‘The Dissemination of Hate Speech’

Posted on Comments

Arkansas Tech University Professor Wayne Helmer wrote a letter to Prism, the magazine of the American Society for Engineering Education, criticizing the inclusion of sexual orientation in “diversity” programs, calling homosexuality a “detrimental, negative lifestyle,” and using scripture to invoke the authority of Jesus Christ.

All hell broke loose, of course:

The letter prompted the association’s president (Kenneth F. Galloway of Vanderbilt University), president-elect (Nicholas J. Altiero of Tulane University) and immediate past president (Walter J. Buchanan of Texas A&M University) to take the unusual step of issuing a joint letter denouncing their own publication for publishing Helmer’s piece. “His specious mischaracterization of homosexuality is unsupported by any reputable literature,” the letter said. “Professor Helmer is entitled to his religious beliefs. However, Prism is not an appropriate place for him to air his judgment of others based on those beliefs.” . . .
Amy E. Slaton, a historian of science and technology at Drexel University, wrote on her blog STEM Equity that the Prism letter raised broad issues. “The line between ‘freedom of speech’ on one hand, and the dissemination of hate speech on the other,  vexes everyone who thinks about diversity in a democratic society, or at least it should,” she wrote. Normally this concern isn’t big in STEM education, she added.
“Then when we do recognize it, our responses to discrimination don’t often rise to the level of audible anger. We’ve developed the habit of seeking ‘respectful dialog’ as mostly, we try to  redirect the thinking of those who traffic in bias and stereotyping; a constructive impulse, perhaps, but not always a way of speaking truth to power. It’s partly a matter of self-preservation, of course: activism, anger, noise? … not the marks of the mature student, or professional educator or engineer,” Slaton wrote. “But a funny thing happened on the way to diversity in engineering this morning … and I am newly worried about the quietness of our STEM diversity efforts, about the sheer timidity of our discussions around difference and inclusion. And mostly: about our reluctance to censure powerfully those who traffic in hateful rhetoric.”

A few questions occur, among them, “Is there a shortage of gay engineers? Do gay people suffer discrimination in the engineering field?” Honestly, I’m not not aware of any such claim. I am aware that engineering is a male-dominated field, and that blacks and Hispanics (but not Asians) are considered “underrepresented minorities” in the field, but I’ve never heard that discrimination against gays is alleged to be commonplace in engineering.

“Diversity” is a vague goal used to justify quotas in education and employment and, as such, is a dishonest scam. So I’m anti-“diversity” and in favor of clear standards of merit. Exactly where Professor Helmer’s controversial remarks fit into such a discussion, I’m not sure, but Slaton’s rhetoric about “hate speech” disturbs me.

One might say Professor Helmer is obviously prejudiced against homosexuals, but unless you can demonstrate that there is actual discrimination against homosexuals, then the expression of such views is not genuinely harmful, except in terms of hurt feelings.

Does anyone have a right not to have their feelings hurt?

 

36 comments

  1. As usual, the critics never deal with the facts, just that someone dared to breach the speech codes. Homosexuality is also known as being queer. It is queer because the orientation is a mental illness that goes against the grain of nature. The lifestyle is detrimental and negative.

  2. I don’t NEED a right! I have a lobbyist, a lawyer and a progressive cable news network and a LAW! (From Life in Post-Constitutional America

  3. Hispanics are under-represented in engineering? Maybe it’s changing. I’m working a project right now as part of a team of five, three of whom are engineers – all of them are Hispanic. The company’s Senior VP/Engineering is, too.

    They’re all good engineers, too.

  4. Normally this concern isn’t big in STEM education, she added.

    Could that possibly be because it’s not possible to fake a 32 on an ACT or design a bridge that doesn’t go “plop” the first time a truck crosses it?

  5. The idea that expressing unpopular beliefs is “hate speech” is something that has always troubled me. We’re about 20 or 25 years into the regime of political correctness, and the silencing of dissent on controversial issues is now so commonplace that we seldom even notice it.

  6. I’m less concerned with ‘hate speech’ than I am with the possibility a less capable engineer admitted and passed on quota designed and built the bridge I’m crossing, even if the decorative friezes are FABulous.

  9. Got no problem with natural diversity. All for it. Let talent and ability rise and we ALL profit,

    But manufactured diversity never, ever works. It’s like a bad park garden where they stuff in some of everything because people like different colors and blossoms and you wind up with an undifferentiated mess.

    And the compromises you make for diversity are never, ever worth it. You WILL see second-raters given preference above their desserts and merits to their ultimate disadavantage and the immediate disadvantage of everyone else around them.

  11. Qualification and willingness to work and do good work (i.e. not lazy), is all I care about when I interview and prospective Engineer employee.

  12. Does anyone have a right not to have their feelings hurt?

    You’re joking, yes? The right to not be offended is the cornerstone of Political Correctness.

  13. “Diversity” by itself is irrelevant. It exists or it does not, and is in itself neither beneficial nor harmful.

    North Korea is a monoculture, no diversity. Bad. South Korea is a monoculture, no diversity. Good. Hmmm… okay, then –

    Singapore, very diverse, good. Yay! What used to be Yugoslavia, also diverse… uh, and that’s what destroyed it. Okay, not good.

    To make “diversity” by itself a primary goal, and to pretend that establishing it where it does not otherwise exist is ipso facto beneficial, is stupid. But stupid is the heart of PC, the grievance culture, and most of EEO. Further, it grants people with no discernible talent or even value inordinate power, even though that power is invaiably expressed in a negative manner.

  14. Oh, we notice it, usually subconsciously. That is how it becomes so insidious and threatens our society. We are so inured to it that it becomes the norm, the line we toe.
    Except us dead citizens, we are suppressed all the way around, no one wants to hear from us!

  15. I am offended that you have your own lobbyist, Lawyer and network. Ban hammer swing.

    {Where is that Wombat when I need him}

  17. The last acceptable prejudice: the dead.

    Well, I don’t mind you people when you stay in your place, which is underground. It’s those damned zombies I hate! Shambling around, eating brains, ruining good decent neighborhoods. And no, I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one!

  21. I sincerely believe an effective medical cure for homosexuality in males will be discovered someday… I wonder what the rhetoric of the “cultural Marxists” will be when a pill or an injection will instantaneously make the sodomite a man! Will an “ethical dilemma”, a “moral conundrum” ensue? I hope for an utter, complete ideological meltdown and to live long enough to witness my vindication!

  23. I see nothing of the sort coming. Homosexuality is a mental illness caused by a very serious spiritual problem.

  24. If you cut off your own penis, you are crazy, you do not become a woman. The penis evolved to enable sexual reproduction. It was not made to insert in another male of the species’ anus.

Comments are closed.