&Chi. THE CHANCELLOR AND MY WEB-LOG:
ANALYSIS. How *do* I
respond? I enjoyed
working
last spring with Chancellor Brehm on the Faculty
Council's Iraq resolution, and expect to work well with her again.
But...
(1) She said
(2) Chancellor Brehm said that my claim that "male homosexuals,
at least, like
boys
and are
generally promiscuous " was
Is my claim logically the same as claiming that all men are six feet
tall? No.
Rather,
it is logically the same as claiming that men are taller than women.
Such a
claim is a generalization, and most generalizations are false for
some members of
the
set being
described. Some men are shorter than some women, but that does not
detract from the
usefulness of the generalization. Without generalizations of this kind
not just
science but the language of our daily life would be crippled.
Consider, for example, the Chancellor's statement later in
the meeting that
one of her
priorities in this budget-strapped year is to spend extra money on
programming and
financial aid to induce more minority students to come to IU.
Isn't that a
generalization about those students? Can't we get some of them
without extra
money?
We can, but in general she is correct that we will have to take money
away from
something else to do it. (And that may be problematic: note the
IU non-
discrimination policy
she quoted in her web-log statement.)
(4) Chancellor Brehm deplored my statement that homosexuals
should not be hired for jobs that function as moral exemplars, such
as
teachers, pastors, and elected officials. Her stance is more
interesting than it
first
appears. It seems to say that she strongly
believes that it is fine for homosexuals to be teachers, pastors,
and elected
officials.
She can, of course, state that as her personal opinion, just as I
can, and she can
even
use her
position as Chancellor as a "bully pulpit" from which to state it.
Some might say
that
a Chancellor should
stick to bland statements, but I disagree. I do think that a
Chancellor ought
to serve as one of the state's leaders and should not refrain from
voicing strong
political opinions. I wonder, though, if she realizes that this
particular opinion
is
controversial. Saying that it is deplorable for someone to argue
that homosexuals
should not be teachers, pastors, or elected officials goes well beyond
saying that
homosexuality should be tolerated, or even that
the university should
extend marital benefits to them. Rather, it is saying that there is
nothing immoral
about
homosexuality and that anyone who believes otherwise is deeply wrong.
Many would
disagree with her opinion on this, and with the absolute confidence
with which she
holds that moral belief. I suppose, now
that I think about it, that I might say it is deplorable that so
many people believe
sodomy is moral, but would hesitate more than she seems to have
done. A lot of
people
I respect do
believe that sodomy is moral, so even though I think they're wrong,
I'm reluctant to
condemn them any more than I condemn people who voted for Al Gore
for President.
Indiana University as a university, of course, has no
official position on the subject. The Bloomington Faculty Council has
never passed a
resolution saying that it is okay for pastors and teachers to be
homosexuals, nor is
this in any administrative polices that I know of. We do have the
non-
discrimination policy quoted
by
Chancellor Brehm, but that only implies it is okay for university
professors,
counsellors, janitors, etc. to be homosexual, not people in jobs
outside of the
university.
[permalink,
http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.09.17c.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click
http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.
Professor Rasmusen acknowledges that he has no evidence to support his
conclusions,
which are, instead, drawn from "the category of `what everyone
knows.'"
This is misleading. She didn't cite any evidence either, for what
is apparently
her
strongly held belief that homosexuals are no more likely than
heterosexuals to
molest children. It seems that she, like me, thinks she has enough
general background knowledge to assert an opinion on the subject.
That is fine, but
she
shouldn't criticize me for doing the same. As I've said before in this
web-log, I'll
come back
to the subject one of these days, when the pressure lets up and I
have time to do it
well. Will she? My opinion was in the casual setting of a web-log;
hers was a formal
statement read as she chaired a meeting. I have no staff to do
research for me
(though thank you
readers on both sides of the issue for your contributions); she does
have a
staff. So shall we see her evidence soon?
deeply offensive, hurtful, and very harmful stereotyping, in which
characteristics of individuals are applied to a large group of people
who members,
like
all people, differ from one another on the exceedingly large number of
characteristics
that make up a human being. Logically, it is the same as drawing the
conclusion that
all
men are six feet tall.
Possibly it is deeply offensive and hurtful, but is that relevant, if
my claim
is true? A better criticism would be that my claim was false, though
such a claim
needs something to back it up.