Conservative Librarian Recommends Books, Accused of Sexual Harassment

[Crazed Rabbit]

It appears the faculty at Ohio State Unviersity Mansfield believe in the first amendment only for themselves. The entire faculty voted unamiously to file the charges against college librarian Scott Savage, who recommended 4 convservative books while member of a book recommending group.

From the Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending Mr. Savage; http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3724


OSU librarian slapped with “sexual harassment” charge for recommending conservative books for freshmen
Ohio State University will press forward with frivolous investigation despite ADF letter
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 11:30 AM (MST)

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Officials at the Ohio State University are investigating an OSU Mansfield librarian for “sexual harassment” after he recommended four conservative books for a freshman reading program. ADF has demanded that OSU cease its frivolous investigation, yet the university is pressing forward, claiming that it takes the charges “seriously.”

“Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom. “It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university.”

Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.” The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.

On March 28, ADF sent OSU officials a letter informing them of Savage’s constitutional rights. A copy of the letter can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf. The university so far has declined to stop the investigation, saying in its response that it takes “any allegation of sexual harassment seriously.”

“The OSU Mansfield faculty is attempting to label a librarian as a ‘sexual harasser’ because they disagree with his book suggestions,” said French. “It is astonishing that an entire faculty would vote to launch a sexual harassment investigation because a librarian offered book suggestions in a committee whose purpose was to solicit such suggestions.”

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

Same story, different site: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=14083

The hypocrisy of the leftist elite in this country, particularily colleges, is apalling. They whine and scream about how their freedom of speech is oppressed, then try to destroy the life and career of someone who doesn't think like them.

Crazed Rabbit

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but how on earth is this sexual harrassment?

[Kanamori]

eh, meh more harsh than I intended.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but how on earth is this sexual harrassment?

I don't know how. I guess they wanted a catch-all term that's hard to disprove, and play off the whiny faculty feeling 'unsafe'.

Still, it's absurd.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It appears the faculty at Ohio State Unviersity Mansfield believe in the first amendment only for themselves. The entire faculty voted unamiously to file the charges against college librarian Scott Savage, who recommended 4 convservative books while member of a book recommending group.

From the Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending Mr. Savage; http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3724


Same story, different site: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=14083

The hypocrisy of the leftist elite in this country, particularily colleges, is apalling. They whine and scream about how their freedom of speech is oppressed, then try to destroy the life and career of someone who doesn't think like them.

Crazed Rabbit

The books recommended are homophobic to the extreme, especially "the marketing of evil". The professors who complained are homosexual, hence the sexual harrassment charges. Though I can't see why they are charging that myself. I can't find any other news stories on it. The university is investigating it because they take "any allegation of sexual harassment seriously."

They should just fire the librarian guy for being a dumbass.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I suspect any recommendations of a Michael Moore book would go unchallenged. :no:


Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.”

Books can do that, you know. :sweatdrop:

It's funny, because most librarians seem to be safely leftist - and yet you rarely hear of them charged like this. Could there be a double standard?:juggle2:

[The_Doctor]

America must a remarkable dull and politically divided country for people to get so upset about a book.

My message to Americans:
Calm down and enjoy life more instead of moaning at each each other all the time.

So some guy recommended some Controversial books, so what. The students should read anything they can, they are there to learn. The more books they read, the more they understand other people's point of view, it doesn't matter if they find it offensive, the important point is they will understand more about other humanity and maybe themselves.

[Xiahou]

The hypocrisy of the leftist elite in this country, particularily colleges, is apalling. They whine and scream about how their freedom of speech is oppressed, then try to destroy the life and career of someone who doesn't think like them.Hopefully he files a counter-claim for something equally ridiculous.... like charging that they are violating his civil rights or some nonsense. :laugh4:

[JimBob]

People should not be afraid of books. If they are afraid of the students being swayed because they read it in a book then there is more of a problem in the way we are educating kids than in what they read.

That said some of those books seem a bit odd. EAD seems like the kind of thing that could become the next ZOG. And wasn't Horowitz proved to be making alot of the stories he told up?

[Crazed Rabbit]

The books recommended are homophobic to the extreme, especially "the marketing of evil". The professors who complained are homosexual, hence the sexual harrassment charges. Though I can't see why they are charging that myself. I can't find any other news stories on it. The university is investigating it because they take "any allegation of sexual harassment seriously."

Not liking homosexuals is most definately not the same as sexually harassing them. In fact, were one 'homophobic', would they not want to avoid contact with homosexuals?

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

This has to be one of the most rediculous charges I've ever heard. All he did was recommend the books. That's it! I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

[Strike For The South]

so when do we begin the burning? Funny many people belive the conservatives will take away our rights I however belive there are two choices.

1. We become insane Christian zealots with a with me or aginast me attuide and we have a one party despoit govermnet which bans anything that isnt Jesus tm and "diffrent people" with opninons that that hurt freedom.

2. We become bleeding heart multiculturesits who save people from "bad things" there by allowing a thin skinned population to devolp and we are ruled by a goverment which turns Dr.Pepper into Mr and Mrs Pepper (WHO HAS HER RGIHT TO CHOOSE)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You know what the librarian should do? File charges against the homosexual teachers for attempted rape and sexual harrassment. That'd be... O W N A G E.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The faculty members probably have a workable case against the librarian.

Sexual harrassment has been held to include workplace actions that create a "threatening environment" for an individual or group of individuals. If the alternate lifestyle profs feel threatened, it is grounds for a complaint. The institution may find that the individual in question listed the books in order to "get their goat" -- and that would be grounds for a successful lawsuit in many courts. This will probably get the librarian terminated.

Now, don't get me started on how this charge is mis-used in academe or how intelligently the statutes on it are applied.....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not liking homosexuals is most definately not the same as sexually harassing them.

Crazed Rabbit

That's true. I don't see where the charges are coming from, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason for them beyond what the people who are defending him in court say.

[solypsist]

the faculty who activated this investigation obviously don't have enough to do. that said, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. these are liberal arts profs - who tend to go overboard in self-involved drama whatever their sexual orientation.
2. that not withstanding, anyone who recommends a book by rick santorum, with a straight face, should be relegated to academic siberia. next thing you know, he'll be recommending medical reference from Bill "you can catch aids from tear ducts/ i used to lie and say i was adopting kittens when i actualy took them home and vivisected them" Frist.

[Lemur]

Maybe we should consolidate all of these incidents into a single Stupid Lawsuits thread.

[Hurin_Rules]

A bit more information from a more neutral source answers many of the questions (gotta be careful reading those conservative blogs, people!):


Tolerance and a Reading Selection

Like a growing number of colleges, Ohio State University at Mansfield has decided to ask all freshmen to read a common book, in the hope of creating a more unified intellectual experience for new students. But the effort over the last month to pick a book for the next group of new students hasn’t exactly been a unifying experience. The suggestion of one member of the book selection committee that an anti-gay book be picked angered many faculty members, some of whom have filed harassment charges against the person who nominated that book. The faculty members in turn are being accused of trying to censor a librarian — and a conservative group is threatening to sue.

Whether the debate at Mansfield is about faculty members standing up for tolerance or displaying intolerance all depends on whom you ask.

At the center of the debate is Scott Savage, the head reference librarian at Mansfield. He did not respond to messages seeking his comment for this article, but a conservative legal group backing him in the dispute provided e-mail messages he had sent — as well as copies of the complaint filed against him and numerous e-mail messages that had circulated among faculty members and others at the university.

Savage volunteered this year to serve on the committee that would pick the book for next year’s freshmen — the first to participate in the common reading experience program. Donna L. Hight, the chief student affairs officer, led the committee and she said she didn’t specify any type of book or any subject matter, but encouraged committee members to think about books that could relate to many issues and that might inspire a lot of discussion. Much of the committee’s work was done via e-mail, and Savage’s ideas became controversial when he said that many of the books under consideration were “ideologically or politically or religiously polarizing.” The books he cited that were then under consideration were by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

As an example of a non-ideological book, Savage suggested Freakonomics. But his comments to the group against picking an ideological book struck some the wrong way. Then one committee member sent an e-mail saying that a controversial book would get more students engaged and debating. The university, he wrote, “can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues.”

With that invitation, Savage offered his own suggestions on books that might fit the bill, including new books by Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who is much loved by social conservatives, and by David Horowitz, the conservative gadfly who has pushed the Academic Bill of Rights, which is derided by faculty groups as taking away their rights. But the suggestion that created the furor was another one: The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, by David Kupelian.

While the book has many targets, gay people rank high as a source of problems, with frequent implications of a gay conspiracy hurting society. Publicity material for the book blasts the gay civil-rights movement for changing “America’s former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes” and says that this transformation campaign “faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.”

Almost immediately, fellow panel members (and soon others at the university) not only objected to the book (which never seems to have been in serious contention for freshmen to read), but to the idea that it would be offered for consideration. It was called “homophobic tripe” in one e-mail, and others noted the book’s lack of scholarly rigor, the statements in the book about gay people and others that have been widely debunked, the impact that reading such a book would have on gay people at the university, etc. As these e-mails escalated — with many of them circulating on the entire campus — the Faculty Senate considered filing formal charges of harassment against Savage. In the end, two faculty members charged him with harassment based on sexual orientation. The complaint said that gay faculty members were made to feel unsafe by Savage’s advocating the book as a reading assignment, and others questioned whether they would feel comfortable sending gay students to the library or encouraging any student to research gay-related topics, in light of Savage’s role there.

The Alliance Defense Fund has now warned Ohio State that it may sue on Savage’s behalf if charges aren’t dropped and if the university does not state in public that Savage is not guilty of harassment. The fund, which focuses on the rights of religious people, has recently started focusing more attention on higher education. Savage is a member of a conservative Quaker group known as “plain Christians.” As such, he avoids much modern technology, according to the fund, using a horse and buggy for transportation, for example. But he does use e-mail extensively for his work.

David French, senior legal counsel at the fund, said, “It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university.” French added that this case demonstrated that “universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America.”

Ohio State administrators said that they were studying the fund’s charges and had no comment on the situation.

A number of faculty members were reluctant to speak publicly, and some who strongly objected to Savage’s recommendation of a book for freshmen also objected to the idea of charging him with harassment — particularly given that the move would somewhat predictably be used by conservatives to attack academe. Several also said that the fund was exagerating the threat to Savage. They noted that he has been charged with harassment based on sexual orientation, not sexual harassment, as the fund’s press release states. They also noted that Ohio State has made no findings in the case.

One professor who was willing to talk on the record was Christpher Phelps, an associate professor of history who has not played any role in the complaint.

He said of Savage’s nomination for the freshman book: “It was a ludicrous book to select and the idea that a chief reference librarian would be proposing a book full of homophobic nonsense was deeply disturbing to the faculty.” Phelps said it was important to remember that there are relatively few out gay faculty members at the university and that they face hostility in the region.

Added Phelps: “If the book he had proposed was a Klan title promoting the inferiority of African-Americans, would anyone be questioning the anger of the faculty?”

In the fall, freshmen will not be reading The Marketing of Evil. The book selected by the committee was The Working Poor, by David K. Shipler.

— Scott Jaschik

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/14/mansfield



In short: it was ludicrous for a chief librarian to suggest undergraduates read a blatantly homophobic book that lacked scholarly rigour, especially on a campus that is still struggling with homophobia. On the other hand, he has not been charged with sexual harrassment, but with harrassment based on sexual orientation. I agree that it is going too far to charge this guy with anything, really, but if a faculty member launches a complaint, the University is obligated to follow it up. I doubt anything will come of it, but unfortunately, as we can all see here, it has given the sanctimonious right another opportunity to beat up on the liberal, elitist left who are destroying America.

Ho hum.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A bit more information from a more neutral source answers many of the questions (gotta be careful reading those conservative blogs, people!):



Hah, that was my first thought upon reading the original post. I couldn't find any other sources though, nice job.



suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading

all freshmen to read a common book,

Hmm, wow those are quite different aren't they.


"sexual harrassment"

harassment based on sexual orientation.

Oh I like that, real creative use of quotation marks there :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

gotta be careful reading those conservative blogs, people!

I suppose you would have to be. But I wasn't.


In short: it was ludicrous for a chief librarian to suggest undergraduates read a blatantly homophobic book that lacked scholarly rigour, especially on a campus that is still struggling with homophobia.

There was a call put out for controversial books, and he put forth several suggestions.

And since when is everyone who doesn't like gay people 'homophobic'? I am rather tired of every book about gays from a conservative viewpoint being called 'homophobic'. I don't doubt that several of the more leftist suggestions lacked scholarly rigor, and I wouldn't be surprised if some scorned Christianity.

The leftists called for controversial books that would 'polarize' people. But I guess they wanted books that would polarize mainstream America, and Mr. Savage's suggestion hit a little to close to home.

I am curious about your saying that the campus is 'struggling with homophobia'. Is there a widespread fear of gay people, or is the word 'homophobia' once again being used too freely? An example: I dislike getting my shoes muddy. But I don't fear mud on my shoes.


Added Phelps: “If the book he had proposed was a Klan title promoting the inferiority of African-Americans, would anyone be questioning the anger of the faculty?”
But he did not suggest such a book. And the faculty voted -each and every one of them- to press charges.


I agree that it is going too far to charge this guy with anything, really, but if a faculty member launches a complaint, the University is obligated to follow it up.

The university is also obligated to drop it once the baselessness of the charges have been made clear. They are not doing so.


I doubt anything will come of it, but unfortunately, as we can all see here, it has given the sanctimonious right another opportunity to beat up on the liberal, elitist left who are destroying America.

Perhaps they should wise up and acting the way they do. They are being rightfully criticized for a moronic action.


Ho hum.

I'm sure you'd say that were a librarian to be charged with harassment for suggesting a liberal book.

Crazed Rabbit

[Major Robert Dump]

The rules are completely different on college campuses, and freedom of speech does not exist. If you wear an offensive shirt, make an unsavory remark in class about a race/sex/religion that offends someone, if you write an op-ed peice that offends a minority -- you can be expelled for all these things.

Everything about discourse in public universities in America is hypocritical, and unfortunately iit is the elitist left, and I fell it hurts education, it hurts competition, it breeds contempt......arguments are good for learning, whats not good for learning is shutting out opposing views.

I almost got suspended from the university of Oklahoma for something I did that offended someone, and oddly enough the attorney who helped me get out of "trouble" was also the biggest prick professor I ever had, a state officer in the ACLU who has sued the university over free speech issues half a dozen time. We certainly agreed on very few things, but freedom of expression was one of them.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

S: (n) homophobia (prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homophobia



The book isn't "controversial" it's insulting. The professors thought it was more than insulting, they thought it was harrassment. The school is investigating the charge. That's all there is to this story. The ADF guys just went for a double whammy with "stupid lawsuit" (everyone knows there are lots of stupid lawsuits!) and "liberal college conspiracy" (everyone knows colleges are full of liberals!). Their article was designed to confirm those two things and discourage anyone from actually thinking about it.

[Atilius]

In short: it was ludicrous for a chief librarian to suggest undergraduates read a blatantly homophobic book that lacked scholarly rigour

Wasn't it also ludicrous for books by Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver to be under consideration? I doubt they were examples of scholarly rigour. Would it have been ludicrous to have suggested a judaeophobic book such as Mein Kampf? That would have provided an excellent way to debunk its arguments.

From the article in your post, it appears as if Savage was upset that some choices under consideration were ideologically polarizing. He complains about this and suggests a non-ideological book. A committee member opines that the university “can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues.” The "certain issues" aren't specifed. Savage makes some ideologically polarizing suggestions, maybe out of conviction, maybe out of sheer pique. Suddenly he's castigated for choosing ludicrous books and charged with harassment.

There is a whiff of hypocrisy here and I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering how someone can feel threatened by another person suggesting that others read a certain book.

[Ironside]

Wasn't it also ludicrous for books by Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver to be under consideration? I doubt they were examples of scholarly rigour. Would it have been ludicrous to have suggested a judaeophobic book such as Mein Kampf? That would have provided an excellent way to debunk its arguments.

From the article in your post, it appears as if Savage was upset that some choices under consideration were ideologically polarizing. He complains about this and suggests a non-ideological book. A committee member opines that the university “can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues.” The "certain issues" aren't specifed. Savage makes some ideologically polarizing suggestions, maybe out of conviction, maybe out of sheer pique. Suddenly he's castigated for choosing ludicrous books and charged with harassment.

There is a whiff of hypocrisy here and I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering how someone can feel threatened by another person suggesting that others read a certain book.

From the look of it, I agree, but to make make a good accessment I would have to read those mails. There's quite likely that those mails are a very big piece of the puzzle.

[Hurin_Rules]

But he did not suggest such a book. And the faculty voted -each and every one of them- to press charges.


Wrong again. Read the article (the Inside Higher Education one, not the partisan blogs). The matter was brought before the Faculty Senate, but there is no mention of the Senate filing charges. Two professors did. Apparently, there was not even a majority of the liberal elitists who would support them. So please, lets get our facts straight.

You also need to change the title of this thread, moreover, as it has now become clear there are no charges of 'sexual harrassment' in this case. Another error due to a reliance on the dreaded blogs.

I will agree with you that the charges seem rather ludicrous; if that's all that happened, then I agree the charges should be dropped, once a full investigation is completed. But you've also been led down the garden path by the conservative bloggers who are shaping the facts to fit their agenda.

[Faust|]

They should just fire the librarian guy for being a dumbass.

The fact is that liberals have for the most part been on the leading edge of technological, scientific, and social "advancement" for as long as at least I can remember. Although I can sympathize with their points, I cannot sympathize with all too many republicans and conservatives who are just too rancorous and reactionary. Some of them show their rancor by starting threads like this. This dumbass showed his rancor by intentionally suggesting controversial books, also rancorous, with a clear conservative agenda, in a situation that put his job in peril. Let this moron get what comes to him.

[Faust|]

And you think the books the liberals would have suggested would be any better?

I honestly don't see how that applies to my comment. I just said pretty much exactly what he did, and called him a moron for it; no more. To answer your question though, his book choices were not reasonable and substantial "conservative" books, his choices were books that intended to some degree to inflame; his intention was likewise to inflame but instead of making millions he may lose money and ruin his career... moron :2thumbsup:

The universities are run by leftists and conservative thinking is sometimes stifled, everyone knows that. I had commented more, but I edited that stuff out as I don't know enough about the story to really comment any further.

[English assassin]

Oh dear. When someone does something that forces me to agree with the American right then they have REALLY stepped out of line.

Assuming these books aren't the Mein Kampf of gay-hating, however bad they are the librarian had a right to put them forward, just as everyone else had a right not to read them. Free speech doesn't mean only the right to say things I agree with.

The way to deal with Santorum is not censorship, its a good biological washing powder at 60 degrees with a pre-wash (little joke there for Dan Savage fans)

[Slyspy]

The charges seem ludicrous to me. The idea was to choose polarising texts to promote debate. If members of the committee felt that this one was too extreme they had the option of voting against it. In the end, of course, it was not selected. Unhappily for all involved the defendants case has been hijacked by a group with a clear political motivation beyond helping a librarian fight off a pointless lawsuit. I suspect that there is a deal behind the scenes which we cannot see in internet articles, but which may be clear from the relevant correspondence etc etc.

[Redleg]

I am curious about your saying that the campus is 'struggling with homophobia'. Is there a widespread fear of gay people, or is the word 'homophobia' once again being used too freely? An example: I dislike getting my shoes muddy. But I don't fear mud on my shoes.


Several issues are ongoing on the Univerity of Ohio campus concerning not only of harrassment of homosexuals but several other factors, but I thought it was with the Campus at Columbus not in Mansfield.

I am sure this is a result of what has happen in Columbus and is University policy because of this.

[Don Corleone]

Edit: Sorry about the Chapel Hill reference... wrong board...

I find myself shocked now to see many members of this board, whom frankly I usually find quite enlightened and open minded, advocating outright harassment for one's views. A librarian is being charged with bigotry and could potentially lose his job, because some gay professors don't like that not everyone accepts homosexuality as the ultimate good. And you all are okay with that. :no:

Sasaki, Hurin, you're reasonable guys. You really think it's okay to fire a guy and ban books at a university library, just because you don't like the books he recommended? When the reading list was already including several heavily left-leaning readings? Whatever happened to balance? What happened to fairness? You really believe it's okay to ban any book that disagrees with your viewpoints, and silence anyone who speaks in favor of them? The book may be a pile of steaming dog pooh, and it very well may not be up to the normal standards of the University. Fine, turn it down. But firing somebody for suggesting it? It's attitudes like that make rightys that you might normally consider reasonable actually contemplate such extremes as Liberty University or Bob Jones University.

[Reenk Roink]

The University of Michigan's Honors College program requires incoming students to take a "Great Books" class, in which one of the staple canons is the Bible...

There is/was no drama about it...

You did not bring this example up, so I do not see why you bring up the example of the Quran.

Aside from that comment, I agree with your post Don Corleone.

It is quite ridiculous that they are considering firing this man because he suggested some critical-homosexual literature. I do not know much of the books he suggested (probably not my kind of read), but remove the books from the library if they do not reflect the University. Unless these books are straight-out homophobic tirades, with more hate than intelligent criticism, I do not see the big deal. Perhaps the should tell the librarian not to suggest books that go against the University's viewpoints. That would be stupid, in my opinion, but it would cause him to quit; much better than firing him or bringing up charges...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Edit: Sorry about the Chapel Hill reference... wrong board...

I find myself shocked now to see many members of this board, whom frankly I usually find quite enlightened and open minded, advocating outright harassment for one's views. A librarian is being charged with bigotry and could potentially lose his job, because some gay professors don't like that not everyone accepts homosexuality as the ultimate good. And you all are okay with that. :no:

Sasaki, Hurin, you're reasonable guys. You really think it's okay to fire a guy and ban books at a university library, just because you don't like the books he recommended? When the reading list was already including several heavily left-leaning readings? Whatever happened to balance? What happened to fairness? You really believe it's okay to ban any book that disagrees with your viewpoints, and silence anyone who speaks in favor of them? The book may be a pile of steaming dog pooh, and it very well may not be up to the normal standards of the University. Fine, turn it down. But firing somebody for suggesting it? It's attitudes like that make rightys that you might normally consider reasonable actually contemplate such extremes as Liberty University or Bob Jones University.

Kudos Don.

As my earlier post suggested, I believe that the "harassment" tool is an overplayed tactic that is still working too well in academe, and for the wrong reasons.

Hurin did a nice job in pointing to the particulars -- and I'd agree that conservative bloggers are no less apt than their liberal counterparts to skimp on the particulars. I'm not quite sure of his stance on the issues at hand.

Is the librarian in question a homophobe? I have no idea. Should a homophobe have any less right to express her or himself than a gay rights advocate? Of course not. In practice, however, at least in the hallowed halls of academe in the USA, that is exactly the case that obtains. Members of groups that have been marginalized (at least historically) by traditional mainstream culture are encouraged to speak their minds, to contribute to the debate, to persuade, and to champion their own cause. The voice that speaks for the traditional, that (rightly or wrongly) says that such groups have been marginalized for a reason, is far more likely to be squelched.

Instead of encouraging students to read/think/grapple with all sorts of points of view and equipping them with the skills to attack such issues on their own, far too many would mute certain voices.

As an undergrad, I was fortunate enough to have a British prof in introductory (comparative British/U.S.) government. He was LSE trained and largely socialist in his outlook, and had little love/respect for the Reagan Administration (this was in '83 -- gads I'm old). I disagreed with him vehemently on most issues, but I learned more in that class about government in democratic republics than I had in my preceding 10 years of school.

So have 'em read Santorum, and then have them tear it apart -- agree or not they'll probably learn more than way. Or even pair Santorum with the Carter book on the reading list. THAT would generate a bit of fun.:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wrong again. Read the article (the Inside Higher Education one, not the partisan blogs).
Once again; the article I quoted was not from a blog.


The matter was brought before the Faculty Senate, but there is no mention of the Senate filing charges. Two professors did. Apparently, there was not even a majority of the liberal elitists who would support them. So please, lets get our facts straight.

How ironic that you say that. From my orginal article:

Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.” The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.


You also need to change the title of this thread, moreover, as it has now become clear there are no charges of 'sexual harrassment' in this case. Another error due to a reliance on the dreaded blogs.

I will agree with you that the charges seem rather ludicrous; if that's all that happened, then I agree the charges should be dropped, once a full investigation is completed. But you've also been led down the garden path by the conservative bloggers who are shaping the facts to fit their agenda.

No, I do not need to change the title. What needs to change is your fixation that I am getting my information from 'partisan blogs'. In fact, the group that is defending the librarian said that he is being investigated for "sexual harassment".

'Once a full investigation is complete'? The facts are all out there, and it is obvious that there is nothing to investigate.

This is, unfortunately, just one symptom of the attitude of leftists in college. As EA said,
" Free speech doesn't mean only the right to say things I agree with. "

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Edit: Sorry about the Chapel Hill reference... wrong board...

I find myself shocked now to see many members of this board, whom frankly I usually find quite enlightened and open minded, advocating outright harassment for one's views. A librarian is being charged with bigotry and could potentially lose his job, because some gay professors don't like that not everyone accepts homosexuality as the ultimate good. And you all are okay with that. :no:

Sasaki, Hurin, you're reasonable guys. You really think it's okay to fire a guy and ban books at a university library, just because you don't like the books he recommended? When the reading list was already including several heavily left-leaning readings? Whatever happened to balance? What happened to fairness? You really believe it's okay to ban any book that disagrees with your viewpoints, and silence anyone who speaks in favor of them? The book may be a pile of steaming dog pooh, and it very well may not be up to the normal standards of the University. Fine, turn it down. But firing somebody for suggesting it? It's attitudes like that make rightys that you might normally consider reasonable actually contemplate such extremes as Liberty University or Bob Jones University.

Oh well, I'd like to see him fired. I don't think they actually should though.


A disturbing change in government policy has involved the firearms industry. Supported by succeeding Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, legislation was passed by Congress in 1994 that for ten years prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and possession of nineteen specific semiautomatic assault weapons, including AK-47s, AR-15s, and UZIs. None of these are used for hunting -- only for killing other humans. More than eleven hundred police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation called on Congress and President Bush to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, but with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

This is not a controversy that involves homeowners, hunters, or outdoorsmen. I have owned and used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own a handgun, four shotguns, and two rifles. I use them carefully, for harvesting game from our woods and fields and during an occasional foray to hunt with my family and friends in other places. We cherish these rights, and some of my companions like to collect rare weapons.


For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."

Or that the "gay rights" movement—which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes—faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

You really think those two are balanced? Just read them!




a controversial book would get more students engaged and debating. The university, he wrote, “can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues.”

There's nothing to debate in the marketing of evil. It's a ridiculous rant. It isn't conservative it's reactionary. This has nothing to do with the book "saying something I don't agree with". The guy recommended that the university give a book to all freshmen that claims homosexuals are "self-destructive human beings". Why would you defend that?


In fact, the group that is defending the librarian said that he is being investigated for "sexual harassment".

:inquisitive:

[Don Corleone]

I am not defending the statements in "Marketing of Evil", or the selection of it. I'm not going to let this devolve into Jimmy Carter is nowhere near as threatening as the author of the Marketing of Evil. I'm taking up for the rights of others to say things that I don't agree with.

I'm sorry if your sacred cows, such as Alfred Kinsey, can't stand up to a little scrutiny and criticism, but that doesn't mean that people that suggest book titles supporting views cricitcal of him should be silenced.

It's not an exchange of ideas if you force people to read leftist texts to prove how open minded you all are, then fire anybody who suggests something that disputes that world view.

If your position REALLY is about the banality of the works selected, why didn't the University simply substitute some books by William F. Buckley, George Will or some other conservative academics? Because this is about indoctrination, not academic merit, and again, I'm really surprised to see you of all people come out in support of it.

[Redleg]

Oh well, I'd like to see him fired. I don't think they actually should though.

Free Speech is a dangerous thing is it not?



You really think those two are balanced? Just read them!


There's nothing to debate in the marketing of evil. It's a ridiculous rant. It isn't conservative it's reactionary. This has nothing to do with the book "saying something I don't agree with". The guy recommended that the university give a book to all freshmen that claims homosexuals are "self-destructive human beings". Why would you defend that?


Why are you taking the passage out of context? Doesn't the passage you quoted clearly state?

Or that the "gay rights" movement—which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes—faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

Is not the author providing an harsh but accurate describtion of how the United States use to view homosexuals? My uncle now deceased could testify that the past view of homosexuals in the United States was indeed that they were self-destructive, especially since I heard my Grandfather tell him several times to give up his self-destructive lifestyle back in the late 1970's early 1980's. But that is only ancedotal evidence - not one of experience from studing the social behavior aspects of the past concerning homosexuality.

However, it seems not only the right wing bloggers and newsprint has taken things out of context and spun it to mean something that it is not.

The book might be tripe, but it does provide material for discussion and debate as the email that passed in the college that suggested "Then one committee member sent an e-mail saying that a controversial book would get more students engaged and debating."

Would I suggest this book for reading - not at all (I wont even read it myself most likely - since it is not in any of my areas of current interest) there are far better books that would fit the bill for what they are after, however the suggestion of a book is not grounds for a harrassment charge by those who do not want to read the book.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why are you taking the passage out of context. Doesn't the passage you quoted clearly state.

Or that the "gay rights" movement—which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes—faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

Is not the author providing an harsh but accurate describtion of how the United States use to view homosexuals.

Hey, only emphasizing the "america's former view" is taking things out of context as well. If you look at the whole context you see that he represents the gay rights movement as a plan by some professional marketers. The sentance implies that this was a bad thing, that the "former view" is the correct one.


What's ironic is that my book simply champions the traditional, Judeo-Christian values almost all Americans took for granted 60 years ago.

He says himself that his book champions "America's former view", therefore it champions the view that homesexuals are self-destructive human beings. It's quite clear.


It seems not only the right wing bloggers and newsprint has taken things out of context and spun it to mean something that it is not.

The book might be tribe, but it does provide material for discussion and debate as the email that passed in the college that suggested "Then one committee member sent an e-mail saying that a controversial book would get more students engaged and debating."

What can we debate about the book beyond the authors intentions? A book has to have some level of credibility to even qualify as debatebly controversial.


I am not defending the statements in "Marketing of Evil", or the selection of it. I'm not going to let this devolve into Jimmy Carter is nowhere near as threatening as the author of the Marketing of Evil. I'm taking up for the rights of others to say things that I don't agree with.

I'm sorry if your sacred cows, such as Alfred Kinsey, can't stand up to a little scrutiny and criticism, but that doesn't mean that people that suggest book titles supporting views cricitcal of him should be silenced.

It's not an exchange of ideas if you force people to read leftist texts to prove how open minded you all are, then fire anybody who suggests something that disputes that world view.

If your position REALLY is about the banality of the works selected, why didn't the University simply substitute some books by William F. Buckley, George Will or some other conservative academics? Because this is about indoctrination, not academic merit, and again, I'm really surprised to see you of all people come out in support of it.

Hey, I'm all for substituting some conservative academic books. I don't believe he suggested Kupelians book in an honest attempt to have to get the students debating. He had to know it wouldn't be chosen. It looks more to me like he was pissy about the "liberal indoctrination" of the campus and decided to recommend and insulting case. This is just what it looks like to me, I have no way of knowing if this is the case and therefore I support the [i]investigation[i], not some conviction with no evidence.

[A.Saturnus]

The critical part is this:


As an example of a non-ideological book, Savage suggested Freakonomics. But his comments to the group against picking an ideological book struck some the wrong way. Then one committee member sent an e-mail saying that a controversial book would get more students engaged and debating. The university, he wrote, “can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues.”

The point is that Savage did not suggest these books because he agrees with them, but because some defended picking an ideological book. They told him "let's polarize", he did that and now he's charged of harrassment. He did not act anti-gay but anti-ideologic.
All he can be accused of is feeding the troll!

[Redleg]

Hey, only emphasizing the "america's former view" is taking things out of context as well. If you look at the whole context you see that he represents the gay rights movement as a plan by some professional marketers. The sentance implies that this was a bad thing, that the "former view" is the correct one.

To you it implies that - to me it simply states a rather harsh fact of the past. One that from experience of observation of my Grandfather and Uncle - I would come to the same conclusion that the former view of the United States toward homosexuality is one that they were self-destructive.

The marketing bit doesn't strike me as either bad or good. I emphasized the former view to make a point - it seems though you are not able to see beyond your own notions about the book or the issue. So lets get on the band wagon and condemn the librarian for recommending such a book that on the surface fits the bill of the email, " Then one committee member sent an e-mail saying that a controversial book would get more students engaged and debating."

Its obviousilyu controversial enough to engage you and get you debating on the merits of the book.




What can we debate about the book beyond the authors intentions? A book has to have some level of credibility to even qualify as debatebly controversial.

Oh there are several things - one would to be debunk the authors premise.
The other would be to use it as a model to discuss the social issues that the politics of the issue have mired the political aspects of the issue for both sides. And those are the two that jump right out.

If I bothered to read the book - I could probably discover others - but as stated in an edit - I most likely won't bother because its not a current interest.



Hey, I'm all for substituting some conservative academic books. I don't believe he suggested Kupelians book in an honest attempt to have to get the students debating. He had to know it wouldn't be chosen. It looks more to me like he was pissy about the "liberal indoctrination" of the campus and decided to recommend and insulting case. This is just what it looks like to me, I have no way of knowing if this is the case and therefore I support the investigation, not some conviction with no evidence.

However the investigation does seem to be an effort to punish the librarian for recommending the book - not as a legimate exercise in following up on a harassment complaint. Certain complaints don't require an investigation - having done them in the work place, you review the facts before the investigation is started and then its not discussed until after the investigation. It seems both sides are violating that principle from the get-go.

[Kralizec]

The point is that Savage did not suggest these books because he agrees with them, but because some defended picking an ideological book. They told him "let's polarize", he did that and now he's charged of harrassment. He did not act anti-gay but anti-ideologic.
All he can be accused of is feeding the troll!

Yes, I noticed that part too. It's plausible that he just picked the books because he knew it would provoke a reaction.

Still it seems to me that he made a wrong pick. Whatever Carter or Shriver wrote can't be as bad as a book that claims there is a gay conspiracy against America. :inquisitive:
If you're looking for a left wing equavalent of that, you'll end up reading the writings of Stalin and Mao.

[Hurin_Rules]

Sasaki, Hurin, you're reasonable guys. You really think it's okay to fire a guy and ban books at a university library, just because you don't like the books he recommended? When the reading list was already including several heavily left-leaning readings? Whatever happened to balance? What happened to fairness? You really believe it's okay to ban any book that disagrees with your viewpoints, and silence anyone who speaks in favor of them? The book may be a pile of steaming dog pooh, and it very well may not be up to the normal standards of the University. Fine, turn it down. But firing somebody for suggesting it? It's attitudes like that make rightys that you might normally consider reasonable actually contemplate such extremes as Liberty University or Bob Jones University.

I thought I already addressed this, in post #25, when I responded to Crazed Rabbit by saying:


I will agree with you that the charges seem rather ludicrous; if that's all that happened, then I agree the charges should be dropped, once a full investigation is completed.

and in post #18, when I wrote:


In short: it was ludicrous for a chief librarian to suggest undergraduates read a blatantly homophobic book that lacked scholarly rigour, especially on a campus that is still struggling with homophobia. On the other hand, he has not been charged with sexual harrassment, but with harrassment based on sexual orientation. I agree that it is going too far to charge this guy with anything, really, but if a faculty member launches a complaint, the University is obligated to follow it up. I doubt anything will come of it, but unfortunately, as we can all see here, it has given the sanctimonious right another opportunity to beat up on the liberal, elitist left who are destroying America.

In short: IF we have all the facts right now, and nothing further of substantial relevance turns up, then no, I don't think the librarian should face any discipline. He certainly made a rather odd suggestion, but he was asked to provide something polarizing, and he can hardly be canned for that. If only he had suggested something with a bit more intellectual weight (how about Fukuyama or something at least half-way academic) and a more rigorous methodology, it wouldn't even be an issue. Alas, his poor choice has stirred up controversy in a campus already struggling with the problem of homophobia.

So yes, I think I agree with you to a large extent here Don. But the original post is misleading, and makes the situation seem otherwise than it is.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I think people should just shut up and accept other people's opinions, and intolerance, without having to waste time or someones life arguing about it. The Librarian suggested what he beleived were good books, if the Liberals do not like it, too bad. If a Liberal Librarian suggested Michael Moore as a good book, well, I'd think he's a moron but it's his right, and if Conservatives don't like it, too bad. That's how it should be; to be truely tolerant you must accept someone elses intolerance.

[Redleg]

Yes, I noticed that part too. It's plausible that he just picked the books because he knew it would provoke a reaction.

Still it seems to me that he made a wrong pick. Whatever Carter or Shriver wrote can't be as bad as a book that claims there is a gay conspiracy against America. :inquisitive:
If you're looking for a left wing equavalent of that, you'll end up reading the writings of Stalin and Mao.

Naw you wouldn't have to read Stalin or Mao - since in essence they were not left wing at all - they were so far left that they became right wing.

Now Michael Moore would be an apporiate comparison.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Added Phelps: “If the book he had proposed was a Klan title promoting the inferiority of African-Americans, would anyone be questioning the anger of the faculty?”

Becomes...


Added Me: “If the book he had proposed was a Moore title promoting the inferiority of conservatives, would anyone be questioning the anger of the faculty?”

The answer...
No.

[Xiahou]

Still it seems to me that he made a wrong pick. Whatever Carter or Shriver wrote can't be as bad as a book that claims there is a gay conspiracy against America. :inquisitive:
If you're looking for a left wing equavalent of that, you'll end up reading the writings of Stalin and Mao.
The difference is that (based on the excerpts) Carter is just more subtle- while slinging just as much BS. The Constitutional 'right to hunt' is a red herring often tossed out by gun-grabbers as justification for banning weapons. Cant use them to hunt? Ban them. Fact is, there is no such right and the 2nd Amendment was not written with hunting in mind. Carter, as usual, is full of it. Like I said, Carter is just more subtle with his spin. You can debate the 2nd Amendment (not here) but it's definitely not about hunting.

However, it also seems that the excerpts listed arent entirely accurate either. I dont own either book- but the Carter excerpt appears to be a genuine book quote, while the 'Marketing' excerpt just seems like it was taken from the book's summary (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581824599/sr=8-1/qid=1145427190/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8902349-3944623?%5Fencoding=UTF8) page, which would be understandably more bombastic. :shrug:

[Faust|]

The BS is getting really thick in here :toilet: