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.
Hi PZ,
Let me be the first to wish your wife (and you) a happy anniversary.
(signed) marc
PZ: This is just a friendly suggestion, but I think you should create a tag called ‘independent thinking’ for every post like this, which stands on principle even when it would be tempting to stomp all over the rights or interests of folk on the other side of the aisle.
I dare say you have posted quite a few along these lines, and it might prove rhetorically helpful to have a ready web page to pull up with examples of even-handedness to counter the (increasingly-frequent) charge that your blog is a (and I quote) a ‘cesspool of bias’ filled with ‘preaching to the atheist choir’, etc.
I suggest this because as your celebrity/notoriety continues to increase (as it will), you will likely be drawn into larger controversies where having such a resource on-hand might be prudent.
Peace..SH
Amazon has a discussion of Expelled in their Christian Books section. Apparently they need a separate section to prevent contamination or something. Only 3 posts on it so far.
“PZ: This is just a friendly suggestion, but I think you should create a tag called ‘independent thinking’ for every post like this, which stands on principle even when it would be tempting to stomp all over the rights or interests of folk on the other side of the aisle.”
Or you could call it “God’s Advocate”. OH!
That’s an authentic issue of academic freedom, as opposed to the tawdry little tripe about “academic freedom” in evolution and nowhere else that the BS bills in Florida are proposing.
Assuming, of course, that it was real harrassment, and not Sternbergian whining about objections to his machinations. For now I’ll assume it was real harrassment (the dismissed complaint suggests further harrassment), but keep my mind open on the matter.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I applaud your even-handedness, PZ. It does appear, from what we know so far, that this creep was treated unfairly.
One has to remember that to this kind of nut job (homophobic conspiracy theorist) just about anything is viewed as “harassment”, especially any action that does not expressly validate their opinion.
To them, two entirely *straight* men who touch each other in any way “familiar” (e.g. a handshake using both hands or accompanied by a pat on the back is considered “flaunting their evil lifestyle” despite it being a common cultural practice.
Now, I’ll reserve final judgment until (err, if) I ever hear details of what this “harassment” was, but I’m not going to condemn and entire faculty because one nutter thinks he was harassed.
There doesn’t seem to be any hint what his harassment consisted of. Considering how other rightwingers have described being “censored” when they were actually just disagreed with, or had their ideas not accepted, I have to wonder if his harassment consisted of something like being socially snubbed at his workplace, just as he might be if he were to show up wearing KKK robes.
The article doesn’t say what the actual claims are, and the paragraph you quoted is typical of background.
Since it doesn’t say how he was “harassed,” it’s very close to informationally empty.
The second paragraph, however, does offer some clue: “personal and professional attacks on his character.” It’s entirely possible the same kind of statements you made — that he’s a nutter, that by suggesting the book he was incompetent to be on the panel, etc.
And since that was the only book mentioned in the article… wanna bet that he kept suggesting that book?
Here’s where I think he crosses the line:
I can’t bring myself to keep an open mind on this lawsuit when it’s based on this tripe.
There’s no statement as to what kind of “harassment” he suffered.
I gotta ask, if a person sends me a personal email asking me out to lunch and mentions that Savage would be coming, would my response of “I won’t eat with that homophobic bigot” be harassment? Because that’s how I’d respond.
I’m guessing Alliance Defense Fund is behind this and trying to get rid of any protections on the basis of sexual orientation.
and a sexual harassment claim over a proposed book? Those are a couple of whacked out professors.
And since that was the only book mentioned in the article… wanna bet that he kept suggesting that book?
Found a few others by doing a search of Savage+OSU+ADF
Among the others he recommended: The Professors by David Horowitz. He’s a bigoted whackjob.
Sue me, Savage!
Actually, I would say, based only on the information provided, that one could objectively label him as mentally ill (or, as I put it, a nutter).
Obviously, it’s quite likely that he suffers from paranoid delusions about a vast gay conspiracy both worldwide and at OSU that are determined to destroy his morals and own lifestyle.
Now, given the above (and again, I admit that this assessment comes only from the sparce information provided) it’s not unlikely that he also has paranoid delusions about being harassed. Like I said, I reserve final judgment pending real information, but to automatically assume he was harassed just because he says so is not warranted given that his reported behavior demonstrates a pattern of paranoid delusion.
What’s more likely, a large number of the faculty was harassing this guy, or paranoid delusions turned simple disagreement and rejection of his insanity into “harassment”?
How would you feel if the doors to easy jobs were closed because your degree came from Storefront College? The Depression is fast approaching and wingnuts need tenure to avoid being sent to manual labor work. All they ask is a few thousand positions. Well, some more because the next administration will expect (and need) competence and proficiency.
My former supervisor avoided discipline by claiming anti-Christian discrimination. He actually was a closeted pedophile. His WATB came to an end when the unit hired a grossly rotund, atheist, lesbian of indeterminate ethnicity. Check and mate!
The first place I heard about this story, a library science news blog, had a cynical commentator:
The original news article notes what he said in his suit:
I think it was censorious and overly-harsh to file harrassment charges against Savage just because he suggested a book those professors disagreed with, and clearly the university administration agreed, because university is supposed to be about challenging your perspectives on things. Buckley and Jones should know that.
But this statement in Savage’s suit suggests to me that he’s an unprofessional git who can’t keep his personal beliefs out of the workplace. If I can help my library’s customers find their spiritual and religious bunkum, self-help woo garbage like The Secret, and banal romance books, then this guy can rein in his inner missionary for the 7 or 8 hours a day needed to earn his paycheque, as commanded in Matthew 6: 5-6
Definitions:
“anti-Christian”
Any defense given against the attack of a Fundamentalist Christian or Christian group.
“LIberal”
Someone who freakin’ dares question the authority of my dogmatic views
For reasons others have already said, I’m not ready to side with this guy’s claim yet. What harassment, exactly, took place? It’s possible (and unfortunately all too likely with these nutters) that people didn’t agree with him, so he took his toys and went home, brooded and brooded over it and finally “realized” he was a martyr for the Sky God. Too many of these people have made hysterical claims that are so much bullshit (Um…Invisible sky god, anyone?). Too many of them have a persecution complex, and are always looking for something that proves it. They never get why they’re not being discriminated against. They equate disagreement with repression. WTF do they know about the latter, really? In ‘murka? PLEASE Not all religious people are this way, but fundies tend to have more than their share. The percentages make it difficult to believe this guy’s claim.
And if that’s not enough, I smell closet case. He’s trying too hard to be Teh Ultimate Straight.
I wonder how long it will be before he’s busted for hitting on an undercover cop at a rest stop bathroom–or something far more serious. I mean, it’s not like that’s never happened to one of these holier-than-thou types before.
What’s “WATB”?
Apparently (a little google search) it wasn’t sexual harassment, but harassment based on sexual orientation.
No, but three lefts do
What’s “WATB”?
Whiny-Ass-Titty-Baby.
I think Atrios coined it.
if this account is at all accurate
I think that’s a huge and unfounded assumption. Initial media reports about anything are rarely accurate and always incomplete. Media providers are always biased in favor of certain kinds of narratives, and this is a textbook example of the “dog bites man”/David&Goliath narrative that they love to tell. “Area Incompetent Loses Job” is not the kind of story that gets reported. Which means it’s far less likely to be true than the standard “House file kills three” fact-based kind of local story.
While I think it’s perfectly appropriate to withhold judgment on this guy given the typical innacuracy and incompleteness of media reports, I think it’s a grave mistake to give an avowed conservative Christian the benefit of the doubt.
While most conservative Christians are — like most people everywhere — generally decent to most people most of the time on a day-to-day basis, this man openly admits to subscribing to an ideology that considers intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance to be positive virtues.
I hope you post a followup to this post when the full scope of his dishonesty is revealed. (Also, I’m not normally a betting man, but I’d like to put down five dollars on “In the park restroom, with the male undergraduate” in the pool.)
We don’t have the full story here. He might have been a hate mongering, paranoid bigot that scared everyone silly. A friend of mine once worked in a state office. Her boss kept a book of Mormon in his desk. No big deal. He also kept a loaded .45 caliber pistol in his desk. The admin. very carefully eased him out the door and no one got killed.
Need more details here, but quite likely he is a questionably sane, hostile, religious fanatic and no one wants to hire him on the chance that he might pull a Matthew Murray or Cho Seung or U. of Illinois.
No question that Scott Savage is a strange one, but the reactions of the OSU professors were totally inappropriate.
However the University resolved the issue in April 2006, finding him not guilty of any charges.
Then he quits.
Now he sues.
Scott Savage, editor of the Luddite, Quaker, and Amish magazine The Plain Reader, who reports that “nowadays I get around by horse and buggy and I like it a lot better”, is involved in a lawsuit mostly concerning e-mail exchanges.
I can’t wait to see if he and his attorneys arrive at court in buggies.
Doing some google stuff (with my admittedly limited google-fu), this incident happened in 2006. ADF is heavily involved–think of a Discovery Institute whose entire purpose is destroying homosexuality and gay life/cultures.
The Prof’s, based on the recommendation of a couple books, were way out of line (shit, I could file a complaint against that worthless book titled “The Bible” base on anti-gay issues). But, until I see a complaint talking about the “harassment” Savage suffered, I’m not willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt. He’s probably complaining about being called a bigot–too bad; he is one.
“my 28th wedding anniversary was just yesterday”
We all can’t have a trophy wife (TM) ya’know.
Congrats on 28 years!
Jaycubed, are we talking about the same Scott Savage? I am aware of the one you’re talking about. Last I heard, he was farming. I wasn’t aware of any connection with the OSU library. Can anyone confirm or deny how many Scott Savages we’re talking about here?
Raven, that shooting occurred at Northern Illinois University, not University Of Illinois.
“Jaycubed, are we talking about the same Scott Savage?
Posted by: Not that Louis”
It appears to be the same one, at least according to some of the right wing blogs that mention his books when discussing him.
Not that right wing blogs are especially good sources of information.
There are so many possible scenarios here.
One is that he was truly harassed for his views.
Another is that he is thin-skinned and when they called him an “intolerant fuck”, he went crying to Jeebus.
The radical religious folks often consider it harassment if you won’t let them save you, so I’m suspicious.
Even if his colleagues were burning him in effigy beneath his office window, his complaints are destined to be regarded with skepticism because of all the whining from his coreligionists every time someone has the temerity to tell them they can’t have their way all the time.
It’s The Jesus Freaks Who Cried Wolf.
How about THREE wrongs? WTF is “required reading” anyway? Is that some kind of affirmative action for authors who are too weak to interest college freshmen on their own? I understand Recommended Reading, and I understand a particular course syllabus which states that “the following books will be discussed” (so if you intend to pass this course maybe you might want to take a look at them), but some general “required reading” list, that I don’t understand. What structure is set up for the students to discuss this required reading? Do you have such a requirement at UMM, PZ?
As everyone else already said, happy anniversary!
In regards to this nut job, I think he’ll be thrown out on the basis of claiming that the university is a proponent of the “homosexual lifestyle.”
If the University threw him out simply because they disagreed with him, that’s one thing, but throwing him out on the basis of multiple reports of sexual harassment and a clear disagreement with the staff seems plausible.
FWIW – this subject does not turn up on a Lexis Nexus search. Tempest in a teapot?
People who are antagonistic enough that they prevent the group getting work done are a problem to the work environment, completely irrespective of their political views. Contrary to its purpose in the lawsuit, the fact that he hasn’t been able to get another job is evidence that he’s just impossible to work with and that OSU probably had fair reason to drive him out.
Okay, Jaycubed, thanks for checking. I heard him speak here once. I found him way too religious but basically benevolent. Maintaining my record as the world’s worst judge of character, I guess.
Isn’t OSU where that Bryan Leonard dissertation flap happened? How did that finally turn out, anyway? I didn’t find any resolution of it with a quick Google search.
A harassment complaint isn’t a lawsuit, it’s an intra-university report of misconduct – an HR complaint rather than any sort of civil action. Even so, I have to agree with PZ that such a complaint seems like an over-the-top response by Buckley and Jones, if – and that’s a big IF – proposing the book in question was ALL that Savage did on the committee.
Then again, would we consider a complaint of racist harassment in the workplace an over-the-top response to someone proposing Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the Freshman reading list? No weaseling: I’m not talking about recommending a scholarly edition providing context that explains the role of this package of lies to advance anti-Semitism, but Protocols recommended to the committee as straight-up suggested educational reading about “facts” students should know. Wouldn’t that book recommendation in and of itself constitute a deliberate racist attack on both the Jewish community in general and on any Jewish colleagues on the committee?
I think so. And the Kupelian’s hate-filled screed is the same kind of vile slander as the Protocols, with exactly the same agenda, only different targets. And in that light, I’m not so sure Buckley and Jones were out of line even if (still a big IF) recommending the book was Savage’s only “contribution” to the committee’s deliberations (which I sincerely doubt).
We are told over and over and OVER that if someone is doing something inappropriate (telling off-color jokes, PI watching porn in his office, PI harassing you to go to her church, whatever) that we need to file a complaint.
Universities want to handle this stuff internally. They do not want you going to FOX4 news with a team of lawyers after your crazy PI drags you to her church at gunpoint. If they end up dismissing some claims, so be it, but if you dont file the complaint and something bad happens their response is ‘So why didnt you bring this to our attention months ago?’
Those profs filing a complaint about his book recommendations was appropriate. It was not ‘a wrong’. It could have turned into a wrong if they kept their mouths shut.
Sorry, this has me angry for some reason.
PZ, say you had a Jewish colleague. Not a regular Jew, a crazy ass Hasidic Jew. In a closed conference, CAHJ made off color comments about how many women authors were on the list and womens ‘proper place’ in society. Would you file a complaint of sexism against him on behalf of his future female students? Or would you wait until they dropped courses or dropped out of school because of their treatment in his classes? Your uni might drop the charges after CAHJ says “Oh that comment was taken out of context I didnt really mean it!”, but would you speak up?
I know you would. I would be furious if something similar happened around my current professors and they didnt say anything to administration. ‘Speaking up’ appears to be exactly what those two profs did after Savages comments about homosexuals– He cannot be trusted to mentor homosexual (or liberal elitist whatever) students in a professional manner. You, on the other hand, might not like Christianity, but you would never do to a Christian student what these crazy asses would do to a homosexual student.
While rational people can occasionally act irrationally, the converse isnt true. Those professors acted appropriately.
I’d like to join the chorus of well-wishers on your anniversary. (And to express my sympathies to your wife (Just kidding, I’m sure you are a good hubby – even take out the dishes, and wash the garbage)).
Scott Savage – right wing extremist homophobe
Michael Savage – right wing extremist homophobe radio host
Any chance thy are evil twins?
OT: I happened to catch “Dancing With the Stars” tonight, just to watch Penn Gillette. He’s a great magician, and a staunch defender of skepticism, but….. as a dancer…. Don’t quit your day job, Penn…
ERV,
as a fairly outspoken homo, I dunno if filing a complaint based on the suggestion of a book is a worthwhile use of university resources. Let’s be honest, if it were, I could file a complaint–and a very valid one–against the Bible.
Now, the Bible is an odious piece of literature, legitimating genocide and the like based upon acceptance of one particular fairy tale. But, it’s historical fiction, and I wouldn’t consider filing a complaint based on someone proposing the Bible–and I’m probably at least as radical a homo as the Prof’s involved. Filing the complaint was just going overboard.
However, I would also feel quire comfortable saying, “that fuckwit is a homophobic bigot” to my colleagues on campus. If he’s suing for that, fuck him. I’ll take him on. Just like I’d challenge the nonsencsical academic freedom laws. Shit, I’d design a specific assignment to challenge the law!
But, proposing a book? C’mon.
Proposing several idiotic books? Motherfucker is fair game.
Well, they’re both savages…
Yes, and that is why Ohio State has nearly 40 Christian student organizations paid for by the university, pastors who come in graduate dorms to do movie screenings and find God’s message in “Bruce Almighty”, has evangelicals standing outside dorms, eateries try to spread the “word”… Yes. Achchoo.
thalarctos asked
It hasn’t “turned out.” Leonard’s advisor requested a postponement of his defense, and as far as I can tell it was never rescheduled. Leonard is still listed as a grad student at OSU.
Amusing, but unlikely. For Michael, “Savage” is a pseudonym. His name is actually Michael Alan Weiner.
Savage said the books considered by the committee were too liberal and suggested The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian.
Okay, my bullshit sense is tingling. Maybe everything happened just as he states but I doubt it. I worked with a Super-Christian a while back who taught me (by her own actions) that the definitions of words that we think of as commonly accepted have a completely different meaning to the hyper-religious. I think that by “suggested” he means demanded in a confrontational manner punctuated by irrational screaming rants and spittle flecked ejaculations of biblically sanctioned hate speech.
Having an unhinged rapture ready god botherer threaten my old boss with a sexual harrassment lawsuit over a ‘PG’ rated anime pic of a witch on a broom she found in a stack of papers on a desk that wasn’t hers makes me mistrust the words and motives of the religiously motivated. Maybe he was innocently minding his own business when he was brutally attacked by these college educated hoodlums – but I doubt it.
I’m curious, when di the word ‘liberal’ become such a swearword in the US? And more to the point, who managed to make it so? For a country that shouts so much about liberty, you’d think anyone would be embarrassed to stand up and say something was too liberal. And what’sso bad about that anyway? I’ve yet to hear a good explanation of what the Right don’t like about liberal thinking. It’s certainly a fantastic piece of Orwellian doublespeak
This is aggravating, I cannot find a full account of this story. From what I can tell, the professors overreacted by bringing the lawsuit against Scott Savage. It seems that having the committee rejects Savage’s recommended books should have been enough. As for the charges of homophobia; one must expect a certain percentage of a given population to be homophobic. It is when other people’s homophobia effects what one can do, not when they make their homophobia known.
As for Scott Savage, there is a lot made of the harassment he received after the lawsuit was dismissed but nothing about the nature of the harassment.
Most of the news about this case cause comes from sites like WorldNewsDaily and Newsmax. Hardly surprising, especially for WND. It “proved” David Kupelian’s point of the elites forcing homosexuality onto the masses. Also, WND published the book. Free promotion.
As a side note, one of the blogs I hit had something about a marriage between six men, three women, four children between the ages of two and ten, two dogs and a mule. And a demand for insurance for all or it is discrimination.
The two profs didnt file a ‘lawsuit’. They filed a complaint with the university. The same thing would and should have happened if he had made a disparaging remark about women or a joke about black people.
The uni investigated and did not find Savages comments worth firing him over. Nor would you probably get fired over making a bad joke– Its just something they needed to have on file for when all of the openly gay students started going to the Deans office with F’s in Savages classes– then they could say ‘Ah, we investigated this in the past. Savage didnt learn. Buh-Bye Savage.’
Even from ar-tards account of the events, the uni or the professors didnt do anything out of the ordinary or wrong!
Well, there’s also Dan Savage, who is openly gay and a sex-advice columnist (Savage Love) whose column would give most social conservatives apoplexy, so I don’t think you can make too much out of the name.
I would seriously question the accuracy of the Dispatch article. My experience with this kind of stuff is that these initial stories are rarely accurate or complete.
In my three years in school at OSU I also learned that the Dispatch is not terribly accurate (no matter what it’s banner claims).
I attended that branch during the 80s, actually worked there part-time for a while in the early-90s. It was a fairly civilized place. but, five miles outside Mansfield, it turned pretty rural. Republican, German, and Mennonite, and fairly dumb conservative.
I wish you wouldn’t refer to people like this as “wankers”, PZ. You’re giving wanking a bad name.
Oh, and Happy Anniversary.
A different affair in academia. You are being exploited.
“More importantly, the use of computers changed the organization of intellectual production and the conditions for the reproduction of intellectual labor power.
Computers created the need to use them and increased the ability of one person to do many things which, in “the old days,” would have been time consuming and would have required the labor of staff workers.
Faculty members were not given paid time off to retool themselves; instead, they spent a great deal of their theoretically “free” time learning new skills and reproducing their labor power at higher and higher levels of competence.
Through speedup, they increased their future productivity on a scale that would have been difficult to attain without having access to research funds, research assistants, and secretaries.”
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2008/3/17/3580712.html
“Faculty have become their own typists, secretaries, research assistants, computer experts (to some extent), and webmasters; they hold virtual office hours, teach virtual courses, and increasingly incorporate information technologies in the classroom.
The ease with which computers have become integrated in the processes of intellectual production and teaching masks the intermingling between professional and clerical work. ”
The Worst News Daily has their usual fair and balanced reprot on this but adds on relevant point:
“As WND reported previously, one of the homosexual professors, J.F. Buckley, in a March 9, 2006, e-mail, reacted this way to Savage’s recommendation of Kupelian’s book: “As a gay man I have long ago realized that the world is full of homophobic, hate-mongers who, of course, say that they are not. So I am not shocked, only deeply saddened – and THREATENED [sic] – that such mindless folks are on this great campus. … You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed.” ”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58629
So the professors who filed the harassment suit were themselves gay.
so add to the Protocols of Zion analogy that it’s Jews who are beign forced to sit through harangues in defence of the Protocols.
The Wholly None: WTF is “required reading” anyway? Is that some kind of affirmative action for authors who are too weak to interest college freshmen on their own?
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the required reading program is a program that ‘requires’ incoming freshmen and transfer students to read a book and participate in a discussion session before the fall semester starts. I put required in quotes because when I participated there were no enforcement mechanisms and I haven’t heard of any implimented. Their stated goal is “to introduce you to the intellectual life of Carolina. Expected of all new undergraduate students (first year and transfer), it involves reading an assigned book over the summer, and participating in a two-hour discussion with select faculty and staff members. The goals of the program are to enhance students’ participation in the intellectual life of the campus through stimulating discussion and critical thinking around a current topic, to enhance a sense of community between students, faculty and staff, and to provide a common experience for incoming students. Some find they enjoy sharing the reading with members of their family during the summer.”
Also, UNC-CH has had problems with their required reading program after they assigned the book Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations by Michael Anthony Sells in 2002. Their pick of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich in 2003 also pissed people off.
What structure is set up for the students to discuss this required reading?
As said above, at UNC-CH there are 2 hour discussion sessions with either a faculty member or an administrator.
Does that answer your questions?
This might be the filing right here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ohsdce/case_no-2:2008cv00235/case_id-121464/
But you have to have a PACER account to read it.
WND has some excerpts from the lawsuit:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54606
According to WND it’s a defamation lawsuit, and..
I thought The Columbus Dispatch said that Savage said he was forced to resign? Who knows. I dunno.
Even reading the WND article that 386sx provided it is hard to see where there is a cause of action.
If I don’t see it from the WND article, then I suspect that a court won’t either once the discovery is complete. On the other hand this guy would have been able to hammer those he disagrees and make people think twice before entering into intense and free debate with another reactionary.
And no what the other professors did was not the same as filing a law suit. That was apparently handled within the school.
Happy anniversary to you and your wife, PZ.
Also, the “independent thinking” tag is a great idea.
Eric Paulsen # 48
Thank you so very much for your post. It brought back memories of SuperChristers leafing through others’ desks and being offended with what they ‘discovered’. ;)
I’ve done a little digging, and honestly can’t find where they were “discriminatory.” The letter sent out from the committee to other faculty members and their replies condemn the book and not his suggesting of the book, but his continued arguing that the book was valid and that the two homosexual faculty members were “evil.”
I don’t know what the full content of his emails were, for some “strange” reason Townhall.com didn’t post those emails. But the reference to them suggested that he became more than a bit abusive in his support of his “tome of knowledge.”
Interestingly the only reports that are actively supporting him are uber-conservative ones. World-Nut-Daily, Townhall, FrontPageMagazine, a couple of conservative librarian blogs, etc. Even then there isn’t any real evidence of discrimination against him. The University appears to have done what it was required to do, investigate a complain of harassment, and found in favor of him. Beyond that I don’t see what the university or what the faculty did, I don’t see any particulars, any examples, any actual evidence.
The con screed is that it was all about his suggestion of “a book” but the email quoted at townhall’com suggests he went way beyond suggesting a book:
When I raised this objection with Scott, he proceeded to impugn both my credibility as well as that of the entire OSU-Mansfield faculty in determining the basic standards of scholarly integrity. He also sent copies of these email exchanges (again, which took place among an ad-hoc group under the auspices of the Executive Committee through Donna Hight) to a right-wing watchdog group (http://www.thefire.org/) not connected with OSU. These two things together suggest an intolerance for diversity that is enmeshed with deep-seeded disrespect for the university, its faculty, and for professional standards of scholarship–and this from the Head of Reference and Library Instruction.
The fact that Scott continues to endorse a book that calls me and Jim and other gay and lesbian people “evil,” and that he justifies this book on grounds that are ludicrous by scholarly standards, says to me this is about homophobia–that the hatred (“evil”) and irrationality (anti-scholarly defense) this term implies are clearly operative here. This kind of defense would be unacceptable in support of a book that denied the Holocaust or that argued that African-Americans were inherently biologically inferior to other people. This is a matter of professional standards and competence, and it is also a matter of harassment–of creating a hostile work environment insofar as part of our jobs (mine and Jim’s, but also all the faculty’s) is to use the library for both research and teaching.
The email also suggests that Scott, not the objecting professors, took the dispute outside of the committee and in fact beyond the campus by going to a “right-wing watchdog group.”
This one smells more than a bit fishy.
If, just for agrument, “The God Delusion” or “The End of Faith” were deemed worthy , would “The Irrational Atheist” be acceptable as well?
Salt #66:
Sure.
Anyone can claim harassment. But can he prove he was harassed? Or was it he getting his expressed views rebutted?
If I run out and say Bush if a War Criminal and should be Impeached, sent to The Hague and tried for his crimes, then executed I’ve made a declaration of position. If someone re-butts my declaration of position, that’s not harassment. Even if it hurts my feelings.
Now, if this continues on for a long-period of time. And I’ve asked them to stop. And I haven’t continued to express that political opinion, eventually that becomes harassment. But I’d have to show that this person had a pattern of continued engagement over-time and that it was known to be vexatious commentary that exceeded the bounds of freedom of expression and, since this is a University, academic freedom.
Tough row to hoe. Especially for someone whose put themselves out there with their conduct.
Personally, I think it’s just the “professional Christian victim” crap rearing its ugly head, once again.
I had that happen with a house-cleaner that came in once a week. Apparently she didn’t like my choice of computer games at the time: Diablo. And I used to leave my Dungeons and Dragons stuff out. But it’s not like my house was full of porn, gay, perverted or otherwise, and sex toys. I just played DnD and Diablo.
But she “prayed about it” and decided she could no longer clean our den of iniquity. Because the “SuperChristians” are so common in the home cleaning industry I haven’t had a housekeeper since. I’d rather piss-away four-hours a week, save the money, than take the change to go through that crap again.
#66/67
Comparing the God delusion to the Irrational Atheist is a bit of a stretch. One is written by a scholar with a cogent argument the other by a flake with daddy’s bank account.
Now if you want to throw in Tertullian, Aquinas, or Augustine I for that idea. More people should read City of God, it’s dusty as a Zion NP trail, but like that trail lot’s of interesting things on the side.
However, I think Ehrman would be more accessible to today’s student.
OK, I went and fetched the complaint, and exhibits, here.
First, he was upset that the First Year Reading Committee recommended books by Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, and Jimmy Carter. So he suggested his own, including “The Marketing of Evil,” as others have mentioned. He claims he had not read the book when he suggested it.
A couple of openly gay professors felt this particular suggestion constituted sexual harassment, so they filed a complaint. The University went through the details of investigating the complaint, and found the harassment against Savage unfounded. Meanwhile, Savage was pissed off and complaining that the complaint should not even have been investigated (he may have a point, here, but the University felt it had an obligation to fully investigate).
Meanwhile, a bunch of emails circulated in all directions. For some reason, despite all the other exhibits, none of these emails are included in the complaint. It’s not clear just who wrote what.
The University duly investigated Savage’s complaint, and exonerated him. It also explained to the professors how it wasn’t harassment, and suggested how to handle such matters in an adult fashion.
Savage was not satisfied, so the University had to send him a second letter noting that a “failure to prove a claim of sexual harassment is not equivalent to a false allegation.”
Savage then took a sabbatical, and a year later, resigned (to those wondering about his being a farmer, his letterhead says “Arbor Hill Heirloom Organics.”). The lawsuit followed.
He claims “First Amendment Retaliation” for the reaction to his suggesting the book. As far as I can tell, he brought it on himself. The University did a by-the-book investigation of the harassment allegations, found no violation, and suggested remedies. Savage also does not appear unsoiled since he spread the internal emails far and wide (from what I can tell). He also complains of an overbroad harassment policy (I know of no legal remedy for this) among other things.
Also, something that seems pretty much unprecedented to me, a large proportion of the judges in the court have recused themselves, and recommend the case be moved outside the Southern District of Ohio.
PZ, I like people who have ethical principles that they can independently of who they do and don’t approve of.
It’s a large part of what I like about the ACLU (though in their case it’s legal principles mostly).
It doesn’t look to me like Savage ought to have been harassed out of his job for his opinions, however abhorrent they are in my view.
Incidentally, it appears I’m not the only one who had a mental association here with Michael Savage, a virulently anti-gay radio host from San Francisco who has published books pushing homeopathy.
First, where is the evidence, or even any plausible and circumstantial allegations, of sexual harassment? This seems like one more attempt to stretch the concept of sexual harassment far beyond its ordinary and original meaning.
That said, if he was indeed given such a hard time by colleagues that he was driven out, it’s a constructive dismissal from employment (or whatever the equivalent terminology is in US employment law). He just might have a case, and if so I don’t really think it matters if he’s stupid or ideologically driven or plain bad.
On the other hand, I’m sceptical. It would be very interesting to dig into the detail and find out what really happened here.
I agree that the monogamist, religionist, pro-natalist comments are irrelevant to the merits of his case … as well as being just plain puke-making.
Hadn’t read as far as Ahcua’s post when I made mine. Sounds like he has a very weak case.
I will say this, though. It sounds as if the original sexual harassment claim made against this guy was unmerited, abusive, and malicious. There really needs to be a way to dismiss such claims quickly and to take swift action against people who bring them. The idiots who tried to prove a point by bringing a sexual harassment claim against him abused their position and should have had their tenure revoked. To that extent he has a point.
Russell Blackford: Now who’s overreacting? Try reading the entire thread. As has already been discussed, it wasn’t a sexual harassment lawsuit or anything so extreme, it was an intra-university complaint of harassment based on sexual orientation. It wasn’t a malicious or outrageous complaint, since it was based on a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Savage’s attitudes, his actions, and the contents of the homophobic, hate-mongering hackery he suggested as legitimate and appropriate academic reading material for students. (If it’s true, as one story suggests, that Savage recommended the book without actually being all that familiar with its contents, so much the worse: He’s a reference librarian, and if he didn’t even understand the contents of a book he’d recommended that every freshman read, he acted unprofessionally to the point of incompetence – all in the name of right wing nutjobbery and homophobia.)
Further, it is neither outrageous nor incomprehensible that two gay faculty members on the committee interpreted Savage’s book suggestion as harassment aimed at them based on their sexual orientation, any more than it would be for Jewish faculty to feel harassed by the suggestion of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or black faculty to feel harassed by the suggestion of a white supremacist tract. Maybe they overreacted to such a minor provocation, but that’s a matter of interpretation, not of clear unambiguous facts: For you to suggest that they should be fired for it is a ridiculous overreaction. Further, when the OSU staff responsible for handling the complaint investigated and cleared Savage – which should have satisfied him and would have satisfied any reasonable person – all the evidence suggests that HE was the one who went ballistic and behaved unprofessionally.
I wrote about the Savage case as it was going on in ’06. Evidence shows that WorldNetDaily and the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Savage at the time, were in cahoots to promote each other and Kupelian’s book:
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/wndalliance.html
…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.
So, uh, those of us who don’t particularly like children are Teh Ebyl?
I’ve read over the evidence from Ahcua’s post, but i can’t access the exact claim from within the university.
However. It wasn’t a sexual harassment claim, it was a claim of harassment based on sexual orientation, and everyone has a right to file those claims. Once a claim like that has been filed, the university is legally obligated to investigate it – and, if I understand correctly, it was not the book they were filing the claim in response to, it was Savage’s characterization of them as “evil” etc.
Anyway. Just sayin’, as a gay woman in a very straight work-place, the right to file a harassment claim is crucial, and the only person who gets to decide when it’s appropriate is the victim him/herself.
Also – I would love to know why so many judges have recused themselves. Are we missing something?