On another post, a commenter (Dave G) brought up this case which has raised some eyebrows among academics. Here is the media version:
The controversy centers on an incident in June 2007, when Sheldon was asked by a student in a human heredity class about heredity’s impact on “homosexual behavior in males and females.” Among other references, Sheldon noted a German study demonstrating some link between maternal stress and homosexual behavior in males, according to the lawsuit.
After a student complained, college officials investigated and dismissed Sheldon, an adjunct professor at the school since January 2004. Court papers say the student expressed concern that Sheldon’s response was “offensive and unscientific.”
In the lawsuit and in a letter sent to the college district’s board of trustees, Sheldon, a veteran biology instructor, maintains she was simply providing students with an exchange on the “nature vs. nurture” aspect of sexual orientation. While acknowledging she was offering views that may have been controversial, Sheldon argues that it was relevant to the course work and part of important classroom dialogue.
“The textbook itself points out that the causes of homosexual behavior are a subject of debate in the scientific community,” said David Hacker, Sheldon’s lawyer. “This teacher did nothing more than explain this fact.”
The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education has taken on the issue and has a lengthy description of the case as well.
A biology professor, P.Z. Myers, who describes himself as a “godless liberal,” blogs about this at Pharyngula (H/t Brady). He casts a somewhat skeptical eye on the complaint and makes some good points in the process. He provides links to relevant documents for those interested.
Coincidentally, this past week, I was researching for my book by reading Lisa Diamond’s new book Sexual Fluidity. By the way, this is an excellent book with a wonderful description of her research. On page 39, the maternal stress hypothesis is mentioned:
Another line of research on the neuroendocrine theory concerns male children born to mothers who were exposed to extremely high levels of stress during pregnancy. Animal research has found that such experiences can affect sexual differentiation in utero through a delay of the testosterone surge that influences brain masculinization.
Here she cites two studies, one led by Michael Bailey and the other by Lee Ellis, along with a review of biological studies with Brian Mustanski as the first author. Professor Sheldon was citing Dorner’s work on hormones and brain differentiation. However, I suspect when this goes to trial, page 39 of Diamond’s book might also be presented in the court room.
Given what I have read regarding this situation, I like Sheldon’s chances in court. Professors present controversial material about subjects daily. Some (much?) of that material we do not agree with but present to help students become aware of the field as it is.
Regardless of the case, I think a great deal of this stress over teaching or not teaching certain subjects as it were could be curbed if we could establish from the get-go that gay people are people worthy of all the same rights as straight people – as well as worthy of respect and acceptance. If that could be made clear, up front, in all classes, especially those that deal with such sensitive topics, then I think we could diffuse some of the tension, then going forward hopefully open up a door, or at least a window, to discussing these topics. That many colleges make statements affirming homosexual orientation is NOT the same thing as having instructors enforce the spirit of such statements. Remember, we’re dealing with a minority that has historically been abused, rejected and been made to feel less-than-human. We have to be careful about how we tread into this territory – BUT, at the same time, make certain we ARE able to discuss these issues
It wouldn’t be handled any differently if this were another minority and we were talking about the causes for their existence.
Timothy,
I agree. At present, I am tired of all the misrepresentations that both sides make. I’m kind of embarrassed on both sides since I’ve been on both sides (if you will – you know what I mean.)
I read the same thing – daily – each group claims a small percentage as the representation of an entire population. And research is skewed. We will never get to the truth about sexual development so long as we knock heads. And I for one am very interested to know how sexuality develops.
Can we start a counsel of people who overlook such things. Can there ever be a moderate voice or one that finds the true facts?? Amazing.
Did you read about the woman who went to the hearing on gays in the military and spouted off ideas??? Did she not do her research about all the sexual misconduct in the military now? It has nothing to do with gay or straight but everything to do with the military’s long history of systematically allowing sexual “freeness” to go unchecked.
On behalf of Christians with reason – I apologize for that gross display of ignorance.
But anyhow – you and I are both frustrated. I’d like to see the polarity ended.
Mary,
I’ve honestly been thinking about this. And while I will agree that the gay media also has misrepresentation and a desire to only present gay folks in a positive light, I truly believe that the levels of misrepresentation are not the same.
For example, there are quite a few Christian websites that will blatantly state “facts” and “studies” about gay folks that are truly demonstrably false. And we can thank Warren and his integrity that quite a few have remove these bogus claims.
But I truly can’t think of any offhand (though they may exist) that produce bogus statistics about conservative Christians. Yes, some are downright hateful, and some spew bile, but I don’t see made up studies.
In short, I very freqently (I’d say almost daily) read something that a conservative Christian has said about gay folk that is an outright lie. And it is not often that I read something that a gay person has said about conservative Christians that is a lie.
Just a note: I have found as much misrepresentation in gay “media” statistics, research etc… as I have with the far right. Trying to get accurate numbers or news sources has become – really – only a game of who gets their info out to the most websites or who gets it to a news source first – forget about the relaibility of the facts, or how a study was performed, or by which group and who supports that group. It’s manipulation.
One would think that we would work together. It seems we need to all soften up a bit.
Dave,
Tim: If I heard something negative about gay people in general, I would likely ask one of my gay friends about it. Although we may not agree on the wrongness of homosexual intercourse, I respect the many good and positive qualities of the persons I know who self-identify as “gay.” I would not make any final evaluation of the information without further research, but I do prefer to “think positive.”
I’m encouraged that you would not rush to repeat accusations. Though, to be honest, that is how your defense of Paul Cameron felt to me.
I would just caution that your gay friends may be no more informed about research than any average person off the street. And there is no uniformity within the collective of gay people, though similar people tend to find each other.
So it is entirely possible that your gay friends share with you a desire to believe ill of gay people in general. I’ve met such gay folks. And considering the perspective you have shared here, I find it HIGHLY likely that the gay people that are your friends are either ex-gays or other gay people that share with you an antipathy for “the gay lifestyle” and a willingness to believe ill of others.
What I’m trying to say (though may be doing so poorly) is that confirmation from someone who agrees with you is not an indication of proof.
If, for example, someone said, “All gay men are promiscuous” and then you went and asked a man who is ex-gay and had lived a life of promiscuity, he would probably confirm the claim. That is his experience.
But if you asked a gay couple that had been together for 25 years, they probably would laugh at you and say that they don’t know anyone at all who is promiscuous. Their friends are not, you see.
The truth would lie with neither of these witnesses. Because neither group is representative of the whole. In order to confirm or deny the claim, you’d have to look to representative samples.
The trick is to avoid going to bogus research, on either side. If one wants to be an advocate for a position, it’s very tempting to find something that backs up your claim. If one wants to be hateful, one looks to the hatemongers who twist facts and extrapolate the bizarre and make up stories.
But if one really and truly cares about honest conversation, you either find a credible source or you don’t make the claim.
If you look at most of my debating with you, you’ll find that I don’t claim that the opposite of what you claim is true.
I don’t, for example, make the claim that there is no difference in mortality between gays and straights. Because, I honestly don’t know. I’ve read speculation that gays who are not infected with HIV live longer than their straight counterparts. I’ve read the opposite. And while some arguments are interesting, there is no credible evidence.
But I also know with absolute certainty that the anti-gay claims are not based in fact. Because I bothered to check.
All I ask is that you do the same. That you bother to check. And that you not rely on anti-gay activists to tell you your facts without confirming them. And I ask that you avoid the trap of thinking, “If the Bible condemns gays, then anything negative said about gays must be in accordance with Biblical Truth”.
I ask that you not repeat accusations without knowing – for yourself based on real hard studies – that what you are repeating is in fact true.
Patrick
I don’t mean Cochran’s hypothesis on SSA. I respect him a lot but he hasn’t produced anything.
I mean in the last population based study from Sweden the author directly stated that homosexuality might be the byproduct of childhood illness.
Something tells me that any college professor (biology, psychology or queer studies) who touches that with a 10 foot pole is in for a world of hurt.
Timothy & Drowssap,
Drowssap explained the idea a lot more straightforwardly than me. Scientists cannot predict orientation in one individual unless they have a whole distribution of differences and know beforehand that it goes from masculine patterns to more feminine patterns (and that they actually do have both gay and straight brains in the sample and not a distribution of more or less typical straight brains). Then they use the same patterns that were found in other studies on male and female brains to conclude that the less masculine/more feminine brain patterns are more likely to be gay than not.
But if they grab one guy from the street, give him a couple of dollars and scan his brain without having any other brains to compare with, they couldn’t tell what sex he would be primarily attracted to based on one particular measurement of the corpus callosum area. They need to compare one measurement with others of the same sex, age bracket, handedness, health condition, to be sure that they don’t have their one-case result confounded by other variables (like age or traumatic events).
What is more, the issue of whether hemispheric symmetry or asymmetry is inborn or to what degree is the result of prenatal or postnatal factors is an unsettled debate that has great relevance for the corpus callosum measurements.
I’m not trying to dismiss what can be a valuable predictor for orientation. Everyone wants to find a good predictor. But if someone mentioned the interesting amygdala patterns found in a number of studies, I’d say that must have something to do with orientation, much more than how much communication is between hemispheres. Those results are very promissing, because that part of the brain is involved in a lot of emotional evaluations and behaviours involved in sexuality, it has shown marked dimorphism in many aspects and it fits theoretical explanations for homosexual orientation development (see Bem’s EBE references to lower levels of aggressiveness and sissy boys’ apprehension in front of typical boys).
I would wait to see another study focusing on the amygdala and the hypothalamus, because those areas are already documented to be sexually dimorphic and involved in sex and aggression. Maybe Bailey gets a few hours on University of Illinois’ newly acquired 9.4 Tesla monster MRI machine to zero in on those areas in a new cohort of gay and straight brains. That would be more than threefold imaging power than his last brainscanning study and more than sixfold than Savic’s study. Then we’d have a molecular-level image that cannot miss much processing of attractions and arousal in the brain. When the results from Sanders’ genetic study hit the market we’ll be able to see how specific genes are expressed in brain areas and how they match the fMRI studies. Now that’d be a good decade’s work in this field. 🙂
Michael: If the Bible is consistent within itself over a period of several thousand years (i.e. not a one-time entry), consistent with historical observations during centuries after the canon is set, consistent with medical and scientific statistics even today –then I conclude there must be something to what it has to say. St. Paul in 1Cor.13 was admitting our finite minds could not fully comprehend the fullness of God’s Love (agape), but this obviously did not inhibit him from declaring God’s Truth to the full extent he was able to grasp it.
Tim: If I heard something negative about gay people in general, I would likely ask one of my gay friends about it. Although we may not agree on the wrongness of homosexual intercourse, I respect the many good and positive qualities of the persons I know who self-identify as “gay.” I would not make any final evaluation of the information without further research, but I do prefer to “think positive.”
However, don’t forget that I’m NOT judging people, I’m evaluating behavior on the basis of its ultimate consequences –because I CARE about the people. To put it in Biblical terms, sins can be forgiven, but Jesus says, “Go, and sin no more.”
Well to be pedantic here is this mainstream research. Publishing in Atlantic and Out magazine really aren’t the greatest references. But I do get what you saying. Many would take the ‘gay germ’ theory as offensive.
Timothy Kincaid
I think your study link suggests that SSA is largely (or completely) biological but I don’t think it shows that any particular part of the brain creates orientation.
Le Vay found differences, your study link found differences, the latest Swedish study found differences. But even so, gay and straight brains are probably really close. They probably can’t tell us apart unless they look at a lot of data points and spot an overall trend. Gay men tend to have a smaller than average nucleus in the hypothalamus but so do some straight men. However if they measure ten seperate parts and compare them against straight/gay averages they probably have us pegged most of the time.
ken
To be honest you are right. I don’t know of any example where a university professor used mainstream research to teach a class that homosexuality might be due to a common childhood or prenatal illness. I suspect that the reason I can’t come up with an example is because none exist. IF the latest science gets taught I have little doubt that a mushroom cloud will erupt followed by a couple of good nights of debate on Hannity and Colmes.
Can you imagine a professor lecturing his Psych 101 class that homosexuality might be due to a disease? PLEASE!!! If it happens, it will be on YouTube within hours.
Evan,
Ok, I get ya.
I agree that “asymmetry is a correlate not a component of orientation”, or at least we have no reason at this time to believe it is a component, though I don’t think we know enough yet of brain functioning to be certain.
And as for this not being “a predictive test that can be applied to any randomly chosen individual”, I don’t know whether it could or couldn’t. Nor do you. 🙂 There was nothing I noted in her study that precluded applying it to any randomly chosen individual. As Warren notes, this should be replicated.
And in any case, whether or not this is a component of orientation or not, if it was determined to be a predictive test, we could then narrow down the etiology of orientation to those things that could result in this correlation.
In other words, if genetics (or Gerber’s strained prunes, for that matter) were the determinant for isthmus size and if prenatal hormones (or getting whacked in the head with a softball, I suppose) was the determinant for dexterity, we would then know what we were dealing with.
I think that we could pretty much do away with those factors that cannot lead to the corollating factors. I am guessing that such factors would be Dobson’s rough play advice and PFOX’s fears about GLSEN.
Of course, this all depends on whether Witelsen has found something that can be replicated or if it’s just another Xq28
Timothy and Evan – It is an empirical question whether or not the method used by Wittelson would be accurate with other people besides her sample. It is probably expensive to do but this would be the replication part of the research. It worked with her sample, would it work in others? I hope she (or someone) replicates it with different samples.
Timothy,
The point was quite simple. What Witelson predicted was only based on her sample and some correlates. I asked for a predictive test that can be applied to any randomly chosen individual, not only someone who was already tested in a number of tasks and who was part of a sample they knew right from the start it included both orientations.
Another point was that less asymmetry is a correlate not a component of orientation, as far as present knowledge can tell. No idea about what orientation is in the brain means no idea how to predict it reliably in any individual without running any additional tests.
Evan,
I don’t mean to sound rude, but after reading your comment twice I still have have to say, “What’s your point”.
I know that you are trying to refute something or other, but for the life of me I just don’t know what you’re getting at.
Timothy,
I know Witelson’s paper and her claim to predictibility. I took that into account when I said that scientists cannot really predict sexual orientation in any random individual. What Witelson and colleagues did was to select a number of homo and hetero men and scan their brains for an area of the corpus callosum that is known to exhibit some degree of sexual dimorphism. They based their hypothesis on this assumption: that women have less or no hemispheric asymmetry and homosexual men have been found in some studies to show a similar pattern, which is reflected in hemispheric connectivity too, ie in size of some areas of the corpus callosum. Their model is based on this assumption. They then applied a regression analysis to the data they already knew it contained a certain distribution. Based on their statistical model that was defined using their selected sample, they were able to predict individual orientations in the same sample. The problem is regression analysis is less reliable for prediction when the independent variables are hypothetical themselves (in this case, reduced hemispheric asymmetry). If brain symmetry was already a predictor of orientation, then the independent variable would have been indisputably linked to male homosexuality.
The second problem is that it doesn’t have much to say about sexuality. It could be just an incidental correlate, created by differences in brain hormonisation (which is, again, hypothetical in humans). We still don’t know much about that and whether it can affect the entire brain in an uniform manner or just in very localised ways. You could have people having less asymmetry who are straight, because the brain areas that generate attractions do not reflect the same pattern of hormonisation. Again, we don’t know how attractions are caused, how they work in the brain and what differences there are between orientations. THe empirical concept of orientation we have right now is dichotomic: someone is either gay or straight. We should see this reflected in the brain mechanism that will be eventually found, in order to predict orientation in any random individual who did not declare his orientation before entering the lab.
Re how abstract or not is sexual orientation — The problem is scientists are always trying to be as close as possible to the most reliable signs of orientation. But still, we don’t know what produces different patterns of arousal or self-reported attractions and fantasies. These are products of orientation, we need to see orientation in: the actual brain mechanism and how the mechanism was put into place. When we see that, we’ll be able to predict orientations. But that mechanism might not be able to explain why some homosexual men can have sex with women.
Addendum to last post
And in the issue of fairness I must admit that just 5 or so years ago I was somebody who thought sexual orientation was abstract and unpredictable.
Timothy Kincaid
First off, thanks for the link I knew about that one but didn’t have it in my favs.
As an aside if you stepped back and looked at orientation from a distance isn’t it sort of amazing that people would think that sexual orientation in humans was abstract and unpredictable? What about male orientation looks either abstract or unpredictable? That scientist might not have built the perfect gay/straight test but no doubt one is out there waiting to be discovered.
Drowssap said in post 114501 :
But what I’m getting at is she didn’t have to spout a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, nonsense to get herself into hot water. In a university environment if a biology teacher read the conclusions from published, mainstream scientific SSA research they might be fired just the same.
Can you cite me any examples of such a thing happening? Or perhaps show how the researchers (many I suspect who are university professors) who have been fired for publishing such research? If not what are you basing your claim on? Every time I’ve investigated claims like this one, I find out the people making the claims were leaving out significant details. Details which didn’t quite make the circumstances seem so outrageous.
Dave: I am trying to stay “on topic”, but you were the one who implied that others of us here might believe that the “Bible lies”. As a Bible-believing Christian, I resented that implication and the percieved attitude that only your understanding was “the Truth”.
Your comment suggested that there was no room for legit debate or possible error on your part. If we didn’t agree with you, we must believe the “Bible lies” or that we are choosing not to believe some irrefutable historical record.
I hope you will admit that we are all human and that we see things through our own experiences and prejudices. Keep in mind that the “honest observers throughout history” were also human (like you) and that they also brought along their own attitudes and limitations to the table.
To me, in seems self-evident that our understanding is NOT complete. We do not observe through crystal clear glasses. Because we have not yet seen Him face-to-face, the glass is still a bit cloudy — even with Scripture as our guide. Are you willing to admit that your understanding of the Bible on this issue just might be wrong?
Dave,
Sorry to revisit this, but I really am curious.
If you heard something about gay people that was negative, and you did not know if it was true, would you repeat it anyway?
What if you were told that it wasn’t true?
What if you were presented evidence that it wasn’t true?
What if ALL the evidence unequivocably proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t true? Would you still repeat it?
THANK YOU. Let’s focus on the subject here.
Dave G. Statements like this one have always bothered me: ” I honestly do not think the Bible tells lies about this.”
I don’t either. But your statement implies that your understanding of the Bible, (and only your understanding of the Bible) is correct. Sincere, born-again people of faith view certain Biblical passages differently.
As believers, there is room for legitimate debate about what Scripture does (and does not) say about homosexuality. Those of us who hold a view that differs from yours do not “think that the Bible tells lies” We just disagree with YOU.
By contrast, your attitude (“The Bible says so…” position) suggests a sort of spiritual arrogance that does not square with Paul’s more humble position that “what we know now is partial, then it will be complete — when we behold Him face to face.” (1 Cor. 13:9) Not until then, Dave. Not until then.
Dave,
I think your response makes abundantly clear your agenda in asking about ADF. As I have no use for the spreading of false witness or bogus “warnings”, I’ll not engage in debate.
Tim,
I don’t “disparage” gays, out of concern I only pass on warnings about consequences –for individuals, families, relationships, community, society, civilizations. I honestly do not think the Bible tells lies about this. Nor do honest observers throughout history.
I think this thread is about disruption of lives and educational endeavors over a very sensitive issue. Let’s see what transpires.
Dave G.,
If you are serious about wanting to know ADF’s history, I’ll give you some examples.
But so far it seems like you want to make this about “negative super-sensitivity” which suggests to me that this will just be more of the same. And if you want to turn this into a rant about the evils, the diseases, the mortality, or any other disparagement of gays, I’m not going to accomodate you.
Hmmm. Speaking of bias, do I detect a bit of animosity against ADF? Their track record in court isn’t that bad. Is it their values orientation that offends? Is there a connection between this sort of negative super-sensitivity and that of the student? What is it we don’t want to hear?
Yes, I’m interested in learning more details on this case.
Last November, Sandra Witelson released the results of a study in which she was able to look at the size of the isthmal area of the corpus callosum and the results of manual dexterity tests and predict orientation 21 out of 22 times.
Witelson was hesitant to claim a predictive test, and the research needs to be replicated (I believe), but orientation may be less abstract and unpredictable than previously assumed.
Since none of know what really happened, maybe we (me included) should not be taking sides at this point. I am most concerned that the college may not have even followed its own, written policies in letting her go.
Michael,
I addressed that concern. I said:
She started from a hypothetical premise: that prenatal stress can produce boys who grow up to be gay. Then she mentioned the Middle East lower rate of male homosexuality (MHM) in support of her preferred hypothesis. The hypothesis she used to explain MHM is documented in human research, not only in past model animals studies. It would be interesting to see what data does she have on the Middle East MHM rate. Both her and the student could be wrong in their assumptions about the Middle East. They have the right to express possibly wrong deductions based on cultural practices. The hypothesis, however, is part of the mainstream debate. Check this reference.
Neither the student nor her are necessarily accurate in their stories. If the student was gay and was so ‘horribly offended’ by her using that hypothesis because it put homosexuality in a less favourable light, he could also be offended by the very existence of this hypothesis (or by Lee Ellis et al’s study on fetal exposure to prescription drugs and adult sexual orientation). If he was offended by the way she used this hypothesis to make an argument for parents’ behavioural choices which can result in different sexual orientation outcomes in their offspring, then he could have raised an objection only to using hypothetical science to effect real-life very different outcomes. It’s not very clear which part was so offensive: the fact that the hypothesis exists and she used it, that she defined parents’ possible choices, or her choice of words. We have to see some testimonies to find what was that she really said. There’s a long distance from prenatal stress to abuse. If she said it exactly as the student says, I think her motivation was primarily to make a case for a nicer treatment of women and she used this hypothesis to strike a chord with the male audience.
Evan
You are completely, 100% right.
I think scientists who work in the field talk in code to protect themselves from harassment.
Eye color, hair color, blood type, and the rhesus factor: exploring possible genetic links to sexual orientation.
In this study, scientists found the homosexuality might be connected to blood type and blood factors. Every student in first year medical school knows that means immune system. But rather than state the obvious and stir up trouble they instead wrote about the gay gene.
If this teaching said something about treating wives nicely, she may have been expressing this in a tongue in cheek style. Saying something in class does not mean you agree with it or that you believe the theory you teach.
E.g, I could say, “Now class if you want to avoid homosexuality, then make sure you go easy on the soy products.” I would then explain the theory as an absurdity to illustrate how many correlates have been researched and advanced as explanations. Someone who is not capable of grasping the teaching method or who is not paying attention might go out and say, “That teacher said soy makes people gay!”
The trial will bring out other witnesses and the legal process will work. However, thus far, I am with Dr. Myers. The student complaint has holes.
ken
I don’t know enough about this particular story. She could be a victim or a kook. I’ll be interested to see how it all sorts out.
But what I’m getting at is she didn’t have to spout a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, nonsense to get herself into hot water. In a university environment if a biology teacher read the conclusions from published, mainstream scientific SSA research they might be fired just the same.
From the June Swedish twin study
Can you imagine a biology or queer studies professor reading and explaining that in front of a large, university lecture hall? College activists would go thermonuclear.
Evansaid: “… at worst, she presented a very partial and limited take on both issues; at best, she gave her opinion on the ongoing debate.”
If what the student is saying is true, she did a lot more than that. The student alleges that the professor told the men to be nice to their wives (so as not to stress them and produce a gay son) or abuse their wives if they really did prefer a “sensitive” one.
I am with Ken. I suspect their is much more to this story and that they were sick of these kinds of offensive comments and unprofessional behavior. As far as I can tell, the story is not so much one of “academic” freedom as it is whether or not the professor was behaving in accordance with university policy and whether or not the university followed its own guidelines in getting rid of her.
Drowssap,
As long as she mumbles something about a combination of genes, hormones and environment, that’s what everyone would agree on. It’s safe talk. If we are really harsh on the scientists working in this field, they’ve got almost nothing, mostly likelihoods. No mechanism: A leads to B leads to C feedbacks B etc. No clear causes which put a defined mechanism into place. Therefore, no predictability in any given non-communicating individual (arousal patterns in the lab won’t say all about behaviours in intimacy, which throws a doubt over arousal as a deciding criterion for orientation, especially for women). You can say just about anything sounds plausible and has been empirically investigated and found likely to contribute to an outcome.
I can’t remember where I’ve read about a study on male and female brains where blind raters failed to discriminate between male and female brains (they practically couldn’t tell them apart), although you would be laughed at in the scientific community if you seriously said that there are no male and female brains. How about sexual orientation? Can a scientist measure INAH3 and say he can predict orientation? Nope. Back to the drawing board. 🙂
This issue cannot be solved any soon because people don’t want to admit lots of things yet. There is a major potential for scandal to talk about how strong or weak brain differences between men and women are (IQ differences, size, capacity, etc), there is an even greater explosive potential to talk about a continuum of sexuality and try to predict it in populational samples. 80% would never cooperate: we have seen the pattern of responsiveness. People don’t want to be guessed and predicted in their most inner aspects of being. Talking about a cloudy complex of causes which “influence” sexual orientation is the best approach right now. 😉
Drowssap said in post 114333:
But I think this community college dust-up exposes how sensitive the issue of “what causes homosexuality” has become.
Rather how exploitable it has become. We don’t know why she was fired Drowssap, only why she claims she was fired. I have a lot of unanswered questions about this case, and unfortunately, I doubt the media will report on this beyond the original sound-bites it has already published. 🙁
I have to agree with this entirely. Any moral high-ground is completely abandoned when someone calls the ADF to their “defense.”
I’m not sure if this professor is a kook or not. But I think this community college dust-up exposes how sensitive the issue of “what causes homosexuality” has become.
She might (or might not) have been spreading nonsense but if she spouted the truth would she be in less hot water? Could a queer studies or biology professor go over the latest research from Sweden and NOT get into hot water?
The population based Swedish study suggested some sort of environmental trauma might cause SSA. Zucker suggested the same thing in the conclusion of his 2000 study on left handedness. Who is going to say that in front of a large, biology 101 or queer studies class? I don’t see anybody surviving that. It would be job/career suicide.
I suspect there is more going on here than is being reported. I am very interested in hearing the response from other faculty members at the college.
I would say that, at worst, she presented a very partial and limited take on both issues; at best, she gave her opinion on the ongoing debate. Dörner’s work is still quoted mostly because it’s part of the history of ideas on sexual orientation than because it is directly relevant to recent research and theorizing. Bailey refuted the stress idea in the study he did with Willerman and Parks in 1991. More recently, Lee Ellis has been keeping this line of research alive by publishing a few more studies (in 2001 and 2005). In my opinion, there can exist an intervening variable, like mother’s inherent susceptibility to stress which is passed on to the son via the X chromosome, where an unusually large number of brain genes reside for which men have no copies to protect them from mutations. So the stress hypothesis might be right as a correlation, but wrong as a cause, because you cannot build a hypothetical correlation on top of the hypothetical ground of hormonal influence on sexual orientation. You need to have the latter confirmed first before you build a hypothesis for external influences on prenatal environment.
OTOH, the guy who was ‘horribly offended’ should have presented objections or simply disagreed with her. I don’t see the big deal, why he was so stressed by her opinion on the current state of the debate. She is not an authoritative or expert voice on the issue. I’ve seen many smart journalists writing stories in university and nation-wide newspapers about how genetics decided whom we mate with. Admittedly, she is trained to lecture on biology so she should know better, but science journalists have far more impact than she would.
I’ve seen medical school neuroanatomy courses which cited a few ‘gay brains’ correlations as undisputed facts, although they haven’t been duplicated yet (very few are usually confirmed to be somewhat orientation-specific). I also saw another university presentation on the limbic system in which students were informed about the existence of three types of emotional brains: male, female, and gay. Yes, it was quoted as fact — and a very politically massaging one.
Aside from her remark on the lower male homosexuality rate in the Middle East due to gentler gender relations, for which I don’t see how she can present some evidence, I think she’s safe and she stands great chances in the court. I wouldn’t take a class on this subject with her, but I would have debated her. 8)
Anyway, it’s not normal that they reacted so promptly to such benign statements; there are higher level educational environments where research is presented only insofar as it supports a politically correct conclusion. That is unprofessional and damaging to the climate of free thinking on this subject. All facts should be presented as such, regardless of whether they are discomforting or not. We can joke about them later if we want, but we have to lay out the whole picture if we are truly interested in the truth.
It’s a relief that San Jose/Evergreen Community College decided to dismiss professor Sheldon for being academically biased. Now that she is gone that fine organization can get back to being ideologically neutral like the rest of the Universities across America.
What a joke.
I’ve definitely taken classes in which debate was encouraged. I’ve also taken classes in which instructors discouraged any positions that were not in exact agreement with their own.
SJCC is claiming that this complaint was not the reason Sheldon was not kept on. It may be that Sheldon had a pattern of teaching practices that put her idealogy ahead of instruction or that resulted in students being so caught up in confusion and anger that no learning was achieved.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what transpires.
I wish it were not true, but I’ve reached the place where I assume that whatever the Alliance Defense Fund says is just about the opposite of whatever happened. ADF is perhaps best known for their absolute abandonment of honesty and truth in their press releases.
Sigh, it’s difficult being a Christian these days. Too often using the “C” word identifies you as a bully, bigot, and liar.
On reviewing the specifics of the student’s complaint, it seems it was prompted by more than an academic discussion of the “nature vs. nurture” debate. The student alleges:
(1) That the professor referenced a study “that only used one mouse in the experimental group and one mouse in the control group. Not only that, the study did not explain how they determined the offspring were gay”,
(2) That Professor Sheldon said there are hardly any gay men in the Middle East because the women are treated very nicely,
(3) That there aren’t any real lesbians. According to her, women simply get tired of relationships with men and pursue them with women,
(4) That she addressed the men in the classroom, saying that if they want a “nice,” and strong son, they should treat their wives very nicely (do things like “open doors for them”). and
(5) that to conclude her lecture, the professor said, if the men wanted a “sensitive” son, the men should abuse their wives.
Who knows if any of these allegations are true? Why did the student apparently wait several weeks feeling “offended” before filing a complaint? Also, it appears from reading all the referenced materials, that the professor may have been denied due process and that the college may not have followed its own guidelines for resolving student complaints.
Finally, as P.Z. Myers (the “godless liberal”) questions, why, if the student was so offended, didn’t she “stand up and argue”? I thought that discussion, inquiry and open debate were part of the learning process.