Site's phobic ideas important for all\nI was surprised to read today's headline (Sept. 5, IDS) describing the removal of Eric Rasmusen's weblog from his IU Web site because of the political and social views he expresses, and I have to lodge the strongest possible protest. Make no mistake: Professor Rasmussen's views on homosexuality are homophobic, heterosexist and repressive. They're divisive, hurtful and offensive. But his right to express them in a public forum must go unimpeded, or the next one on the block could be you or me. Unfortunately, he is probably correct in his claim that his views are not that unusual and perhaps even the norm. \n Certainly plenty of local politicians have campaigned on opposing the so called "homosexual agenda" -- and some of them have been elected. If we fall into the trap of repressing speech, it's more likely to be the proponents of liberal and progressive views that are hurt the most by it. Do we really want to go down that road?\n Freedom of speech is an important and traditional American freedom. It's a freedom we are forced to struggle to maintain. Particularly now, when our basic freedoms are under attack by our own government, we should defend with vigor the right to express one's opinion.\nI read Professor Rasmusen's weblog, and frankly although his views are wrong, his expression of is rather mild. A business school academic adviser is quoted as saying that when closeted students "are exposed to this type of opinion, it pushes them further into the closet." This is a concern I share deeply. In my own youth, I experienced this intimidation first hand, and I have made a number of presentations to IU classes in sociology, social work and other subjects about my experiences with sex and gender orientation so that today's young people will see positive role models and have an easier time than I did at overcoming the damaging ideologies of our phobic society. But would I want them to be protected from homophobic opinions, even if it were possible? This would not only violate freedom of speech, but also leave these students defenseless against the persecution they will continue to face. If these opinions unfortunately intimidate, they should also anger -- and anger is good, for it fuels the social movement needed to ultimately eliminate this intimidation. Such "protection" from opinions is out of place at a university. Ultimately, it's likely to result in protecting students from minority opinions they badly need to hear.\n There is of course the issue of whether such opinions should appear "on IU's state-funded server." Before we jerk our knees on that one, we should ask how many IU professors, employees and students include personal views on their IU Web pages. The only fair way to keep Professor Rsamusen's log off of the IU site is to prohibit any of us from posting personal opinions. This would be a tragedy. Do we really want to restrict our forum for intellectual discourse to approved opinions?\nDr. Sharon Minsuk\npostdoctoral reseacher
Keep ignorant bigotry off University server\nI am one of the students who was deeply offended by Eric Rasmusen's weblog. Anyone who knows me understands that I am a firm believer in the beauty of American law and its shining gem, free speech. However, free speech is not unlimited. I cannot, to use the classic example, yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because of the danger, nor can I post swastikas or Confederate flags on the door to my dorm room, which belongs to the University. In the same manner, I do not believe that a person can use university server space for hateful rants that do nothing to contribute to scholarship, learning and a free exchange of ideas. The last time I checked, a business degree did not include courses on why my homosexual, bisexual and transgendered peers could not be teachers, doctors or presidents. So, to conclude, let's keep ignorant bigotry off the University server that our tuition and tax money is paying for.\nChristina Clark\nSenior
Exchange of ideas essential in academia\nI was saddened to see that the University chose to remove Professor Eric Rasmusen's blog from its servers because of his anti-gay comments. The comments were made during an exchange with blogger Professor Eugene Volokh, who responded to Rasmusen's claim that hiring gay teachers was akin to putting a "fox into the chickencoop" by pointing out that such allegations "ought to be supported by some serious evidence." Rasmusen's response was that there's "no really good statistical evidence either way ... it's in the category of 'what everyone knows.'"\nI agree that Rasmusen's comments are bigoted, so how do we respond? The University has responded by trying to sweep his opinions under the rug, but Volokh attacked his argument in a manner that respected Rasmusen's right to express his opinions and, in doing so, made it clear that his position wasn't supported by credible evidence. \nWe need to respect the values inherent in this exchange. The ability to make controversial arguments is essential to a functioning academic community, as is our ability to examine these arguments on their merits, or lack thereof. It's my hope that the University reconsiders its policy.\nPete Welsch\nGraduate student
Opposing view needed to squelch professor's views\nI am disappointed that a professor at an institute of higher education has what I consider to be an appallingly regressive and misinformed view of homosexuality. I disagree with Professor Rasmusen quite strongly.\nHowever, I also believe that the University clearly condones the expression of personal opinions on individual home pages stored on IU servers. It is thus inappropriate for the University to make judgments about which opinions are acceptable and which are unacceptable, as long as they are clearly labeled as personal opinions, do not constitute libel and aren't causing disruption of service to other Web pages. This is especially true of a public institution.\nYes, the material is offensive. It offends me, and it ought to offend you -- but I have no right not to be offended, and neither do you. We may feel uncomfortable when exposed to a particular opinion, but we have clearly established as a society that the right to speak is far more important than any right to like what you hear. The proper response is to present an opposing viewpoint, one that explains and counters the prejudice in Professor Rasmusen's weblog, not to silence him.\nMark Meiss\nGraduate student/ Staff
Rasmusen deserves the boot for bigotry\nIn his blog, Professor Rasmusen equates homosexuality with tax cheats, adulterers, robbers, drug users, strippers and child molesters. He implies that all gay men are pedophiles and calls them a breeding ground for venereal diseases. And finally, he implies that hiring a homosexual in the workplace is akin to turning the workplace into a bathhouse where "male homosexuals" can "satisfy their desires." \nRasmusen defends his prejudice as an impersonal view unconnected to his religious beliefs by implying that anti-homosexual laws and, by association, anti-homosexual workplace policies, are just common sense rather than homophobia. In fact, anti-homosexual laws have traditionally had a religious overtone, which is why when state supreme courts began modifying anti-homosexual laws, a frequent justification for doing so was that policing morality was the job of the church rather than the state.\nNo professor at a reputable business school should be allowed to do what Rasmusen has done and remain in a position of authority. He has flaunted his flawed, un-researched and bigoted logic, and he has propagated the idea that the hiring of any individual of a particular race, religion, sexuality or "class of people" will naturally lead to negative workplace conditions.\nA good business professor should always promote managerial responsibility, equality in the workforce and tolerant working environments. The stereotypical thinking that Rasmusen espouses (such as homosexuality being a breeding ground for venereal diseases) is not a mentality that fosters tolerant business ethics or leads to progressive business leadership. \nThis man is an embarrassment to everyone affiliated with IU and the entire Bloomington community. \nIn defending his position that male homosexuals are largely attracted primarily to young, nubile boys, Rasmusen states, "I could check this by looking up a large enough sample of pornography -- but I'd rather not." \nI could go into detail, Mr. Rasmusen, in stating how strongly I feel that you should be removed from your position, but I'd rather not.\nAja Romano\nSenior
Leftists 'whiners' promote censorship\n It is sad that some Leftists are unable to deal with disagreement and seek to have it censored. The episode involving IU School of Business professor Eric Rasmusen and efforts to have his Web log ("blog") removed from the University server is an illustration of why eternal vigilance is required to protect free speech.\nA few Leftists found Professor Rasmusen's views "offensive," so they whined to GLBT services and to the Business dean. (These whiners are not "liberals," as the root of "liberal" is "liberty." Attacks on free speech are not "liberal.") Rasmusen then agreed to move his site to a private Web server. Fortunately, the University reversed itself.\n Yes, the University owns their server and has the right to remove material from it they do not wish to host. The ability to host a personal Web page on the IU server is a privilege, not a right. But as a prominent research institution, IU should carefully guard the principle of free expression of ideas, especially controversial ideas. Once a precedent has been set to censor "offensive" speech, all speech is in danger.\n The arguments presented by these Leftists are lacking in logical validity. Rasmusen's blog is on a personal home page, clearly identified as such. In such a large university, there will always be people who agree with Rasmusen's views on homosexuality. Other pages on IU's server (including pages of organizations like OUT, Allys and GLBT services) support homosexual rights. If someone is deterred from coming to IU because of one person's views, perhaps that person should reconsider whether attending a university is a good idea in the first place.\n IU's server contains Web pages for a myriad of political groups, such as the College Republicans and Democrats, pro-life and abortion-rights groups, and other political groups like INPIRG. Some of these groups have posted "offensive" items on their Web pages, such as an advertisement for the College Democrats "contract on Hostettler" event in 1996. This political discourse should be encouraged, not stifled. IU should stand firm as a defender of free speech.\nScott Tibbs\n1998 IU Alumnus
