Li-Ann Thio and NYU Confront 'Academic Freedom'

How much should an academic institution sacrifice in the name of lively debate? The instinctive answer, it seems, is pretty much everything. Don't the foundations of academia rely on intellectual discussion, most often fueled by opposing viewpoints? How can true growth be fostered when students and faculty are only exposed to a singular world view? And yet, mustn't this expectation of academic freedom have some limit? New York University School of Law has recently been forced to confront these longstanding questions.

Earlier this month, the appointment of Li-Ann Thio, a prominent law professor from the National University of Singapore, as a visiting professor in the Hauser Global Law School Program, sparked incredible controversy among the NYU community.

Thio, an outspoken critic of homosexuality, was scheduled to teach a course this fall entitled "Human Rights in Asia." To many at NYU, the irony was appalling. In her role as a nominated member of the Singapore Parliament, she actively fought for the continued criminalization of homosexual conduct, saying, among other things, a repeal of the law prohibiting these acts "is the first step of a radical political agenda to subvert social morality, the common good, and undermine our liberties."

Various student groups quickly denounced NYU Law's choice to invite Thio to teach a course on human rights. Groups such as NYU OUTLaw engaged the administration in dialogue regarding the signals Thio's invitation sent. While the administration firmly condemned Thio's statements to the Singapore Parliament and reiterated its commitment to non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, it firmly defended its decision to bring her to NYU Law. Dean Richard Revesz argued that the offer was made in consideration of her "published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator." He also expressed his hope that Thio's presence would foster discussion about these and other topics in the fall. NYU OUTLaw countered, asking, "How virulent must homophobic remarks be to disqualify a scholar from employment at NYU Law?"

For her part, Thio released an 18-point defense in which she articulated her disappointment with the way some members of the NYU community had responded to her appointment. She questioned, "Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenization if this is the case."

Indeed, where is the line of academic freedom drawn? In this increasingly connected world, it is no surprise that the academic world is following the same globalizing pattern as other fields. It seems that in the future, scholars will be imported and exported at a dizzying rate, stimulating cross-cultural debate as differing views and values are brought together in the new global classroom.

Along with this trend, isolated student groups, such as NYU OUTLaw, now have resources available that allow the mass spread of information to, and mobilization of, others in their academic communities. In this instance, the group's actions contributed to the speedy establishment of an online petition against Thio, pressure on the NYU administration, abysmally low enrollment in Thio's courses, and her ultimate decision to decline her invitation to teach at NYU.

In a statement on July 22 to the NYU Law community announcing Thio's voluntary choice to pass on the offer, Dean Revesz acknowledged that Thio's appointment brought two core values of NYU, and academia in general, into tension: "academic freedom and a commitment to non-discrimination based on sexual orientation."

What does it mean that Thio decided to cancel her stay at NYU Law? Of course there was that gnawing fact that only a handful of students signed up for her courses. But she also cited the "hostility" she felt from the NYU community as another factor. Did NYU Law lose a valuable opportunity to interact with a well-educated and outspoken human rights lawyer who happens to be informed by a different set of values? Or, more likely, did members of the community successfully speak out against the supposed "academic freedom" of a woman whose homophobic monologues actively work to send gay Singaporean men to prison?

At some point, it becomes obvious that in a community such as NYU Law, where the legality of homosexual conduct has clearly and formally been beyond the point of practical "discussion" for a long time, the decision to invite a visiting scholar with such inflammatory views and then defend her under the pretenses of "academic freedom" is just not acceptable. Some issues are simply not topics in which both sides should be given a legitimate platform, especially in the academic world where credibility and respect so often accompany these platforms. It is not "academic cowardice," as Thio suggests, but rather, bravery and a commitment to a fundamental belief that is beyond debate.

It is a messy situation, but one that will not be the last of its kind as local values become increasingly entrenched at the same time that foreign scholars, often with views informed by their own local values, are easily recruited for the global perspectives they can offer. Let's just hope that in the future, schools such as NYU Law remember this incident and that the status of "academic freedom," despite Thio's claims, should never be lowered to that of thinly veiled discrimination.