Kevin Rector, a student at the University of Maryland, writes in an op-ed
about the bigotry of a university physics department staff member, Bill
Norwood, who sent out a mass e-mail to students and faculty who had listed themselves in an ad as "allies" of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. Rector ably disputes Norwood’s prejudices, up to a point. He says:
Norwood
argued students wishing to "dissociate themselves from AIDS-connected
identities" would feel discriminated against because of this list [of allies]. He
also claimed support for the LGBT community would deprecate the use of
"ex-gay" programs. This is an aggressive and narrow-minded message, no
matter what language. The AIDS epidemic is not limited to gay
populations, and claiming that to escape an AIDS-connected identity one
must separate himself or herself from the LGBT community here on the
campus only isolates and hurts LGBT students.My identity is not determined by my sexual preference, nor should I
be associated with AIDS because I am gay. To identify yourself as part
of the LGBT community or alliance is not to assume an "AIDS-connected
identity," but Norwood’s language implies this.When you are gay, finding yourself can sometimes be difficult.
Society says being gay is incorrect while your heart and mind tell you
otherwise. Out of this societal impression come "ex-gay" programs –
programs that look at homosexuality as something that can or cannot be
pursued.Norwood wrote that the LGBT organization showed a "lack of
objectivity regarding whether individuals experiencing varying degrees
of same-sex attraction should pursue straight or gay lifestyles."Being gay is not a game of tag. You are not gay if you pursue the
lifestyle and straight if you do not. Being gay is an internal
experience first. In suggesting that "ex-gay" programs can help people
get rid of same-sex attraction, Norwood suggests being gay is incorrect.
Norwood, the antigay staffer, promotes the religious-right myth that gay and exgay people cannot co-exist. While the student, Rector, defends Norwood’s freedom of speech up to a point, he also seems to reinforce the myth when he suggests it is inappropriate for antigay faculty to express their views via university e-mail.
>While the student, Rector, defends Norwood’s freedom of speech up to a point, he also seems to reinforce the myth when he suggests it is inappropriate for antigay faculty to express their views via university e-mail.
I believe you misunderstand the “freedom of speech” issue. You didn’t quote the relevant portion of the op-ed piece:
>He also has a responsibility to understand the elaborate e-mail system is not to be used to disseminate his personal opinions.
We don’t know what the University guidelines are for use of the university email system. If the op-ed piece correctly describes the guidelines, then the author is correct. That doesn’t infringe on the staffer’s freedom of speech. He could very well have used an email account that was not provided by the university to disseminate his views.
Actually, I disagree with the op-ed author when he says
>I would be a hypocrite if I were to say Norwood is not entitled to his opinion. However, as a university staff member, he has a responsibility to avoid making statements which alienate students.
It isn’t clear what Norwood’s position is in the physics department. If he is faculty, quite frankly, I believe that it is useful to let students know what faculty members’ positions are on gay & lesbian matters. Then they, presumably would be able to assess whether they might be discriminated against by the various faculty members based on their (the faculty members’) public pronouncements.
Sounds like an excellent reason to not attend that school.
Nick, for which reason — political correctness or loose-cannon faculty?
It doesn’t sound to me as though the university has taken action against either side.
“lack of objectivity regarding whether individuals experiencing varying degrees of same-sex attraction should pursue straight or gay lifestyles.”
LOL he’s one to talk about objectivity after correlating gays to “AIDS-connected identities.”
By all I means, I support his freedom of speech …just as much as I support the faculty administration of firing him for his unprofessional behaviour on campus.
https://www.physics.umd.edu/dir/N.html#NorwoodBillyD
I would not suggest firing Norwood over this. Reprimanding him, perhaps, if he used the university email system for purposes that would not be permitted under university guidelines, but it strikes me as a bit much to fire someone over what might be a first infraction.
I dunno, Raj. What if he made some similarly over-the-line comment on racial grounds?
He’d be outathere!
Why no less for slamming us?
Of course the guy should be fired. Since when is it OK to use a public university’s email to send hate mail? I agree with Sharon- if this were discriminatin based on race, he’d be fired on the spot. The fact that he’s still working at the school shows you how far we have yet to go…
Sharon, maybe I’m a bit naive, but it just may be possible that the guy can be educated. If so, why alienate the guy for what may be a first infraction? You know as well as I do that, if he were to be fired over this, he will blame gays and lesbians for it.
On the other hand, if this is part of a pattern, as far as I’m concerned, get rid of him. We don’t know whether or not it is, though.
It strikes me that matters of race are a little different in this context, since it has been known for a far longer time what one can and cannot say in public regarding race–regardless of one’s personal opinion–than what one can and cannot say regarding sexual orientation.
Raj:
Not wanting to be combative, but “educated?” Lopping all GLBT folks as “AIDS-connected identities?” If that’s an education, then it is fairly Goebbel-esque. In other words, that peculiar word-choice is codespeak, and it is deliberately chosen.
Got no problem with his 1st ammendment rights to speak offensively– but, that’s not really the issue: he used an official university e-mail system to promulgate hate-speech. That’s over the line. He should have known better. TOSS!
If he wants to teach at Liberty U or Bob Jones, he may find more fertile minds for his compost, and a friendly e-mail policy.
As the husband and nrother of two people that work at UMd, both of whom received the email, I would like to point out that Norwood’s email did not go out in a vaccuum. The university knew he was going to send it out, had looked at the ramifications of taking action, and felt that it was best for recipients to just ignore the email. There was an effort to alert people ahead of time that they would be getting the email and that they should just disregard it. Both my husband and my brother said that the email was not really worth the effort or bother to do anything but chuck it in the recycle bin.
That said, however, I have to wonder about a person who would use a newspaper article to cull names for such a thing. The article in question is a centerfold that lists those who voluntarily make their sexuality public, as well as those who are straight but gay-positive. Norwood’s use of the article is no less tacky than using the obituaries to sell cemetery space in one’s back yard.
A small aside: Norwood is not a professor. He is a physical science tech.
SharonB | November 22, 2004 02:13 PM
>Not wanting to be combative, but “educated?”
Perhaps I’m more optimistic about people than some. On the other hand, Norwood’s screed shows a sophistication–of language, not thought–that suggests that he might not be as educable as one might hope.
>Got no problem with his 1st ammendment rights to speak offensively– but, that’s not really the issue: he used an official university e-mail system to promulgate hate-speech.
Well, what constitutes hate speech to one person might not be considered hate speech to another. That’s the problem with state universities–which are subject to the 1st amendment–establishing speech codes.
>If he wants to teach at Liberty U or Bob Jones, he may find more fertile minds for his compost, and a friendly e-mail policy
Robis appears to be correct. Norwood appears to be a technician in the physics department, not an instructor. This seemed clear to me after Xeno posted the link to his (whatever it was) on the university’s web site. I was a grad student in physics at another university a number of years ago. The physics department had an entire infrastructure that was devoted to servicing the various laboratories run by the various professors. You know, the “publish or perish” people. That was completely orthogonal to the instructional mission of the department. When I was a grad student, I worked in several such laboratories and interacted with the technicians. The technicians do no teaching. They helped us build equipment that we deemed necessary to run experiments. When I was a grad student, I became quite proficient at not only plumbing, but also machining, in large part because of their assistance.
On the other hand, the technicians did–and probably still do–have to interact with we students who were working in the labs. If there was any evidence that Norwood actually discriminated against students in his work based on their perceived sexual orientation, then, most certainly, he should be dismissed. But we don’t know whether or not he did that.
On yet another hand, it appears that Norwood only sent his email to people who were listed on the ad. If so, it is unlikely that Norwood’s email would have become known to a wider audience were it not for the fact of the op-ed piece mentioned in the post. If Norwood tried to send his email to everyone in the university, that might suggest one thing. On the other hand, that he apparently limited his dissemenation of the email only to people who were listed in the ad, that suggests–to me at least–something else.
I wrote the op-ed in question. To tell the truth, I was suprised to come across this discussion of it. I never intended to get him fired or anything of that sort. I just wanted to let the community know what he was doing, and how I felt about it as a gay student.
Bill Norwood is my father. He has been vocal on his views about one issue after another my entire life. His areas of activism have included smoking in public places, nutrition education, unnecessary hysterectomies, children’s television programming, pharmaceuticals, corporate corruption, mechanics taking financial advantage of women, mental illness, MSG, etc., etc. It never ends. I don’t know whether he was biologically-predisposed toward activism, or whether environmental influences led him in that direction, but it has never been fun being the daughter of an activist. Sometimes, I wish he could just live and let live. On the GLBT and AIDS issues, my father and I are diametrically-opposed. While I know my father has nothing personally against GLBT people (and would never discriminate), he is making an “intellectual” argument about what he believes is a lifestyle choice. He and I have had many intense, heated debates on this subject over the years. Our conversations usually end with my urging him to mind his own business. Unfortunately, I am fairly sure he cannot be “converted.”
That said, I have come to appreciate the positive influence my father has had in other areas.
All the best…
Jenna
P.S. My father’s apartment burned down last week and all his activism files went with the fire. You may not be hearing from him again for a while.
Hi JennaYou know what they say: we get to pick our friends but not our family :-)I guess you already know, but it is trying when someone turns your life into an “intellectual argument”. It doesn’t seem that way when it’s you that people are talking about.I know what a house fire can be like — fortunately not us — never mind the activism files (they can be replaced) but losing the personal family effects is very upsetting. Hope you’re dropping by with a few pot roasts to make sure he doesn’t starve!best wishes
Maybe that’s God telling him that hate speech is wrong.