On Free Speech, With Some Comments on Hate Crimes

Time to take another poke at Andrew Sullivan. My first reaction to this post was pretty negative, but in some respects Sullivan has it right: Thio Li-anh, who was recently forced to withdraw from consideration for an NYU human rights course, does have a right to express her opinions, no matter how wrong and baseless they are. (And I'm sure you're asking yourselves "Can an opinion be wrong?" Yes, of course it can, if it's based on false information.):

It seems to me that gay rights supporters should always, always, always defend the freedom of speech and association of our opponents. In a free and open debate, we will always win because our arguments are so strong.

At its best, that's a naive assumption that ignores everything we've learned in the past thirty years or so. If it were true, we wouldn't have to be campaigning for equal rights now.

There's also the question of whether Thio is really an appropriate teacher for a human rights course, given her views on human rights. From her public statements that I've read, she's not willing to include gays in the "human" part of that concept, and she's woefully ignorant of the realities of "gayness," its origins, and its context.

Be that as it may, does she have a right to express her views? Of course. Although from what I hear -- and that's supported by this snippet: "Dr. Thio, for one, "supported the imposition of a $15,000 fine on a free-access Singaporean television channel for presenting a gay couple and their child as a family unit." -- she's not willing to extend that right to others if she disagrees with them. That's an interesting question for Sullivan: If Dr. Thio and her like are not willing to extend those rights to others, why should we extend those rights to them? They are not, after all, playing by the rules.

But should the university provide a forum for those views without protest? That's a little knottier, and a question, I suspect, that's beyond Sullivan's depth.

Sullivan's taking off from this post by Wendy Kaminer in The Atlantic, which is another abstract, in the ideal world sort of discourse on free speech. Kaminer does touch on the key issue, which she at least notes, although she doesn't discuss it at all:

In responding to her withdrawal, NYU law school dean Richard Revesz smartly finessed questions about her appointment by noting that while her views should not have disqualified her, despite their variance from the university's ideals, the quality of her arguments in support of her views were relevant to her evaluation. "Leading academic institutions benefit greatly from a diversity of perspectives, not from hiring only people who share the same views," Revesv observed (he is quoted at length at abajournal.com). "At the same time, our evaluation of Professor Thio's strength as a scholar might have been usefully informed by an assessment of the analytic cogency and methodological integrity of the arguments and evidence she marshaled for her position."

Kaminer doesn't seem to have really read any of Thio Li-anh's statements. I did find a transcript of the notorious speech to Parliament defending section 337A, Singapore's anti-gay law. It's a mish-mash of flat assertions, appeals to "morality," misinformation, unsupported statements -- the standard right-wing scare speech. This is just an example:

Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. They claim a right of sexual reorientation. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available online. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential.

This is crap from the beginning. "Gender identity disorder"? Conflating two different typologies -- one of the right's favorite tactics. I'm a man. I've always been a man. I love being a man. I love other men for being men. None of us think we're women, nor do we want to be: we are not transexuals. Transexuals have an entirely different psychological make-up.

Ex-gays: This is another assertion as fact of something that is highly debatable at best. "Numerous examples" is an overstatement. "Ex-gay" proponents in the U.S. have claimed "thousands" of successful conversions, but have never been able to produce more than a handful, most of whom have relapsed at the first opportunity. Even Alan Chambers admits that his orientation hasn't changed -- he's just denying it expression. And of course, Thio didn't mention the fact that such conversions have been condemned by every reputable association of psychologists, psychotherapists, and other caregivers.

So if this is the caliber of Thio Li-anh's reasoning ability, I have to say that, in formal terms, she's not all that great, as well as being reality-challenged. She's arguing an agenda, and doing so using specious methods. I don't see how that qualifies her to teach human rights law.

As for the content of her remarks, I personally think she should have been allowed to teach the course -- and let the students nail her there, both on content and form.

Oh, and about hate crimes. Sullivan shows, once again, his essential shallowness:

And yet the authoritarian part of the left is often there, waiting in the wings. We need vigilance against them and their arguments, including the poisonous concept of hate crime laws.

Why he felt it necessary to throw in the reference to "the poisonous concept of hate crime laws" I think owes more to Sullivan's own issues than anything else. To put it in terms that even Sullivan should be able to understand, "hate crimes" are, by definition, a form of terrorism: their effect is to intimidate members of a group. Hate crime laws stipulate enhanced penalties for violent crimes motivated by bias. Enhanced penalties based on motivation are nothing new in Western jurisprudence -- the difference between murder and manslaughter is one of motivation. To equate enhanced penalties for violent crimes in this category with criminalizing thought, as Sullivan and others have done, is specious at best. I find it hard to believe that Sullivan would willingly put himself in the same class as James Dobson, Bill O'Reilly, Mat Staver, and their ilk. He really needs to rethink that whole thing, with some grounding in reality.

Don't misunderstand -- you should know by now that I have little patience with the PC left. I don't respond well to authority, no matter which end of the political spectrum it originates from. I suspect, however, that Sullivan and I have different criteria for assigning membership in that particular group.