideas to shake up the liberal orthodoxy.

-78

Since I see that the OUTLaw Board signed off on the email above I thought that I would add that in the email that I received from NYU, Professor Kenji Yoshino was the signatory at the bottom. The content of the email was exactly the same.

Ah yes, academic freedom...bigotry disguised as academic research.

How come the right is so often so wrong?

I can't think for myself, so I rip off other's material, spin it, and sign it as them.

- 79

Gay people like ass sex.

What right does this group have to "make people aware" of someone making anti-gay sentiments? I hate liberal universities.

WTF does this mean "The fact is that your side will probably win, because gays represent the power structure. Might will make right."

How do gays represent the power structure? And if so, are they just foolin' around, passing all of those discriminatory laws just so they can throw a fabulous party when the gay power structure allows gay marriage in 50 states, bans Crocs and announces the implementation of Cher Day? (tongue firmly in cheek).

Geez. Paranoid much?

The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin', or so I have read.

84 = a f*cking moron

Why wouldn't they have the right? If a conservative group wanted to inform the listserv that a liberal professor was coming in that hated bible thumping rednecks like yourself, they would have the same right, obviously.

Why do kids at NYLS care about this? Don't they have bigger fish to fry, like finding a job?

I resent the straw-in-nose to anal-sex analogy.

- Homophobic and Prudish Coke-Head

Thank you 78. I read through this whole comment chain and was thinking to myself, how in the world has no one pointed out that her argument actually is one AGAINST the continued criminalization of gay sex but she appears TOO DUMB to realize it. I may not be an expert in Singapore law, but I'll wager a fair amount drinking through your nose with a straw isn't illegal. Therefore, if the 2 acts are moral equivalents gay sex should be legalized, unless she thought this was a debate on the criminalization of nose straw drinking. Talk about your poor debating technique...."hey, can't we all agree this is just like other stuff thats legal and therefore this should be illegal"...what an idiot.

According to the CDC, over 80% of HIV positive persons in this country are either gay or IV drug users. Knowledge is painful.

Columbia just gave tenure to Joseph Massad, who claims that there are no homosexuals in the Muslim world, and that the "Gay International" is responsible for destroying the Muslim family. his book was published by U of Chicago Press. But he's a reliable critic of Israel, so no one on the Left has made an issue of it.

84 -

Exactly my thoughts on "What right does this group have to 'make people aware' of someone making anti-gay sentiments." Not on the rest of the statement though.

I'd be okay with such warnings if I got the same warning for taking a class with someone publicly sharing pro-gay sentiments.

-80

Columbia just gave tenure to Joseph Massad, who claims that there are no homosexuals in the Muslim world, and that the "Gay International" is responsible for destroying the Muslim family. his book was published by U of Chicago Press. But he's a reliable critic of Israel, so no one on the Left has made an issue of it.

Nice catch 18. I'm glad someone caught it. Human rights and Singapore in the same sentence. Hilarious.

84 - and we hate you Regents Law School students (I say students because you should not be recognized as part of the legal profession).

And this is not about being on the left-right or conservative-liberal. This is about a person who is teaching human rights that thinks the gay community deserves no rights. There is something inherently wrong with that perspective.

-Outsider

Someone needs to piiTTTb.

@62: The analogy itself is fine. Sticking a straw up your nose would be an unusual use for the straw, not to mention your nose. Most people would find it unpleasant, even disgusting, but a small minority of the population might find pleasure in it. The same could be said for homosexual sex.

The problem is that the analogy undermines her argument. I’m not aware of anyone who seriously thinks that the insertion of a straw into one’s nose should be a regulated activity, much less a criminalized one. If someone wanted to insert a straw in his nose, I would not care any more than if he wanted to insert it into his mouth. I do not understand why the knee-jerk reaction of so many people in this country to the strange, the foreign, and the different is to try to outlaw them.

HAHA! I love liberals. Always for freedom of speech and tolerance, except when it is something they disagree with. F-ing Hypocrites.

You don't have to agree with her, but at least protect her right to say what she thinks. Also try to approach things with an "open mind" (again, hypocrites).

Umm. The initial email in the article was from OUTLaw. NYU sent no email out about the professor.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

Did anyone read past "Human Rights" to see that she'll be teaching "Human Rights IN ASIA"? People keep saying she's going to "teach human rights" as if she's going to lecture on how to actually treat another human being. This isn't kindergarten.

The point of such a class is to discuss the policies that affect human rights decisions in whatever place (here, Asia), how the perception of human rights has evolved in that society, and how it fits in to the global scheme of what is considered to be basic human rights.

She sounds like a very qualified person to discuss these issues as they relate to Asia. Especially considering how many countries in that area are not known for granting free speech rights, which is a particular right that americans like to go all banshee-like about when they sense infringment, except of course when the speech being made is something they don't agree with.

88 - NYU, not NYLS.

Federalist Society 4eva

84 - They do have rights. The same rights as everyone else. They can marry members of the opposite sex and have children that way.

BOOM

99 - no one wants her to be stopped from saying it. Just held accountable and, perhaps, not offered a position teaching human rights law.

88 - If you're employed, fire yourself. You're a complete moron to think NYLS is NYU. Go tell your employer that you have just discovered you are too dumb to work for her any longer. You may even consider giving some of the money back you stole through collecting a salary.

Reading each of these posts, it's interesting that no one really seems to take a legal position on the issue of same sex marriage. Those for it ridicule those that are not as bigots, and those against it, generally, cite god as the trump card. Claiming that the gay agenda is identical to the strife of blacks over the last 50 years is absurd. Sexuality, i.e. attraction to a specific set homosapiens, is behavioral; of course influenced by genetics, but deserving of an "immutable characteristic" designation?

Personally, I am for live and let live, but let's get back to reason. Someone who thinks that sexuality is more akin to a propensity, rather than an iron clad character trait, shouldn't be the target of this hostility.

David Saint Hubbins = Worst ATL character

104 & 108, grow a sense of humor.

Federalist Society has an (unwritten) rule against promoting, disseminating, or actively active (or passive) anal sex, with or without lube, whether it is Astroglide or KY.

110 - David Saint Hubbins is the best character currently gracing this tabloid (let's stop calling it blog, please).

Also, the part about drinking through your nose actually makes a lot of sense. Never thought about it like that. What she fails to consider is that what if the person drinking through his nose has a disability, live having no mouth? Homosexuality is a disability.

This appointment just illustrates why NYU Law is a second-rate school, and always will be. Having a member of the Singapore Parliament teach ANY course about Human Rights Law is akin to having the Boston Strangler teach a course about the Sanctity of Human Life.

What Morons are in charge of that third-tier place, anyway? Did Rupert Murdoch buy it when we weren't looking? Since when is sensationalism a substitute for education? Who's next? Osama teaching a course in World Peace?

Having a bunch of degrees is no measure of intelligence...

Wait. I think I have a better idea. Lets invite the President of Iran to speak at Columbia University.

Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice.

Comment removed by moderator.

If homosexuality is genetic, could someone explain how the genes of people like Anne Heche and Lindsay Lohan apparently keep on changing back and forth? Thanks.

Putting straw in your nose may hurt, but oh, the hurt just feels good especially after a warm body on top of you.

116

So I guess I shouldn't rim my wife's ass?

Dumbass.

I'm bored.

Another lippy Viceroy from the Trade Federation!

NYU students better blockade a campus cafeteria immediately.

Me too.

109- treatment of blacks and gays (and other groups) are similar in that these groups have been deprived of certain rights given to others. While being gay is not akin to slavery, it is relevant in an argument about rights. And the "strife" of blacks is an ongoing matter for far more than 50 years; even as we have a President with a black father, we see oppression in the black community (I am white, for the record).

I do agree with the your first two lines. Lines? Crap, are we back to the straw in the nose anaolgy?

60

You make a good point. It's like our parents used to tell us: "Just ignore them." I think there is some real power to just laughing at those people who you think are akin to those who opposed interracial marriage.

-Someone who hasn't figured out his views on homosexuality

Her arguments are far to the right of the conservative mainstream and well beyond the conservatives on the Court. She is not arguing against gay marriage or arguing that prohibiting sodomy is constitutionally permissible. Instead, she is arguing that it is affirmatively a good thing for the state to punish intercourse between two consenting adults. Even Clarence Thomas, in his dissent in Lawrence, acknowledged that anti-sodomy laws are a foolish use of the state's power.

Moreover, hiring her is somewhat irrelevant to academic freedom. For there to be academic freedom, professors must not be disciplined for viewpoints they express after they are hired. This insures that professors can speak freely and develop viewpoints independent of politcal pressures. In her case, NYU hired her after she expressed these noxious views to teach human rights law, in essence sanctifying those views and using NYU money to support them.

Conservatives rightly mock the UN commission on Human Rights for its membership that consists primarily of human rights violating nations. They should recognize the insanity of hiring someone to teach human rights law who is fundamentally opposed to a widely accepted human right.

32/109: Her statements were not merely against gay marriage, but against gay sex. There's a difference.
109, you greatly understate her position; someone who calls it "gross indecency" and "perversity" doesn't merely believe that "sexuality is more akin to a propensity."

Otherwise I agree with 60. What's the big deal with this lady? And yeah, she's teaching human rights law IN ASIA. Hint for the exam: there aren't any.

Comment removed by moderator.

NYLS students are so uptight. Makes me wish we had more Fordham PT grads here.

118 - it is their fear of falling behind the latest fashion trend. They do who is in style at the time and don't affiliate with straight or gay groups. If you think it is a choice, then how do you feel when you consider having the genitals of a same-sex partner in your mouth till orgasm? I think that will clear up any questions.

85- The point is true. Looking at it from a Marxist perspective, we know that there are no homosexual "rights." There is only the expression of class interests. The trend towards liberality as regards gay "rights" simply indicates that the ruling class finds it advantageous to have these "rights."

Put another way, gays are an integral part of the power structure. They are a more entrenched class interest than, say, white trash in the deep south.

[NOTE: This is the second try at posting this, but with a less "offensive" (to the powers-that-be) but equivalent term used]

So many comments removed by moderator, so little time.

I am tired of hearing the homosexuals' argument that they should be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples. As a man that walks tall and straight, there are several benefits I wish I could enjoy that women currently do. I wish I can go on maternity leave under the protection and auspices of federal law. However, I accept that there are some benefits I will never enjoy. Homosexuals should realize that there are some benefits they will never enjoy either. Unlike some of the posters to this thread, I believe homosexuality is not a mental infirmity; rather, it is proof of moral decay and an indicia of ultra deviant behavior that should be outlawed. I realize the tide has turned and my views are in the minority, yet it doesn't mean I am wrong. What a homosexual does in his/her home is their business. They can stick straws or sybian devices in their orifices all they want. But remember, the bible predicted the decline of human civilization with the acceptance of homosexuality. We are there.

"slow clap" for 122. That was fucking funny

130, so being gay is like a fashion trend now? Ok.

We have a lot of aversions to things that aren't based in our genetics, so your hypothetical doesn't quite work. Some people like putting tofu in their mouth and some people don't, and I am pretty sure that is a matter of personal choice.

"The efforts to repeal 377A failed, and consensual sex between men is still illegal in Singapore."

The funny thing is that non-consensual sex between men IS legal in Singapore.

Apparently it's legal to get ass-raped but illegal to make sweet ass love.

124 and 128

Both responses were off point. My frustration is that no one seems to want to ask, are those seeking gay marriage more like black men deprived of economic benefits afforded to white men, or more like confused teens with tattoos and piercings who, because of their ability to identify with a group of like individuals, believe that they are entitlted to equal protection. I not certainly not defining homosexuality as the latter, only pointing out the difference between an immutable characteristic (skin color) with a behavioral tendency that is foreign to many. Of course one can disagree with the notion that sexuality is behavioral, but let's not pretend that above are the same.

It's simply wrong to persist with an equal protection argument, until some causal chain is uncovered, whereby it can be shown "If X gene, then only attracted to Y group of people," as we can with race and gender. Do people even ask these questions before advocating the cheapening of what it means to be a protected class?

-109

14, well said.

16 - read 14's post and please revise your statement. thanks.

116...good point. agreed that anti-drug laws are ridiculous as well.

Even India is ahead of Singapore on this front:

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2009/07/naz-foundation-v-union-of-india.html

The Committee on Financial Services has decided to immediately hold a hearing on this important issue to address the hate based speech of Dr. Thio.

- Chairman Frank

135- but we don't deny rights to those who eat tofu now, do we?

I am an NYU alumni. My views are the polar opposite of Dr. Thio's, but yet I agree that part of what makes NYU so engaging is the diversity of opinions that can be found in this one institution.
Intolerance and bigotry is never to be accepted. But being intolerant of those who have different opinions is just as close-minded. The NYU approach, with which I agree, is to spur on the debate and let each person make up their own mind. Hopefully, at the end, the majority will agree that freedom to excercise your sexual orientation is a human right.
Besides, Thio is teaching ASIAN Human Rights. Did you expect someone with entirely Western values?

114 - Idiot. I guess you think that every citizen of a country thinks exactly the same way, and that the actions of a nation are transitively imputed upon every one of its people. Would it also be outrageous to have a Japanese instructor at a driving school? Or a Somalian chef at a restaurant school? Or a Canadian drill instructor? No, you're right, totally...on the basis of her being from Singapore, she shouldn't be allowed to teach a human rights course. Especially since it's Asian Human Rights...some pretentious hippie American professor probably knows more about that than her.

Also, you're all TOTALLY right. An analogy has to fit 100% perfectly for it to be even remotely useful. The straw analogy can't possibly be used only to demonstrate her belief that an act is unnatural, and then another argument for why it should be illegal. If she can't find a perfect analogy of another bodily act that IS illegal, she loses! HaHA!

If you disagree with the woman, disagree with her. Don't attack a part of her argument that was meant as a limited, descriptive analogy. The title of her speech wasn't "Keep it illegal because it's like putting a straw up your nose and that's wrong." Don't be so TTThio.

If I spent an entire night covering Singapore City in large graffiti drawings of goatse, how many lashes would I get and would I or my drawings be in violation of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code?

it would be one thing to have her teach public international law, or something of the sort - it's hard to justify her teaching human rights law...

Hey people,

Bottom line is.. if you're a black guy yuou cannot pretend to be a white male.

If you are a "homosexual" male or possibly a 'loving and gay' female, you can pretend that you are straight and do not enjoy taking it ... "up the bum" as it is said.

Think about it. Just because you shouldn't have to pretend to be something that you are not, does not mean you can't pretend to be something you are not.

This newsletter is a good heads up. If you are a homosexual, you shouldn't act that way in this woman's class since you know her political ideology. GLucky.

ps (142 here), NYU is HUGELY supportive of gay rights, so I don't think that if Thio was intolerant of any other minority she would be any less welcome. I remember one heated KKK vs Civil Rights leader debate, and an Israel vs. Palestine discussion that really drew in a crowd. The point is academic freedom means the right to say things that irks someone else, and the right of that someone else to refute them. If all else fails- agree to disagree.

Not only was her iodiotic comment offensive to homosexuals, but also to those on life support. Nice going, bitch!

109 - There have been scientific discoveries that show differences in gay and straight people. Those opposing gay rights refute them and for now they are in the majority, so you wn't hear about it unless you are looking.

Someone said the course was Asian Human Rights. I think you need to recheck your facts.

-124

80-

I think you mean you got the email from Yoshinori Sasao who, as SBA President, OUTLaw Member and STUDENT, is not quite the same as the Con Law Professor Kenji Yoshino. However, I do find it hilarious that you (mistakenly I assume) confused the two.

Everyone else-

Where on earth was NYU supposed to find a qualified Asian professor (not Asian-American) that is very pro-gay rights, speaks english fluently, has a western education, and is willing to move to NYC for a time? How many people do you think are even out there that are qualified for the position???

~NYU Alum

shameful

Comment removed by moderator.

"...if she's not spouting rhetoric that isn't based in some sort of logic or jurisprudence, then she should teach."

You pretty much missed the bus on this one, 14. Every argument against miscegenation was based in some sort of logic, as are arguments denying the Holocaust and denying equal rights to women. And judicial holdings are overturned all the time, so relying on them as an indicator of whether something is morally right isn't such a good idea either.

NYLS > nyu

Comment removed by moderator.

141, no but the police power has the legitimate option of banning tofu-eating, in order to promote the general welfare.

Surprising that NYU would give her the green light anyway. I guess that's another school my daughter will need to strike from her list if I'm going to be the one paying her tuition.

Comment removed by moderator.

131, I hope you're joking. The fact that gays make more money than non-gays doesn't at all mean that they are at the top of the power structure. Every day gays are assaulted on the streets in rural America. This is a violation of natural rights, which can only be given by God. The Marxist junk doesn't even apply here.

Once again goes to prove that all the Ivy-glittered degrees in the world cannot make up for common sense.

141, no but society can ban tofu and nobody would think that's a violation of any fundamental civil right.

It's sad that to call out a bigoted homophobe for being a bigoted homophone unworthy of a visiting faculty spot is to be "intolerant."

It's like the gay rights vs. anti-gay rights debate. Do we have Holocaust vs. no Holocaust debates in legitimate debate fora? On mainstream television? Twenty years from now, we will look back on the social conservatives (Thio included) and laugh that they were ever included and accorded respect in the battle over basic human dignities for all persons.

I honestly find it laughable that social conservatives expect to be taken seriously on any front, but hey, maybe I'm less PC than most.

Partner Emeritus -

Where does it say in the Bible that "the decline of human civilization (will come) with the acceptance of homosexuality?"

What if people had told others who had fought for their rights that they "should realize that there are some benefits they will never enjoy either."

if you had a vagina and were impregnated I bet you would recieve the same maternity leave. As it were, you are NOT HAVING A BABY and thus will not recieve and maternity leave.

Men have the ability to love other men, choice or not, thus why should they accept that they should have less rights than other people in love?

The reason why "liberals" don't like intolerance is not because they don't like your opinions, it's because they don't think that it is an opinion argument. This is who they are, why shouldn't they get the same rights. Conservatives say, "it is my opinion that faggots should not get married." It is their opinion, which they are certainly able to have.

As an empiricist,(not to speak for all of us) I see both sides as illogical. How can someone say "I am liberal and tolerant of everyone so I have to force everyone to be tolerant of everyone" or "I am conservative and I do not agree with someone else's lifestyle so they are not allowed to have that lifestyle?"

I just wonder whether or not there is a non-religious argument against gay marriage.

If homosexuality is "proof of moral decay and should be outlawed" what is a similar crime? How morally indecent is homosexual sex? The same as taking off your clothes and jumping in a fountain? The same as sex wth a minor? The same as consensual sex between a man and a woman...anally?

How much time should one spend in prison for being caught as a homosexual? Apparently you thnik it is the beginning of moral decay but they are allowed to do it in their own homes? That sounds awfully accepting of their lifestyles. They are allowed to cause the possible "end of times" as long as they don't have the same rights as you?

And one more thing...

The argument earlier (I can't remember what number) that the difference between animal sex and sodomy are the same except that one is with animals is amazingly poor.

The animals (as far as I know) are not consenting to buggery where (hopefully) the homosexuals are. (I suppose it's my opinion that) That is big difference.

YOU ARE ALL STRAW STUFFERS.

LATHAM SECURE

sorry for the incredibly long post...

I voted for yes because I believe she is VERY highly qualified to teach Human Rights at any college and anyone going to any college (especially law school) should be capable of critical thinking.

I agree with everyone that said that there was no need to send a warning email anymore than there is a reason to send a warning email out to kids who don't believe in global warming rounding their 2L with a supposedly easy environmental law class.

Partner Emeritus, I bow to your wisdom.

#25 is correct! Homosexuality is deviant, abnormal and contrary to the laws of nature and God. Yes, folks try to make the flawed analogy when it comes to race - but animals naturally occur in different colors in nature; they do not naturally try to have sex with their own 'gender.' The acceptance of homosexuality as normal will surely be the end of humanity - why can't people see just how wrong and perverse it is?

Comment removed by moderator.

I totally support this woman's visit to NYU. She comes from a country with very little concept of what human rights means. I think a little bit of NY-liberal-style outrage will be good for her. If the students and professors at NYU can bear to have intelligent conversations with her about it, maybe her concept of what counts as a "human wrong" will change a little and she can bring her enlightenment back to Singapore.

I'm really curious what David Lat's opinion is on this. He's a gay man who (presumably) engages in anal sex. And he's conservative.

PE - Reading comprehension must not be one of your strongpoints. You can take maternity leave. FMLA allows for leave for both men and women.
Go away, troll.

So, what's the problem. Everything she said was true. I guess the truth hurts, sort of like getting pounded in the ass.

This is addressed to post no. 171.

Go RE-READ my initial post you ruffian cur. A man cannot take maternity leave. I never said he cannot take family leave. You obviously are either unemployed or toil away for a non-peer institution.

Dear 168,
Animals do have gay sex. Lots of them do. Bonobos, dogs, chimps. Please know your facts before saying such ignorant things.

Also, since many people do not believe in God, they aren't likely to buy into your argument about gay sex being "against the laws of God".

171, name me one employer that gives 16 weeks of parental leave to men, like what they do for women (even ones who use surrogates, etc).

I think NYU should invite John Yoo to teach legal ethics as well.

Doesn't Kozinski have graphi
images of anal sex and straw-nostril
penetration? Just saying.

What about anal-straw penetration--is that a lesser offense?

The enlightened liberals in the mold of
Voltaire will defend any opinion.

Fck Yoo taught at Cal--let the marketplace of ideas
freely decide.

170 - I think we know Lat's opinion on this. As a libertarian, he is fine with NYU letting this lady teach (even if she condemns an activity he presumably enjoys).

Wasn't there an NYU law student back in the day who asked Justice Scalia during a Q&A if he sodomized his wife? I bet he'd have a field day in her class.

I once put my finger in my ass just to see what it felt like. I'm pretty sure I'm going to burn in hell now. I'd better just own up and turn myself in to the police. Maybe they'll be lenient on sentencing if I turn informant. I've got good street info.

When I was 8 years old this kid in third grade asked me to smell his finger, and I could swear he had to have just pulled it out of his ass. His name was Luke, I think.

I had this other friend, Paul, that sucked spaghetti up one nostril and out the other to make us laugh. Swear to god. The kid was a total pervert.

I agree NYU should not allow OUTLaw to send out these spam emails.

The perennial free-speech argument always shows that people are more than willing to silence the unpopular voices in society. There's something within our human nature that yearns to control the thoughts and ideas of others. History is filled with stories of people have been crushed by leaders who have sought to have total control of mind and spirit.

I say let the marketplace of ideas sort out the "right" from the "wrong" ideas, rather than committees and groups of people seeking to impose whatever orthodoxy is popular with those in power at any given time.

Supporting free speech doesn't make one in favor (or against) any particular speaker. It just allows for the free flow of information and ideas within a society so that people can come to a decision about what is right and appropriate after weighing the various merits of the ideas.

To post 163:

First, look up the term "empiricism", since you obviously don't know what it means.

Second, "homosexual" behavior DOES occur in the animal kingdom, and the issue of consent is irrelevant. This is why both Partner Emeritus and the pro-Gay rights people are both incorrect; i.e., Darwin is the answer.

Third, you argue, fallaciously, that because people of the same sex can love each other, [some modicum of] rights follow from this. While you're looking up "empiricism", you might as well look up the Humean (i.e., non-Moorian) version of the Natural Fallacy.

150 - I hear they have law schools (and Asians - who knows, maybe even Asians who know something about human rights) in Canada, the UK, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc etc.

Clearly, Dr. Thio didn't use enough lube when she shoved a straw up her nose to drink.

I thought we were supposed to celebrate diversity. There are, of course, diverse beliefs relating to a number of thing, and gay sex is one of them.

Dr. TTThio

My 3L year I studied abroad at the University of Melbourne and I took a seminar class called Asian Constitutionalism with Dr. Thio. I found her to be extremely intelligent, open-minded, and interesting. She knows more about the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law than the vast majority of American law school graduates. She is someone at the forefront of advocating for political change in Singapore, and as this post states, she even got herself elected/appointed as a semi-member of their parliment. I think that within at least the Singaporean context she is probably considered to be way out on the left side of the political spectrum. She is an excellent teacher and has much to offer to students. It would be a shame if a few intolerant inwhyyou activists were able to prevent other students from learning from Dr. Thio. The intolerance would be quite ironical to me...

179

Is that really true--what was the response by Scalia?

Other than said student found in a barrel in NY harbor

We're all fucked.

More importantly--what do the interns think?

But doesn't her analogy undercut
her thesis?

Straws in the nose to drink are an acquired taste-yes
but unethical/illegal no.

Plus don't knock it unless you tried it.

If this lady think anal sex is like shoving a straw up the nose, I think she's doing it wrong - it's really not like that at all. Unless doing so causes you to sneeze milk all over the place, then I could see where she's going with it.

As a nose fucker, I am extremely offended by this woman.

Just like with almost everything else about which conservatives are wrong, all said conservatives need to do is imagine themselves in the shoes of whatever race/gender/sexual orientation they are discriminating/being bigoted/being ignorant against.

Dr. Thio was "lucky" enough, presumably, to be born straight and to be attracted to the opposite sex. Some of us are not so "lucky." Perhaps if she (and if other social conservatives) imagined what life would be like as a gay man or lesbian, they wouldn't be so quick to advocate for the criminalization of anal sex and for the subjugation of homosexuals. Pretty sad, if you ask me. I think these people weren't raised properly. Shame on these conservatives' parents for raising such intolerant and disgusting human beings.

188 what is the constitution? I fantly
remember Kathleen Sullivan tas a visiting prof. teaching
a class on it--but other than that I am in the dark.

195,

I'm imagining being you. Consequently, I am imagining killing myself.

Why is it always the "bigotry/ignorance" card with you folks? Why can't I know EXACTLY what you are, and condemn you for it?

197,

Sorry, but I don't get it. Care to try making sense?

Does anyone else find this "limits of academic freedom" language chillingly Orwellian? "We're all for free speech, so long as you espouse institutionally approved political ideas." Free speech is meaningless when it applies to mainstream ideas. Mainstream ideas are tolerated in any society. It is precisely ideas that are so offensive as to inspire retaliation that freedom of speech is intended to protect. If we falter in that and say, well, some speech is just too politically incorrect to tolerate, then we open the door to a shrinking world of ideas approved by whomever holds the most power in society.

197 here,

You retarded 198? Figure it out.

it looks like her view of human rights, which she presumably shares with at least some singaporeans whom she represents in parliament, is different from ours. maybe not a bad idea to have her teach "human rights in asia."

195, you support adult incest, polygamy, and necrophilia, right? Since you're obviously bigoted and ignorant, you just need to imagine yourself in their shoes. If you still don't support them, sham on your parent for raising such an intolerant and disgusting human being.

She has a better academic pedigree than any member of the NYU rainbow club.

These whiners don’t want scholarship at their school; they want professors who echo their fragile world view. If NYU fired Dr. Thio and replaced her with a transsexual catamite who dropped out of a TTT law school, these people would, without the slightest hint of irony, declare it a victory for diversity and a positive result for the reputation of the institution.

I would have thought the JUICY INSIDES guy would be all over this one.

gay people are by definition "abnormal". gay sex is not the natural. it is what it is. it shouldnt be illegal, but this lady's opinion certainly isnt extreme.

The article said that DR. THIO would talk about her ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY SEX.

I thought this would go into the definition of sex before going into gay sex. This would mean that an "academic" will have to say nasty stuff like, "blow job," and "creme pie." That seemed fun.

To my dismay, the debate said none of these things. I have never seen such an "un-passionate" conversation regarding sex.

This debate was BORING!!

Only lawyers could talk about sex and not make it funny or arousing!!!!

I mean, really, what is this? A lecture at WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW?

The QUESTION PRESENTED is not whether Thio Li Ann likes perversity, YOU MORONS!!

That was never the issue!!!!!!

The question is whether Thio Li Ann likes Qum Phrum Sum Yung Gai's Phat Dong!

Obviously a lesbian.

she's an academic, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the policy of the Singapore government... even if she did serve on parliament. She has her own ideas and I normally wouldn't see a problem with her... but her views about homosexuals are too extreme.

I agree that NYU should fire her. It IS like hiring a white supremacist.

NYU is possibly the greatest law school in the country.... top notch and not full of itself.... they shouldn't tolerate this woman. LLM from Harvard. Shows what a TTT Harvard is.

Maybe she was just representing her constituents' views, perhaps?

Kind of like those people who do those things in those rooms...what are they called again?...Oh yeah, lawyers.

84 - then it's unfortunate. But Coloumbia also hosted Ahmadinijad the antisemite homocidal freak. So it's not surprising. Just because Columbia is a TTT doesn't mean NYU has to become one too. NYU is better than that

106 - Yes because closeted gay men marrying straight women works out great.

Check the past 20 years of Republican sex scandals for more information relative to your assertion.

209, NYU ain't all that son. The "greatest law school in the country" wouldn't be filled with students 99% of whom were rejected from YLS.

In terms of societal issues, there are some "intolerant" free speech ideas that academia seems to allow (e.g. being conservative and religious), others that are borderline (e.g. being against gay marriage) and others that are immediately trigger a scholar's castigation (e.g. being racist). It will be interesting to see what NYU will do. I, for one, think that Mr. Thio is wrong in her beliefs but support her right to teach Asian human rights law at NYU.

I'd probably not supprt her right to teach gay rights law at NYU.

Mahmoud - you said there are no homosexuals in Iran...but we in New York now baby!!

213.... getting accepted to NYU is tough. Yale is uptight. NYU is hip. It draws different people. But NYU is hardly inferior to anyone.

202 = epic fail.

215 and 213:

Getting into NYU is hip and Yale is classy.

But at WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, it is very diverse because what you have are a bunch of rubes and bumpkins from moron states, like Missouri and Arkansas, who couldn't get into their own states TTT.

And then what you have are these rubes talking about how California is not that great because the girls don't look like their first cousins and because there is too much "ethnic" looking people that they thought was a lie, portrayed to them by the "liberal media" (intellectual buzzword!).

Yeah, think about it....

207: I grant to you the "Epic LOL Award of the Year."

217: You were runner-up

Dr. Thio MAY BE RIGHT on her position because she has an LLM from Harvard.

But she shouldn't knock anal sex, until she's tried it.

I am white, and I would like to offer her my 2 inch.

The issue whether a 2 inch penis is too small. Under the modern rules of sexology, there is the notion that "It may be small, but it fits 'em all."

On one hand, 2 inches is small because it is no bigger than a finger. On the other hand, even if it is small, it can still "fit them all." Moreover, lesbians have sex with tongues and fingers and those are as small as 2 inches, but can satisfy.

Therefore, 2 inches is not too small.

As someone who describes himself as very liberal, I don't see what all the fuss is about NYU hiring an eminent scholar who holds arguably disagreeable positions on a certain hot-button issue. Several of my fellow law students and professors hold fast to even more pernicious ideas -- e.g. capital punishment, the legal and moral acceptability of deportation/banishment of hard-working individuals with American families for non-criminal offenses, the tacit belief that dozens of Iraqi (or Sudanese, Rwandan) lives are worth less than one American. In fact, I find arguing with these people quite fruitful for both of us, and count many of them as my friends, despite what I see as their deplorable ideas about the role of law and policy.
Although I believe that speech ought to be regulated and punished in a few circumstances, I can't stand "political correctness" - arguably one of the worst kinds of censorship, since it more fully stigmatizes certain forms of expression than criminal punishment ever could. Unfortunately, academic communities are often perversely prone to this kind of shunning.

blah blah blah

For the last time, if NYU hired as a visiting scholar a person who believed that blacks or Jews are inferior and that consensual sex with a black or a Jew should be criminalized, everyone would agree that this view is unacceptable and that this person should not be hired. But replace black or Jew with "gay" and the sex with "consensual homosexual sex" and everyone thinks that academic freedom somehow comes into the mix.

History has long passed by social conservatism. It really is time to go on the attack against these bigoted, disgusting views. I will make it my mission to vehemently insult and degrade at least one social conservative a week, hopefully in public. Liberals really are far too nice. We take so much shit from conservatives. Yes, we ignore most of it and find conservatives and conservatism to be entirely irrelevant to daily life and to society, but we get frequently attacked nonetheless. No longer, I say! ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!

actually 222, as applied to Jews your point is highly debatable.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US307&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=NYU+anti-semitism

222, 220 here. I agree that homosexual conduct is an inappropriate thing to criminalize. But why so much anger over this issue, as opposed to others? Would you be so upset over a visiting sharia law scholar who honestly believed in the inferiority of women? What about the large proportion of male members of law school faculties who quietly hold this belief? To me, the latter is far more likely to have an adverse effect, and yet is much harder to level "attacks" against these people and their subtle views.
I guess I'm just questioning your strategy. Call me naive, but I think that in an environment such as a law school, reasoned (even empathic) argument is more likely to have a positive effect than partisan attacks (really, most conservatives are far nicer in person than on tv or the internet). For example, I think NYU's OUTlaw board took an appropriately level-headed response to this situation.

The idea of "substitute Jew or black for homosexual" blah blah blah is really quite ridiculous. The color of one's skin or one's ethnicity cannot reasonably be equated with one's bedroom habits.

Do you also castigate a professor who supports criminalization of polygamy? What's the difference?

202 is the Post of the Day. If love is love, I hope the LGBT community also fights for adult incest and polygamy rights. EVERYONE is equal, right?

Or is the LGBT community also "disgusting human beings" for not wanting to give federal tax benefits to those unions?

How can they have her teach human rights if she doesn't believe in them?

Regardless of her qualifications or ANYTHING, consider this.

Would NYU be bringing this woman in if she expressed views of the inferiority of the black race? Or that the Arab people have not amounted to anything in the last 500 years and should be excluded from modern society?

I'm sure you could find logical and cogent arguements for those as well. But you know what, no one would take her seriously and she would be laughed off the stage.

She of course has the freedom to think about whatever she wants and express those views (ironically, not in singapore).

However, regardless of her qualifications, she should not be an adjunct prof.

I dont care how "open minded" or "friendly" she is on other isses. Thats like saying "hey, that guy is such a friendly, open minded professor. Except for his unjustified hatred for jews. Meh, jews aren't natural".

Tisk tisk tisk. NYU, shame on you. And anyone equating this to bollinger brining the Iranian president to Columbia, if you ever even saw the presentation, Bollinger basically used his entire intro speach to completely and totally insult and jab at him. No one takes the Irania president seriously, and clearly Columbia didn't either; they gave him a chance to talk, he made an ass out of himself. But he wasnt offered a teaching position.

The same should appply here. Let her come, get booed like she deserves to be, and go home to singapore where if she happened to express a view in a public forum contrary to the gov'ts views, she'd be strung up or killed.

I am surprised she is coming. The dean won't even let the US miltary on the premises without putting rainbow flags everywhere bc of DADT.

15-

Even if your made-up stats were right, contra http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11213, wouldn't this mean Lat was just principled? That he sees politics as being about issues rather than gang warfare (apparently unlike you)?

It makes me sad that she is a fellow alum of Keble College. We're better than that.

And her mom Thio Su-Mien just attempted a coup to take over a pro-choice feminist advocacy group in Singapore and stuff it full with her mentees from the same fundamentalist church. She didn't succeed, women in Singapore was up in arms over this disgusting behaviour!

@169: Singaporeans have very little concept of what human rights means? When you have very few rights accorded to you, and yet are constantly bombarded with media originating from cultures which not only have but glorify said rights, you pretty much learn what those rights are.

Just because we don't have rights doesn't mean we can't recognise their worth. It just means we can't do jack shit about the people in power who're keeping us down. And your condescending western superior attitude doesn't help much either.

I think you are all missing the point. NYU can hire her, but ultimately the students decide who's class they want to take. If there is a class with no takers, then it is pointless to have the professor. Some student may not want to take her class because (1) they don't want to support her, or (2) they fear discrimination in her class.

OF course she has a 1st Amendment right, but the students who pay a lot of money in tuition also have the right to decide which class to take.

People are forgetting that NYU Law just started a Singapore program. This woman is VERY politically connected. My guess is that this is quid-pro-quo and I'm sure she knows a lot about human rights in Asia, even if she's on the "wrong" side.

And imo, "human rights" is just a way of smuggling religious "natural rights" into discourse. Gay marriage is not a human right, but an expression of class privilege.

Why are NYLS listserv spam e-mails making ATL? Definitely, ATL is in decline.

The entire Thio family is mental.

Lat - you should do a post on her mum!

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_371767.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_367834.html

From the RollonFriday website:

One of Singapore's leading lawyers has claimed that SARS was God's punishment for the country allowing abortion.

Dr Thio Su Mien is the founding partner of TSMP Law Corporation and the first female dean of the law faculty at the National University of Singapore. Which are quite staggering achievements for someone who appears to be one card short of a full deck. After the outbreak of SARS, Dr Thio said that she and her colleagues prayed for forgiveness and repented for their nation's sins - and as a direct consequence Singapore managed to avoid the tsunami.

Dr Thio, who refers to herself as a "feminist mentor", also hit the headlines for attempting to take over AWARE, the Singapore womens' rights organisation, and replace its committee with members of her church. The attempted coup failed last weekend, with the bruised Dr Thio complaining that AWARE's sex education classes for schoolchildren would result in "a generation of lesbians".

237: Oh no! She believes in the existence of a higher power! Outrageous, let's call the ACLU!

I'm confused. Does this mean Singapore has more or less human rights than China?

Ms Thio Li-Ann's speech is convoluted and completely tasteless. I'm amazed the Singaporean government allows such rubbish to be uttered in its legislature.

How did this woman even get tenure?? Her resume looks impressive but, guys, it's the Harvard LLM (not JD) and who cares about Oxbridge?

I quote:

"‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?"

"Criminalising same-sex sodomy but not opposite-sex sodomy is valid “differentiation.” S377A does not target any specific actor; it would cover a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy. Both these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV which are public health problems."

"These are not victimless crimes as the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases."

"Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer."

"The legal issue is not whether the state should be concerned with heterosexual sodomy but whether it is reasonable to believe same-sex sodomy poses a distinct problem. Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment."

"The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?"

" To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone. How degrading."

Classy chick she is.

Homosexual anal sex is like shoving a straw up your nose to drink water. It is also like using your bunghole to drink milk directly from the udder. God help our society!

219- I have only 3" But, some women like it that thick.

Thanks, 237. Nice to know that the intolerant, bigoted, almost comically stupid apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Based on last year's campaign, it is clear that Pres. Obama shares the same view as Prof. Thio. Yet no one attacks him as a homophobe/intolerant/etc. What's the difference?

244,

Obama: I support full marriage-likebenefits for homosexual couples, but believe that the term marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. I also want to repeal DADT and DOMA.

Thio: I support the criminalization of sodomy.

Please explain how these views are similar.

I've actually taken Dr. Thio's class on Human Rights at NUS while on exchange there. From what I recall, in class, she took a very liberal position with respect to human rights as a whole and was critical of many Asian countries' reticence to acknowledge even the most basic fundamental freedoms. However, homosexuality and gay rights formed no part of the course content.

About midway through the course someone discovered her position on gay rights online. From that point on she had very little credibility with me. As others have said, she has the right to her opinion and to teach a class on human rights if she's given the opportunity. I think it's important that prospective students are aware of her views, however, so that they can make an informed decision whether to take her class and can assess what weight to be given her opinions.

Not sure I would have taken her class had I known her views beforehand.

244, because if you criticize any blacks for being homophobic, you're a racist. See, e.g., the liberal followup to the Proposition 8 campaign. Let's blame and picket the 1% of Californians who are Mormons, but please don't bring up the blacks who voted 70% for it.

247: Please see 245.

So hating PEOPLE who believe in God and have moral values is academic freedom, but hating an ACT that half the country believes is immoral is bigotry? Explain the logic behind that brilliant argument.

249: Please see a course in the English language and in logic. Thanks.

209 = rejected by Harvard

these videos are a disgusting display of prejudice. i am so angry right now.

You can't put a straw up your nose in Singapore? I was OK with the caning, but I'm glad I was warned about that one!

The poll question asks whether you support NYU's decision to host this professor, not whether you support its right to make such a decision. I do not support the decision at all, but I agree that NYU has the right to host her if it so chooses. I fully support the school's OUTLaw Board and believe it has acted professionally and appropriately in addressing the issue.

Can this post roll off the first page already? This bigoted b--ch has already been given much more attention than she deserves.

I support NYU's right to hire whomever they chose. I also support the right of fair minded NYU students to either boycott the class or take it in large numbers and raise hell every day.

Has anyone ever criticized Pres. Obama for being against same sex marriage?

No, that's never happened, 256. If you managed to avoid watching/reading/listening to the news for the past six months, no one has criticized Obama for anything.

245 -- I guess Obama's generous use of nuance protects him.

Yes - Obama has seen a fair amount of criticism from gay rights organizations on a variety of issues.

However, its preposterous to argue that someone that supports the criminalization of being gay is anywhere close ideologically to someone (Obama) that takes somewhat of a nuanced position on same sex marriage.

"In October 2007, Singapore legalised oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, but lawmakers retained the ban on gay sex, rejecting a petition by gay rights activists to abolish the law."

So I guess its ok for heterosexual people to drink through their nose, but not gay people. Makes sense.

This policy isn't driven by hate for a specific group of people at all is it? There must be a sound policy objective in allowing straight people to engage in this behavior but not gay people. Let me think,,, I'm sure I can come up with something.

259, I must have missed the coverage of the criticism. And doesn't Obama's position just put him towards the top of a slippery slope towards criminalizing same sex sex.

Please explain the slope, 261. Obama believes in giving same-sex couples all of the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples, but does not support the use of the word "marriage" to describe their legal relationship.

It is absurd to conclude that that view is consistent with criminalizing homosexual conduct.

Wow.

People, disagreeing with same sex marriage and providing incoherent arguments for the criminalization of homosexual sex isn't the same thing.

Can people on this board think??

261 - than perhaps you should not make ill informed arguments. There has been and continues to be coverage, including in the NYT and other outlets. Try a Google search for "obama gay rights criticism".

The only slippery slope in your post is your own assertion that Obama's position (and the position of a fair number of moderate free thinking people in this country) that providing marriage-like RIGHTS to people without calling it marriage is somehow the first step in returning to the days when gay relationships were outlawed (which wasn't all that long ago in some states).

Having to apologize for Pres. Obama is so awkward.

Any public criticism of President's position must have been drowned out by the uproar over a beauty queen (!) taking the exact same position.

244: You're an idiot. Thio means what she says. Obama is just pandering to idiots in order to deceive America and get reelected, but it's good for us in the long run. That's the difference. I suppose they are both similar in being rather despotic members of the ruling class, but the similarity ends there.

Gays have to deal with their cognitive dissonance vis-a-vis Obama, and they do so mainly by believing that Obama isn't serious about his Christianity. I happen to think they are right that Obama is "Christian" as a political ploy, but I also think this dishonesty translates into a willingness to sell gays up a creek / never get anything done while making lots of promises.

267, your cynicism is offensive. Pres. Obama is a good Christian who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, just like it says in the Bible.

Listen up one more time. Gay rights are not similar to the African-American struggle. I makes me shiver to see non-African-Americans wrap themselves in the African-American struggle.

I purpose an end to so-called minority politics, and replace them with non-immigrant politics. This way other so-called minorities are blocked from wrapping themselves in that which they did not fight for.

This is not to say that one should be against equality, but it is a chance for immigrant groups to fight for what they want or believe that they are entitled to.

The study of human rights isn't just saying about what's included, but also what's NOT included.

Unfortunately, too much focus on what's included betrays that its most vocal proponents use it as a stray argument to just get theirs.

122 in re cafeteria--AWESOME.

269 - surely you would not argue that native americans, a "non immigrant group," have some sort of inferior equal rights argument to "immigrant groups." Similarly, I would assume that you would prefer anglo 6th generation men, an immigrant group, not "wrap themselves in the African American struggle". As a result, I find your argument to be bat sh-- crazy.

Generally, when gay rights supporters compare their current situation with past equal rights / civil rights movements, its to point out that, while decisions at the time were controversial, they are now almost 100% socially accepted.

For example, when gay rights activists compare the same sex marriage battle with the battle to overturn anti-miscegenation laws, it is to show that the definition of marriage changes over time and that marriage laws have, in the past, been used to entrench discrimination of disfavored groups. Its not to say that the gay rights battle is the same as the "african american struggle".

Now, if you really want to drill down on why these comparisons are prickly, its because of the very significant level of homophobia within the african american community. Sadly, its a very real problem not just for the gay rights community but for the broader african american community. Gay men, forced to marry women and live on the "DL" are causing sky rocketing levels of HIV infections in the african american community, especially among women married to "straight" men.

In essence, an unwillingness to address gay rights issues is greatly extending the "african american struggle."

I think everybody is missing a bigger point. Sure, she has controversial and disagreeable views on homosexuality. But really, a _Singaporean_ teaching human rights? Why would a student from NYU (or any western university, for that matter) have anything to learn from Singaporeans about Human Rights? Google and wiki both have awful things to say about human rights in Singapore...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore

Might as well have communists teaching democracy and atheists teaching theology.

It may be interesting to note that Thio Li-Ann is the daughter of the self-proclaimed "Feminist Mentor" Thio Su-Mien who recently was behind the infamous hijack of the exco of the AWARE (Singapore). The reason for the hijack was that she and group of church people believed that AWARE (Singapore) had became too lesbian-focused, an allegation that was skewed. Thankfully through an Extraordinary General Meeting, the members were able to oust the exco who participated in the coup.

Another interesting thing to note was that Thio Su-Mien, also believed that through her prayers, Singapore was spared from the Asian Tsunami.

http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/2997

I feel so ashamed that such an ill-informed, bigoted and self-righteous people were part of the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore.

It is no surprise at all that NYU Law approved Thio's visiting appointment. This is the very institution that poured money into launching NYU@NUS, an LL.M. program which laughably offers a Human Rights concentration. I echo the sentiments from a prior post: it is absolutely preposterous to think that it's possible to study human rights in any meaningful way in Singapore.

This isn't about academic freedom or human rights, kids. Thio's appointment, like many annoying 'visiting' and 'in residence' appointments at many universities, is about cronyism. There are plenty of pork barrels in academia.

Let's save the pearl-clutching and shocked gasping for something less pathetically typical.

Looks to me like she's uninterested in any human rights that defy her ideology; what, accordingly, could a student have to learn from her on the subject?

251 = rejected by Western State University College of Law

I am a gay man living in Singapore. I have lived in Asia (including Singapore) for over 15 years. So, I have firsthand knowledge of the discriminatory environment for gay men and lesbians living in Singapore.

I am not sure what the administrators of NYU Law School were thinking when they hired Dr. Thio to teach “human rights” in Asia. Asking a Singaporean tenured at a Singapore government-funded university to teach about human rights in Asia is like asking a Ku Klux Klan grandmaster to teach about racial equality. She will simply be a mouthpiece for the Singapore government’s positions on human rights issues. If Dr. Thio espoused views opposed to the Singapore government’s - trust me - she would not be teaching at the National University of Singapore. As everyone in the international human rights community knows, the Singapore government is not a “model” example for upholding human rights for its citizens.

In one sense, I would hope that the OUTLaw’s plea goes unheeded, and a large number of freedom and equality-minded students enroll in her class so they can constantly challenge her and her positions. For instance, if I attended Dr. Thio’s class, I would ask her the following:

* Why does the Singapore judiciary award always award massive damages for defamation, libel and slander (based on flimsy or circumstantial evidence) against opposition politicians and dissidents who criticize the Singapore government? These damages effectively bankrupt these opposition politicians and dissidents, forcing them to have to leave Singapore forever to preserve their assets. These actions by Singapore politicians in the ruling party effectively stifles any political dissent in the country.

* Why does the Singapore government permit local companies to require Mandarin proficiency as an employment criterion even where Mandarin language capability would not otherwise seem to be a necessary skill for the employee? This practice is an underhanded way to limit employment to Chinese Singaporeans and effectively prohibits almost all Malay and Indian Singaporeans from being eligible for those jobs. It is a blatant discriminatory tactic in employment practices in Singapore.

* Why do ALL of my Malay and Indian friends (straight or gay) feel a pervasive sense of discrimination, suspicion and hatred from the majority Chinese?

* Why does the Singapore military prohibit Malay Singaporeans from becoming pilots in the national air force (based on some irrational fear that these Singaporeans will have a stronger loyalty to Malaysia than Singapore (since they are ethnically Malay) and will “defect” and fly the fighter jets they pilot to Malaysia)?

* Why does the Singapore government enforce the death penalty against drug traffickers even though the punishment is clearly not commensurate with the severity of the crime (and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional in the United States under the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”)?

* What concrete and effect actions is the Singapore government taking to end racial discrimination in Singapore?

Despite my advice above encouraging students with views opposed to Dr. Thio’s to register for her class, I would have concerns for those students. Dr. Thio would likely grade that person poorly due solely to his or her opposing views. That is the way the Singapore government would operate.

What a joke. NYU should be ashamed.

She is entitled to her opinion, or course, but Human Rights Law?

She is obviously not qualified to teach the subject.

But I would like to bang her in the back door. Just to test out her theory.

As someone often on the far-left end of the spectrum, and comfortably certain that those in opposition to gay rights are on the wrong side of history, I must say that I'm appalled by the majority of these comments.

Who says you have to be in 100% agreement - moral, philosophical, religious, practical, etc. - in order to learn from someone? I've learned a tremendous amount from professors whose views I found occasionally repugnant.

NYU students should, if nothing else, take this as an opportunity for the close study of an opposing view. What better training could a law student ask for?

277 - Singaporean here, and definitely not Thio Li-ann supporter. Some observations to your queries:

* Why does the Singapore judiciary award always award massive damages for defamation, libel and slander (based on flimsy or circumstantial evidence) against opposition politicians and dissidents who criticize the Singapore government? These damages effectively bankrupt these opposition politicians and dissidents, forcing them to have to leave Singapore forever to preserve their assets. These actions by Singapore politicians in the ruling party effectively stifles any political dissent in the country.

- Yes, asbolutely designed only to create a culture of self-censorship and perpetuate the current one party rule.

* Why does the Singapore government permit local companies to require Mandarin proficiency as an employment criterion even where Mandarin language capability would not otherwise seem to be a necessary skill for the employee? This practice is an underhanded way to limit employment to Chinese Singaporeans and effectively prohibits almost all Malay and Indian Singaporeans from being eligible for those jobs. It is a blatant discriminatory tactic in employment practices in Singapore.

- This discrminatory practice should be looked into but do understand that some of these local companies conduct their business in the Chinese language or are engaged in business with China. Even if a state had anti-discrimination laws, would a U.S. company employ non-English speakers in an English-only environment?

* Why do ALL of my Malay and Indian friends (straight or gay) feel a pervasive sense of discrimination, suspicion and hatred from the majority Chinese?

- That is sweeping and generally unfounded. You need to make more friends.

* Why does the Singapore military prohibit Malay Singaporeans from becoming pilots in the national air force (based on some irrational fear that these Singaporeans will have a stronger loyalty to Malaysia than Singapore (since they are ethnically Malay) and will “defect” and fly the fighter jets they pilot to Malaysia)?

- Pilots in any modern military form the key strike element in any war (especially if your country does not have cruise missiles). Have you considered whether Malaysia has any significant number of Chinese pilots? Or if Israel has Arab/non-Jewish pilots?

* Why does the Singapore government enforce the death penalty against drug traffickers even though the punishment is clearly not commensurate with the severity of the crime (and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional in the United States under the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”)?

- This is separate debate but your assertions are generally normantive ("clearly not commensurate"; "would almost certainly"). If we were to judge a criminal justice system by its results, do consider the streets of NYC vs. Singapore from a public safety perspective. Intellectually you can question the approach but cannot deny the results. Sure, America has a "rights-based" approach but even that system has its price, which is paid for in blood by crime victims/drug addicts, etc.

* What concrete and effect actions is the Singapore government taking to end racial discrimination in Singapore?

- Spend more time googling this and you will gain a better perspective. Singapore takes a pragmatic. commercial view of things (tho not necessarily rights-based) and it is not in Singapore's interest to be discriminatory as it needs to attract talent from the wider region to stay competitive. But success is to be based on meritocracy and so affirmative action, American style, is less likely to be considered. A minority has equal chances of being employed if he is just as good, but the system will not bend over for anyone if you miss the mark.

Far from a humanitarian with compassion, this is how she treats a fellow human being:

“This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.

I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?”

And the offensive missive that ended up the writer being target of a police investigation?

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2007 05:03 +0800 (CST)
From: “Alfian Bin Sa’at”
Subject: a valentine
To: lawtla@nus.edu.sg
Sunday, Aug 12, 5.03am

Subject: a valentine

Dear Dr Thio,

This is a personal note to you.

I think you are absolutely fucked up.

As long as you exist, with your hatemongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave.

With love,
Alfian.

109:

If you think that sexual attraction isn't an immutable characteristic and that it is more akin to a behavioral trait, you are effectively saying that your attraction to the opposite sex isn't immutable and that you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. So, basically, (assuming you're a straight male), you check out guys at the gym and say to yourself how hot you think this partiluclarly beefy stud is, but decide, instead, to pursue the chick with the enlarged breasts? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL.

PE - 171, here. You, sir, are a worthless peon!! Maternity leave is FMLA leave. If a woman takes "maternity leave" it is likely pursuant to FMLA, unless the employer offers an additional amount of leave time above and beyond that required by FMLA.
175 - 171, here. I actually don't know of any employers that offer 16 weeks of FMLA leave. Probably because FMLA leave is limited to 12 weeks.

219, I hope you're kidding about your 2 inches. If not, my condolences because it is WAY too small, not even as long as a little finger! Sadly, I lost my cherry to a guy with about 2-1/2 inches and even as a virgin I couldn't tell if he was in or out without looking. On the up side, at least my first time didn't hurt.

This isn't about academic freedom. This is about hiring the best person for the job. A university isn't required to hire a professor without consideration of that person's prior work and conduct. Why is it acceptable for a homophobe to be a teaching human rights at one of the tops law schools for human rights law? Could NYU have not found anyone better? Would it have been acceptable if she were a blatant racist? Why the double standard?

As an NYU law grad, I have never been so disappointed in my alma mater.

Obviously, NYU is hiring her to get money from Singapore. What other value exists in America, other than money. Thio is the product of a one-party system in Singapore, and was an appointed member of Singapore's parliament. Her mother is a power for Christianity in Singapore. Anti-gay AND anti-Semitic. Great going, NYU - enjoy the bribe!
www.johnharding.com

Love the results of the post. The left's desire to silence any opposing viewpoints would be laughable if it weren't so scary.

The majority of the country (including both the President and the Vice President) believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Freedom of speech and / or expressing an opinion is fine. However, that does not mean that we have to hire, pay, and promote TTThio's ignorance and hate-mongering. Let her spout her crap in
Singapore. We don't need any more divisiveness in our city.

She has gotten away with too much as a Member of Parliament because she has whittled away the little rights that LGBT people of Singapore have. Good riddance to bad rubbish! I hope she gets stoned to death by bibles. HAHA!

She has gotten away with too much as a Member of Parliament because she has whittled away the little rights that LGBT people of Singapore have. Good riddance to bad rubbish! I hope she gets stoned to death by bibles. HAHA!

Isn't the hostile stand made against the Prof and the act of petition in itself an act of discrimination against her? And this coming from a supposed motivation to prevent discrimination to fester in NYU Law School. Ha.

'and that anal sex is like "shoving a straw up your nose to drink"'

So she wants those naughty gay boys to take their daily dose of vitamin Sperm orally like everyone else?

So much yelling from both sides, often passionately. The problem lies in that no one can truly say they understand what homosexuality is whether they are one or not.

If the Prof is worth her salt, she should speak out on several human rights injustice in her home land which affects majority than indulging on this issue.