NationStates Jolt Archive

This time it's in the little town of Mansfield, Ohio. Apparently a librarian at The Ohio State University branch has stirred up quite a hornet's nest among the diversity-tolerant faculty. Mr Scott Savage was asked to propose some books for a reading list that was intended to introduce freshmen to university life. He responded by recommending "The Marketing of Evil", along with some other selections.

What followed was an anything but tolerant discussion of the librarian, the book, and any other group that opposed the proper opinions of the keepers of diversity and tolerance. I've never read the book, but the Amazon summary contains this description of the contents.

Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation—from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.
The Marketing of Evil reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive—in a word, evil.


So maybe this particular author isn't the most understanding and compassionate man out there when it comes to his opinions on homosexuality, abortion, and body piercings, but his point of view is certainly found in members of society that these fledgling adults may encounter one day. If we can say anything about life at a university, it should be that critical thinking is embraced. Intolerance of bigotry and predjudice is something that is an excellent goal. Simply presenting the other side of an argument can't be seen as acceptance.

So I say we read and discuss the works that give us cause to think and if they contain bad ideas, we say so. We don't hide behind a curtain of tolerance and pretend that bigots and racists don't exist. We certainly shouldn't make decisions for others about who and what is diverse and tolerant. At a university, we should challenge everyone.

So maybe this particular author isn't the most understanding and compassionate man out there when it comes to his opinions on homosexuality, abortion, and body piercings, but his point of view is certainly found in members of society that these fledgling adults may encounter one day. If we can say anything about life at a university, it should be that critical thinking is embraced. Intolerance of bigotry and predjudice is something that is an excellent goal. Simply presenting the other side of an argument can't be seen as acceptance.

While I personally haven't read the book it seems that the book doesn't present 'the other side of the argument'. From the summary it seems that it begins with the presumption that homosexuality/abortion/body-piercing are evil and then goes on to talk about how they became acceptable in American society.

That said I think it's fairly pointless to have this debate unless someone here has actually read the book and knows what it's about. Just my $0.02.

The book sounds like an interesting read. I disagree that it should be banned or so simply because I'd disagree with the content.

So where'd you get the article from? Worldnet Daily? Because that's where I found it, and to say that the story is one-sided is more than a bit of an understatement. When the group pushing the issue is the Alliance Defense Fund, there's more than a bit of pot calling the kettle black when you're talking about tolerance and diversity.

Libraries should be open to all points of view. They shouldn't leave anything out. A good library won't just stock bland stories, poems and opinions that everyone can agree with, but will challenge our morality and opinions with such things as Mein Kampf, Radical Muslim, Christian, or whatever religion, and stories and poems that many would see as "obscene". Morality and opinions that can only be maintained in a sheltered, sanitized environment are worthless and fragile.

So I say we read and discuss the works that give us cause to think and if they contain bad ideas, we say so. We don't hide behind a curtain of tolerance and pretend that bigots and racists don't exist. We certainly shouldn't make decisions for others about who and what is diverse and tolerant. At a university, we should challenge everyone.
I agree. And while you're at it, cover "age bigotry" too! :p

So where'd you get the article from? Worldnet Daily? Because that's where I found it, and to say that the story is one-sided is more than a bit of an understatement. When the group pushing the issue is the Alliance Defense Fund, there's more than a bit of pot calling the kettle black when you're talking about tolerance and diversity.
And your point?

Libraries should be open to all points of view. They shouldn't leave anything out. A good library won't just stock bland stories, poems and opinions that everyone can agree with, but will challenge our morality and opinions with such things as Mein Kampf, Radical Muslim, Christian, or whatever religion, and stories and poems that many would see as "obscene". Morality and opinions that can only be maintained in a sheltered, sanitized environment are worthless and fragile.
Even more to the point! Good for you DCD! :fluffle:

I agree. And while you're at it, cover "age bigotry" too! :p
On that note, why is it that nobody ever makes a fuss about ageism unless older, as in 50+ years old, people are the target?

And your point?
This is less than half of the story. The University hasn't said anything (and they won't as there's an investigation and litigation involved), and the person's superiors haven't said anything. All we have is the person crying "liberals are intolerant" and the Alliance Defense Fund pimping him to the press, which has, for the most part, refused to bite outside some marginal (and I'm giving Worldnet Daily a bit too much credit there) sources.

Let's wait to hang the liberals out to dry until there's a bit more information on the story--it may be that they deserve to get smacked on this, but I'm willing to bet that the story's not as cut and dried as this guy is making it out to be.

On that note, why is it that nobody ever makes a fuss about ageism unless older, as in 50+ years old, people are the target?
Uh ... perhaps because that is precisely the group where most prejudice against older persons is aimed? Ya think? :rolleyes:

... I'm willing to bet that the story's not as cut and dried as this guy is making it out to be.
Hardly anything ever is. :p

Libraries should be open to all points of view. They shouldn't leave anything out. A good library won't just stock bland stories, poems and opinions that everyone can agree with, but will challenge our morality and opinions with such things as Mein Kampf, Radical Muslim, Christian, or whatever religion, and stories and poems that many would see as "obscene". Morality and opinions that can only be maintained in a sheltered, sanitized environment are worthless and fragile.The article, as I read it, didn't say that the books were to be kept out of the library. The request was for books that would be put on a recommended reading list for freshmen. The two are not the same.

Uh ... perhaps because that is precisely the group where most prejudice against older persons is aimed? Ya think? :rolleyes:Ageism isn't limited to older people, Eut.

The article, as I read it, didn't say that the books were to be kept out of the library. The request was for books that would be put on a recommended reading list for freshmen. The two are not the same.
My bad. Still, freshmen still shouldn't be sheltered from scary ideas.

I 'heard,' which is complete and utter hearsay I confess, that after the librarian’s list was released, two different openly homosexual professors filed harassment charges for the book being on the list in the first place and then additionally for the list being released for public discussion. Something along the lines of "Now I don't feel safe on this campus anymore."

Take that with a grain of salt, just the scuttlebutt around the office here.

While I personally haven't read the book it seems that the book doesn't present 'the other side of the argument'. From the summary it seems that it begins with the presumption that homosexuality/abortion/body-piercing are evil and then goes on to talk about how they became acceptable in American society.

That said I think it's fairly pointless to have this debate unless someone here has actually read the book and knows what it's about. Just my $0.02.

For the record, the librarian hadn't read it either. He was pissed off because he didn't like the direction the nominations were going so he decided to pick books that would ruffle feathers, his intent is clear.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf

I recommend reading the emails. Among them you will find Scott Savage admitting to not having read the books and complaining that the faculty wanted to choose books that would make the students think about certain issues. He then defends the book using a Jerry Springer guest who is largely laughed at in the academic community.

The article, as I read it, didn't say that the books were to be kept out of the library. The request was for books that would be put on a recommended reading list for freshmen. The two are not the same.

Not recommended, required. They were picking a single book that would be required reading. One that was expected to be broad and to inspire discussion and critical thinking. The librarian chose a book that espouses a gay conspiracy to destroy America. (Obviously, I'm expanding on your comments. I know you agree with much of what I said).

On that note, why is it that nobody ever makes a fuss about ageism unless older, as in 50+ years old, people are the target?


Because anyone who stands do do anything about it has already been a little kid, and has good reasons for maintaining his "ageism."

The book sounds like an interesting read. I disagree that it should be banned or so simply because I'd disagree with the content.

You sinful Europeans! Don't you know knowledge will be your downfall!

For the record, the librarian hadn't read it either. He was pissed off because he didn't like the direction the nominations were going so he decided to pick books that would ruffle feathers, his intent is clear.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf

I recommend reading the emails. Among them you will find Scott Savage admitting to not having read the books and complaining that the faculty wanted to choose books that would make the students think about certain issues. He then defends the book using a Jerry Springer guest who is largely laughed at in the academic community.

Unfortunately, most of Mr. Savage's emails are ommitted, so it is difficult to tell if the sexual harrassment claims are really warranted. Simply suggesting the book or even defending it against the objections would not warrant such action, but we cannot know what Mr. Savage's replies said unless we have them. I find it interesting that they were ommitted from the file. Could it be that something more inflammatory was said than anything the ADF is admitting?

However, I think we can tell from the cited emails that Mr. Savage's claims that he is being discriminated against or having his 1st Amendment rights abridged because he brought forth a conservativ book are nonsense. First of all, he listed four books, and only one seems to be the subject of any problems. While the other three may not have made it through the voting, their addition to the list does not seem to have been blocked. The objections to the book, from the information we have, are clearly of an academic nature, rather than an ideological one.

I agree. And while you're at it, cover "age bigotry" too! :p
Slay the elderly.

Not recommended, required. They were picking a single book that would be required reading. One that was expected to be broad and to inspire discussion and critical thinking. The librarian chose a book that espouses a gay conspiracy to destroy America. (Obviously, I'm expanding on your comments. I know you agree with much of what I said).

Certainly isn't that broad a topic, the evil gay conspiracy. It is pretty topical these days though, the struggle for gay rights looks to be the big thing of this decade, so far. He could have picked a worse book.

Slay the elderly.
Not slay, eat. Soylent Green is made from Eut!?

This time it's in the little town of Mansfield, Ohio. Apparently a librarian at The Ohio State University branch has stirred up quite a hornet's nest among the diversity-tolerant faculty. Mr Scott Savage was asked to propose some books for a reading list that was intended to introduce freshmen to university life. He responded by recommending "The Marketing of Evil", along with some other selections.

What followed was an anything but tolerant discussion of the librarian, the book, and any other group that opposed the proper opinions of the keepers of diversity and tolerance. I've never read the book, but the Amazon summary contains this description of the contents.


So maybe this particular author isn't the most understanding and compassionate man out there when it comes to his opinions on homosexuality, abortion, and body piercings, but his point of view is certainly found in members of society that these fledgling adults may encounter one day. If we can say anything about life at a university, it should be that critical thinking is embraced. Intolerance of bigotry and predjudice is something that is an excellent goal. Simply presenting the other side of an argument can't be seen as acceptance.

So I say we read and discuss the works that give us cause to think and if they contain bad ideas, we say so. We don't hide behind a curtain of tolerance and pretend that bigots and racists don't exist. We certainly shouldn't make decisions for others about who and what is diverse and tolerant. At a university, we should challenge everyone.

Come now. There is a difference between not thinking it appropriate to require a book for all freshman to read and seek to censor a book.

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom" is a pretty out there book that makes some rather absurd claims. Simply because it is controversial does not make it worthwhile reading.

Plus, meethinks you are not telling us the full story. Hence no link.

For the record, the librarian hadn't read it either. He was pissed off because he didn't like the direction the nominations were going so he decided to pick books that would ruffle feathers, his intent is clear.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf

I recommend reading the emails. Among them you will find Scott Savage admitting to not having read the books and complaining that the faculty wanted to choose books that would make the students think about certain issues. He then defends the book using a Jerry Springer guest who is largely laughed at in the academic community.

Nice. His own lawyers can do little more than make Mr. Savage look like an asshat.

I agree. And while you're at it, cover "age bigotry" too! :p
You mean, like how old people are bigots? :P

Assuming the situation is as simple as "This book was recommended, people got pissed and disagreed with the content", then the rest of the equation should be just as simple: Get over it.

I can't imagine gay people getting up in arms about this - they wouldn't want anyone filing suit because -they- became teachers, using the phrase "We don't feel safe here anymore" as an excuse (You know how homophobes get - "Get your gay off of me!"). It's very hipocritical of them to want to keep books out of the library.

Information is information, if it's true. If it comes to light that the information in the book is false and nothing but slander against what the author sees as 'evil', then it shouldn't be read but to understand the mind of an idiot.


Then again, the premise of the book is that something is "evil" - that's somewhat of an archaic term, in modern tense. Nothing is truly "evil" anymore, it's all perception and motivation (with the exception of someone who does things for the sole purpose of being evil by their definition). This makes it somewhat automatically a lie, because saying something is evil is by default an opinion. A very striking and biased opinion, I'd say.

I think if the book is taken with a grain of salt, I.E. there's a foreward warning people of the biased and somewhat ungrounded opinions in the book, especially if the book insists that it's in the right and doesn't have any room for discussion within itself, then it could be welcomed as a lesson in bullshit and opinion, if nothing else.

I can't imagine gay people getting up in arms about this - they wouldn't want anyone filing suit because -they- became teachers, using the phrase "We don't feel safe here anymore" as an excuse (You know how homophobes get - "Get your gay off of me!"). It's very hipocritical of them to want to keep books out of the library.

Once again, nobody was trying to keep any books out of the library. They simply objected to it being put forth as a book to be used as required reading for an incoming freshman class.

And your point?

The Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme Christian group. They are not big promoters of diversity and tolerance. In fact, their greatest "victories" have been on issues like keeping gays out of the Boy Scouts.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_Defense_Fund

its ok for someone to be of antoher race, homosexual, mentally retarded.

so why is it not ok for somone to be racist?


btw im not racist.

Assuming the situation is as simple as "This book was recommended, people got pissed and disagreed with the content", then the rest of the equation should be just as simple: Get over it.

I can't imagine gay people getting up in arms about this - they wouldn't want anyone filing suit because -they- became teachers, using the phrase "We don't feel safe here anymore" as an excuse (You know how homophobes get - "Get your gay off of me!"). It's very hipocritical of them to want to keep books out of the library.

Information is information, if it's true. If it comes to light that the information in the book is false and nothing but slander against what the author sees as 'evil', then it shouldn't be read but to understand the mind of an idiot.


Then again, the premise of the book is that something is "evil" - that's somewhat of an archaic term, in modern tense. Nothing is truly "evil" anymore, it's all perception and motivation (with the exception of someone who does things for the sole purpose of being evil by their definition). This makes it somewhat automatically a lie, because saying something is evil is by default an opinion. A very striking and biased opinion, I'd say.

I think if the book is taken with a grain of salt, I.E. there's a foreward warning people of the biased and somewhat ungrounded opinions in the book, especially if the book insists that it's in the right and doesn't have any room for discussion within itself, then it could be welcomed as a lesson in bullshit and opinion, if nothing else.

You are taking the "facts" in the light most helpful to the librarian -- and getting some of those "facts" wrong.

So far, we have only one side of the story and even that says there is both more -- and less -- than the OP suggested is going on.

Once again, nobody was trying to keep any books out of the library. They simply objected to it being put forth as a book to be used as required reading for an incoming freshman class.

Ah - yeah, I agree with that.

Sorry, didn't see that part.

Personally I don't think any specific book should be -required- reading, rather, read a book of this genre, read a book with this context, this theme, etc. It allows for more freedom and enjoyment of reading.

You are taking the "facts" in the light most helpful to the librarian -- and getting some of those "facts" wrong.

So far, we have only one side of the story and even that says there is both more -- and less -- than the OP suggested is going on.

Obviously more is going on that what was first presented. I said, assuming it was as simple as he said it was - which, apparently it isn't. Therefore most of my post can be ignored or taken up as an example to what could still be.

so why is it not ok for somone to be racist?
I think they had a report on discrimination against racists a week or two ago on the Daily Show.

I think they had a report on discrimination against racists a week or two ago on the Daily Show.

yeah i saw it, it was fairly funny

Slay the elderly.
I suppose, by your definition, I qualify. Come and try to "slay" me! Mwahahaha! :D

Not slay, eat. Soylent Green is made from Eut!?
Yeah. I get eaten on a regular basis! :p

You mean, like how old people are bigots? :P
[ looks around ] Strange. I don't see none! :p

The Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme Christian group. They are not big promoters of diversity and tolerance. In fact, their greatest "victories" have been on issues like keeping gays out of the Boy Scouts.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_Defense_Fund
Yeah, they're a bit like the ACLU, only, you know, retarded. :D

The Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme Christian group. They are not big promoters of diversity and tolerance. In fact, their greatest "victories" have been on issues like keeping gays out of the Boy Scouts.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_Defense_Fund
What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"

What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"


James Dobson is practically the US' Mullah Omar.


They viciously oppose gay civil rights and the seperation of church and state.

What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"

Eh?

How about some founders for starters.

# Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family
# Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries
# Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association

James Dobson is practically the US' Mullah Omar.


They viciously oppose gay civil rights and the seperation of church and state.

Hey he is saving us from spongebob promoting homosexuality....

Nice. His own lawyers can do little more than make Mr. Savage look like an asshat.

You nailed this one before you even caught up in the thread. He basically regurgitated the talking points from some of the none-too-tolerant websites supporting Scott Savage and then didn't give any real information. As you said, even the claims by his own lawyers make it pretty clear he was trying to ruffle feathers and that he got upset when the academics actually did more research than he did and tore the book to shreds. I find it very telling that his own emails are omitted. I haven't found them yet.

What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"

TCT and the Nazz "extremely" disagree with them... The same with the other side. the ADF thinks the ACLU is full of extremist zealots as well, I'm sure.

James Dobson is practically the US' Mullah Omar.

They viciously oppose gay civil rights and the seperation of church and state.
The question was addressed to The_Cat_Tribe. I was trying to get some intelligent debate going.

The question was addressed to The_Cat_Tribe. I was trying to get some intelligent debate going.


You can go to the search tab at the top and look up all his posts by putting in his username and read pages and pages of intelligent debate.

What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"
Here's an article about them. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200406/ai_n9413187)From page 2
The ADF, watchdogs at Americans United say, champions a radical agenda to destroy the wall of separation between church and state. It even has close ties to the most extreme faction of the Religious Right - a movement that wants to create a harsh fundamentalist Christian theocracy in America. (See "The ADF's Reconstructionist Ties," page 9.)

Since its founding, the ADF has played a role in nearly every church-state case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and many lower federal courts. Since 1994, the ADF has directly or partially funded cases dealing with government aid to religion, religion in public schools, abortion, gay rights and religiously based censorship. Throughout, the organization's goal has been the same: merge religion and government.

The idea behind the Alliance Defense Fund was simple: Prominent Religious Right leaders would lend their names to the organization and help it solicit funds. The ADF was originally conceived as a type of giant Religious Right ATM. The group would collect millions from ultra-conservative, politically active fundamentalist Christians and then parcel the money out to Religious Right legal groups working in the courts to lower the wall of separation between church and state. Although footing the bill, the ADF would remain behind the scenes.

What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"


Come now. The link was pretty self-explanatory. When you add who the board members are the extremism is self-evident.

But, if you don't think supporting prayer in school, being vehemently anti-gay, extreme pro-life is enough what about "their ultimate goal is to see the law and government of the US enshrined with conservative Christian principles."

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/about/purpose/Default.aspx

The question was addressed to The_Cat_Tribe. I was trying to get some intelligent debate going.

And you got an intelligent response. You just disregarded it.

Care to explain how they aren't extreme?

TCT and the Nazz "extremely" disagree with them... The same with the other side. the ADF thinks the ACLU is full of extremist zealots as well, I'm sure.

Cute.

I think a group that seeks to eshrine "the Truth" (note the capital) as our law is a tad extreme.

No doubt the ADF finds anyone that supports the true First Amendment extreme.

What, exactly, makes them "extreme?"

They like to snowboard while they discriminate against homosexuals.

Certainly isn't that broad a topic, the evil gay conspiracy. It is pretty topical these days though, the struggle for gay rights looks to be the big thing of this decade, so far. He could have picked a worse book.
There's a gay conpiracy? Shit, how do you keep something like that a secret?

Gay Mafia: The Mauve Hand.

Yeah. I get eaten on a regular basis! :p
In a dream you had, you old perv! ;)

They like to snowboard while they discriminate against homosexuals.

:cool:

Eh?

How about some founders for starters.

# Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family
# Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries
# Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association

Reverend Donald Wildmon is the man from Mississippi who heard something he didn't like on the radio some decades ago and lobbied Congress to enable the FCC (an unelected, appointed body, it is important to note) to censor anything broadcast over the air in the US.

All because he couldn't figure out how to change the station or turn off the radio. This is the kind of person who wants power in this country. I have two words for Reverend Wildmon:

Fuck that.

They like to snowboard while they discriminate against homosexuals.
LMAO -- you got to that joke before I could. The word "extreme" has been marketed into meaninglessness.

Reverend Donald Wildmon is the man from Mississippi who heard something he didn't like on the radio some decades ago and lobbied Congress to enable the FCC (an unelected, appointed body, it is important to note) to censor anything broadcast over the air in the US.

All because he couldn't figure out how to change the station or turn off the radio. This is the kind of person who wants power in this country. I have two words for Reverend Wildmon:

Fuck that.
Hear hear.

It looks like the consenus here is much like it appears to be at OSU. It's okay to require a student to read a book espousing the joys of homosexuality, or the necessity of abortion. But when someone mentions a book that opposes those same virtues, the book is found to be too bigoted for the students. In other words, there are no books written by right-leaning authors that are fit for consumption at a university.

It looks like the consenus here is much like it appears to be at OSU. It's okay to require a student to read a book espousing the joys of homosexuality, or the necessity of abortion. But when someone mentions a book that opposes those same virtues, the book is found to be too bigoted for the students. In other words, there are no books written by right-leaning authors that are fit for consumption at a university.

My we like burning strawmen, don't we?

EDIT: It must sting having your deceptions exposed. No wonder you are cranky.

My we like burning strawmen, don't we?

EDIT: It must sting having your deceptions exposed. No wonder you are cranky.
What right wing author is suitable for a college reading list?

What right wing author is suitable for a college reading list?
George Will? Fareed Zakaria? Kevin Phillips? Those are just off the top of my head.

And another thing--no one is saying that the books mentioned here shouldn't be available--that's something you're spinning into the story. The school is saying they're not the best choice for a required reading for freshmen. The sexual harassment suit is something separate. Where that goes, who knows, but it's telling that the ADF didn't provide the emails that the professors were replying to. Why not show the whole conversation, if their client is in the right?

What right wing author is suitable for a college reading list?

Any number of authors.

Keep beating that drum. It doesn't fit the facts.

Savage admits he was picking a book because it would be highly controversial. But the point of the reading program was an unified intellectual experience. Do you actually defend the book as a selection? Hmmm?

BTW:

Ohio State University officials on Friday cleared Scott Savage, a librarian at the Mansfield campus, of harassment charges filed against him based on his recommendation of an anti-gay book for a freshman reading assignment. A conservative group had threatened to sue the university if the charges were not dropped. They were dropped the same day that the group went public with its complaints about the way the librarian was being treated.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/17/qt

George Will? Fareed Zakaria? Kevin Phillips? Those are just off the top of my head.

And another thing--no one is saying that the books mentioned here shouldn't be available--that's something you're spinning into the story. The school is saying they're not the best choice for a required reading for freshmen. The sexual harassment suit is something separate. Where that goes, who knows, but it's telling that the ADF didn't provide the emails that the professors were replying to. Why not show the whole conversation, if their client is in the right?
I think you must be referring to someone else's post. I brought up the topic of 'acceptability' for consideration and the situation at OSU makes a good example of how right wing ideas are not tolerated.

I think you must be referring to someone else's post. I brought up the topic of 'acceptability' for consideration and the situation at OSU makes a good example of how right wing ideas are not tolerated.

sad that you would equate right wing ideas with The Marketing of Evil

If a liberal "smeared" the right like that, you'd go nuts.

Uh ... perhaps because that is precisely the group where most prejudice against older persons is aimed? Ya think? :rolleyes:
hahahahahahahahaha.

You don't remember being a teenager walking through a store, or a young person walking in the street a little late at night, do you?

I think you must be referring to someone else's post. I brought up the topic of 'acceptability' for consideration and the situation at OSU makes a good example of how right wing ideas are not tolerated.
Oh bullshit. You brought up the OSU example but want to make it fit some situation it doesn't actually fit in order to justify your slur against academia. Spare me. The OSU example is what I'm responding to, and it doesn't deal with the topic of "acceptability." The story there is that a wingnut librarian tried to get some screeds accepted as required reading for entering freshmen, and when he got slapped down, pitched a bitch about it, a bitch which has now expanded into a lawsuit of which only one side has been reported.

If you really want to make this a discussion about acceptability, then give an example that makes your point, not one that you have to walk three steps back, turn around and look back between your legs to see if it's really there. This isn't Candid Camera.

sad that you would equate right wing ideas with The Marketing of Evil

If a liberal "smeared" the right like that, you'd go nuts.
Not hardly. And you assume too much when you assume that I agree with ideas in the book. Far from it, I've never read the book and won't waste my money on a silly diatribe. I just like the contradiction between the way this suggestion was received by the typical liberal arts faculty and the values of tolerance, diversity, and, one would suppose, critical thinking. Maybe they are insulted by this book, but so what? There's still nothing wrong with a free exchange of ideas. Putting an intolerant and bigoted book on a reading list is a good way to do that.

Not hardly. And you assume too much when you assume that I agree with ideas in the book. Far from it, I've never read the book and won't waste my money on a silly diatribe. I just like the contradiction between the way this suggestion was received by the typical liberal arts faculty and the values of tolerance, diversity, and, one would suppose, critical thinking. Maybe they are insulted by this book, but so what? There's still nothing wrong with a free exchange of ideas. Putting an intolerant and bigoted book on a reading list is a good way to do that.

I see. If Savage had suggested Hustler magazine or gay porn, would the principles of "tolerance, diversity, and critical thinking" require its acceptance on the reading list?

Meethinks thou doest protest too much.

(Actually, it wasn't a reading list. They were choosing one book for all incoming Freshmen to read.)

I think you must be referring to someone else's post. I brought up the topic of 'acceptability' for consideration and the situation at OSU makes a good example of how right wing ideas are not tolerated.

Actually, it is no such thing. Mr. Savage recommended four, count them, four books. Only one was discounted as inappropriate for the list, based on academic, rather than ideological, opposition.

If it were a problem with "right wing ideas", they would have struck down *all* of the books.

It looks like the consenus here is much like it appears to be at OSU. It's okay to require a student to read a book espousing the joys of homosexuality, or the necessity of abortion. But when someone mentions a book that opposes those same virtues, the book is found to be too bigoted for the students. In other words, there are no books written by right-leaning authors that are fit for consumption at a university.

Maybe reading is hard for you, but even the ADF's documentation made it clear that the book was opposed on academic, rather than ideological grounds. If the author in question had provided a shred of evidence, and wasn't fully discredited by peers, the book might have some academic merit, right or wrong.

Actually, it is no such thing. Mr. Savage recommended four, count them, four books. Only one was discounted as inappropriate for the list, based on academic, rather than ideological, opposition.

If it were a problem with "right wing ideas", they would have struck down *all* of the books.

Excellent point.

What right wing author is suitable for a college reading list?

Perhaps one that hasn't had his entire book debunked. There problem with this book was not primarily on the issues it talked about but the fact that it's claims had been widely debunked and the only academics it had supporting it were Jerry Springer guests (literally).

Not hardly. And you assume too much when you assume that I agree with ideas in the book. Far from it, I've never read the book and won't waste my money on a silly diatribe. I just like the contradiction between the way this suggestion was received by the typical liberal arts faculty and the values of tolerance, diversity, and, one would suppose, critical thinking. Maybe they are insulted by this book, but so what? There's still nothing wrong with a free exchange of ideas. Putting an intolerant and bigoted book on a reading list is a good way to do that.

It's not a reading 'list'. It's one required book. I agree that books like this should be discussed but not without something that shows the factual mistakes of said book, which is the same thing the professors at OSU said if you read the emails linked to here. It's clear you didn't actually read anything about this actual case and this is just another 'liberal campuses' rant.