Posted on 05/06/2006 8:00:10 AM PDT by buccaneer81
Newspaper off base in criticism of harassment reports Saturday, May 06, 2006
As a member of the faculty of Ohio State University at Mansfield, I write in the hope of providing a more precise rendering of a recent conflict on campus.
The campus’ head reference librarian told The Dispatch in an April 21 news article that he was accused of "sexual harassment" by the faculty for what the reporter called his "tongue-in-cheek" suggestion that a book called The Marketing of Evil be assigned to all incoming students as part of a first-year reading experience. A subsequent Dispatch editorial (April 26) condemned the faculty for requesting an investigation into sexual harassment.
In actuality, the faculty assembly in March decided not to request an investigation as a body. Two individual professors did file reports, but in reference to "harassment based on sexual orientation," or discrimination, not sexual harassment. Such a referral does not imply judgment. It merely notifies the human-resources office that discrimination might have occurred.
Our faculty believes firmly in free speech. We believe intellectual freedom is critical to the life of a university. We do not fault investigators for concluding that no harassment occurred.
We believe, however, that The Dispatch is wrong to condemn the faculty members who made the referrals. University policy obliges anyone who knows of a possible case of discrimination to report it, for the obvious reason that secondary parties must be encouraged to refer such matters lest victims suffer privately, leaving the university liable and injustice unaddressed. The two faculty members who filed reports, neither of them gay, perceived that their gay colleagues were finding the workplace inhospitable.
Referral of the dispute to human resources was not an act of intellectual oppression. It was an attempt to restore an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance to the campus, including the freedom of consenting adults to love whomever they wish without discrimination.
Dispatch columnist Joe Blundo has done an excellent job of conveying the ludicrousness of The Marketing of Evil ("Left vs. right: All opinions should be heard," Tuesday). Quite apart from demonstrating its unabashed bigotry, his column makes it clear that this is a book wholly unsuited to the purpose of introducing undergraduates to the life of the mind. Why would a reference librarian, entrusted with guiding students to the best possible sources, recommend such a screed?
But the news media’s coverage has missed a crucial point: the discrimination reports did not focus on the book suggestion so much as the librarian’s unyielding defense of the book, even after the revelation of its bigotry, his disparagement of faculty expertise and his forwarding of others’ e-mails to an outside organization. The claim that his proposal was tongue-in-cheek is belied by the fact that when he was employed at Lakeland Community College in 2004, he displayed an antigay book prominently, provoking controversy there, as well.
Out faculty seeks a university that is a beacon of intellectual freedom, high scholarly standards and freedom from discrimination based upon sexual orientation. I look forward to the day when we can say with assurance that our library manifests the same principles.
CHRISTOPHER PHELPS
Mansfield
Classic "blame the victim" hate in this letter.
Hmmm? Must be a good book or this dumbass prof wouldn't be squeeling so much.
Must be in high demand also = I ordered it from Amazon (wont buy anything from the Bush-bashing, conservative book-banning B&N) anyway, I ordered it the 14th of April - and it hasn't even been shipped yet! (Amazon is usually very quick to ship)
The libs, thru the book stores and colleges, have been very zealous in affectively banning conservative books - by two methods: not stocking them or stocking a few but shelving them where they are difficult to find - like on low shelves BEHIND the check out counters.
And you imagine the ruckus if it were the liberal "screeds" that were so treated? Lord lubber duck...there would be foaming mouths screaming to the rooftops
Christopher Phelps could not be more Orwellian in his speech and thought if he (she? it? must be inclusive and non-judgmental here) tried.
In related news, Charles Manson did not oppress anyone. Instead, his actions were an attempt to restore an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance to his victims. Yeah, that's exactly what it was...
[Referral of the dispute to human resources was not an act of intellectual oppression.]
Yes it was! It oppresses the beliefs of those who trust and believe that their is one creator God(the Father) and one Lord and Saviour of mankind, His holy son Jesus Christ.
[It was an attempt to restore an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance to the campus,...]
No it was not. Rather, it was an attempt by athiest liberals who have chosen to live an immoral and abomibable lifestyle against the will of God and His annointed, Jesus of Nazareth, and to live outside the moral laws God has stated in His word for mankind and to worship themselves as god; these are children of darkness who follow their leader Lucifer the devil.
[including the freedom of consenting adults to love whomever they wish without discrimination.]
This of course is the center of their desire to lust after their own gender,children,even animals; all forbidden of God and the coming ruler of all men, Jesus Christ our Lord. Their worst sin is that they not only live in these immoral lifestyles, they also demand and take pleaure in those who hate Christ and try to destroy and murder those who belive God and His only begotten son, Jesus Christ our Lord and our Saviour.
I ordered it as well (from Amazon). It got shipped right away. the arguments are irrefutable.
Exactomundo - it certainly created a hostile environment for the librarian =
IN addition, it's a hostile environment for Christians who believe in the Bible - and isn't there religious discrimination, is it not?
BTW, it seems to me that Amazon is touting as "best sellers' on their Top Ten list, any Bush-bashing book that comes along.
Then I check on the NY Times best-seller list and it's not there.
Not even close.
Is Amazon presenting us with a fantasy Top Ten list? You wonder.
Backing off. Denying what they did, dressing it in the besst possible light. crawfishing. Liberals are liars.
I went to Amazon to get an idea of what this book is about. Of course! "The Marketing of Evil" outlines what the author perceives as the purposeful planning and propogandizing of cultural attitudes that used to be considered perverse and now are considered progressive. No wonder the university wants to surpress the book... no, wait, they said they believe in free speech and free expression... so why not put the book on the shelves? Here's a good reason. It'll hurt somebody's feelings. NOW the book can be banned for a reasonable cause. They still believe in free speech and expression, too. Just listen to the words. Don't pay attention to their actions. Move along, now. Back to class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.