Politics and Pucks

A few hours ago I wrote about a Purdue Political Science Professor who wrote a controversial blog entry gaining some buzz on Twitter. Prof. Bert Chapman has been scrutinized on Twitter for an anti-gay economic opinion on his blog regarding the health care debate.

So you ask, what is so wrong about a Political Science Professor voicing his opinion on a blog? Nothing at all. So what is the problem? The blog entry itself.

Firstly, it identifies that those who are a part of the "sodomite degeneracy" should be excluded from health care. When the LGBTQ community is identified as a "sodomite degeneracy", it is discriminatory. You can't just post that groups of people are inferior because of life choices. By this same logic, Jews and Muslims shouldn't have health care because they have a different dietary habits. This is very inflammatory towards LGBTQ communities, and by all means has grabbed the attention of many of the groups on campus. The LGTBQ communities are being told here that they are less than human.

Secondly, it identifies AIDS as a gay disease. Absolutely not true. AIDS effects everyone. A statistic I heard in health class in high school was 1 in 5 have a sexually transmitted disease. So it is likely you know someone who has an STD. AIDS is caused by HIV, which is an STD. STDs do not only affect people who are gay. If AIDS was a gay only disease, then how do you explain the problem with AIDS in Africa? Did you know that in sub-Saharan Africa, the main route of infection is heterosexual sexual intercourse? So again, how is this a gay-only issue? Safe sex is one way to decrease the spread of AIDS, which is why there has been donations of condoms and education to Africa. We need sex education here in the US so we can decrease the spread of AIDS by teaching people safe-sex tactics.

Lastly, this blog entry is generally hateful towards LGBTQ individuals. Why is it "shameful" that we identify the needs of co-workers who live a different lifestyle? We should be celebrating our differences because they help us understand the world better. By the logic provided in this blog entry, there is an undertone of the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision of "separate, but equal". This argument is an issue that tends to be one that atheists tend to experience too. Atheists, whose issues sometimes overlap with those of LGBTQ, should then have no right to other things in this country. I'm atheist and I don't have a need to go to church, synagogue, mosque, etc. So by this logic, I don't have a need to have Christmas Day, a federal holiday, to spend time with family and friends. Americans who are Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist all have that day to do the same too, and none believe in Jesus! Should I not have weekends off then, since I obviously don't have religious obligations to fulfill? It seems there's a notion posed here that is hateful. It is that non-Christians and gays who are full US citizens should not have certain rights because they're inherently different.

This blog entry is something that I hope people not at Purdue take note of as well. Prof. Chapman has posted a blog entry that is very hateful, and this needs to be addressed. I'm not saying this because I disagree with Prof. Chapman, but because what he has written here is not objective. As political scientists we need to be objective, and not politically preach. Objectivity is crucial for the field. It is also very offensive to me, and I'm straight. I have a lot of friends and colleagues who identify this way, and some of them are great people who contribute positively to society. I would hate for their rights and livelihood be threatened by hateful rhetoric.