Thank Goodness I Don't Have THIS Kind Of Trouble At School!

First, it was Coach Bob Knight. Now it's Professor Eric B. Rasmusen. The poor IU prexy doesn't stand a chance. Myles Brand had Coach Knight. Sharon Brehm (Brand's successor) has Professor Rasmusen. Thank goodness I had the good sense to pursue a blog AWAY from my institution. Not that I endorse Professor Rasmusen OR Coach Knight, the issue of free speech and professional conduct are of GREAT interest to me right now. Some of my blog postings of late have been incindiary, to say the least. And I ain't done yet! If this be (fair & balanced) agitation, so be it.

[x Chronicle of Higher Education
A Weblog Starts a Fire
At Indiana U., a professor's comments on gay schoolteachers cause a controversy

By SCOTT SMALLWOOD
Bloomington, Ind.

The trouble began when Professor Eric B. Rasmusen wrote that hiring a homosexual man as a schoolteacher was akin to putting the fox in the chicken coop.

"Male homosexuals, at least, like boys and are generally promiscuous," he wrote on his Weblog, which is resides on the Indiana University at Bloomington's Web site. "They should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires."

Students and staff members complained about his comments, asking that they be removed from the Web site. Some even suggested that he should be fired. Mr. Rasmusen, a professor of business economics in Indiana's Kelley School of Business, agreed to remove his blog from the university's server while officials reviewed the complaints. But it returned a day later, after university lawyers concluded that it did not violate any policy.

During the next several weeks, vigils, town-hall meetings, and lectures were held to react to what gay activists saw as hate speech.

Many critics question whether a gay student can ever again be at ease in Mr. Rasmusen's classroom. "I don't think he should make that view public at IU, because it can affect the way students may be in his class," says Matt Brunner, a political-science major, who is gay. "You may be distracted, thinking that 'he may know that I'm gay.'"

The controversy has prompted questions about free speech, about what restrictions universities can place on material on their Web servers, and about whether faculty members should limit comments, even outside the classroom, that might make certain students uncomfortable.

For his part, Mr. Rasmusen has not backed down a bit from his view. "The fact that some people get so upset makes me think they see some truth in it," he says.

'Moral Exemplars'

Eric Rasmusen did not envision his small foray into the Internet getting him into such hot water.

Earlier this year he added the Weblog to his space on a university server. The point of the blog, he says, was predominantly personal, a way to record his thoughts. Its design is spartan, its readership slim. His topics range widely -- the United Nations' antispanking position, black quarterbacks in the National Football League, the Disney movie Pocahontas. Occasionally, his entries touch on the more mundane aspects of his life, like a recent one showing how he Velcroed a box of tissues to the ceiling of his car.

Mr. Rasmusen, who specializes in game theory, arrived at Indiana in 1992. A graduate of Yale University who earned a doctorate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he previously taught at the University of California at Los Angeles. He has a close-cropped red beard, glasses, and a mild manner. The 44-year-old devout Christian and his wife have three children, ages 4, 3, and 1, and they're expecting a fourth.

The controversy grew out of an online discussion with Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor whose own blog is well known. Mr. Volokh questioned why conservative Christians oppose hiring gay people as schoolteachers, when they may not oppose others whom they perceive as violating biblical teachings.

"It's true that homosexuals are, in the view of many conservative Christians, violating a biblical command," he wrote. "But so are the Hindus, and yet we tolerate them -- quite rightly, I think. Naturally people who disapprove of homosexuality (or Hinduism) on religious grounds should be free to say so, and to try to persuade others of these views. But if those people have (quite laudably) come to tolerate other religions, even though they think those religions violate Scripture, why shouldn't they equally tolerate homosexuality?"

In response, Mr. Rasmusen, who describes himself as conservative and attends a nondemoninational Christian church in Bloomington, wrote on August 26: "If homosexuality is to be legal, I have never heard anybody suggest that homosexuals should not be corporate directors, lawyers, or CEO's. But certain jobs, not necessarily prestigious or well-paid ones, are moral exemplars. These include teachers, pastors, and elected officials."

He then made the remark that raised the ruckus: "A second reason not to hire homosexuals as teachers is that it puts the fox into the chicken coop."

A week later, on September 2, he continued on the same theme, suggesting that gay men are attracted to younger men and even boys. "The 16-year-old beardless boy is not so different from an 8-year-old beardless boy as the 16-year-old girl is from the 8-year-old girl, so we should expect homosexuals to be far more tempted by 8-year-olds than heterosexuals are. I could check this by looking up a large enough sample of pornography -- but I'd rather not."

Christina Clark, a senior, and her boyfriend were among the first students to complain about Mr. Rasmusen's comments. "I can't say who should be censored and what the policies should be," she says. "But as a student I had a lot of concern for my fellow students."

She showed the site to Barry Magee, assistant director of diversity education at the university, who says he felt "violated" by the passage: "I was ashamed that a faculty member, somebody that we try to teach students they should respect, would say these things." Additional complaints came to the university's antiharassment team and made their way to the dean of the business school, Dan R. Dalton.

After meeting with the dean, Mr. Rasmusen agreed to take the site down while the policies were reviewed. He moved the Weblog to a non-university server. "Then a day later, the lawyer said, 'It's fine. You can put it back on,'" he says.

In mid-September, two weeks after the complaints began, Chancellor Sharon S. Brehm spoke to the Bloomington Faculty Council about the controversy. Mr. Rasmusen, who is a member of the council, was sitting just feet away from the chancellor when she called his comments "deeply offensive, hurtful, and very harmful stereotyping." She said such speech was completely at odds with the university's "commitment to inclusion and its respect for diversity."

But Ms. Brehm also strongly supported the professor's free-speech rights, saying that, however deplorable, such opinions are protected by the First Amendment, by the university's stance on academic freedom, and by the university's policies governing personal Web pages.

Neither side was satisfied. Critics of Mr. Rasmusen say she should have condemned his words more strongly instead of spending so much time defending him on free-speech grounds. They say they were expecting stronger support for gay and lesbian people on the campus.

For his part, Mr. Rasmusen says he was stunned by the chancellor's remarks. And one of his friends and fellow professors says Ms. Brehm has created an atmosphere in which professors who have "politically incorrect" views risk being denounced by administrators.

"The Army has an antigay position," says Robert H. Heidt, a law professor. "But the chancellor does not go out and denounce the Army."

Mr. Rasmusen remains surprised that people were so bothered by the comments. Many in academe, he says, are oblivious to being out of step with most of American society. "Having one conservative on campus," he adds, "shouldn't intimidate too many people."

A Safe Environment

Before they get down to criticizing Mr. Rasmusen, nearly all of his opponents make sure to emphasize their support for free speech, the First Amendment, and academic freedom. But then the other shoe drops: His comments about gay men not being fit to be schoolteachers are reckless. They have the potential to harm students. Ultimately, his free-speech rights must be balanced against his responsibility to foster a "healthy campus climate."

"It's part of our code of ethics, that faculty are to create a safe environment for all students," says Joe Boes, an academic adviser in the business school. "If he wants to hand out propaganda, fine. But the bottom line is that he's not creating a safe environment. And I know there are some students who won't take his classes anymore."

Few students are calling for his ouster, although Aja Romano, a senior, still maintains that Mr. Rasmusen should no longer be a professor. "Has he demonstrated his unfitness to teach business?" she says. "I absolutely think so. I don't believe it's possible to be a successful business teacher at one of the most noted business schools in the country when you've demonstrated that you yourself do not believe in fair treatment of all employees."

For Mark Brostoff, the school's associate director of undergraduate services, the first concern was the effect the comments had on students: "What is going to happen to the closeted gay students in the business school?" He says some gay and lesbian students have told him that they will never take any of Mr. Rasmusen's classes because they fear being discriminated against.

"He has a right to say what he wishes," Mr. Brostoff argues. "But at the same time, how do you invite an open discussion in your classroom when you issue such hateful words?"

Fundamentally, many of the critics are asking how a gay student can ever be at ease in Mr. Rasmusen's classroom again.

The professor himself doesn't see how his comments could harm anyone or change his relationship with students, because the issue does not come up in his course. "I don't know why a homosexual student would be uncomfortable in my class," he says. "I wouldn't know their views on homosexuality."

And, he points out, he has made it clear in the past that he is morally opposed to some other behaviors as well. "I'm sure I have had heavy drug users in my classes," he says. "Maybe they feel bad that I disapprove of cocaine and marijuana use."

Does creating a safe environment mean having a campus where no one is ever offended? "Ideas harm people," says Mr. Heidt, the law professor. "You can't run a university with any kind of free inquiry if you're worrying about harming people. I don't see an academic having any kind of concern on that score. It's an essential part of teaching people."

Mr. Heidt should know. Last year, a column he wrote in The Indianapolis Star put him in a similar situation. He explained his opposition to affirmative action in law-school admissions and his experience serving on the admissions committee. "Seeing the photographs and reading the record and personal statements of non-minority applicants whom we rejected in order to admit the far less qualified," he wrote, "left me feeling as though I should wash."

The column sparked an outcry. Some labeled his comments racist, and some professors suggested that he should never teach a required course again.

Mr. Heidt doesn't believe that his students need to be protected from ideas they find offensive. "These are adults, and they're living in the world, and they're going to be offended in the world," he says. "You don't need everybody agreeing with you to study hard."

For many of the critics, the crux of the problem is that Mr. Rasmusen's comments, which they find so deplorable, are on a university Web site. "I'm a full supporter of free speech," says Mr. Brostoff. "But I also feel that if you are going to espouse such hatred, pay for it yourself."

Mr. Magee, the administrator who first heard the complaints about the site, says having the blog share the same Web space as Mr. Rasmusen's syllabus and other class materials is inappropriate. "There should be a wall between what a person was hired to do, their research agenda and class agenda, from their personal viewpoints," he says.

Mr. Rasmusen counters that the "Mypage" area, where the comments appear -- along with the course material -- was established for just that personal a purpose. The university lawyers who looked at the case agreed. According to a disclaimer posted by the university, the Mypage service is provided to give professors, staff members, and students "an opportunity to present themselves and their personal interests and opinions." The university, the statement explains, does not review the content of the pages.

The chancellor has asked the University Faculty Council to review the policies governing the Mypage service. "As a community of scholars and students," Ms. Brehm said, "it is crucial to think through the role of these personal pages in our communal and intellectual life."

Mr. Rasmusen agrees that it would be inappropriate for him to post his Weblog on his official business-school Web space but says that the Mypage space is different. "This is where you put pictures of your dog," he says.

A hypothetical question that gay activists keep asking is: What if this had been a racial insult? Their concerns, they argue, continue to be secondary to issues of race.

In recent years, debates over a Thomas Hart Benton mural on the Bloomington campus, depicting a Ku Klux Klan rally, and over a fraternity party's holding a racist-themed scavenger hunt, have attracted much more attention, the activists say. Where, they ask, is that kind of general outrage when gay and lesbian students are reviled?

"If you replace the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' with 'black' and 'woman,' you wouldn't see this on the Web site any more," says Mr. Brostoff, the business-school administrator.

Mr. Boes, the academic adviser, agrees: "The university might be taking a stronger stance if he had said black men should not be teachers because we all know they like white girls."

Mr. Rasmusen just smiles at what to him is clearly a false analogy. "If a person has a bizarre opinion like that, then that person is clearly a nut," he says. "If I said that, my colleagues would just say, 'Wow, what's happened to Eric?'"

FIGHTING WORDS?

Weblog entries by Eric B. Rasmusen, a professor of business economics at Indiana University at Bloomington, sparked a controversy there about free speech and academic freedom. Here are excerpts from the writings that created the furor.

August 26, 2003

Professor [Eugene] Volokh [a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles] posts the good question of why Christians object to homosexuals as schoolteachers when they do not object to Hindus, even though idolatry is the greater sin. This isn't too hard to answer, though. Some points:

Many Christians do object to Hindus as schoolteachers, in the same way as they object to atheists, Mormons, and so forth as teachers. That is why there are Roman Catholic and evangelical private schools.

Volokh tries to link this to limitation of government privileges. But this is not a matter of privilege. If homosexuality is to be legal, I have never heard anybody suggest that homosexuals should not be corporate directors, lawyers, or CEO's. But certain jobs, not necessarily prestigious or well-paid ones, are moral exemplars. These include teachers, pastors, and elected officials.

A second reason not to hire homosexuals as teachers is that it puts the fox into the chicken coop. Male homosexuals, at least, like boys and are generally promiscuous. They should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires. Somewhat related is a reason not to hire a homosexual as a doctor even though you would hire him as a lawyer: You don't mind if your lawyer has a venereal disease such as HIV or hepatitis, but you do mind if your doctor is in a class of people among whom such diseases are common. ...

It is an interesting question in general of what kind of moral character a schoolteacher should have. I think it does matter. Before I hired someone who had been a tax cheat, an adulterer, a robber, a drug user, or a stripper I would want to ask questions, and I would not want to hire someone who was currently in those categories.

That, in fact, raises a good question for someone who says he does not care about a teacher's moral character. If you are interviewing someone for a job as a teacher, and the person admits that¡ he earns a lot from burglary and intends to keep doing it, but has evidence to assure you that he will not get caught, would you hire him anyway?

September 2, 2003

Let's start with a similar question: why do I think a man is more likely than a woman to sexually molest a child (someone under the age of 18)? It's not because of scientific studies. Rather, it's through what I've learned through life from various sources, including personal experience, newspapers, and literature, about how women and men behave. The belief I hold is strong enough that I'd base behavior on it: I would take it into account, for example, in hiring a nanny for my children.

A large part of my belief relies on the idea that men are more tempted by children than women are. Women are attracted to older men, and are also less aggressive and more faithful to their spouses, if they have them. (There is numerical evidence on these points, by the way, but it didn't take a 20th century sociologist to make the discoveries.)

How about homosexual males? (I don't have much idea about lesbians.) I think they are attracted to people under age 18 more than heterosexual males are. ... Men are attracted to a young but physically mature woman. But what is the ideal for homosexual men? For some it is certainly the mature, broad-shouldered, hairy 25-year-old. But my impression is that the 16-year-old beardless boy would attract more votes. And the 16-year-old beardless boy is not so different from an 8-year-old beardless boy as the 16-year-old girl is from the 8-year-old girl, so we should expect homosexuals to be far more tempted by 8-year-olds than heterosexuals are. I could check this by looking up a large enough sample of pornography -- but I'd rather not. It is noteworthy that in ancient Greece, pederasty was actually the common form of homosexuality. The kind of sodomy they accepted was exactly the kind we still make illegal; the kind they would have thought strange (two middle-aged men) is the kind we have made legal. It is also noteworthy that there exists a North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) (which, oddly enough, has on its front page, "The War in Iraq is Still Wrong!"). Is there any equivalent demand by heterosexuals for legal access to girls? ...

Similarly, we must decide whether to allow homosexuals to be priests, scout leaders, and schoolteachers without good regression studies of whether they are more likely than heterosexuals to go after the youngsters under their care. But enough on that subject for now.

Copyright © 2003 The Chronicle of Higher Education