Singaporean Li-ann Thio, appointed visiting professor at NYU law school for the fall, has canceled.
Her record of fervent and often vulgar statements against gay rights generated enormous controversy on campus, and she finally declared herself so offended by what people were saying about her that she decided to stay home.
Inside Higher Education has both a well-presented summary of the situation and a terrific comment thread.
In an extraordinarily forthcoming and thoughtful comment, the dean of NYU’s law school asks the crucial question:
Should an academic opposed to the recognition of certain important human rights be allowed to teach a human rights course?
UD thinks the answer must be, in some circumstances, yes.
Partly this is because reasonable people can argue about what a human right is, and, once we’ve decided that, what an important human right is, and what its implications are (does important mean basic? universal? important to the majority of people asked to vote or comment on a certain right? Gun rights advocates – a majority of Americans – will argue that guns provide a basic right to self-defense, etc.). Recall that Peter Singer’s notion of human rights is pretty eccentric, and offensive to many, and he’s teaching at Princeton.
I answer yes to the question because I can imagine a brilliant, non-vulgar mind (Singer might be an example) with non-standard views on human rights — views that, while offensive to a lot of people, might be defended in usefully provocative ways.
Thio defends her views with brio, but without intellectual respectability. She’s simply prejudiced, and it shows.