Two wrongs don’t make a right

A far right wing wanker is suing Ohio State University for discrimination. I hate to say it, but if this account is at all accurate, he might have a case.

In 2006, Savage agreed to serve on a committee to determine required reading for incoming freshmen at the Mansfield campus.

Savage said the books considered by the committee were too liberal and suggested The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian.

Professors James F. Buckley and Norman W. Jones filed a sexual-harassment complaint against Savage, saying he was homophobic for suggesting the book. The complaint was dismissed as unfounded.

Because he continued to be harassed, Savage said, he was forced to resign.

Kupelian is a vile, dishonest hack, and his book, which is the usual tripe about a gay conspiracy to force college students to become atheist abortionists and communists, is unadulterated garbage of the sort peddled by Wing Nut Daily. To even suggest such a bad book reveals that Scott Savage is an incompetent ideologue, and that yes, he most certainly is a homophobe. I’d be socially snubbing such a person at my workplace, just as I would if he were to show up wearing KKK robes.

But being a homophobe isn’t a crime, and suggesting a rotten book (a suggestion that I’m sure was shot down without hesitation by the other members of the committee) isn’t sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. Unless there’s an awful lot more to Savage’s actions than are revealed in this story, it sounds like people did try to drive him out of his job.

Of course, my sympathy for the clown has limits. This exceeds them:

The suit says he is a devout Christian, married for 18 years and the father of eight. It says he has struggled to find library work since leaving OSU.

Lots of people at universities are Christian, many of them have been married for a long time (my 28th wedding anniversary was just yesterday), and although 8 children may be a little excessive, you’ll also find lots of people who love kids at universities — and you’ll also find gay communist atheists who love children and have long term relationships. That claim is irrelevant to his lawsuit and is the protest of a close-minded bigot who likes to toss out these nice testimonials to his purported goodness while denying that the people he demonizes might have very similar values.

So no sympathy for the ugly little hater from me, but I have to concede that at least one of the actions against him also crossed the line.

I think I’ll skip it

Everyone is telling me I ought to read this new piece in Harper’s magazine, on the pretensions atheism. James Hrynyshyn has seen it; I don’t think I’ll bother. It’s by David Berlinski, which tells me all I need to know.

I will grant him his due, though. Berlinski is probably the world’s greatest expert on pretentiousness, to the point that his name and the word are practically synonyms.

Christian mental health care: positively medieval

Here’s a real horror story: a place called Mercy Ministries claimed to offer psychiatric help to people in Australia, and what they offered instead was nightmarish religious discipline and doctrine. There’s something subtle in there, too, that ought to make us ashamed: the Australian reporter calls it an “American-style ministry”. Isn’t it sad to see that our country is becoming an adjective for idiocy?

Anyway, here’s one woman’s summary of her “treatment”.

Nine months without medical treatment, nine months without any psychiatric care, nine months of being told she was not a good enough Christian to rid herself of the “demons” that were causing her anorexia and pushing her to self-harm. After being locked away from society for so long, Naomi started to believe them. “I just felt completely hopeless. I thought if Mercy did not want to help me where do I stand now?

And here’s another account:

Careful and articulate, her struggle with the horror of her descent into despair at the hands of Mercy is only evidenced by the occasional tremor in her hands and voice as she describes her experience. She was sharing the house with 15 other girls and young women, with problems ranging from teenage pregnancies, alcohol and drug abuse, self harm, depression, suicidal thoughts and eating disorders.

“There were girls who had got messed up in the adult sex industry – a real range of problems, some incorporating actual psychiatric illness, others just dealing with messy lives, and the approach to all those problems was the same format,” Johnson says.

Counselling involved working through a white folder containing pre-scripted prayers.

“Most of the staff were current Bible studies or Bible college students, and that is it, if anything. You just cannot play around with mental illness when you do not know what you are doing. Even professionals will acknowledge that it is a huge responsibility working in that field, and that is people who have six years, eight years university study behind them.”

And while there was nothing that was formally termed “exorcism” in the Sydney house, Naomi was forced to stand in front of two counsellors while they prayed and spoke in tongues around her. In her mind, it was an exorcism. “I felt really stupid just standing there – they weren’t helping me with the things going on in my head. I would ask staff for tools on how to cope with the urges to self harm … and the response was: ‘What scriptures are you standing on? Read your Bible.”

This is the bottom line.

And yet Mercy continues to operate without the scrutiny of government authorities, under the radar and with impunity.

Of course. A lot can be forgiven if you just label it “religious”.

Subtle sexism in science?

From among our most German friends, I found this article on WeiterGen on women in science that led to an article by one of my favorite scientists, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, that I found rather disappointing.

She describes her experiences as a woman in science of a previous generation, in which the discrimination was much more overt. She experienced seeing her work given to the credit of her male peers, of working under bosses who told her that women couldn’t do as well in science, and of working to the top of her profession to find a paucity of female colleagues and to find herself as the exception that proves the rule. You’ve got to admire her for overcoming all that to achieve far more than most of us privileged males.

The end of the article is also good, in which she urges men to be more aware of gender issues, and points out that there are persistent differences in women’s roles in society that we need to actively overcome; I’m also impressed that she’s putting her money where her mouth is and has founded the Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard Foundation, which provides fellowships to women scientists specifically to help them balance conventional family obligations with research.

There’s a part in the middle that bugs me, though. She’s arguing that it’s OK that we don’t necessarily get that perfect 50:50 ratio in every field, and I agree with that … I just find why she thinks that should be so to be troubling.

Men and
women are different by nature, not
only because of their education or
the roles traditionally ascribed to
them by society. Of course, I do not
think that women are in any way
less intelligent than men or do not
have the capacity to do excellent
science in principle. It is not a matter
of skills or talent, but according
to my observations the strengths,
aims and interests of women differ
from those of many of their male
contemporaries, at least on average.
I know many women who share
my disgust for the personal pride,
vanity and narrow focus of some
successful male colleagues and in
turn appreciate the more considerate,
broad-minded way some female
colleagues do their science. I
understand women who hate to push
themselves forward, or who are not
willing to narrow down their spectrum
of interests, including family and
friends. I have often experienced
that women in my family — much
more so than men — have a hard
time understanding my passion
for science, while they are more
interested in social issues, art and
music.

Men and women are different, obviously, and there may well be intrinsic differences that will steer the sexes in different directions. That’s not a problem. But you know, claiming that women have a “more considerate, broad-minded” approach to science really isn’t that much different from a Larry Summers claiming that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls. It’s not necessarily true, even in average or in natural inclination, and it perpetuates a stereotype.

An individual woman ought be able to be ambitious, pushy, vain, and focused and succeed in science without her approach being considered in conflict with her gender. It isn’t. Similarly, an individual male researcher can be considerate and giving and helpful without betraying his sex. I want women to succeed in science because I don’t want anyone to be hindered in their careers by the imposition of stereotypes, and let’s not have women graduate students walk into a lab under the shadow of an expectation that they have to be the liberal nurturers of the research group, the ones who’ll be interested in art and music more than the nerdy males. It’s a nice reputation to have, I’m sure, but it’s also an imposition of an unfair expectation on women that we don’t place on men.

The odious Sally Kern

Remember Sally Kern, the Oklahoma legislator caught on tape babbling about the gay conspiracy? It’s worse than it sounded: it seems Kern has a gay son who she has essentially deleted from her public life.

And these are the people who claim ownership of the word “family”…

Here’s something even worse than the self-destruction of her own family: Kerns is the sponsor of Oklahoma House Bill 2211, the “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act”. You can tell from the title what it is: a bill that would privilege religious opinions over scientific information in public school classrooms. The story is all over the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education page, as you might guess. The bad news is that the HB 2211 has passed in the House and is on its way to the Oklahoma senate, where we’d better hope it gets shot down. Here’s what it does:

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

Oklahomans, call or write your state senators NOW.