One op-ed, two views on Dr Thio and NYU

This Billings Gazette op-ed piece featured two different views from Andrea Sarvady and Shaunti Feldhahn on Thio Li-ann's aborted trip to NYU. Miss Feldhahn defended Thio, her "close friend from grad school", insisting that political correctness stifles free debate, while Miss Sarvady challenged the legitimacy of Thio teaching a course on human rights.

From Feldhahn:

The resulting outrage among NYU students and even professors was so overwhelming, and calls for her invitation to be rescinded so abusive, that few students dared enroll in her classes and friends feared for her safety.

Those friends include me: Li-ann is a close friend from grad school. I do not share her ultra-direct approach or her beliefs about gay laws, but she is an excellent professor. She holds a different opinion than most at NYU, but she is not bigoted. She encourages free debate and is incredibly insightful on many human rights issues.

This fall, NYU students will find their classes more comfortable but will learn far less than they would have if they were willing to be challenged. Our universities have lost a lot with the abandonment of the principle "I may hate what you say, but I will ensure you have the right to say it." Ironically, the loss of that principle will do far more to put human rights at risk than any uncomfortable opinion ever will.

And the counter from Sarvady:

Thio's fiery speech during that debate consistently depicts homosexuality as nothing more than deviant, criminal behavior. Claims that the law is archaic are dismissed as "merely chronological snobbery." Thio warns Singapore against caving into pleas for repeal, cautioning that taking this law off the books will, among other things "undermine our liberties."

Calling homosexuality a "gender identity disorder," she advises that 377A "serves public morality ... reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the moral repugnancy of homosexuality." And for those concerned that 377A forces only gay men to live under fear of imprisonment? The professor is reassuring: "Note there have been calls to criminalize lesbianism too." Oh, goody.

"Diversity is not license for perversity," Thio cautioned Parliament in her speech. On that fact, she and I are in full accord. Diversity of thought should be a welcome addition to the college lectern. Yet it would be perverse to have an advocate of homosexual imprisonment lecture NYU students on the importance of human rights.

I think most of you know where I stand. If Thio has really strong convictions about her beliefs, then she should stand up for them instead of trying to elicit pity as a victim. I believe in the marketplace of ideas, and her ideas got overwhelmingly thrown out of that marketplace. I also think that if she was not scheduled to teach human rights then the NYU students will have next to nothing to complain about.

Conversely, Thio found the idea of her ideas being rejected by the NYU student body, both in vocal opposition and in low class enrolment, discomfitting enough to turn down the invite. We cannot afford to have academics playing the Beatrice Hall card only when it suits them. The NYU students chose to act, they chose to stand up for their beliefs. They showed spinal fortitude that a certain local legal scholar failed to exhibit, and I salute them for that.

I strongly recommend reading the entire op-ed here.