Monday, November 2, 2009

Purdue Professor: Gays wasting our money on AIDS research

Multiple Purdue students have alerted me to a blog post by Bert Chapman, Government Information & Political Science Librarian and Professor of Library Science at Purdue University. He's caused quite a stir amongst progressive students at Purdue after making a blog post claiming homosexuals are hurting the economy by making us fund AIDS research and making insurance companies and businesses acknowledge their partnerships. To fully appreciate his woeful ignorance, let's go through his post with some commentary by yours truly:
An Economic Case Against Homosexuality

As a Christian, I agree with the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms. To defend traditional sexual morality against the encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression, we need to be able to do more than cite Bible verses. Fortunately, there are plenty of economic reasons for being against sodomite degeneracy and I think as conservatives we need to be able to articulate why our nation cannot afford the extremely high financial costs of this lifestyle at a time when we are confronting dangerously high budget deficits, national debt, and personal debt.
First, I want all you gay-rights supporting Christians out there to hang your head in shame for being associated with this man. Done? Okay, good. Hurray for a world that is increasingly rejecting biblical norms - that's a good thing when people wake up and see these ancient, bigoted ideas as immoral and unfounded. At least Professor Chapman recognizes that Bible verses aren't going to fly when it comes to public policy - especially public policy that is trying to remove rights from minorities groups. This may just be me...but using money as a guide to what rights to give what people seems pretty fucking morally bankrupt. Oh, that's right, I'm a hippie liberal. Sorry, forgot.

Let's start with AIDS. U.S. Government expenditures on this disease have risen from $200,000 in Fiscal Year 1980-1981 to $23.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2008. These figures have increased steadily over nearly three decades and probably exceed $100 billion. When you factor in what countries all over the world have spent on seeking to diminish this disease, without recognizing the morally aberrant sexual behavior causing its spread, we are probably looking at expenditures of over $1 trillion dollars. Think of how much constructively such money could have been spent on public health issues such as improved sanitation, immunizations, and other more worthwhile programs instead of promoting immoral and self-destructive behavior through needle exchanges and widespread condom distribution. The money wasted on AIDS research could be returned to taxpayers or transferred to more worthwhile areas of public health research such as cancer, heart disease, and combating pandemic conditions like H1N1 flu. Our ongoing U.S. political debate over health care reform also needs to factor in the economic costs of homosexual and other sexually deviant behaviors on our health care system in terms of pharmaceutical drugs, tainted blood supplies, and requiring doctors and nurses to treat sexually transmitted diseases which would not occur if people practiced chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and monogamy within such marriage.
...I'm just take this one step at a time.

1. "Probably" exceeds a $100 billion? "Probably" over $1 trillion? I understand this was probably just some spontaneous blog post, but it doesn't really help your argument when you're just making up numbers.

2. AIDS IS NOT A GAY DISEASE. Sorry for the caps lock, but this is so ignorant that it makes me scream. AIDS infects all people regardless of sexual preference - heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. Of course, he thinks anything outside of monogamy within a heterosexual marriage is deviant, so I'm not sure he would care. Just don't go blaming the gays for AIDs and make that your major point.

3. Condom distribution decreases the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. Study after study has shown that abstinence only education simply does not work.

4. It pretty much terrifies me that this man is fairly obviously suggesting that anyone with AIDS or any other type of STD should just suffer or die. We shouldn't research these diseases, we shouldn't pay doctors to treat these diseases, we shouldn't develop drugs for these diseases. Unfortunately, this horrifying world view isn't new, especially among the religious right (Remember when Jerry Fallwel said, "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals"?). I guess it doesn't matter if a quarter or more of our population (people with STDs) suffer or die, since they're all the heathen liberals that deserve it.
Anyone who studies prison conditions knows that AIDS is a reality in many correctional facilities due to the occurrence of rape. I'm not sure if the Justice Dept's Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps track of prison rape statistics or other instances of same sex sexual assault, but that also has economic implications not to mention the psychological trauma experienced by all rape victims.
I'm honestly not quite sure what this has to do with gays. Shouldn't we be worried about, oh I don't know, stopping rape?
The sad practice of so many companies and universities adopting domestic partner benefits in a misguided effort to attract employees drives up insurance costs for these companies and prevents them from providing additional coverage to those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards. It also requires these companies to pass on the costs of their goods and services beyond normal inflationary trends. Additionally, it also probably makes it more difficult for them to expand their businesses and create additional jobs in an economy coping with near double digit unemployment rates.
Yes, how dare companies give all of their employees equal rights instead of giving special privileges to the group you happen to be in. I have an idea: Why don't we just make it so only Christian employees can receive partner benefits? According to your traditional morals, only those marriages are seen as valid in the eyes of God, so we can ignore everyone else. Yes, that seems like a lovely place to derive our reasoning. Definitely shouldn't give benefits that promote monogamy and stable relationships.
The homosexual lifestyle also affects areas such as life insurance, estate planning, real estate, and investments as firms providing these services have to factor in how to treat same sex domestic partner issues into their cost calculations. Guess who has to pay for these increased costs and potentially lower investment returns? We do, regardless of whether or not we approve of the homosexual lifestyle. The next time some one tells you how wonderful is the "progress" gays have made in recent decades ask them if they have ever thought about the multiple economic consequences of this "progress" as described in this posting. I welcome suggestions from readers as to other possible economic costs of the homosexual lifestyle which I have forgotten.
Again, heaven forbid that everyone has equal rights. I'm not up on my fiscal policy so I don't know if what he's saying about rising costs is true or not, but who cares? Do we really take away the rights of a minority because it's cheaper for the majority? Well then, better go back and institute slavery. It'll be so much cheaper if we don't have to pay black people wages!

I'm seriously disappointed that such a ignorant and homophobic piece could be written by a professor here at Purdue. It makes me ashamed to also call myself a Boilermaker. Much of the controversy is where his rights lie as a Purdue employee to publish such a thing. I support everyone's freedom of speech, regardless if I agree with what they're saying or not. However, I also believe one must be accountable for what they have said - he deserves criticism and messages of outrage. Purdue stresses tolerance and diversity, but to have a Purdue professor (a fact made available in his Bio) saying such hateful things... how would a gay student feel in one of his classes? Would gay students want to come to Purdue with such bigotry being represented?

What do you think? Should Professor Chapman just face the negative opinions of the public, or should Purdue reprimand him? Should what a professor say on his private blog have any connection to what he does at work?

Other Purdue students have also voiced their opinions on the matter:
Boilercrat Junction
The Dark Matter Effect
NEW: Politics and Pucks

61 comments:

  1. Wow such arrogance and ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to say what he wants. I mean, look at PZ. People call for his head all the time. By calling for this guy to have the book thrown at him for this;.. yeah. I don't think I need to illustrate the comparison further.

    If it's a problem in the classroom, it should be dealt with there. If not, then it shouldn't be.

    Otherwise, just make fun of the guy. I mean, seriously. Mock him into oblivion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Free speech and yada yada, but pretending to have an economic basis for being homophobic a new one. Economics professors don't make up numbers like this unless they have studies backing up those numbers.

    If you are stuck at free speech, just plug in any other minority and see how you feel about a Purdue professor making such statements, and how well it would go down (An economic case against heterosexuals, or how about blacks or latinos)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Chapman has the same right to a private life that we all do, and Purdue would be heavily mistaken to sanction this professor for exercising his right to freedom of speech. The appropriate place to confront this sort of hatred is in person, on line, in his comments, etc.

    Mind you, the second that his personal views eek into his job, he should be disciplined. But until that point? He can say what he wants to say - outside of his role as a teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Brian Burg

    I firmly believe in the freedom of people to make asses of themselves. Regardless of what he was saying (replace homosexual with black, or latino, or Canadians), my response would not change, nor has changed in similar situations. Freedom of speech does not mean we have the freedom to not be offended - which what the fellow said certainly is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pretty much, what Veritas said. You act like there aren't professors that say things about Mexicans all the time. Guy can say what he wants in his own free time.

    Which only serves to illustrate that we should be mocking him incessantly in our free time. Free speech is there for a reason; so stuff like this can be openly mocked, rather than sitting under the skin and festering.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh I totally agree with everyone else here, he has the right to show his arrogance and ignorance all he wants. Now if it starts to invade the classroom then there is an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Haha, I love this part:

    "The money wasted on AIDS research could be transferred to more worthwhile areas of public health such as combating pandemic conditions like H1N1 Flu"

    Pandemic conditions like H1N1? There are only two pandemics right now. H1N1 and..... wanna guess?.... HIV!

    Fucking idiot

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, the majority of AIDS victims are straight. They just also happen to be black, so...fuck 'em, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What astounding ignorance and -- yes -- evil.
    Even if all these things were true, he's effectively saying that if we take some people out of the (say) healthcare equation, it will be "better" for those who remain and get a bigger slice of the tax-spend/investment/employment pie. I hope for his sake that he's just blissfully unaware of what he's really arguing for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To be fair, Michael, he's just seeking a Final Solution to the Health Care Question.

    Godwinned!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I’m undecided on whether Purdue should sanction the guy; way I see it, if they suffer some actual problems from being associated with someone who harbors and expresses such vile thoughts and ideas, then they should let him go. If not, then he should have the right to spout whatever bullshit he wants.

    Also, I’m more inclined towards letting him go for the reason that it is a professor’s duty to be a sort of helper and guide to their students. Professors are people many students look up to, turn to for help and advice, and so forth. If this professor is this large an asshole, then this could very easily harm students who may try to come to him for help sooner or later.

    Either way, though, he’s obviously a nasty piece of work and deserves – nay, needs – to have eight tons of metaphorical crap mocked and derided out of him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like Veritas mentioned, there is a problem in the Black communities in America (maybe further) that starts with social condemnation of homosexuality that has seeped into the whole group and beyond. I'm talking about the Down Low. Gay men, usually married to a woman, get together to have sex, but no one ever talks about it. Condoms are hardly used because that would be addressing the situation. This in turn has helped spread diseases to straight partners. The problem isn't the homnosexual sex, it's the public, social condemnation of these men to force them into a straight lifestyle. If I ever though being a gay white boy in the south was tough, it comes nowhere close to the hatred within Black communities, usually fueled by churches.

    What should be the answer to reduce the spread of disease? Not more hatred and condemnation, but instead tolerance and understanding among all members of communities, Black, White, Asian, Mexican, etc. Without hatred, there would be no need for the DL. Also, condoms, condoms, condoms, condoms. I don't care what kind of sex or how good it feels without. Abstinence education has shown to fail, especially in more right-wing states. HIV can go undetected for many months, so even if you think you are disease free, you can never be too sure.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I meant to add:

    If one looks at AIDS as God's punishment for homosexuality, then take it one step further and blame everyone who condemns it. That's the root cause.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alan, I was actually talking about Africa, not particularly black communities in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow... just.Wow..I had to go to the actual blogpost to verify blaghag wasn't pulling our legs. She wasn't, the guy actually believes in hindsight that AIDS only really effects homosexuals! So we really don't have to worry about HIV,AIDS, or STD's. Wow, how can people live in their little world of immaturity so comfortably? To really think AIDS and STD's only effects homosexuals is so immature it's hard to register. What's more difficult is he hold's tenure in a university!

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, Purdue has no authority in fact to reprimand him officially. Academic freedom ensures all university faculty the right to express their views without being beholden to the university. The only place where it would be an issue is if he were to go off on it in class. I am not sure, but I don't think that the economic cost of AIDS is going to be relevant in a Library Science course. However, this is no different from any other controversial professors, and Purdue has them (whatshisface who is listed in Horowitz's "100 Most Dangerous Professors" book, for example)

    That being said, he is not immune from criticism by others in the university, right up to the president. She is free to comment as a faculty member as well (again, not in class, should Franc ever attend one).

    This is just a classic case of, "You are free to express your opinion, but others are also allowed to express their opinion, including the opinion that your opinion is full of shit." Your academic freedom does not make others lose theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just want to say that I completely agree with Pablo (and everyone else), I just wanted to see people's opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms.

    Thank God for that! Err... you know what I meant.

    ReplyDelete
  20. On cost projections...
    Disco Stu: Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... AAY!
    Homer: Do you know the goldfish in your shoes are dead?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Coming out of lurk, because this broke my brain.

    Purdue has no rights to fire this guy for expressing his thoughts. They do have every right to insist that his blog make it very clear that his views are in no way associated with his employer.

    Purdue can also insist on sensitivity training or some other such HR related class as a condition for his continued employment, as they would not want him waving around any more flags of "I work for Purdue & these are my homophobic thoughts". It creates an association that I cannot imagine Purdue would want. They would also want to look very closely at his classroom behavior to ensure that he is not discriminating against his students.

    Beyond that, let's look at economics...

    "The homosexual lifestyle also affects areas such as life insurance, estate planning, real estate, and investments as firms providing these services have to factor in how to treat same sex domestic partner issues into their cost calculations."

    It affects no such thing. Let's assume that we have four people; a Gay couple and a Lesbian couple. They would take no more life insurance, estate planning, real estate or investments than had they been two Heterosexual couples. Everything is in place to provide these things to *couples*. It takes no more work or effort to provide it to a Homosexual couple as it does to a Heterosexual couple.

    The only financial loss would be to the families of Homosexual couples. If my gay Brother dies and his spouse is legally recognized as an inheritor, then I don't get his house, his estate, his life insurance payout!

    OH NOES!!

    Of course, I wouldn't get those things if my dear Brother married a fine upstanding Christian woman instead.

    I hold a general B.A. in Theatre and Film studies and I can figure out basic Economic facts. I am sorry that you, Dr. Bert Chapman, Government Information & Political Science Librarian and Professor of Library Science at Purdue University, are incapable of doing so.

    That may be grounds for Purdue getting rid of him, actually. Assuming that Homosexual Rights will cause all financial companies to create Departments of Figuring Out The Gay Problem, thus robbing Heterosexuals of their investment dollars (and... um... creating jobs) should be enough stupid to have one's Doctorate automatically revoked and be fired from the Library until you can learn to read the books therein.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Having been on the wrong side of censorship in the past, I must say that I'm all for free speech and free expression. The First Amendment should be inviolate, especially in academic discourse.

    That said... I concur with everybody else on this. Freedom of expression means that the position (amply supported by the evidence you've so kindly provided) that this man is an ignorant buffoon who does not deserve to be taken seriously has just as much of a right to be voiced, and indeed must be voiced (preferably by the university as well, so as to distance him from the institution, in similar fashion to what Lehigh does with Michael Behe).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Censorship or punishment should never be the answer. Three reasons:

    1. It gives the censored party a sense of legitimacy. Conservative Christians have enough of a persecution complex without being given a reason for it. ("Those liberals couldn't actually confront my arguments, so they had to shut me up! Hitler/Stalin/Fidel/Satan/Mao/Kim Jong Il would be proud of them."

    2. It reduces us to their level. Conservatives are the ones who've supported most of the censorship and punishments--remember Janet Jackson's boobie? We should be better than resorting to a knee-jerk reaction to those whose opinions we find offensive.

    3. Although we may find his opinions horrible, it's a very good thing that they're out there now and known! Now all his students and future would-be students can know exactly what kind of class they're paying for before they sign up. People like this professor should be ENCOURAGED to voice their opinions, in the same way Bill Engvall encourages people who lack common sense to wear a certain sign: the rest of us are better off once we know the true nature of with whom we're speaking.

    Side note: have you ever seen Hitchens's Toronto speech on freedom of speech and expression? Some of the best 20 minutes I've ever heard on the subject; highly recommended.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If Purdue were to attempt to restrict this guys speech I could easily see FIRE bring a lawsuit against the school.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Purdue University prohibits discrimination against any member of the University community on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, disability, or status as a veteran." (http://www.purdue.edu/policies/pages/human_resources/nondisc_pol.html) ... what THE HELL are Purdue authorities waiting for a PUBLIC disclaimer against that intolerant idiot?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hmm, good point, Doctor. It doesn't say they prohibit discrimination on the basis of bigotry (that is, discrimination against bigots).

    Hmm. Is bigotry againts bigots a contradiction in terms?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm afraid it isn't anything new.

    During my tenure at Purdue (mid 80's) after HIV had been identified as the causative agent in AIDS, Dr. Beering (head of Purdue at the time) PROHIBITED a phamplet from being distributed from PUSH (Purdue University Student Hospital) due to concerns on "morality". (EEK-it advocated the use of (gasp) Condoms...)

    Seems things haven't changed too much...

    Moose

    ReplyDelete
  28. Alan E, Veritas - closeted black men are actually not the main source of the spread of AIDS through black communities - that appears to be a myth. A recent CDC report concludes that the main source is actually straight black men with multiple partners.

    Although I also believe that homophobia should be aggressively addressed in every community, it doesn't appear to be the source of the problem here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A Danish footballer was just fired for expressing pretty damn homophobic opinions in a biography (that he hadn't told his club about). Now he's annoyed that he can't speak his mind.

    I don't quite get why people are upset that free speech has consequences.

    Being a misanthrope, I'm inclined to say that Aids research is indeed a waste of resources. The spread can be reduced with condoms, and we're too many people anyway, so why the fuck should we look for a way to let sufferers procreate? Of course, even my sense social justice kicks in, since the impact is so disproportionately distributed.

    Yet a quick wikipeek sez that malaria affects ten times as many people as Aids, though 'only' killing something like plus or minus 50% more.

    So, yeah, I could get behind a redistribution of funds to disenfranchise Aids research, if the right arguments were made. Homophobia isn't one of them.

    Of course I could also get behind the complete disenfranchisement of Christians. Why the fuck should we spend money on them when they'd so much rather be hinsidan anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Holy crap! I was talking about Africa! I don't know jazz about black communities in the USA, nor about the spread of HIV within them. Because when it comes to the big picture, that's a teardrop in an ocean of sorrow.

    You know, Africa. The continent wherein 3/4ths of AIDS-related deaths occur each year! The continent where life expectancy has been cut in half in some of the worst-affected countries! Damn, when I said "They happen to be black" I was referring to the fact that *most* AIDS victims are in Africa, a place many American conservatives conveniently forget exist. It's easy to blame the damn fags, but the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of HIV/AIDS affected people got it through classic guy-on-gal bareback action, and the huge percentage of them are in Africa, where a hell of a lot of people are black. One might say almost everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You have a right ot say what you want. I wouldn't say he should be silenced. However, what he said is bigoted and hateful. There should be a very public backlash. Students at Purdue should make it very clear they do not support this kind of backwards hateful ignorance.

    To base your morals off a contradictory work of fiction written over a thousand years ago is troubling. To use it to support your hate is lunacy.

    I don't understand where the hate for gays comes from. It really does not make any sense whatsoever. Its as ridiculous as hating someone because they are black or jewish or anything else you do not choose.

    There is no reason to dislike gays, be against gay marriage or equal benefits for gay partners except if you are an ignorant small-minded bigot.

    Besides, I'm pretty sure in africa, where as much as 25% of the population of some countries has HIV (a staggeringly scary number) the majority probably aren't gay. Now, they aren't allowed to use condoms or get treated? Really?

    Someone school this moron on compassion and decency. His bible obviously is incapable.

    ReplyDelete
  32. it's very sad state of affairs when a bigoted individual has the title of professor and is response for teaching young minds.

    I defend his right to free speach....but I don't defend his bigotry, homophobia, rascism, christian-nastiness and pure evil in not wanting to stop this disease..

    but then he'll pull the usual "I'm a Christian and I'm being persecuted for beliefs" line that they usually do when someone points out to them how evil they are.

    maybe someone should send him a suggestion...instead of all the christian denominations (ALL mormons, catholics etc) stop building new churches, paying ministers, private jets etc and put all that money into AIDS, H1N1, and malaria research...maybe the vatican could sell of some of it's billions worth of art to further help....no i thought not..the Pope likes his Prada too much !

    ReplyDelete
  33. When a "professor" issues this kind of moronic diatribe, the problem should be dealt with. It's an embarrassment to Purdue--what kind of student is going to want to attend there after seeing this sort of thing? My dad is an alum and I am ashamed for him. Really, after reading "sodomite degeneracy", do you need to read the rest? What kind of "threat" does homosexuality pose--threaten your hetero-ness much, Chapman? If so, I would say it's not the fault of the homosexuals.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Fuck Chapman... fuck him right in the ass with an HIV infected dildo.

    ReplyDelete
  35. First off, the moronic homophobia is bad enough. Covered.

    But he's also against:

    "other aberrant forms of sexual expression"

    But those are the FUN kind!

    And I'm doubting his idea of aberrant is all that far from vanilla, actually, so he's probably even more repressive than I imagine.

    But see, we should never get rid of free speech or shut people like this up. It's how we know who the idiots are.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear god, imagine the economic impact that recognising black partnerships must have on people who don't approve of the "black lifestyle". This is so stupid I can only counter it with more stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  37. How the fuck did this idiot get tenure?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Would he feel better about it if the gays up and turned into straight christians? Then it would be okay for them to be utilizing resources. It would be the same damn resources. People are people! This guy is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I did not know any facts about AIDS and its spread and was about to get on board with everyone else here but then I decided to look up a few of the facts. Most of what I have found does not support that homosexual activity is not the leading cause of the spread of AIDS. Instead of just ranting on could you post some facts disproving the Professor.

    ReplyDelete
  40. He should be fired, period. Free speech is a right, but maintaining employment at any given institution is not. It is within Purdue University's rights to fire someone who spouts such blatantly hateful rhetoric, particularly when that person's job is to teach students and assist them in doing research at the library. His continued employment will ensure that gay students, and progressive students, feel incredibly uncomfortable meaning that they will essentially not feel comfortable enough to seek library assistance or take this mans classes. This is unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If he said anything wrong or untrue he would be sued for slander against the gay community, right?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I agree with Corey.

    He spread his bigotry with his actual name and associated those views with his profession (and his place of work). In doing so, his bigotry has already entered the classroom.

    He has embarrassed the university, and hurt his graduate program's credibility and reputation. Not to mention, he has alienated students--the very population he is supposed to be working to support.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ~95% of the comments here, including the originating blog post by blaghag, show the exact kind of intellectual bankruptcy that you claim Chapman has made. Blaghag herself brings not one actual piece of evidence in her "rebuttal", but merely sarcasm.

    #I don't know how many of you know it, but there is a sanctioned group, on the Purdue campus, and composed of TA's and such, whose projects revolve entirely around publically mocking Christians. And not any specific, controversial beliefs, either - just the fact that Christians exist.
    #I go around the professor's offices, where they WORK and students HAVE TO GO TO TALK TO THEM, and nearly all of them have some "witty" news article or comic on their door openly mocking Christians, Conservatives, etc., and calling them evil. That material in a PLACE OF BUSINESS has a MUCH MORE REAL effect on students than a PERSONAL BLOG.

    The specific arguments against his approach are astounding. "He's trying to make policy based on numbers, not people!". Well, when they try to make a case based on people, you revile his arguments as "bigoted" and call his religion evil. You specifically demand that he present evidence - and he tries, and you revile him, not for the numbers (There is not one source or study quoted in your bile, only your feelings), but for the fact that he even has a point of view.

    THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS, YOU IMBECILES. Yes, his opinions have disgusting implications. You know what? Nazi scientists like von Braun are the entire reason we have any of the advances that came from the space age. Modern medicine and the state of computers are also thanks to the Nazi's.

    OF COURSE we should remove him if EVEN FOR A SECOND his beliefs become practice. But history has shown OVER AND OVER that the vitriol displayed above is exactly the kind of behavior that impedes scientific advancement and puts us into dark ages. (It's almost hilarious how little you guys realize the analagous behavior)

    ReplyDelete
  44. #Anony:
    You were high when you typed that, weren’t you? It’s okay, you can admit it. We won’t judge you.

    We will judge you on that baseless and meaningless diatribe you just spewed, though. (Hopefully.)

    (Seriously, anyone know what the heck (s)he’s even talking about? The bigoted librarian sure as hell wasn’t trying to do anything, and what his vile words have to do with science, no-one will ever know.)

    ReplyDelete
  45. In the past four years at Purdue I have heard professors teach about their political alignments and their personal belief systems both inside and outside the classroom. This professor was discussing their personal opinions about something outside the classroom in a blog. To recommend or insinuate formal repercussions for this action like firing, or suspension is futile. Yes, he is paid to support the student body of Purdue University in the library, but he is also paid to be intellectual and to think about the World’s problems and any possible solution to fixing them. This is the problem with today’s cookie cutter educational system that reproaches any sort of deviating thought. I may not agree with all that he said, but I do think the article does have some intellectual value. I actually appreciate the vigor in which this issue is being argued in a society that is increasingly care free and anti-activist and I also appreciate that there is a professor out there willing to put himself on the line to express his beliefs in a non-professorial setting instead of worrying about the repercussions of losing his job, or credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "In the past four years at Purdue I have heard professors teach about their political alignments and their personal belief systems both inside and outside the classrooms."

    Alas, I admit that I resemble that remark. I will admit to espousing a personal opinion on a topic unrelated to the class material. I said something about how "this is something you can do while reading the Exponent" or something like that, which sent me a sidelight to opine about how I was mad because they had stopped running the comic Rubes, which was the best comic in the newspaper.

    Sorry, it had no place in the course, and therefore was an inappropriate comment.

    Funny, no one came after me for "teaching my personal belief system" in that course. I never even got a negative comment about it in the evaluations. But if you look at it objectively, what I did was just as wrong as someone who announced their political affiliation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @joe
    No, merely very angry.

    Let me make things clear.
    I despise the message of Chapman's work. You're right, it's not a nice message.

    But the replies here are pretty much topped with hypocrisy. So he said something on a private blog, and he's purdue staff? Well, I've seen much more Purdue staff post stuff on their office doors, their places of business, about how Bush should have been killed, how Christianity is evil and should be eliminated, etc. If BlagHag has any official position at Purdue, she would open herself to hypocrisy by making this post. There's even a group at Purdue, composed with T.A.'s and other students, which goes around, on-campus, ridiculing Christians every so often, and more than once the group has gloated about it in the Exponent, or been complained about by the local paper (i.e., they have been publicized as a face of Purdue).

    And that's fine. There's no reason Blaghag and they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But if she, and you others here, want to make the claim that Chapman should be fired for "expressing a controversial opinion", look at yourselves. If you want to make the claim that he should be fired for "making the people around him uncomfortable", you DAMN sure better look at yourselves. I love my gay friends and family, and I support the community in general, but you guys...the continuous hatred you display towards those who disagree with you (suggestions that all Christians should die, etc.) is almost scary.

    No, Chapman was not producing a formal research paper, he was posting poorly researched speculations. Which makes it even worse that you are calling for his dismissal - he wasn't even putting this forth as official, as part of his job - he was clear that it was his own idle thoughts.

    As for my comment about von Braun, the idea that "professors must be approachable and foster an environment in which the students think he likes them in order to be good teachers" is historically ludicrous. Gigantic leaps in technology and science occurred only due to the same minds that you would ask for the dismissal of, and many courses at Purdue rely upon the research and teachings of those infinitely worse than Chapman. Yes, I am comparing him to a Nazi - as I said before, I DON'T AGREE WITH HIS CLAIMS. But the fact remains that polical correctness has no place in academia, which is specifically supposed to be a place to freely exchange ideas without fear of punishment. No thing merely said, no matter how vile, should merit punishment unless it specifically results in damage to someone. That's why we have slander laws. Chapman is not putting those opinions into practice - he was not even airing them officially.


    And to top it all off, you characters on this blog love to massage your own egos about how "bad the opponent's science is", and how they're appealing to "emotional anecdotes and messages instead of science".

    Well, so are you. As I said before, not one of you here has provided a single study or source contradicting Chapman's opinion.

    And you're going to say "But this is just my blog/my comments on a blog." Well, what the hell do you think Chapman was doing, then?


    If you want to pretend to be men of science, then damn well act like it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. « So he said something on a private blog, and he's purdue staff? Well, I've seen much more Purdue staff post stuff on their office doors, their places of business, about how Bush should have been killed, how Christianity is evil and should be eliminated, etc. If BlagHag has any official position at Purdue, she would open herself to hypocrisy by making this post. »

    So, you’re saying that because Jen posted one bit of Purdue staff lunacy (the librarian’s homophobic hokum) and not the rest, that makes her a hypocrite?

    That makes absolutely no sense at all.

    « If you want to make the claim that he should be fired for "making the people around him uncomfortable", you DAMN sure better look at yourselves. I love my gay friends and family, and I support the community in general, but you guys...the continuous hatred you display towards those who disagree with you (suggestions that all Christians should die, etc.) is almost scary. »

    Again, this makes no shred of sense. No-one ever said he should be fired for “making people uncomfortable”. Those who do advocate his release, explain it by him being a bigoted piece of work whose positions and mindset would very likely harm students around him. Professors are looked up to for guidance and support, and professors who betray such trust should not be professors, period.

    Also, I did not advocate his release, myself. I said it would be up to Purdue administration, and that if his behavior and views did contaminate the student body, then he most definitely should be let go. Not for what he believes or says, but how such beliefs and words affect the students he’s supposed to be helping.

    « And to top it all off, you characters on this blog love to massage your own egos about how "bad the opponent's science is", and how they're appealing to "emotional anecdotes and messages instead of science".

    Well, so are you. As I said before, not one of you here has provided a single study or source contradicting Chapman's opinion.
    »

    Uh – did you even read the freakin’ post? Or did you just skim it in your dire outrage? Jen elaborated quite a bit on just how and why what Chapman said was vile and plain wrong (making stuff up, spouting debunked and false assertions, lying about condoms, etc.). Sarcasm is a byproduct of her rightful indignation and disgust.

    « And you're going to say "But this is just my blog/my comments on a blog." Well, what the hell do you think Chapman was doing, then? »

    Well, if he’s so hurt and offended by a college student’s words (not that I mean that derogatorily, Jen), you know what he can do? Make a freakin’ blog post of his own about it and tackle us there. Sheesh. It’s not like he’s being backed into a corner with no way to fight back. It’s the Internet. He can do whatever the hell he wants: ignore us, rebuke us, etc.

    Lastly, again, none of this, especially anything Chapman wrote (and wrote about), has anything to do with science. He wasn’t posting research, he just wrote an empty screed against gays and about how they waste our time and resources.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "That makes absolutely no sense"

    Fine, I'll clarify - the fact that she's posting her own opinions here, such as that the Bible is bigoted and immoral, if she has an official position at Purdue, then she's doing the same thing he is - posting opinions as a face of Purdue. And she's calling for him to be officially reprimanded, if I'm reading her correctly. If she's not calling for that, or if she doesn't have an official position, then it's not hypocrisy, and I apologize for leveling the charge.

    "No-one ever said he should be fired for making the students uncomfortable."
    --yes, that is what you're saying. He hasn't acted on the opinions at all, he's not denied service to anyone. Your whole assertion of "harm" is that he's allegedly made students uncomfortable to talk to him.

    Granted, he is a professor, so he's held to a higher standard than I assume the rest of you are. It still reeks of hypocrisy to call for him being fired for daring to make the same tenor of comments as you guys do constantly.

    HOWEVER, he posted the comments on a private blog, and not anything he ever directed students toward, and the only reason he's being publically attacked at all is that he didn't hide his identity. So the thrust behind this claim that he should be punished for his post is results in a setting where people should be afraid to be honest about their identity online. That attitude should not be encouraged.

    "Jen elaborated quite a lot"
    No, she made claims. Unsourced claims, just like Chapman did. (Well, for the most part. He quotes at least one, even if he uses it incorrectly) The closest she gets is to saying that "study after study has shown that abstinence only education doesn't work", which is not a real rebuttal. It may be perfectly true, but you don't criticize someone for not using solid evidence without providing a shred yourself. And none of the rest of the comments here have done anything more.

    "If he's so hurt and offended"
    He's not publically demanding that anyone be fired, while there have been calls to his superiors asking him to be removed. This kind of nonsense has happened at Purdue before, where there were calls, from bloggers to the school, asking for someone to be fired just because he disagreed in the COMMENTS of someone's blog, and I believe the guy was at least put on probation. So, this whole "It's just the Internet" nonsense is exactly that.

    "None of this has anything to do with science."
    Except that a good portion of the commenters here are saying he should be fired just because his claims were scientifically invalid. That may be, but it's intellectually bankrupt to be making that claim without any effort in actually proving it.

    Please understand: I don't disagree that his argument was immoral and badly researched. However, I fundamentally disagree with the claims that he should be FIRED for what he posted on a PRIVATE BLOG. I have no problem whatsoever with simple outrage at his opinion - I have a problem with the willful consequences that it has already engendered.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous,

    I was not calling for him to be officially reprimanded - I was asking my readers what their opinions were on the matter. I personally feel what he writes on his blog is protected as free speech, and he should not be fired or forced to resign.

    That being said, I do feel that he should be criticized for saying things that are downright lies and slanderous against homosexuals. He has every right to say them, and I have every right to say he's a fool for saying them. If he thinks I'm wrong, he has every right to say I'm wrong. See the trend here? We're all open to our opinions.

    Why didn't I do extensive research in my original post? Because everything I said about HIV and abstinence only education is effectively common knowledge by now (except, apparently, to Chapman) and I admit I was too lazy to go dig up the links.

    And finally, his blog is not private. It is out there for everyone to read. It's not much different from him getting a letter to the editor published, which would cause just as big as a stink.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Okay, originally typed a longer response here, but Jen went ahead and summed it all up perfectly. I’ll just reply to these small bits, then:

    « --yes, that is what you're saying. He hasn't acted on the opinions at all, he's not denied service to anyone. Your whole assertion of "harm" is that he's allegedly made students uncomfortable to talk to him. »

    No – again, I never said he should be fired for “making people uncomfortable”. I’m saying that, as a professor, he is charged with the responsibility of guiding the students around him. I’m not saying he did violate his duties in letting his stupid opinions taint what he says or the work he does; I’m saying that IF it does happen, then he should be fired, and rightfully so. If he keeps his bigotry to himself, then he should stay, as long as he says stupid things on his own time.

    « Granted, he is a professor, so he's held to a higher standard than I assume the rest of you are. It still reeks of hypocrisy to call for him being fired for daring to make the same tenor of comments as you guys do constantly. »

    He is held to a higher standard at school and in terms of his function as a member of staff, yes, but not on his blog, where he can be as crude and stupid as he likes. Again, just as long as it doesn’t affect his work, and students, then I’m fine with that.

    And that last bit about us saying the same sort of stuff he does – what the hell are you talking about? Yeah, we can be crude and snarky, but one will notice a slight distinction in the fact that we use reason, common sense and evidence to back up what we say, and he … doesn’t. Which is why he deserves to be mocked and flamed for spouting stupidity.

    « Except that a good portion of the commenters here are saying he should be fired just because his claims were scientifically invalid. That may be, but it's intellectually bankrupt to be making that claim without any effort in actually proving it. »

    Not if, as Jen said, such knowledge is common knowledge and can be found, in endless instances, within half-a-second of a Google search. Wild, baseless claims should be derided, but when information and evidence is so damned bountiful as it is in this case, claiming that not linking to it is “intellectually bankrupt” makes as much sense as claiming that one shouldn’t trust that evolution is true because those why accept it don’t pull up scientific journals for each claim.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Err – that should be “those who accept it”.

    ReplyDelete
  53. ~ AIDS has only been a way for politicians to profit through deals with big pharma ~ they made billions ~ there is also a new film about this subject ~ check it out at www.houseofnumbers.com

    ReplyDelete
  54. the consequences that cause the disease can lead to death, and so this disease is painful and people suffering from it suffers greatly by the constant pain.

    ReplyDelete
  55. wow! reading what all you immature godless perverts had to write, illustrates why America is past tense as a great country. The colleges have been turned into social labs for all misfits who got picked on as children and now get to be "professors". Your not smart enough to see why a country that has no morals or values can not succeed as a democracy. Of course homosexuals are sick and twisted. The mind set of the ugly girl who cant get a man, says it all. Sleep with whoever you want, men,women, dogs, cats or children and if you get pregnant, just murder the baby.
    Oh yeah, our colleges are producing a fine crop of lemmings who can't think for themselves and just follow the lowest common denominator.
    I bet you voted for Satan, I mean, Obama too, huh? I think it speaks volumes that they can't find anyone that is even remotely intelligent to offer an opinion on this very wise professor and had to quote the ugly atheist girl as the anti-God, anti-American anti-common-sense spokesman.(I am assuming that she use to be a man by looking at her picture). sit down and shut the fuck up you ignorant, failure fo a human being,

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anon, take your morning coffee before firing up the old computer next time. ’Kay?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon is a coward. He/She is not brave enough to use a real name and argue with us.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 3. Anyone experience anything about the easy google profit kit? I discovered a lot of advertisements around it. I also found a site that is supposedly a review of the program, but the whole thing seems kind of sketchy to me. However, the cost is low so I’m going to go ahead and try it out, unless any of you have experience with this system first hand?
    www.onlineuniversalwork.com

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anyone experience anything about the easy google profit kit? I discovered a lot of advertisements around it. I also found a site that is supposedly a review of the program, but the whole thing seems kind of sketchy to me. However, the cost is low so I’m going to go ahead and try it out, unless any of you have experience with this system first hand?


    www.onlineuniversalwork.com

    ReplyDelete