Comments on: Censorship and the Internet

By: C. Bond

C. Bond — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:48:58 +0000

As a faculty member at not only IU, but the Kelley School of Business along (I’m sorry to say) with Rasmusen, and as a Libertarian, I will say this. He has every right to put up whatever he wants and make an ass of himself (and if his is a “conservative opinion” then woe to the conservatives). However, what was not covered well was the fact that he also went after Hindus—and not only are there a great many students from India, but Rasmusen also has a lot of colleagues who fall into that category. I fail to see what possible motivation he might have had for this, other than attention or narcissism. But his motivations aren’t relevant. He has, by doing this, called into serious question his own objectivity. It is now the university’s responsibility to scrutinize every grade he gives and ensure that despite his beliefs, they do not pollute his professional duties.

By: Bruce Garrett

Bruce Garrett — Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:51:12 +0000

And you thought liberals were responsible for the declining standards of American higher education. Here’s a business professor saying that homosexuals shouldn’t be teachers because they’d molest students, except he doesn’t have any evidence that they’d be more likely to molest students, and what is more, even if he couldn’t find any such evidence, that wouldn’t mean it wasn’t true. Swell. Really swell. I have a business plan I’d like you to invest in. I don’t have any evidence that my product has a market. Actually, I haven’t really tried to figure out whether or not my product has a market. But even if I do the research, and I still can’t find any evidence that my product has a market, that doesn’t mean my product doesn’t have a market. Now fork over some dough. Makes you want to look the jackass that put this crackpot’s diploma in his hands in the eye and ask them what the hell they were thinking. It isn’t just the Gay and Lesbian students of this institution that have to worry about what this guy is teaching. The business students with his name in their transcripts need to be a little nervous too I would think. Oh…and the dweebs that recommended this guy for a job. I agree that restrictions on the use of computer resources need to be enforced uniformly. But it’s staringly obvious that this nutcase is way over the line with regards to the policy I have to assume he signed, before he got his hands on an account. Yet here he is treating the rules as if they don’t apply to him. Can’t you just picture this man lecturing students on business ethics? I sure can. So let’s review: His analytical skills stink. He not only cannot seem to distinguish between fact and belief, he seems to think it doesn’t matter which is which. His sense of personal ethics and morality is shiftless. He demeans and degrades some students at his institution, and sets a bad example for all of them. And he’s a degreed university professor. Nice. Next time you hear a conservative bellyaching that liberals have ruined higher education in America, laugh in their face.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:34:21 +0000

Yet again the left overlooks principle in the urge to suppress speech it doesn’t like. But John Ashcroft is the one we should really be afraid of…

By: john

john — Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:04:08 +0000

Ah, the only reasonable standard for policy: what is easiest. by novalis In regards to your reply I think you failed to realize the importance of “what is easiest” and how it applies to life. For example, if your hungry you run to Micky D’s and get supersized #3 (or that tasty McRib,mmmmm!) instead of tearing up your back yard and creating a replication of Old Mac’s farm itself. Now if you apply this example to everything around and you being to realize that your life is nothing but “what is easiest”. I would guess you either own a home or rent a home/apartment. Did you build said home or apartment? More than likely, no. Why do you buy or rent a home/apartment? Because it is far “easier” to do than build it yourself. Now if you look to our legal system it is the same standard policy but with a few minor changes. Most people obey laws because they feel that it is far easier to live in a home/apartment much like you and I than to live in “jail”. A “jail” is not a easy place to live your life. In some circumstances it is far easier for our legal system to impose a monetary fine on an individual or organization because the punishment is more fit or because the lawbreaker can’t really fit into a jail. It would be really hard to put IU in jail. This “easiest” thing is kind of like the “Church of the SubGenius” only tweaked a bit, no Bob to worship, and on a grander scale. Now understanding all of this leaves us with one question. Why would IU face one possible lawsuit as opposed to many possible lawsuits? Because it is easier. And for Beaker, Indiana University hosts a bondage, discipline and sado-masochism site because 1) Indiana University has studied sexual behavior in human being for over fifty years and this is some people’s sexual behavior. This course of study even has it own institute called the Kinsey Institute which has published a report called the Kinsey Report explaining all of its findings. If you don’t want to read the book wait for the movie starring Liam Nielson about Dr. Kinsey’s life. I’m serious. They are filming it now. 2). The BDSM (or whatever it is called) doesn’t post web blogs on the IU webserver saying that people who don’t take a whip to their ass shouldn’t be teacher or doctor because those people wouldn’t allow kids to properly express their sexuality. I haven’t checked their personal pages but I am pretty assured that they don’t do this.

By: raj

raj — Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:58:48 +0000

Joshua Claybourn bloviates “As a recent graduate of Indiana University, I can assure you that there is indeed an uneven enforcement of such rules. The University regularly discriminates against conservative viewpoints and not others. Indeed, novels have been written on the subject” I’m sure that novels have been written on the subject. But it is rarely the case that any server removes material unless someone complains about it. Your assertion that there is an uneven enforcement of “the rules” is somewhat lame unless you can provide at least a little evidence that there has been an even numbers of complaints. Typical whining from conservatives. In other words, prove it.

By: raj

raj — Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:52:31 +0000

Poor Garfield. It apparently does not understand that hosting of web sites on university servers of web sites related to university recognized organizations is not in any way related to hosting of web pages on which employees bloviate over issues that may not be related to their academic bloviating. Perhaps shortly Garfield will be opining that the university should allow its servers to host pages from Holocaust-denying philosophy professors, from creationist history professors, or from racist physics professors, regarding, of course, their Holocaust, creationism or racism. (Regarding racist physics professors, I am referring of course to William Shockley—a brilliant physicist, but a dumb racist). Query why the university should allow its servers to be used for any bloviating that its employees may want to engage in. At no cost to them, of course.

By: garfield

garfield — Sun, 07 Sep 2003 00:28:23 +0000

Indiana University does, indeed, host other "dumb" or radical websites on its servers. It seems to me that if the University would permit the GLBT office; OUT, the GLBT Student Union; the Christian Student Fellowship; the Citizens' Alliance for the Legalization of Marijuana; the College Democrats; the College Republicans; and Headspace (a BDSM organization); to have webspace on a personal server, I can't really find that it is limiting the use of its webspace to university-related activities.

By: Breaker

Breaker — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 23:59:55 +0000

My comments are over here.

By: raj

raj — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:58:33 +0000

One other issue regarding Rasmussen. Rasmussen’s obvious anti-gay bigotry clearly raises the issue of whether any out gay student would really believe that he or she would get a fair grade from him.

By: Dan the Man

Dan the Man — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:15:05 +0000

>One might seriously ask whether the University also removed other >material with content that was as dumb as Rasmussen’s from its >server. Since no one has yet given even one example that IU has one thing on its website which is as dumb as what Rasmussen had that’s a pretty low threshold. >That might go to the question of whether the university was applying >its policy in a content neutral manner. Of course, other professors >might not be so dumb as to post such idiotic content on university >servers. Change “other professors” to “students or other professors” and it would still be true.

By: raj

raj — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:56:51 +0000

I am somewhat familiar with Rasmussen’s comment, at least in part because it was discussed on Iain Murray’s blog a few days ago. I know nothing about Rasmussen, but the fact is that he should have been embarrassed about the post. He admitted that he had no evidence for his conclusion. He stated “Why do I believe it, then? I actually think that it’s in the category of “what everyone knows”, a category useful as a starting point for discussions if everybody really does believe it” (he moved his blog to http://www.geocities.com/erasmusen/log1.htm) Accordingly, it is clear that his conclusion was based just on his anti-gay bigotry. “What everyone knows”? That is supposed to be evidence? Frankly, he should be embarrassed by that. As far as I’m concerned, the fact that he is apparently not embarrassed puts his academic credentials—such as they might be—in great question. That said, a couple of points. First, as is not uncommon, Volokh overstates the case. Government can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech, as long as the restrictions are content-neutral. I could not determine from Rasmussen’s site on the university servers whether his academic credentials suggested that he was supposed to have any expertise in connection with gay issues or whether his teaching had anything related to gay issues. (Frankly, I found it odd that I couldn’t find out anything about his academic credentials.) Based on that, it is far from clear that Rasmussen’s comment that it comported with the University’s rules, so they were well within their rights to have his post removed. As I noted above, he moved it to a private server. One might seriously ask whether the University also removed other material with content that was as dumb as Rasmussen’s from its server. That might go to the question of whether the university was applying its policy in a content neutral manner. Of course, other professors might not be so dumb as to post such idiotic content on university servers.

By: novalis

novalis — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:01:56 +0000

It would be far easier for IU to ask him to remove the webblog and face one legal action then multiple legal actions year after year to allow Professor Rasmusen to speak his mind. Ah, the only reasonable standard for policy: what is easiest.

By: john

john — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 07:28:13 +0000

As a fellow IU alumnus I would have to disagree with Joshua. I feel that no such political stance has been taken by IU to single out conservates/liberals in this or any other case. Politics should bear no place in this situation. I think that the school is against possible pending legal action and not against a individual’s conservative thought. I believe in Prof. Rasmusen’s right to free speech but I disagree with his use of the IU’s resources to publicly voice his opinion as a representative of the school. I feel that the school has a right to limit and control personal uses of it webservers in order to protect itself from any serious future legal action. Could you imagine if it did not do this? IU’s potential to be sued by a myriad number of students, staff, and parents year after year who feel that they have received a poor treatment from a teacher who is openly critical of gay people would be staggering. It would be far easier for IU to ask him to remove the webblog and face one legal action then multiple legal actions year after year to allow Professor Rasmusen to speak his mind. As for my mind, I think the professor suffers from severe xenophobia and should see people for what they are. Just people.

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 06:06:54 +0000

No, eric, all of that matters. See Rosenberger v. University of Virginia and Widmar v. Vincent.

By: eric

eric — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 04:12:52 +0000

heh. IU can do what it wants with its servers. You can bet that if Rasmussen had put something up like “Send all the niggers back to Africa” it would have been yanked as soon as somebody noticed it. Whether or not IU’s rules get enforced consistently doesn’t matter either.