Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You may have read about the administrator at the University of Toledo who was suspended for writing an anti-gay column in the local paper. Jon Rowe has an excellent post at Positive Liberty that has exactly the proper response to the situation: defending her right to say what she said, and showing why she's wrong. He systematically debunks her arguments with reason. First, the argument from immutability. She wrote:
As a black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.
There are many flaws in this egregiously ignorant statement, but Rowe picks this one:
Homosexuals are civil rights victims. Homosexuals historically have been subject to sodomy laws which led to imprisonment or worse, being banned from government jobs, institutionalization with a whole slew of sadistic treatments like electroshock therapy, reputation ruining, all which have led to at worst suicides like that of World War II hero Alan Turing. In short, if mistreatment is a criterion for being a civil rights victim, homosexuals easily pass that test.Regarding the test of civil rights categories, her argument would be valid only if 1) blacks alone had a monopoly on civil rights status; or 2) immutability were some absolute test for civil rights status, neither of which is true. Because of unique historical circumstances, I'd be willing to live in a world where race were the only civil rights category, but that's not the world in which we live. We'd have to say goodbye to gender, pregnancy, color, ethnic origin, religion, age, disability -- all protected at the federal level. And many others protected at the state.
Many of those categories are not immutable or inborn like race. Diseases can be cured and some disabilities like paralysis result entirely from chosen risky behavior, but are covered disabilities nonetheless. Further religion is entirely a matter of choice, much more so than sexual orientation.
Then she makes the "they can change" corollary to the immutability argument:
Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.
Thousands? Every day? Even if the premise was true, this is absurdly exaggerated. Rowe responds:
It is also false that daily thousands of homosexuals decide to "leave the homosexual lifestyle." Groups like Exodus have a proven record of failure with regards to most folks who attempt to change their sexual orientation.
The vast majority of those who attempt to change from gay to straight fail. And even those who "succeed" only succeed in denying who they are, most of them only for a short period of time. Many of the leaders of the ex-gay movement have, after a few years, reverted back to being gay. You can spend your life pretending not to be gay; millions have done it. But that doesn't make being gay a choice and it doesn't mean you can actually transform yourself from gay to straight.
Next, she makes the "gays are economically better off than straights" argument:
Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself," she said.
And Rowe logically refutes the implications of this argument:
Jews and Asians are also better educated and make higher incomes. Could you imagine someone trying to argue they should be forbidden from anti-discrimination protection because of this. Further, because of the proven track record religious conservatives have on spreading false information in the guise of "statistics" about homosexuals, I'm extremely wary of her numbers. My own anecdotal observations suggest gays probably are better educated and have higher incomes (thus, like Jews and Asians, aren't economically impoverished). However her figures seem exaggerated to say the least. Gays would be outperforming both Jews and Asians! Gays would be civilizational superstars, the most model of the model minorities. Society arguably would have a duty to cultivate homosexuality given its incredible results at economic and civilizational achievement.Further such high performing homosexuals suggest a biological not a developmental cause for homosexuality. There are cultural/developmental reasons as to why Jews and Asians outperform. For developmental explanations to work, they must be present in a child's environment at a young age. And indeed many Jewish and Asian homes cultivate educational and economic success from such a young age.
But gays are all raised in heterosexual households, and do not join the gay "subculture" until such development is already set in stone. Such higher rates of IQ and creativity necessary to be so better educated and make so much more $$ would have to be explained biologically, suggesting gays are biologically different. Whatever biological factors that are likely to make folks smarter and more creative are more likely to make them homosexual. If homosexuality has such a strong biological cause, it makes this woman's assertion about "choosing the homosexual lifestyle" ring all the more hollow.
This is exactly the sort of writing we need more of. Not calls for censorship but a calm, rational debunking of the arguments.
Comments
I'm suprised Rowe (or you) didn't comment on the statistics comparison flaw. She's comparing college educated gay men's salaries with those of NON-college educated black men. Of COURSE they'll be higher!
Posted by: llDayo | May 9, 2008 9:46 AM
I wonder if the folks at AFTAH, which trumpeted the administrator's column, will likewise give any notice to Rowe's rebuttal. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: gary l. day | May 9, 2008 9:47 AM
I absolutely agree that censorship shuld never be an option. I cannot think of a single instance where the battle of ideas was won through the suppression of the opposing viewpoint.
However, on the suspension, I am more conflicted. What should a school that is trying to attract people from all walks of life do when they discover one of their administrators holds views that are expressly opposed to their mission? Can you expect prospective students to believe that she will simply keep her views to herself and not act in a biased way?
Was the school wrong to act before she took any actions?
I suppose the school could have released a statement in opposition to her column, and then kept a very close eye on her for wrongdoing and then punished her accordingly if she broke the rules.
Posted by: Robert | May 9, 2008 9:51 AM
Lets see here:
Gays can change [check]
Gays make more money [check]
Misuse of statistics [check]
God is glorious [check]
Why is it that even highly educated people can't come up with a single original argument on this subject?
Posted by: yoshi | May 9, 2008 10:20 AM
She got all that "per census data"? I'm pretty sure the 2000 census did not ask for sexual orientation and in fact only counted same-sex couples (and only those who lived together). Those are some magical numbers.
Posted by: David H | May 9, 2008 10:36 AM
Posted by: Alexandra | May 9, 2008 10:45 AM
One thing that always struck me about the "better educated" meme was the whole concept of "out or not". Could it be that lgbt folks are less likely to come out of the closet when they are less educated, and in less accepting environments (which sadly, is almost the same as saying less educated in this day and age)?
So their statistics, even if true, are only reporting on those who are the least likely to face discrimination; and when the least likely still face overwhelming discrimination that should tell you something important.
Posted by: kodiak | May 9, 2008 12:00 PM
I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.
I would respect a black person's use of the "Race vs. Choice" argument more if they would just come right out and say "It's not my fault that I'm black; but it is gay people's fault that they're gay."
Is being black a "fault?" A flaw? A sad and criminal thing, of which one should be ashamed -- so that "being born that way and can't help it" is an excuse?
No? Well, then good. The real issue then isn't whether or not someone has chosen to be a certain way -- but whether or not it's causing harm.
I don't care if every gay person decided to be gay based on asking the Magic 8 Ball. They don't need an "excuse."
Posted by: Sastra | May 9, 2008 12:16 PM
I wonder if she got suspended because she is part of the human resources department, and her statements raised questions on how well she could do her job.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | May 9, 2008 12:41 PM
I just checked for my county. Pretty obviously (as you pointed out), sexual orientation is not a census question. Under "Household By Type", the only choices are:
Family Households (families)
With Own Children Under 18 Years
Married-Couple Family
With Own Children Under 18 Years
Female Householder (no husband present)
With Own Children Under 18 Years
Non-Family Households
Householder Living Alone
Householder 65 Years and Over
I'm not sure which category they'd put gay couples under since they're not allowed to marry in most states and I'm still looking for the goverment's definition of "family". Also, I found it odd that they select out females living alone, but not males and solo females with children, but not males. That seemed a little odd.
Posted by: Bryn | May 9, 2008 1:33 PM
Sastra--
Right on. We should have the freedom not only to be who we are, regardless of whether it was nature or nurture, but we should have the freedom to choose to marry or have sex with the same gender if we want to, for its own sake. We don't get a free pass just because we can't help it. Makes us sound like nymphomaniacs, or birth defects.
Bryn--I'm pretty sure they'd be listed under "Non-Family Households", and I thought you were then able to identify whether someone living with you was a roommate or not. Then they take the number of people of the same-sex living together who didn't identify as roommates and viola, you've got your data. Sounds pretty accurate, right?
Posted by: David H | May 9, 2008 2:46 PM
These income statistics are from this survey.
You'll note that it's not a comprehensive survey of all gay and lesbian people - in fact, in the above link it says, "Survey participants were solicited through over 75 widely distributed internet and print publications." It was most definitely a survey of the readership of glossy, high-end magazines marketed to gay and lesbian readers made for the purposes of selling advertising in those magazines.
Posted by: Alex | May 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Good find, Alex.
I'd also like to echo Kodiak in saying that one would expect people who are openly gay to be rather well off, not necessarily because being openly gay makes one better off, but because people who are better off are more secure and can more safely admit their homosexuality. But people with less security, living in more precarious environments, have more to lose if they admit they're gay.
What she's doing is kinda like those "scientific" racists who point to IQ tests showing blacks scoring lower as justification for blacks living in substandard conditions, without taking into account that it may be those very conditions that lead to the lower scores on tests! They're putting the cart before the horse and confusing cause with effect. "Scientific" racists want to claim that race => intelligence => substandard living conditions when the chain of causation is much more likely to be racist bigotry => substandard living conditions => lower intelligence.
In a similar way, a poll reflecting that gays are wealthier might also be skewed by bigotry. Wealthy gays are in an environment where open homosexuality is less of a problem, so any survey of open gays might find it skewed to the wealthier end of the spectrum. But there would be an "invisible" group of closeted gays in poorer environments who are in no position at all to claim openly that they are gay, because it could cost them everything.
Posted by: Wes | May 9, 2008 4:43 PM
What's particularly amusing about this is that when anti-gays aren't claiming that gays are disproportionately well educated and wealthy they're claiming gays are all promiscuous depressed drug abusers. The obvious fact that one characterization is incompatible with the other never seems to occurr to them - it highlights the fundamental dishonesty of anti-gay religionists.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 9, 2008 6:42 PM
There are a lot of contradictions like that coming from the religious right.
One that I've noticed is that out one side of their mouths they accuse atheists of making humanity the end all be all of existence, and out the other side of their mouths they accuse atheists of being amoral nihilists who think humanity has no value.
And then of course there's the classic "This cross on government property is for historical purposes and has nothing to do with religion, and also removing it would be religious discrimination against us" contradiction. That one seems to pop up in every single church/state case.
It all boils down to the fact that logic and reason mean nothing to the religious right. All they care about is propping up their ideology, and if illogical, contradictory arguments are all they have to prop it up, that's what they'll use.
Posted by: Wes | May 9, 2008 9:43 PM
Ed:
"This is exactly the sort of writing we need more of. Not calls for censorship but a calm, rational debunking of the arguments."
Who is calling for censorship here? Has someone said that anti gay speech should not be published in a newspaper?
Answer: no. This anti censorship tact is a strawman argument.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 10, 2008 11:16 AM
Gingerbaker -
Are you serious? Third comment up from yours comes from someone who is keen on censorship. And while it's certainly not a popular position, Priya is hardly unique in calls for censorship.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 10, 2008 12:40 PM
Duwayne, I didn't call for censorship in this case you moron and I don't call for cencorship in general. All I said was that direct calls for violence shouldn't be allowed and they aren't in civilized countries. Stop lying for a change Duwayne.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 10, 2008 2:29 PM
That woman got suspended because she made a stupid public statement in print which reflects not only on her, but on the university she represents. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. It makes me wonder if she was an affirmative action hire. Good gracious, did she have anyone read over that letter before she sent it to the editor? Surely some of her colleagues or friends could have saved her this grief.
Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want to say, and there will be no consequences. Oh, no, it does not! Freedom of speech just means that you can criticize the government, and the government cannot officially retaliate (unless you have a government job, of course). It does not mean that your boss, your colleagues, your friends, your family, and your fellow citizens cannot retaliate; they can and they will judge you by what you say, praise and promote you if they agree with it, condemn and ostracize you if they disagree, and maybe sue you for slander if your speech is harmful and malicious. Think of the consequences before you say something-- think twice. And think five times before you put something in print!
Unless you don't care about the consequences.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 10, 2008 6:42 PM
Elizabeth -
Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want to say, and there will be no consequences. Oh, no, it does not! Freedom of speech just means that you can criticize the government, and the government cannot officially retaliate (unless you have a government job, of course).
Nope, your right about that. And in turn, Jon has exercised his freedom of speech rather eloquently to describe why he thinks suspending her is wrong. About the only thing she did that might have been a smidgen of an excuse, was identifying herself as a UoT employee. If not for that, I would argue rather more voraciously that this was unjust. Even with that I tend to think that suspending her was a bad idea. Far better respond to her, which is one of the neat things about op-ed pages, that's exactly what they are for.
But no, I have no problems with people suffering the consequences of their idiocy. During a business lunch with a contractor my old roofing company did a lot of work for, said contractor mentioned his distaste for OSHA and safety regulations in general. When I got rather testy and asked if he really wants to go back to measuring large projects in fatalities, he responded that it would open up more jobs. I told him off something fierce and left, expecting that he wouldn't hire us again. I was wrong - my old company is on the very top end of quality roofing in Lansing and he still wanted our services. My old boss told him where he could stuff his jobs.
Priya -
My goodness I have missed you and your anti-polyamory bigotry. Please, don't insult our intelligence by claiming you don't support censorship. You have made that abundantly clear over the course of several posts here, that I won't waste time looking up.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 10, 2008 8:09 PM
Hmmm, and interestingly false statement, which can be disproven reasonably easily: What colour did Michael Jackson begin his life as?
Does she think that "genetically" and "biologically" are two separate determinants and so making it necessary to say both?
I know, picky picky.
Posted by: John S | May 10, 2008 11:10 PM
Silly women, dos'nt she know it's the fault of the health food industry? http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
Posted by: Rich | May 11, 2008 8:49 AM
DuWayne said:
"Gingerbaker -
Are you serious? Third comment up from yours comes from someone who is keen on censorship. And while it's certainly not a popular position, Priya is hardly unique in calls for censorship."
Sorry - I am not aware of Priya's opinions. Frankly, I myself have taken the censor's position on this blog a few times. But I don't think either is particularly relevant here.
I just have not been able to discern where anybody in the article Ed provided was calling for censorship per se, so I didn't think it was necessary for Ed to play that card.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 11, 2008 11:20 AM
Good article with some very good points. That is why I cannot understand why the gay community does not push for protection of rights based on unmutable characteristics instead of the whole "I was born this way argument." Without commenting on the truth, or not, of the latter it is just a less effective argument if the goal is protection of rights.
Right or wrong the "from birth" argument is a hard swallow for most of American it seems. My opinion is that it holds no water Constitutionally for the reasons that the lady in the article stated regardless of her attitude. I used to think that Gays were asking for special rights until Ed wrote something about religious protections not being a mutable characteristic. Turned me right around.
Is it possible to not whole heartedly support the whole "from birth" argument, state that, and not be called a bigot. What about if you support the whole proposition of protection of rights from a immuatable characterisitic point of view? It is cases like these where someone gets suspended for remarks that in my view are not bigoted. It is almost like certain aspects of the gay community do not want to just have protection of rights they want to strangle everyone in society into saying it is ok or right. That is where it goes wrong.
It is the same with some atheists. Some really do want God completely taken away from the Public arena and give the rest a bad name. If I have to trample someone's rights to secure mine why bother?
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 11, 2008 2:06 PM
Duwayne, your chronic lying and obsession with me is pathetic. You need help.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 11, 2008 2:29 PM
Priya -
What lie?
You have in fact advocated very extreme notions of censorship. It's all in the archives here. You are also a hateful, spiteful anti-polyamory bigot, also in the archives here.
As for my obsession with you, well to be perfectly honest darlin, you really annoyed the shit out of me. You mis-characterize the positions of others and no matter how they clarify themselves to you, you refuse to accept that they meant what they meant, not what you claim they met. You're an ugly, nasty little person, with a wee little mind that can't comprehend that not everyone and everything you can't imagine, might exist in spite of your lack of creativity.
Gingerbaker -
Frankly, I myself have taken the censor's position on this blog a few times.
I'm aware, as I have strongly disagreed with you on a number of occasions. I only mentioned Priya, because she has taken that position to an extreme.
I just have not been able to discern where anybody in the article Ed provided was calling for censorship per se, so I didn't think it was necessary for Ed to play that card.
I tend to think that suspending someone for writing what she did in the paper is exactly that. Now given that she identified herself as an employee of the university, I tend to give them some leeway with that and am not necessarily averse to their actions. But there is no question that what they did is censorship.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 11, 2008 6:53 PM