Librarian Charged With "Sexual Harassment" For Recommending Conservative Books COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Officials at the Ohio State University are investigating an OSU Mansfield librarian for "sexual harassment" after he recommended four conservative books for a freshman reading program. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has demanded that OSU cease its frivolous investigation, yet the university is pressing forward, claiming that it takes the charges "seriously." "Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADF's Center for Academic Freedom. "It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university." Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield's First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver. Savage was put under "investigation" by OSU's Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel "unsafe." The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges. On March 28, ADF sent OSU officials a letter informing them of Savage's constitutional rights. A copy of the letter can be read at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf. The university so far has declined to stop the investigation, saying in its response that it takes "any allegation of sexual harassment seriously." "The OSU Mansfield faculty is attempting to label a librarian as a 'sexual harasser' because they disagree with his book suggestions," said French. "It is astonishing that an entire faculty would vote to launch a sexual harassment investigation because a librarian offered book suggestions in a committee whose purpose was to solicit such suggestions." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks to me like the makings of ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE BOOK BURNING instigated by a few of the "educated and enlightened" professors. Sad and typical . . .
You certainly can't expect AAA, for Sen. Santorum (nice mention of him by Tony Soprano last Sunday) to be held in the same intellectual regard as Maria Shriver. Oh my.
The intellectual rape of Scott Savage Apr 18, 2006 by Mike S. Adams Dear Professor Phelps: Could you tell me whether you actually sent the following email to Professor JF Buckley (buckley.1@osu.edu) as well as the entire faculty of OSU-Mansfield (all@mansfield.ohio-state.edu)?: How ludicrous to propose that every freshman should read a screed like The Marketing of Evil in order to introduce them to... the world of higher learning! Ohio State policy, in particular the "Diversity Action Plan" (2000), includes "different sexual orientations" under the definition of "diversity" to which the institution is committed. It obliges us to foster a "campus culture of inclusion that creates a learning environment essential for educating students who will work and live in an increasingly diverse culture." (http://www.osu.edu/diversityplan/june_30.php) As employees of this university we ought to understand that we have a professional obligation to respect this institutional mission. I agree wholeheartedly with Jim that a university library -- and our first-year book selection -- should be guided by the principles of enlightenment rather than ignorance, science as opposed to obscurantism, tolerance instead of bigotry, intellect in place of stupidity, and openness rather than small-mindedness. Make no mistake, Jim: You are welcome at this university. It is bigotry that is unwelcome. Christopher Phelps Department of History Thanks for your help, Mike S. Adams Dear Professor Hamlin: Could you please explain your following email? I donât understand how you could be so vocal on the issue of tolerance yet so unwilling to allow a librarian to recommend books you donât like? Am I to infer from your message that you believe a book-burning is in order? Fr: hamlin.22@osu.edu To: phelps.51@osu.edu Cc: all@mansfield.ohio-state.edu Chris puts the matter very well, and he certainly speaks for me and others as well, I'm sure. Indeed, with its CARE forums, guest lectures, extracurricular cultural events, and various on campus and outreach programs, I think that OSU-Mansfield is increasingly developing a reputation as a [sic] institution committed to championing diversity of all kinds. The one thing "diversity" does not include is intolerance. Hannibal Dear Professor Phelps: I would like to get you to comment on JF Buckleyâs reference to religious persecution in the following email. Isnât that what you are doing to Scott Savage? Thanks again. Mike S. Adams From: buckley.1@osu.edu To: phelps.51@osu.edu Chris and Hannibal, Many, many thanks to your intellect and courage. I was the first one to take this mess public, even though not all on campus had a clear image of the beginning of it all. It only mattered that I call attention to the denigration of scholars like Norman annd [sic] Terri who are devoted to literary, cultural, and intellectual circumspection. Any such discussion can only occur OUT OF THE CLOSET, where too many of us are discussing it. The, to me reprenhesible [sic] attitudes and actions of our librarians can only be critiqued with a public outcry based in the academic belief that all attitudes and beliefs are open to discussion--if all those discussing do so with honesty, a willingness to be found in error, and with full openness. No one can seriously believe that the "book" that was put forth for first-year students was any sort ofan [sic] effort to foster dialogue. There are, as any one who ever actually read a book might know, plenty of vetted opinions on all sides of most any issue we can imagine. Again, thanks Chris and Hanniba [sic] for going public. There is nothing here we can do but BE PUBLIC, and join in a unanimous censure of the kind of intellectual myopia that will kill OSU-M. In other words, I am for being out of the closet that surrounds bigotry, sexism, racism, religious persecution, zenophobia [sic], ageism, and sexuality. jim Hello Professor Jones: Mike Adams, here. I have a question. What do you call a bunch of people who pin a man down and refuse to let him up until he abandons his principles and adopts theirs? What do you call those who force their beliefs upon others without their consent and threaten to destroy them if they resist? Would this be enough of an infringement upon the dignitary interest of a human to warrant the label of intellectual rape? Think about it as you read the following words. After all, you wrote them. From: jones.2376@osu.edu To: faculty@mansfield.ohio-state.edu Dear colleagues, As you may have heard, last Thursday I had a deeply disturbing email exchange with Scott Savage, the Head of Reference and Library Instruction. I want to tell you about it and give the full transcript of what occurred so that you may determine for yourselves the nature and severity of the problem (it was entirely via email, so that transcript is attached as a MS Word document, with the emails between me and the library staff arranged in chronological order beginning at the top). To provide a brief background, these emails were exchanged among a group of faculty and staff charged with choosing a book for our first-year students to read as part of their introduction to college. With the approval of the Executive Committee, Donna Hight put together a small ad-hoc group of us to perform this task. We were all invited to suggest book titles for the group's consideration. On Wednesday 3/8, Scott sent some suggestions that included a book called The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian (the attached email transcript begins with an excerpt from that email of his, with the description he offered of this book; I excerpted that portion of his email, but no other email has been altered). When I investigated the book, it became clear that, while it appeared to be opposed to the spirit of OSU's diversity commitment, still more troubling was that its anti-gay argument rested on at least some claims (claims made in the publisher's description, quoted in the transcript) that do not meet basic standards of scholarly integrity. 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. Evie and Ted are investigating this matter with all appropriate gravity and diligence. I have consulted throughout the last few days with many of my senior colleagues among you. Those I consulted recognized, to a person, that this matter requires a serious response and that this issue affects us all. It was suggested by several of you that everyone should therefore be apprised as to the specifics of the exchange. Some of my senior colleagues intend to raise this issue in Monday's Faculty Assembly, and we are all interested in the entire faculty's therefore being sufficiently informed about the precise nature of the problem. That is the reason for this email. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Norman
I guess some professors feel that students should not be allowed to see more than one side of the coin and decide for themselves on what to believe. I guess the issue is that the complaining profs feel that they have a monopoly on intellectual thought and cannot have the subjects thinking different than them. This is not jsut an issue at OSU, it is everywhere. The fucking PC/liberal thought police are out of control. They are even making very strong inroads in the "red states".
A liberals biggest fear is that people will discover what conservatives really think. Remember when Newt Gingritch was stopped by congress from publishing his book? The libs were publishing their own books like crazy but they went to great lengths to kill his book deal. So much for "open minded liberalism", it's not. Have you ever seen a conservative get to finish a sentence on a TV show?? I had to shut the thing down because I could not stand all those bullshit liberals butting in on conservatives. Most of them have been open minded for so long they should close for repairs.
You would be wrong to think that. Conservatives have been hiding what they really think? If what they really think is better than what I'm hearing, then I definitely want to hear it. If it's worse then, well, it can't be any worse than "kill 'em all", so that's not plausible. Better rethink this one.