Controversy Over Antigay Comments at NYU

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Stephen of WI, your arguments are weak and unfounded.
You claim that homosexuals are unnatural because of their inability to reproduce. Under this premise, are women who are infertile or men who are sterile also unnatural?
You also say that "we" argue that being pro-gay is acceptable, but not anti-gay. Have you thought about that argument? Should we hire professors who aren't racist, or is that being prejudice against racist people?
It's fine to have a different view than us liberals, but if you're going to make an argument, make sure it makes some kind of sense before you present it.

David of OR 2:58PM August 08, 2009

In response to the comments from Eric of Alabama and Stephen of Wisconsin, I would just like to point out that NYU, located in Manhattan, has one of the largest gay student populations in the country. It would be plainly illogical for a university like NYU to hire someone whose published work is severely offensive to a large segment of the student body. Perhaps they can hire professors who are bigots at universities in Alabama or Wisconisn, but at NYU it might cause riots.
It's evident that people from poorer and less sophisticated areas of the US, like Mr. Holland from Alabama, tend to champion their ignorance, hatred, and bigotry. It Manhattan, however, we do not.

Anthony of NY 5:13PM August 01, 2009

recent costs different 180 reviews last climate

sunnyberge of DC 11:31AM August 01, 2009

How the hell is she teaching a law course on Human rights and Constitutionalism when she clearly supports systems that go against the very fiber of humanity and constitutionality. The fact that you can deem someones sexual preference as illegal and and fine a station that seeks to rise above such social strangling stereotypes and laws seems to go against the principle values of learning human rights and constitutions--considering both are inherently about granting, appreciating, and accepting RIGHTS not denying them! I think that for a Professor at a MAJOR METROPOLITAN university, in a city that is as socially diverse as NYC to have such blatant ignorant views is not only dangerous to the student body, but degrading to the social struggle of homosexuals and NYC residents at large.
A fundamental factor to consider here is that she would be teaching a law course on human rights and constitution not a business course, not a science course, but a social/legal course. Her social/legal views, opinions and actions are HIGHLY IMPORTANT as a result. IF she were a visiting doctor you would look at her medical record, if she was a visiting business professor you would look at her business/business education credentials, if she were a dentist you would consider her dental experience/ contribution to the dental field and so on. So as a social/legal professor, attorney and self-proclaimed expert on Human Rights and Constitutions in Asia, you must look at her contribution, her views, her opinions--as she would undoubtedly judge her students by theirs in such a class.

Holdyn Brand of NY 11:23PM July 27, 2009

For a school and mindset that so promotes the ideas of tolerance, it seems ridiculous that a professor who is an expert in the fields she would be teaching in is forced to turn away the opportunity because of the response to her views on homosexuality. For all the tolerance that the progressive movement claims, when someone has an opinion different from their own they are revolted! Professor Thio and her views on homosexuality is one example. Another is Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man in the highest judicial position in America who is disowned by the black progressive community because he is anti-affirmative action. This is intolerance, not the objections to homosexuality, but the shouting down of opinions different then your own.

Ryan of MO 3:19PM July 27, 2009

Sngaporeans live in a first world infrastructure but like Malaysia have a third world mentality. In fact, most Singaporean policies are influenced by its neighboring countries which all have poor human rights and promotion track records. Like its neighbors Singapore is a feudalistic country with conservative, out-of-date utilitarian values that exploits its own population for its own ambitious end. Most of the politicians there run the educational system and impose their own archaic values onto the infrastructure of this small island nation. These old values stifle the younger generation to the point that many young Singaporeans are more than happy to immigrate out of the country. Look at who is running the country, the son of the "founder"- Singaporeans have a panentheistic view of him and still believe in a progenitive legacy.
Homosexuality according to the Prime Minister (which basically owns the country) is a SIN. This professor-Thio, typical of most civil servants in developing countries, is upholding the prime minister's view- that's all! If she espoused her own views and started dating another women she would be quickly silenced and condemned. Which civil servant in Singapore would dare promote any form of "alternative living"? NONE- why because the consequences for not following the party line would be too impactful on their lives and their own families. Why fight a system that has no recourse? Why provoke a response when you know all the PM has to do is make a call and tell certain quarters to "fix it". Would Obama allow this? No. Why do they allow this to happen in Singapore because people believe the system looks after them-gives them money.
This Singaporean professor should be made accountable for her beliefs. NYU should have made her defend her stance on anti-homosexuality and asked her what her belief is based on. Singapore is NOT a Christian country so that excuse is not usable here. And I bet you she probably does even know what a church looks like from the inside let alone the 10 commandments! If asked, she would probably, at that point, check up on the PM's manual on what to say and what not to say.
NYU why have professors that are mouth pieces of governments tainting the new American generation?

HawaiiPacificgrad1 3:02AM July 27, 2009

The individuals carping about "Free Speech" need to look it up:
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought.[citation needed] In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".
The prospective law professor was, and will continue to be entitled to her own opinions regarding homosexuality. The school - it's students, donors, and faculty are also entitled to their own opinion and to the extent that they felt Thio Li-ann's views were not consistent with theirs, they are entitled to that express their concerns...in the form of a petition and refusing to sign up for her course. If the situation was reversed, and a pro gay rights teacher signed up to speak or teach at a conservative institution, it is doubtful that the folks whining about free speech in this situation would be doing the same if the students and faculty at a conservative school signed a similar petition.
Anti gay activists in America have for years been able to say and do what they want. It is only recently that they've had to take any responsibility for what they say. Free speech doesn't not mean that you can say what you want and people simply have to agree or shut their mouths and take it. I find it confusing when people who thus far have had the power to keep gays on the fringes of our society paint themselves as the victim.
The notion that gays have become "the man" who is keeping straight people "down" is both laughable and not even funny.

Leniere of NY 2:44AM July 27, 2009

Its a real shame a small group of so called highly educated individuals can protest and force their views on an university. Whats wrong with the university taking a stand allowing people with different views speak out. Oh I forgot its NYU, they don't want to offend anyone especially our homosexual community. Get real NYU....you have opened your mind and mouth to side with the homosexual community, why not other communities...NYU reminds me of Hilters Germany...........

pete of TX 4:04PM July 26, 2009

American higher education has spoken. Homosexuality is normal and good. Thinking and saying that homosexuality is immoral, is immoral. It's the new religion. Is bisexuality also moral? If so, shouldn't a man be able to marry both: a man and a woman. If you are more sexual than average, shouldn't you be able to marry more than one.....whatever it is that you are attracted to? Don't answer the question. You don't really want to know the answer.

Eric Holland of AL 7:36AM July 26, 2009

You people amaze me....Singapore as a third world nation? As of 2008, the GDP per capita there was $52,000, which is the 9th highest in the world, compared with $47,000 in the US, which is in 10th place. It is, along with Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong, among the most developed Asian nations. So much for a 'third world country.' Do some research before posting such immature comments.
And what of these fascists who seek to force their views on others? She objects to displaying a homosexual couple with children as a family unit, so do I and so do the majority of Americans. It is un-natural given that homosexuals of any species can reproduce, a law of nature (don't try to slither your way around this with animals which can change gender or are hermaphrodites--they are a completely different story). And you consider that bigotry--that is beyond insane. It is political correctness gone haywire, and I can guarantee you that it will eventually backfire.
Colleges are aloud to have highly pro-Gay professors so what's with this 'we accept one side but not the other' idea? Everyone is entitled to their own point of view so long as it doesn't interfere with their job, or are we scrapping free speech? People can say homosexuality is normal, is fine, yet they can't say it's a disorder, mental, genetic or both, without being chastised. It is responses by people like this that make my own view of homosexuality--that homosexuals have a disorder however are to be accepted by the rest of society and the Christian community like anyone else with a disorder--hard to maintain because they are so quick to jump on anyone who has views which do not match their own.
So much for the left being 'open minded.' The correct term is 'narrow minded,' that is they will accept you if you agree with them on 90%+ of the issues in question.

Stephen of WI 12:37AM July 26, 2009