The Rasmusen controversy

As of today, we should all be familiar with Professor Eric Rasmusen's infamous Web log, once stricken from the IU server for his controversial (and to this editorial staff, abhorrent) views on homosexuality, only to be placed back on in order to comply with a UITS policy which promotes the "free expression of ideas." \nBeing members of the press we simply must tout the issue of free speech and hold true to the professor's right to express his ideas. However unpopular a view, hate speech is one of the protected forms of expression we are privileged to as citizens of this nation.\nThe question is asked, however, can one prohibit such views on a state-funded Web server? What of the professor's responsibilities as an instructor, mentor and academic?\nAccording to the University's code of Academic Ethics, which applies to all faculty and staff, "The teacher protects their academic freedom and serves as an example of this principle by assuring that each student and colleague is free to voice opinions openly and to exchange ideas free from interference."\nHowever, the code goes on to state, "Professionalism is fostered by an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect."\nWe can pretty safely assume that such "trust and respect" between Rasmusen and those opposed to his views have been challenged.\nFurthermore, the code offers one more suggestion: \n"A teacher will strive to develop among students respect for others and their opinions by demonstrating his or her own respect for each student as an individual, regardless of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or physical handicap."\nIn here lies the rub. \nCan holding a contrary view of one's sexual orientation be marked-up as "disrespect" for their way of life? \nYet observe the line one more time.\nSexual orientation simply is not mentioned in the above list. Shall we assume that it is to be "respected" as well, or have we allowed for such views to be tolerated regarding one's preference of mate?\nIt seems that the public at large is the primary culprit in this matter. For too long, "gay" is a minority group that we're simply willing to offend. Had this Web log promoted hateful views of any other minority group, it seems likely that the mobilization and outrage would have been twice as immense. \nWould we as a University tolerate a professor who expressed a preference for "white's only" water fountains? If one suggested that females should only serve as nurses and candystripers, not physicians, would we still offer employment and shout on high the glories of free speech?\nProbably not.\nWe've allowed, however, for the homosexual community's anger. Throughout the popular media, we hold them dear as flamboyant entertainers, a "Queer Eye" into a new world. One with style, flare and spunk.\nBut apparently, not power.\nWe praise free speech, we promote protest. \nWe question our ability as a society to become fully inclusive and challenge us to reexamine what they call "tolerance."\nDoes hate speech help anyone? Probably not. It neither moves us forward or beings us closer together.\nStill, to value the diamonds, we must be aware of the imitation. Without protection of the worst kinds of speech, when it comes time to call upon the freedoms we need, they might not be there for us.