This blog has repeatedly shown that leftists do NOT believe in free speech. One of the recent examples was the threat by Colorado State University to withdraw support for hurrican forecaster William Gray--seemingly to PUNISH him for his HERESY on "lglobal warmng". Gray has ridiculed the attempt to connect "global warmng" and hurricanes, and seems to be pretty much a skeptic of "global warming" HYPE.
This is not really a matter of opinion (leftist suppression of free speech when it conflicts with their agenda). It is a long established fact, and not just with regard to "global warmng".
Part of yesterday's news was the SUSPENSION by the University of Toledo of an African-American professor for a newspaper op-ed piece on the absurdity of equating homosexual conduct with the struggle for racial civil rights in this country. Did this African-American use any racial slurs?
Nope. that was Boyce Watkins at Syracuse, who calls Juan Williams (a black man) the "eternal happy Negro", and uses racial hate language only slightly less virulent than Reverend Wright. Syracuse, however, and leftists generally, refuse to even CRITICIZE Boyce Watkins, who is using his position at Syracuse to promote racial hate (no surprise that Watkins supports Barack Obama). Watkins has even accused Juan Williams (an National Public Radio reporter who has committed the crime of being a regular on Fox News) of not being a "real" African-American, because he was born in Panama. Of course, by this standard (as some leftists said about Barack Obama before he officially became the "black candidate"), Barack Obama is not a true AMERICAN "African-American", since he is NOT a descendant of slaves, since his father was actually born in modern Afirca (plus having a white mother).
Syracuse will not even CRITICIZE Watkins for racial slurs and racial hate speech, and he even appears on some cable TV networks (like CNN). In contrast, the leftists at the University of Toledo SUSPENDED an African-American for daring to SUBSTANTIVELY (no slurs) challenge leftist ortodoxy on homosexual CONDUCT.
What was the crime of this African-American woman? Her "crime" really was only contradicting leftist orthodoxy. She pointed out that African-Americans have no choice at all in their skin color, and that people can identify that SURFACE characteristic immediately. Can you identify, on sight, who is hoomosexual and who is not? Remember Rock Hudson, and other Hollywood homosexuals?
This entire equating of "homosexual civil rights" with the fight against racial discrimination was a POLITICAL gambit to push the homosexual rights agenda. As this African-American correctly said, it is absurd to suggest that the issues of "homosexual rights" and racial "civil rights" have any real similarites. Homosexual conduct is CONDUCT. No one HAS to engage in homosexual conduct. Even if you are "born that way" (which is NOT true of all people who engage in homosexual conduct, although it may be a strong factor in many), you CAN choose to remain celibate. "Kinsey", of course, presented the idea that we are ALL "born" with the potential for BOTH heterosexual and homosexual CONDUCT, although we may be born with tendencies more toward one end opf the line or the other (a relatively well accepted idea, although homosexual advocates ignore it when it suits their purposes).
The lady has the BETTER of this argument. What she said is objectively CORRECT. Homosexual CONDUCT cannto be equated with a surface PHENOTYPE like skin color. These are two totally separate things. Homosexual conduct is more accurately equated (moraly) with non-marital sex or other sexual conduct. It is CONDUCT. You can't LOOK at a person and say he or she is homosexual, UNLESS they advertise it by CONDUCT (such as dress, cosmetics or exaggerated manner--with even those not being defninitive).
Say the lady was wrong, however (a hard assumption, since she is clearly right). Why is this not free speech? Why is it "hate speech" to suggest that the advocacy of homosexual "rights" and racial "civil rights" cannot be equated? Even if that were not the truth, it is the very kind of argument that free speech is all about--except to leftists. To leftists, "free speech" that disagree with their orothodoxy is BAD, and needs to be suppresssed.
What is the most controversial thing that this African-American woman said? Well, she said that a lot of homosexuals have been "cured" (I don't know that she actually used that word). In other words, she cited groups that are attempting to help homosexuals turn "straight", and cited statistics and examples of SUCCESS at people turning away from the homosexual lifestyle. If Kinsey was right, why should that not happen? But this is a "hot wire" kind of assertion to homosexual activists. The idea that people have a CHOICE in their homosexual conduct is anatema to these people, because it totally undercuts their "civil rights" argument (not strong in the first place).
But is it "hate speech" to suggest that homsexuals have a choic in their CONDUCT? I don't see it. It is certainly not as much hate speech as the kinds of things that Boyce Watkins says. You can disagree with it. But the indea that a university professor should not be allowed to SAY that is, well FASCIST. It is a driect attack on free speech. This professor was saying this on her own, and not even in an academic setting. Consider how much "academic" freedom is worth if a professor is not allowed to even CONSIDER the idea in the university setting (this professor's article appearing in a NEWSPAPER, and not as spokesperson for the university). If a university "study" could NEVER conclude that homosexual conduct can be UNLEARNED, or CHANGED, then university studies on the whole subject have no value, do they?
As I have said before, it is NOT "science" to set out to bolster a POLITICAL position. It is PROPAGANDA. Most universities today are nothing more than sources of leftist propaganda.
Againa, however, assume that it is absolutely false that homosexuals (bisexuals?) can change their conduct. Does this mean that a univeristy has a "right" to try to SUPPRESS free speech by one of its professors challenging that political orthodoxy? I remind you again of Johh Stuart Mill's "On Liberity"--the subject of my philosophy term pater at New Mexico State University some 40 years ago.
Mill's assertion, which leftists do NOT believe because they do NOT believe in "liberty", is that:
"If every person but one believes something to be true, the majority is no more justified in imposing their views on the one than the one is justified in imposing his views on the majority." (not quite a direct quote, but a very fair expression of Mill's assertion)
If you believe that leftists agree with John Stuart Mill (at least the extreme leftists gaining more and more control in academia, the media and the Democratic Party), then you have not been paying attention. It is an objecive fact that they do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment