Deming case dropped at OU

J

jimpeel

New member
In case you missed this:

Did a search and found that the only posts on this subject are the ones that were posted when this was ongoing.

This case was covered in TFL posts http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25581 and http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/Forum10/HTML/003171.html some time ago. The latest on this case is this from the OU Daily Oklahoman (10-29-2000)[How'd we miss this?]

OU drops sexual harassment claim

OU has dropped a sexual harassment claim against a professor who referred to female genitalia while editorializing against gun control.

"This should have never gotten this far," said David Deming, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at OU.

Deming was called on the carpet in February for an editorial letter he submitted to The Oklahoma Daily. Deming said OU dismissed the claim after being threatened with a federal lawsuit.

"I don't regret what I wrote," Deming said. "I'm 44 years old, and I decided long ago that I won't knuckle down to what others think. I'm going to say what I believe to be the truth."

OU has agreed to drop the sexual harassment claim and review its guidelines, revising them where appropriate, said Curt Levey of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights, which represented Deming for free. Deming said his settlement with OU does not involve a monetary award.

Deming's letter was a response to a column by Yale University student Joni Kletter that was reprinted in the school newspaper.

Several Oklahoma Daily readers were offended by the piece and filed sexual harassment allegations. Deming said the allegations were dismissed by OU's affirmative action office.

But the claim was reinstated when the decision was appealed by the claimants. Levey said Kletter never joined the complaint.

"OU's policy was kind of fuzzy that one could make the case that he should be put on trial, but OU saw the light," Levey said.

Joe Harroz, OU's chief legal counsel, said OU has a responsibility to protect the university community from exposure to a hostile environment while at the same time protecting First Amendment rights to free speech.
 
Another example of how the libs cave in when confronted.

I wish to God Ashcroft and crew would take notice.
 
Found this at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/education/deming01-25-01.htm

Free-Speech Hypocrisy at the University of
Oklahoma
by David Deming, Ph.D.

FrontPageMagazine.com | January 25, 2001


I AM ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR of geology and geophysics at the
University of Oklahoma in Norman. In March of 2000, I was
charged with sexual harassment after sending a letter to
the editor of the campus newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily,
which some people found offensive. My letter was written
as a rebuttal to a gun-control column by Yale Daily News columnist Joni Kletter which had recently been reprinted in the OU paper. Ms. Kletter wrote that "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country....to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want." My reply was terse. I pointed out that Kletter’s "easy access" to a vagina enabled her to "quickly and easily" have sex with "as many
random people" as she wanted. I furthermore said that her possession of an unregistered vagina equipped
her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal disease. I closed by expressing the hope that Ms. Kletter
was as responsible with her equipment as most gun
owners are with theirs.

My letter appeared on a Monday. By the end of
the week, I found myself facing formal charges of
sexual harassment. These specious charges have
now been dismissed, thanks to the efforts of the
Center for Individual Rights, Edmond, Okla., attorney Andrew Lester, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Furthermore, the university administration has agreed to review the sexual harassment policy. However, this outcome occurred only because the right to free speech at OU was defended by groups and individuals from outside the university.

My colleague in the OU geology department, John Castagna, was the only one of 1,122 full-time faculty members on the OU campus who publicly spoke out against misuse of the sexual harassment process. Naturally, I didn’t expect anyone to come forward and say they approved of my letter. That was not the
point. However, I would have expected some comments along the lines of "I don’t agree with what Deming said, but he has a right to express his opinion." The OU faculty evidently did not understand some simple truths. Inoffensive speech never needs protection. When the rights of one faculty member are
attacked, the rights of all faculty members are attacked. If an OU faculty member can be punished for making a political statement in a public forum, then academic freedom in the classroom has been shredded. Every college library in the country contains highly offensive material. If my persecution had been successful, in very little time the same people who filed sexual harassment complaints against me would have sought to pull books off the shelves of the university library and burn them on the campus green.

The faculty handbook of the University of Oklahoma contains the official policies of the university. In the section on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, it states: "Faculty members have responsibilities to their colleagues, deriving from common membership in a community of scholars. They shall respect and defend the free inquiry of their associates."

Not only did the faculty fail to come to my defense, at least one of the people who filed a sexual harassment complaint against me was publicly identified as a faculty member. The prevailing attitude amongst OU faculty was perhaps exemplified by the attitude of a man who has been a close friend of mine for several years. My friend holds a named chair and is a tenured professor. He is as insulated from
political pressure as any faculty member can be. I never asked my friend for a support statement, but he volunteered to me that he had to remain silent, because, well, "What would people think?" My liberal friend is also a dues-paying member of the ACLU. Later that summer, the ACLU announced that it was going to court to defend the First Amendment rights of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an
organization of pedophiles whose sole purpose is the promotion of sex between men and boys.

The press also failed to speak out against the misuse of the sexual harassment process. Only a few months before sexual harassment charges were filed against me, the OU student newspaper editorialized in favor of free speech. In an editorial dated October 4, 1999, the newspaper objected to the city of New York cutting funding for a museum which displayed a painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. In this case, what was important was not that many people found the painting to be profoundly
offensive. What was important was that "one of our country’s greatest qualities is freedom of statement."

The same month that the OU campus newspaper was defending the right to splatter the Virgin Mary with elephant feces, a banner put up by the OU Gay and Lesbian Student Association to celebrate "National Coming Out Day" was vandalized. Former United States senator and current OU president David Boren
immediately condemned the action and stated that the right to free statement at OU must be protected. Boren was quoted in the campus newspaper as saying, "When the rights of free speech and free statement for any members of our community are violated, we are all diminished."

Of course, many religious conservatives in Oklahoma find homosexuality and its promotion on the OU campus to be offensive. But that didn’t stop the OU president from making a strong statement of moral principle. When I was put on trial, however, Boren remained silent and did nothing to stop my persecution. He later wrote me and said that his primary concern now was "restoring civility to public debate." The OU
administration later abruptly stopped the proceedings against me. As reported in the Norman Transcript on
May 6, 2000, they had a sudden revelation that my letter was protected by the First Amendment when they learned my attorneys intended to file a lawsuit against them in federal court.

One might have expected that august group of faculty members, the faculty senate, to express concern over
the misuse of the sexual harassment process to abridge a faculty member’s right to free speech. I’m a
member of the faculty senate, and I can tell you that the topic never once was mentioned in any public
deliberation. The primary concern of the faculty senate that semester was condemning the Oklahoma State
Textbook Committee for recommending that biology textbooks be required to insert a disclaimer. The
disclaimer stated that evolution was a "controversial theory" and, amongst other things, admonished
students to "study hard and keep an open mind." It was condemned by unanimous vote. In the last
meeting of the OU faculty senate that semester, it became clear what was uppermost on the minds of most
senators. In a bizarre spectacle, one member of the executive committee sang "Faculty Raises, Forever!" to
the tune of the "Hallelujah Chorus" from Handel’s Messiah.

A few years ago, the administration of the University of Oklahoma announced that the new mission of the University was to attain "excellence," a goal which heretofore had been more commonly associated with companies which manufacture small kitchen appliances. For hundreds of years, it was universally
understood that the mission of our universities was to pass through liberal education. The most important of these values are freedom of speech and thought; without them, no scholarly pursuit or education is possible. My experience seems to indicate that these values are now foreign to the University of Oklahoma. That is unfortunate.
 
Where?

I think I missed that sexism there. Please so kind as to point it out.

I believe what that Professor wrote is called a parody or maybe a caricature. Maybe it is something else, but not sexism.

'Don't be sexist. Broads hate that.' - Bumper sticker seen on an old pickup on I64.

TR
 
GEEZE!!!!!!!!!

This is the 2nd article I have read tonight talking about the 1st. Whiners, sociocrats, feminazi's are offended by (i'll bet) a white male telling it like it is. Why it's got to be SEXUAALLL harrassmant! Just gotta be! Cause I said so. WRONG! In this case a professor stated his beliefs and in a very pointed way. Some didn't like it, some decided to try a legal way to shut him up. It didn't work. I guess if they had more money and more "expensive" attorneys they might have had a chance... After all, today, if I don't like what you say, I sue...... What ever happened to tolerance? The old line of " I shall defend to the death your right to spout such BS" never occured to these people. Why? Think about it, I'll bet it wasn't males saying they were sexually harassed. Free speech is free speech! You may not like it, but the other guy may not like what you say either. Wonder if I can get my congresscritter to promulgate some new "feel-good" legislation that would make a law saying if you sue someone because you don't like what they say, and if you lose the case you pay a "bazillion" in restitution, would it stop? I doubt it, why? Because the "touchy-feeley's" are pushing this crap. "I don't like this so I'll sue"! "I don't feel good about this so..... You get the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Nogod, I too would like to have the sexual harassment pointed out, please. Here's what I see:

1. He says she has a vagina. Is this untrue? Is it insulting?

2. He says she has the "capability" to have sex with many different people. Is this untrue? Is it insulting? Is it harassment?

3. He says that she could work as a prostitute. Is this untrue? Is it insulting? Remember that he says she could do so--he never implies that she is a prostitute or that he thinks of her as one. Is that harassment?

4. He says she could spread VD. Is this untrue? Is it harassment?

5. Finally, why is it that if you say guns are tools that give human beings "dangerous capabilities," that is not harassment, indeed is protected speech, but to point out that the author has a few dangerous capabilities of her own is sexual harassment and grounds for dismissal of a tenured college professor?
 
About six years ago, as a graduate teaching assistant, I had my own little incident with "civility" and "free speech" issues at OU. Unfortunately, no one came to my aid while Boren and OU counsel saw that I lost my position and financial support. I did manage to finish my Ph.D. and graduate, but it was strictly on my own dime. At least, their attempt to attack my character did not work since my committee and other pertinent faculty agreed to let me remain in the program.

Now, I will not teach or work in higher education (which had been my career plan) because the moment my colleagues in higher education find out I am a gunowner, a holder of a CCW, a life member of the NRA, and a conservative, I know I will be framed for some crime so that I can be fired. Don't think it can't happen. The keepers of our nation's colleges and universities will do anything to get rid of someone who defends the private ownership of firearms, which they hate and fear to the point of mental illness.

Deming does enjoy some protection as a tenured professor, so that is his pass, for now. I doubt though if he will ever get a promotion or get better assignments in his academic unit now that he has been revealed at a defender of gun rights. After all, they cannot let it appear that such behavior is actually rewarded in any way. The freeze is on for Professor Deming. It is hoped that he is polishing up his resume and looking to move on.

[Edited by Trevor on 01-28-2001 at 09:25 PM]
 
Trevor, the liberals aren't so liberal once they gain power. From what I have seen, they are in control of the Universities. My wife quit teaching at a secular U. when it was clear that she would have to write like a Feminist/Marxist to get tenur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top