Oxford students petition for Professor to be fired on ground of homophobia

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,376
6,264
805
Australia
Sorry but who is paying this guys salary again? The very same students who are complaining. Yet they should have no say in what their money is supporting because "free speech."

If I wrote public essays against homosexuals I would fully expect to be reprimanded or fired from my teaching position as it would undeniably compromise trust that is foundational to successful educator-student relationships.
Students shouldn't get to define what they are taught or whom they are taught by simply because they are footing the bill.
 
Jan 26, 2009
5,739
220
670
37
The case for him being fired is strong.

He can't be trusted to grade a particular class of students fairly, and he can't provide a safe learing environment for a class of students without changing his fundamental behaviors.
I don’t understand how you think. People can not like someone lifestyle and still treat them fairly. If you don’t think people can than it says more about you then Them. What do you mean by safe learning environment? Is he punching students who are gay?
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,811
1,353
835
I
I don’t understand how you think. People can not like someone lifestyle and still treat them fairly. If you don’t think people can than it says more about you then Them. What do you mean by safe learning environment? Is he punching students who are gay?
I thought he was still saying this stuff now, rather than 25 years ago.

But if he were still giving lectures like this he would have been gone a while ago. That's just common sense.
 
Jan 9, 2018
426
605
230
I was going to quote you by section, but there's little need to go on that long in response since the content of your argument is the same. You take for granted today's dominant pop-psychology view that homosexuality is an innate type of person, like rotating an inner gear that normally points towards the opposite sex so that now it points towards the same, so that it's just an alternative type of person that warrants protections akin to racial ones.

You then insist that anything which complicates this picture is mere obfuscation, punctuated with a few passive-aggressive emoji :messenger_ok:.

Ultimately you are confused by the arguments because you believe the existence of people now expressing exclusively-defined homosexual desires means this is truly an innate kind of person and nothing more need to be said (reference to brain scans is a particularly off-color tell here; most of the scholarship consider "similarity / difference of brain scans" a crudely pseudoscientific approach to any of these topics). It is impossible that you are familiar with the literature from critical history or trends in sexuality studies, for that is not a sophisticated view. I mentioned Foucault because his History of Sexuality broke the new ground that slowly overtook this conversation, by tracing the recent (19th century) emergence of "homosexual" as a type of person via a process of trying to secure, medicalize, and institutionalize the deviant as a core defect of personality, creating this definition out of an undifferentiated and disparate set of behaviors and desires that were found rooted in varying forms in many people (enclosed male-homosocial environments being a place where it frequently coexisted with aggressive heterosexual masculinity) but never as a unified phenomenon or distinct type.

As a typical excerpt from a more recent article (by an affirming author quoting mostly queer studies, not a conservative voice) summarizes the field of study:

Robert Beachey said:
Since Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (1976), many historians of sexuality have argued that a hetero/homosexual binarism emerged only after 1869 following the coinage of “homosexuality,” which, according to Foucault, introduced the homosexual as a new “species” of being. Some interpretations of Foucault’s work have emphasized the precise moment when the “homosexual” created a radical rupture in western understandings of sexual deviancy. According to this view, the social and cultural identities based on an exclusive same-sex erotic attraction were virtually impossible before the nineteenth century.
...
This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation.
Now, that's a complex set of claims, but well founded in the contemporary debate; and wherever one stands, the recognition that "homosexual" as a kind of person--rather than set of different desires and practices that have no essential unity in the acting person--only came into emergence through a reconceptualization in recent centuries is well established historically. "Queer studies" has largely moved away from "orientation," so that their self-conception now as a movement is for disunity and dis-integration of the language that even first makes identities like these seem totalizing to any person, a fantasy of fluid identities that open themselves up to reintegration in every direction; but that kind of position and goal is most certainly ripe for ethical debate as to its effects on human culture.

As for the behavior being seen in nature, yes--eating waste, killing one's own young, and much else is in nature--but these have very different meanings in human actions and identities. The natural world shows what the human world shows us here, which is that many sexual desires stray far outside of the strict bounds of reproduction--something well known to all the classical moral philosophers. It offers no correlate to the "innate identity" of someone being a gay person, because that concept emerged only recently through a congealing of social meanings and identities, as a way to reconceptualize oneself, much as "trans" has recently shifted terminology (and led to deeply divisive debates between lesbians and trans-asserting groups, btw--old orientation based views are in direct conflict with trans, and this is increasingly apparent). None of that gives us a clear insight as to the moral status of the acts, nor as to where we should draw the line in keeping certain kinds of activities out of public expression. It is not an observation of nature, nor human nature, that made the grounds on this shift politically; it's just market liberalism, which always trends towards endorsing all choices and creating consumption as an identity. Nothing more.

Disagreement will continue on these matters, because deciding what is ethical for sexual activity is at the core of human social and kinship structures. You're frighteningly denying even the ability to debate, with a conception of the topic in your hands that is still in its infancy, and with various recent conclusions that were disputed as recently as one or two decades ago by mainstream scholars who had accrued more learning in these areas than you're likely to ever attain in your lifetime. It's remarkable arrogance to insist that the recent, mostly-Western liberal new consensus on these topics is the sole truth that can be spoken.
 
Likes: Nymphae
Aug 22, 2018
1,335
1,583
245
Just want to add one small thing (and yes I'm up a bit late - I ate spicy food and I'm paying the price for it - I swear this liquid fire is going to kill me). My opinions on most things are pretty different note to 20 years ago. Part of that is me growing up. Part of that is new experiences. Part of that is adapting to society's moves over that time. Quite honestly anything written that long ago should be considered as being written by a different person because I'm most cases it was.
 
Likes: matt404au
Sep 26, 2014
1,787
986
330
Just want to add one small thing (and yes I'm up a bit late - I ate spicy food and I'm paying the price for it - I swear this liquid fire is going to kill me). My opinions on most things are pretty different note to 20 years ago. Part of that is me growing up. Part of that is new experiences. Part of that is adapting to society's moves over that time. Quite honestly anything written that long ago should be considered as being written by a different person because I'm most cases it was.
this to me is like the ship paradox in philosophy. a ship keeps getting a board or 2 replaced each time it docks, so at some point there are no pieces of wood from when the ship was originally built. The question then is would that be a different ship or still the same one.

the same can be said about people and their experiences and ideas.
 
Last edited:
Likes: hariseldon

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,105
807
540
Absolutely none of what you posted shows that you grasped the point about using assumptions.
What is especially devoid from lived reality is your attempts neatly dividing assumption from proven fact, as if all situations in life can literally be condensed into the standards found in a court of law. Despite the vast majority of disputes existing outside of that framework.

I don't think students should have any say in what professors are hired, no, any more than walmart's customers should decide who works there. I hate outrage culture, individuals shouldn't have to fear angry mobs of people.

Maybe this guy should be let go, but not because some students petitioned for it.
If a Walmart employee was found writing diatribes against minorities under civil protections that employee would likely be fired. Sorry but freedom of expression does not carry over to freedom of employment. This view is especially ridiculous when most states are under at-will employment law. Meaning you can be fired for no reason at all, let alone for a reason that would likely violate federal law. (Ok this is my last response, too many fish to fry)
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
526
505
205
If a Walmart employee was found writing diatribes against minorities under civil protections that employee would likely be fired. Sorry but freedom of expression does not carry over to freedom of employment. This view is especially ridiculous when most states are under at-will employment law. Meaning you can be fired for no reason at all, let alone for a reason that would likely violate federal law. (Ok this is my last response, too many fish to fry)
As far as I know being racist isn't illegal, only racist acts are.
You keep ignoring that this was 25 years ago, where this view was commonly held, unless you want to fire everyone who didn't support homosexuality 2 and half decades ago I don't see how he should be fired.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
1,751
2,562
530
What is especially devoid from lived reality is your attempts neatly dividing assumption from proven fact, as if all situations in life can literally be condensed into the standards found in a court of law. Despite the vast majority of disputes existing outside of that framework.
Word-salad is no substitute for self-awareness.
 
Likes: hariseldon