NYU Law School: No Conservative Christians Need Apply

[DawnInTexas]

catholicexchange.com/2009/08/05/120997/

NYU Law School: No Conservative Christians Need Apply

August 5th, 2009 by Catholic League

Dr. Thio Li-ann, professor at the National University of Singapore, was invited to teach at New York University Law School this fall. After it was discovered that the Christian professor, while serving as a Singaporean lawmaker in 2007, opposed a repeal of the law proscribing homosexual acts, NYU students and alumni organized to protest her appointment. She subsequently withdrew her interest in teaching at NYU.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote to NYU’s law school dean, Richard Revesz, on July 23, the day the New York Times published a story about Professor Thio; he e-mailed it the same day. Donohue also accessed a statement by Revesz, and a letter by the professor to her critics. Yesterday, NYU law school confirmed that Revesz received Donohue’s letter, though there has been no response. Accordingly, Donohue is going public with his comments today:

I have been in contact with Professor Thio, as well as her colleagues, and I have done two interviews with the media in Singapore. Moreover, nyunews.com has covered this issue, including my remarks. In my letter to Dean Revesz I indicated that I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from NYU, and have taught in NYU’s Multicultural Education summer program for many years; I am also a donor. And still no answer. I think I know why. In his July 23 statement on Professor Thio, Revesz tried to flip the issue of intimidation by blaming her for creating “an unwelcoming atmosphere.” I then said, “You also say that ‘she replied to them [critics of her appointment] in a manner that many member [sic] of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful.’” I asked Revesz to identify “a single sentence that is at all untoward.” There is none, and he knows it.

Revesz has allowed the anti-free speech bullies to score a victory. He seems to love diversity, except for the only kind that should count on a college campus—diversity of thought. When it comes to conservative Christians, Revesz’s interest in inclusion comes to a screeching halt.

Contact Revesz at richard.revesz@nyu.edu

 

[Mark77]

They hate true diversity, because they will be exposed as the frauds they are if they even consider the Truth of Jesus Christ!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Well, the title of this thread seems inaccurate. Such a practice would be unlawful.

 

[Digitonomy]

Well, the title of this thread seems inaccurate. Such a practice would be unlawful.

I’m not sure I agree. If a private institution wants to require professors to avow certain beliefs in line with the mission of the institution, I think it probably has the right to do so. For instance, I don’t think a Muslim could expect to be hired at Bob Jones University.

 

[maggiemay2u]

I’m not sure I agree. If a private institution wants to require professors to avow certain beliefs in line with the mission of the institution, I think it probably has the right to do so. For instance, I don’t think a Muslim could expect to be hired at Bob Jones University.

How does that figure with the New York public Muslim school? Just wondering out loud…

 

[WillieWonka]

She was offered a position. People objected. She withdrew.

So what?

What’s the problem?

 

[Digitonomy]

How does that figure with the New York public Muslim school? Just wondering out loud…

Rules against discrimination are obviously much stricter for a public school than for a private one.

However, I’m not aware of any city school, in NY or otherwise, that is particular to a religion. Perhaps you are thinking of the Arabic language school.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I’m not sure I agree. If a private institution wants to require professors to avow certain beliefs in line with the mission of the institution, I think it probably has the right to do so. For instance, I don’t think a Muslim could expect to be hired at Bob Jones University.

That’s not the law. What about janitors at Catholic Charities?

Positions which require adherence to some type of religious orthodoxy could be kept for adherents of the particular religion.

How does that figure with the New York public Muslim school? Just wondering out loud…

That school does discriminate in hiring folks. And it is an Arab-oriented place, that’s all. It is not a Muslim school.

 

[adowcday]

Her speech to the Singapore parliament, in which she argued strenuously to criminalize gay sexual activity, was a doozy.

yawningbread.org/apdx_2007/imp-359.htm

 

[Dwyer]

I’m not sure I agree.

If a private institution wants to require professors to avow certain beliefs in line with the mission of the institution, I think it probably has the right to do so. For instance, I don’t think a Muslim could expect to be hired at Bob Jones University.

It depends on whether they receive any public monies or funding (i.e., state of U.S. government $$) through research grants, student loans, etc.

Also, I would think Equal Employment Opportunity federal laws may apply (they apply to private businesses with 25 or more than 25, though a university may not be considered a “business” idk), and those laws prohibit people from being discriminated against because of their religion, race, gender, age (remember our society is a Pluralistic Democracy).

I’m not sure, but I actually thought I heard Bob Jones lost their federal tax exempt status, because Bob Jones either did not allow African-Americans to attend their school or they forbid white and black students to date one another.

I think Bob Jones U eventually did admit African-American students to attend their university.

Basically, in order to forbid classes or categories of people from attending a university, the university has to be funded completely by private means, and not take a penny of U.S. or state government money.

Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, is one of the few colleges that does not receive any U.S. government funds; it does so to be completely independent from the federal government; Hillsdale does admit African-Americans.

NYU is such a big school, I am almost certain they receive some federal $$ through research grants, student loans, etc., even if they are “private”.

 

[WillieWonka]

It depends on whether they receive any public monies or funding (i.e., state of U.S. government $$) through research grants, student loans, etc.

Also, I would think Equal Employment Opportunity federal laws may apply (they apply to private businesses with 25 or more than 25, though a university may not be considered a “business” idk), and those laws prohibit people from being discriminated against because of their religion, race, gender, age (remember our society is a Pluralistic Democracy).

I’m not sure, but I actually thought I heard Bob Jones lost their federal tax exempt status, because Bob Jones either did not allow African-Americans to attend their school or they forbid white and black students to date one another.

I think Bob Jones U eventually did admit African-American students to attend their university.

Basically, in order to forbid classes or categories of people from attending a university, the university has to be funded completely by private means, and not take a penny of U.S. or state government money.

Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, is one of the few colleges that does not receive any U.S. government funds; it does so to be completely independent from the federal government; Hillsdale does admit African-Americans.

NYU is such a big school, I am almost certain they receive some federal $$ through research grants, student loans, etc., even if they are “private”.

The article says, "NYU students and alumni organized to protest her appointment. She subsequently withdrew her interest in teaching at NYU.".

So people protested, and she withdrew. There is no problem there. No problem with federal money. The right to protest is not dependent on federal money. It doesn’t matter.

 

[Dwyer]

WillieWonka wrote:

The article says, “NYU students and alumni organized to protest her appointment. She subsequently withdrew her interest in teaching at NYU.”.

So people protested, and she withdrew. There is no problem there.

No problem with federal money. The right to protest is not dependent on federal money. It doesn’t matter.

Well, I don’t agree that there is “no problem”; there obviously was and is problem at NYU Law School, and the problem is one of “if you don’t agree or think like we do, then we would not have you either as a colleague or teaching our classes”.

And these modern universities hold themselves out as institutions of “academic freedom”.

But the message to this Professor at NYU Law School is if you do not hold our opinions, then do not come here.

It is obvious these universities **do not **tolerate people who hold conservative opinions, even though the universities pretend to be places of “academic freedom” and “freedom of thought”.

I agree that this Professor Thio should have not been intimidated, scared, or intimidated by the protesters, but it was up to the NYU Law School Dean to do his job and take control of the situation, talk to the protesters, allay their concerns, and make this Professor he had invited to teach at his law school feel welcome and safe.

 

[WillieWonka]

Willywonka wrote:

Well, I don’t agree that there is “no problem”; there obviously was and is problem at NYU Law School, and the problem is one of “if you don’t agree or think like we do, then we would not have you either as a colleague or teaching our classes”.

And these universities hold themselves out as institutions of “academic freedom”.

But the message to this Professor at NYU Law School is if you do not hold our opinions, then do not come here.

It is obvious these schools **do not **tolerate diversity of thought or opinion, even though they pretend to.

I agree that this Professor should have not been intimidated, scared, or intimidated by the protesters, but it was up to the NYU Law School Dean to take control of the situation, talk to the protesters, allay their concerns, and make this Professor he had invited to teach at his law school feel welcomed and safe.

We really don’t know what the dean did. I don’t. Do you?

We have to make a distinction between what the university does and what students and alumni do. The students and alumni are certainly part of the university community, but they do not act for it in an official capacity.

If they dodn’t like her, they are perfectly free to express their wishes. We all do. If they don’t like her opinion, that’s fine. She let her opinions be known. They let their opinions be known.

The expression of opposition to the professor comes under diversty of thought and opinion. Certainly you wouldn’t want to stop that.

Those who supported her had the same opportunity to make their opinions known. Where were they?

 

[Dwyer]

WillieWonka wrote:

We really don’t know what the dean did. I don’t. Do you?

I know enough from what I have read.

The Dean didn’t do his job; a Dean is essentially the president and leader of the school; his job is to provide leadership and take responsibility and create an environment where people can learn.

He obviously invited / approved Professor Thio to teach at NYU School of Law.

Then these students and alumni raised a protest, which I agree they have a right to do so peacefully, and it was up to this Dean to provide the leadership, build bridges between the contending parties, and uphold academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion at his school.

You don’t sacrifice academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion at a modern university, the citadel of academic freedom, to placate a mob of protesters.

Mr. Donohue, a prominent NYU university alumnus contacted the Dean, and the Dean didn’t respond to him; again the Dean did nothing; he didn’t do his job.

So, I think the moral of the story is this story shows how corrupt these modern academic institutions are.

The NYU Law School Dean could have taken a tall, proud stand against the narrow-minded protester in the name of academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion.

Instead, the Dean completely caved in, and the Dean still doesn’t do his job because he never responded to Mr. Donohue, which is inconsiderate, impolite, and rude.

 

[WillieWonka]

WillieWonka wrote:

I know enough from what I have read.

The Dean didn’t do his job; a Dean is essentially the president and leader of the school; his job is to provide leadership and take responsibility and create an environment where people can learn.

He obviously invited / approved Professor Thio to teach at NYU School of Law.

Then these students and alumni raised a protest, which I agree they have a right to do so peacefully, and it was up to this Dean to provide the leadership, build bridges between the contending parties, and uphold academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion at his school.

You don’t sacrifice academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion at a modern university, the citadel of academic freedom, to placate a mob of protesters.

Mr. Donohue, a prominent NYU university alumnus contacted the Dean, and the Dean didn’t respond to him; again the Dean did nothing; he didn’t do his job.

So, I think the moral of the story is this story shows how corrupt these modern academic institutions are.

The NYU Law School Dean could have taken a tall, proud stand against the narrow-minded protester in the name of academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion.

Instead, the Dean completely caved in, and the Dean still doesn’t do his job because he never responded to Mr. Donohue, which is inconsiderate, impolite, and rude.

I agree you don’t sacrifice academic freedom of thought and diversity of opinion at a modern university, the citadel of academic freedom, to placate a mob of protesters. So, why did she sacrifice it by withdrawing?

I applaud the protestors. They opposed her, and got her to quit. The dean didn’t withdraw the offer. She quit. She wouldn’t stand up to the protestors. She wouldn’t stand up for her principles. Wonder where all those supporters of her were? It’s another incremental victory for the gay rights agenda. And it happened while opponents of the gay rights agenda sat on their hands.

 

[Ghoti]

Well, the title of this thread seems inaccurate. Such a practice would be unlawful.

The title of the thread is the title of the news story, which is in accordance with forum rules.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The title of the thread is the title of the news story, which is in accordance with forum rules.

That does not make it accurate!

One should note that the article is from a partisan site.