Bert Chapman And Purdue University Pervert Free Speech

Bert Chapman, the professor at Purdue University who authored a blog article that presented the economic case against homosexuality on October 27th, will not face disciplinary sanctions, according to the University. Chapman, whose apparent argument is that the financial costs for AIDS research and treatment should not be a factor in debates over gay and lesbian equality, defended his stance, saying that “as a conservative Christian, I firmly believe the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong, and my blog posting sought to emphasize there are economic and public policy implication to widespread and open acceptance of this lifestyle.” Purdue University, exercising a retro-risk management response, said through spokesperson Jeanne Norberg, that “there are many things on the Internet that would be offensive to a lot of people but protected by the First Amendment. The best response is to speak up, which is exactly what our students and some faculty are doing.” Chapman, the University, and his defenders, all argue that the matter is one of free speech, and Chapman is entitled to express his opinions protected in part by the American Constitution. As if to underscore Chapman’s right to express his views, both he and Purdue point out that a disclaimer appears underneath his work, saying the words are his own, and in no way reflect the opinions of his employer, and that he used a server outside the one provided by the University.

Should Chapman restrict his opinion? Absolutely not, he, as is anyone else, is entitled to express a point of view, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, so long as it is not an invitation to commit acts of violence against any individual or group. Although, when you read the entire post, two things are apparent. One, that Chapman would be thought of as an academic seems unlikely using even the loosest definition of the word. There is little logic in the thoughts of the professor, no cohesive argument. His argument is not one of economics, but of religion, couched in a debate of financial loss. And that he regards being gay a lifestyle, a choice, doesn’t bolster contentions that the man deserved tenure, only inviting speculation that Purdue’s standard of what constitutes scholarly is set seriously low.

Two, his words are violent or at the very least a call to commit acts of violence against a very specific group – gay men and women. Chapman begins by saying that “to defend traditional sexual morality against the encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression, we need to do more than cite Bible verses.” Bert Chapman did not merely write an opinions piece; he authored a call to arms, a sounding of an alarm that heterosexuals must, at all cost, defend themselves from “the high economic costs of sexually deviant behaviour.” Bert Chapman contributed to the many manifestos that are used to enact overt and covert harm to gay men and women in the United States and the world daily. Bert Chapman is cunning, however accidental, and that he be defended by corrupting the conceit of free speech is perhaps a bigger crime that what he wrote.