Posted on 07/22/2008 9:05:34 PM PDT by Interposition
The case of the San Jose/Evergreen Community College firing of June Sheldon is raising some eyebrows among academics, liberal and conservative. Here is the media version :
The controversy centers on an incident in June 2007, when Sheldon was asked by a student in a human heredity class about heredity’s impact on “homosexual behavior in males and females.” Among other references, Sheldon noted a German study demonstrating some link between maternal stress and homosexual behavior in males, according to the lawsuit.
After a student complained, college officials investigated and dismissed Sheldon, an adjunct professor at the school since January 2004. Court papers say the student expressed concern that Sheldon’s response was “offensive and unscientific.”
In the lawsuit and in a letter sent to the college district’s board of trustees, Sheldon, a veteran biology instructor, maintains she was simply providing students with an exchange on the “nature vs. nurture” aspect of sexual orientation. While acknowledging she was offering views that may have been controversial, Sheldon argues that it was relevant to the course work and part of important classroom dialogue.
“The textbook itself points out that the causes of homosexual behavior are a subject of debate in the scientific community,” said David Hacker, Sheldon’s lawyer. “This teacher did nothing more than explain this fact.”
The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education has taken on the issue and has a lengthy description of the case as well.
A biology professor, P.Z. Myers, who describes himself as a “godless liberal,” blogs about this at Pharyngula . He casts a somewhat skeptical eye on the complaint and makes some good points in the process. He provides links to relevant documents for those interested.
Coincidentally, this past week, I was researching for my book by reading Lisa Diamond’s new book Sexual Fluidity . By the way, this is an excellent book with a wonderful description of her research. On page 39, the maternal stress hypothesis is mentioned:
Another line of research on the neuroendocrine theory concerns male children born to mothers who were exposed to extremely high levels of stress during pregnancy. Animal research has found that such experiences can affect sexual differentiation in utero through a delay of the testosterone surge that influences brain masculinization.
Here she cites two studies, one led by Michael Bailey and the other by Lee Ellis, along with a review of biological studies with Brian Mustanski as the first author. In her account, professor Sheldon was citing Dorner’s work on hormones and brain differentiation. However, I suspect when this goes to trial, page 39 of Diamond’s book might also be presented in the court room.
Given what I have read regarding this situation, I like Sheldon’s chances in court. Professors present controversial material about subjects daily. Some (much?) of that material we do not agree with but present to help students become aware of the field as it is.
What is heredity’s impact on murder, arson, child molestation, terrorism, rape, and theft? What’s wrong with answering a question with a question in a society that loves talk and hates the truth of The Christian Confronted by Homosexuality.1
State governments should adhere to Chief Justice Berger’s remarks:2
I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that, in constitutional terms, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.
As the Court notes, ante at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.
This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.
It's hard to imaging a movie star quoting anything but their lines. Chuck Norris is an exception:3
Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our forefathers expected for the public education they founded? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America.
"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least" (Bill 64, 1779). Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen abolished God’s view on the abomination.4 So, no one will bother listening to the Constitution, Berger, or even Jefferson, when he is quoted by a movie star.
If professors are game for sodomites, what will stop them from hunting preachers? One thing is for certain, Americans won’t!
1http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0308/030812marc.php This is the “death in the city” of Francis Shaeffer, the “city of the dead “of Jan Marejko’s technocosmos, the “culture of death” of John Paul II. We are not here simply confronted by the immorality of man’s revolt against God’s commandments, nor by an amoral indifference to divine laws. But here we have to do with fixed disorder, the anti-natural structure of a homosexual society which is blindly hurtling towards God’s inescapable judgment.
4http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987 After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Paperback)
Homosexuals are not born that way. They just get sucked into it.
Since homosexuals have a lower fertility rate that heteros and if it is genetic, why doesn’t evolution eliminate the genetic condition as evolutionary theory posits?
However, if homosexuality is akin to some predisposition, maybe like melanoma to fair skinned people, then perhaps it’s not genetic after all but hormornal, molecular, environmental, choise (yes even) or some unknowable combination thereof.
It’s funny...according to gays, homosexuality MUST be hardwired...but the average person’s aversion to homosexuality ISN’T hardwired, it’s just bigotry. Why can one be, but not the other?
It’s probably a combination of both genetic predisposition as well as environmental stressors, just like most other human conditions.
From my experience in dealing with the gay community, both as having a gay roommate and going out with him/associating with some of his friends and also in my dealings with psychiatric patients, you see a far, far higher percentage of sexual and physical abuse and familial turmoil in childhood than in the general populace.
Total narcissism.
It's called "double standard." It's the same principle as when blacks feel free to use the "n-word" but will file civil charges against us honkie h-word crackers c-words for using that word.
The proper position on nature vs nurture is very clear. It is appalling that a university professor was unaware of it:
1. Violence by men against women is nature. Men are born appalling thugs;
2. Except, violence by black men against anyone is a natural reaction to racism. It is entirely environmentally caused.
3. Differences in IQ are entirely nurture, oppression, and racism.
4. Except, teenage girls naturally excel over teenage boys because they are born smarter.
5. Homosexuality is entirely nature;
6. Except amongst priests who molest teenage boys. They are not really homosexuals but heterosexuals who’s misbehavior is caused by the Catholic church not letting them have wives.
It’s simple. It’s clear. And it’s clear that the professor needs to spend some time in a reeducation camp.
"I'll be buggered if I'll become a homosexual!"
Spot on, I've argued the same point for a long time now.
Good question, beez. I like the way you think!
One reason would be that the lower fertility rate is still high enough to keep the genetic material in the gene pool. Gays do reproduce, because so many of them try to be heterosexual first.
Personally, I am not all that impressed with the genetic evidence (although I would not rule it out completely). I think it is much more likely that the primary impact comes from a biological factor in the uterine environment. Natural selection would not eliminate this as those who have it are obviously reproducing. Supposedly there is now some evidence that women who have homosexual children are more fertile than those who do not, but I have not seen the data.
I dont agree with this. I think the aversion is hardwired.
The college’s action in firing this woman for what she said is totally outrageous and unacceptable. The queer lobby has gone too far.
As I understand evolutionary theory, any genetic characteristic that results in a fertility rate of only 1% lower than that of other characteristics will eliminate itself from the gene pool within 1000 generations.
Fertility rate differentials greater than 1% will eliminate faster.
For example, sycle cell anemia, a known genetic defect, should have eliminated a long time ago but since it has some as yet unknown benefit(s) that that offset the expected negative impact on fertility rates, it still survives.
You wouldn’t think someone would work so hard to get a teaching position back at a community college?
Why not? A job is a paycheck, if nothing else, and CCs pay quite well for not a lot of work.
I'm so glad that the Left has brought so many such benefits to society. /sarc>
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.