Posted on 06/01/2002 11:11:52 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The former co-editor of a respected law review journal says pro-homosexual bias is not only prevalent in academia, but those with more traditional views are purposefully silenced.
Ty Clevenger, who served as a co-editor of the Stanford Law and Policy Review for a 1999 project, said the publication's editorial board rejected articles critical of key aspects of homosexual life because of the stories' "non-conformist" point of view – meaning, they weren't "pro-gay" – and instead published only articles that promoted the homosexual agenda.
Clevenger, in an article for the Regent University Law Review, says that while serving as co-editor for the Stanford Law and Policy Review in 1999, "a left-leaning friend and colleague" proposed the journal publish a symposium on "gay rights," an idea accepted by the editorial board.
Describing himself as "one of the few visible non-leftists" on the Stanford campus, Clevenger – who currently serves as a law clerk for Judge Morris Arnold of the 8th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals – said in his SLPR role he was asked to recruit more "traditional" viewpoints regarding homosexual rights, while his colleague looked for authors who supported expanded rights for "gays."
But by the time the project was completed, Clevenger said he was met with a surprise.
"In the fall of 2000," he writes, "the editorial board, without warning or prior consultation, informed me that it would publish only the pro-gay articles. The stated reason for this decision was that the rejected articles did not meet the academic standards of the journal."
He says he found that explanation "suspect," mostly because SLPR has always published "symposia that are a mix of traditional law review articles and commentary outside the traditional law review format."
Clevenger also said that professor Kathleen Sullivan, dean of Stanford Law School, and professor Barton H. "Buzz" Thompson Jr., vice dean of the school, "stated that they were not particularly impressed with the substance of the articles on either side of the issue."
"The deans suggested, and I concurred, that the symposium be delayed until the quality of all the articles could be improved or until new authors could be recruited," he said.
But "the editorial board declined the suggestion," Clevenger wrote, and only published academic papers sympathetic or supportive of homosexual rights.
The episode taught him that, contrary to denials by a number of prominent law reviews and other professional journals, bias toward promotion of homosexual rights is prevalent in academia.
"Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia … are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest," he said.
Specifically, Clevenger cited professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School who, he said, has argued that "only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance."
"While that notion may suit her intellectual vanity," Clevenger wrote, "it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary."
Coombs was contacted for this story and repeatedly offered the opportunity to refute Clevenger's allegations, but she refused to be quoted.
Other academics, however, echo Clevenger's belief that indeed the "mainstream" higher education establishment is decidedly pro-homosexual in its viewpoint and that opposing views are rarely tolerated, much less solicited.
Dr. Ben Kaufman, a clinical psychiatrist and professor at the University of California-Davis School of Medicine, told WorldNetDaily his articles were frequently turned down by "liberal academic publications" because, he says, they differed from pro-homosexual orthodoxy.
"It's been pretty much impossible to get anything into the academic press," Kaufman said.
How many times has his work been refused?
"So much so that I don't even submit work for publication anymore," said Kaufman. Liberal academicians "immediately write me off as a homophobic bigot, out to trash homosexuals."
He says the opposite is actually true.
"We want to get our point of view out so that families who have kids who declare themselves to be homosexuals can respond to that with some sort of informed data," said Kaufman. As it is, families and kids only have a "uniform" – read singular – pro-homosexual point of view.
Dr. Richard Williams, professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, and Dr. Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, were enlisted by Clevenger to review an article critiquing homosexual parenting.
The two scholars supported publishing the article. But a third solicited by Clevenger – Dr. William Byne, a psychiatrist at Mt. Sinai Medical Center – opposed publishing it, not because of flaws in the article but because of the author's alleged "anti-gay" viewpoint.
Spitzer is perhaps best known for his role in removing homosexuality from classification as a mental disorder. But in the fall of 2000, "he announced preliminary results from research on reorientation therapy – i.e., therapy to change homosexuals to heterosexuals, wherein he found evidence that change was possible, at least in some cases.
After publishing his results, he was attacked by pro-homosexual groups.
The communications director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "whose scientific expertise consisted of having worked as a newspaper reporter," Clevenger wrote, "intoned that Spitzer's work was 'snake oil' and 'scientific bunk.'" Meanwhile, The Human Rights Campaign accused Spitzer of having "anti-gay views, close ties to right-wing political groups, and [a] lack of objective data." Also, a psychologist at the Lesbian and Gay Service Center said she "cannot believe Columbia [University, in New York] would allow any of its professors to do anything like this."
"The greater threat to individual liberties," Clevenger said, "comes from gay activists themselves, many of whom seem to view the slightest deviation from pro-gay orthodoxy as something akin to religious heresy." He said the work of Spitzer is an example.
Spitzer also explained that it's easy for staffers at pro-homosexual journals to scuttle "non-conforming" articles simply by assigning them to "hostile reviewers."
Clevenger agrees.
"Similarly, private and government funding agencies, which ostensibly found research on scientific merit, can be subverted merely by assigned biased reviewers to the funding committees," the former SLPR editor wrote.
Related stories:
Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Pedophile lawsuit goes class action?
That's the mantra. It's the new strategy for the radical homo movement. Click here for my thread "Gay-stapo's Campaign Against Balanced Reporting Goose Steps On."
HOMOSEXUALITY: Truth Be Told
The latest issue of the Reegent University School of Law Law Review (available for viewing online)
What staggers me is the depth of dishonesty that lies beneath the homosexual-activist community's attempt to have it both ways. On the one hand, the "born, not made" position attempts to present the homosexual as an unwilling victim of natural forces, who should be pitied, not censured, and certainly not excluded or feared. On the other hand, the "gay is good" campaign attempts to persuade us that there's nothing but sex going on here, and that the homosexual's drastically reduced lifespan and exaggerated prevalence to various terrible diseases are things we can't fairly associate with sexual practice.
With the accumulation of evidence that at least some homosexuals can be (pardon the pun) straightened out, the gay-activist community must be gripped with fear. The activists know full well that many of the people they claim to speak for would dearly love to be relieved of their affliction -- but any reduction in the size of that group, actual or perceived, reduces the activists' influence in the national arena. They would apparently prefer the perpetuation of the misery of others to any diminution of their own political stature.
It is always thus with special-interest groups. If there were a group that promoted the interests of coprophages, they'd do anything to swell the ranks of that affliction, without regard for the effects on the sufferers, or for that matter on American cuisine.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
What homosexuals say about homosexuals:
"Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).
In Chapter Six, they outline “ten categories of misbehavior,” drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays...
What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.
• The authors say “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.
• They say gays suffer from a “narcissistic” personality disorder and they give this clinical description: “pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.”
• As an example of this narcissism, the authors say “a very sizable proportion of gay men” who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.
• They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such “forbidden” aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.
• They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.
• Many gays are “single minded sexual predators” fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are “the real queerbashers.” Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.
• “Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long.” They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The “cheating ratio of ‘married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”..."
Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY PROPAGANDA IN SCHOOLS
Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools
Your friend is not saying anything because she could lose her license to practice psychology in her state as well as standing in any professional organization. That would make her open to lawsuits. She and her colleagues could be ruined. That is power.
The aspect of the pro-homo movement that burns me most is their determination to propagate this pathology, to force all of society to indulge their denial. Not content to just be sick, they have to coerce everyone else into agreeing that sickness isn't.
I have not decided where we are in this battle as it stands today. The Homosexual Activists and Community certainly went on the offensive after the scandal in the Catholic chruch threatened their agenda.
All I can read is that they are "laying low" at the present point in time, hoping to rope-a-dope the public while the outrage subsides. To be sure, this will continue, and the prime battleground will continue to be the public schools, where homosexuality will be forced down the throats of a captive audience under the guise of "diversity."
Indeed! The most intolerant people in the nation are the "gay rights" activists and their Talibatheist allies.
Agree! Back in the 70's and 80's I didn't used to mind homos, because back then they pretty much admitted they were strange and all they asked for was toleration. What do I care about what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
But now I can't stand `em because they want me to accept their lifestyle as just as normal as mine. It is one thing for me to decide what I will and won't accept. It's another thing to be told what I MUST accept or be vilified!
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.