If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
Transgenders who get “sex reassignment” surgery 19 times more likely to die by suicide; findings do not support encouraging young children to pursue opposite-sex ‘gender identity’
Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexuality: Two self-identified “gay” national cable news anchors, Don Lemon of CNN and Thomas Roberts of MSNBC, were victimized as boys by homosexual predators. A new special report in the journal The New Atlantis reveals that, “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.” Click to enlarge.
Folks, below is the Executive Summary of a new, in-depth special report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” appearing in The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society (Fall 2016). The report is co-authored by Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is identified as a “scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.” McHugh is a world renowned psychiatrist and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at John Hopkins.
I highly recommend that you join me in reading or at least scanning this report. You can view or download a PDF copy of the 116-page “Sexuality and Gender” report (plus endnotes) HERE. Or you can order a printed copy of the issue for $7 HERE. Sign up for New Atlantis e-updates HERE, or go to their Twitter page. — @PeterLaBarbera, AFTAH
Emphasis in bold is ours below:
________________________________
Executive Summary – “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences”; The New Atlantis, Fall 2016
This report presents a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research — from the biological, psychological, and social sciences — related to sexual orientation and gender identity. It is offered in the hope that such an exposition can contribute to our capacity as physicians, scientists, and citizens to address health issues faced by LGBT populations within our society.
Some key findings:
Part One: Sexual Orientation
The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence.
While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.
Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).
Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.
Part Two: Sexuality, Mental Health Outcomes, and Social Stress
Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.
Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.
Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.
Baylor University removes ban on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct code
Sodomy-Friendly Baylor–More ‘Caring’ than God? The “Christian” university dropped its ban on “homosexual acts” from its sexual conduct code.–because Baylor officials didn’t believe the Bible-based sodomy proscription “reflected Baylor’s caring community.”
It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony. Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space.
The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian universities immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.
In a July 14 article in The Atlantic headlined, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Evangelical Colleges,” University of Tampa professor David R. Wheeler asks, “Now that same-sex couples have the right to wed, will higher-ed institutions that condemn LGBT students still be eligible for federal funding?”
Wheeler is not alone in asking. “As cultural evolution on the issue of LGBT rights continues to accelerate, it’s inevitable that some Americans will start asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to allocate scarce public resources to institutions that are not only anti-gay, but proud of it,” opines anti-Christian bigot Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “For starters, can federally supported educational institutions bar married same-sex couples from living together in student housing? I doubt it,” he adds.
In other words, Christian universities must together embrace and facilitate homosexual sin, or lose, at once, both tax-exempt status and access to all students who choose to fund their education via federal loans and grants (which is most of them).
Pedophilia Promoter? U.-Southern Maine professor Wendy Chapkis, posing with her gender-bending mustache, wrote an introduction extolling “transman” Patrick Califia’s lesbian porn book “Macho Sluts.” The book contains a story about a young girl who becomes the sex slave of her sadistic mom–thus combining pedophilia, incest and BDSM into one vile tale.
WARNING: Graphic descriptions of BDSM “fiction”
Folks, below my friend Mike Heath writes about Wendy Chapkis, a professor at the University of Southern Maine. Until a couple of weeks ago, Mike and I had never heard of Ms. Chapkis, a proud lesbian who wrote the celebratory Introduction to a wicked book, “Macho Sluts,” which is housed in the homosexual “Leather Archives & Museum.” LA&M is a “museum” dedicated to honoring, as it were, the grossest sexual perversions invented by mankind (e.g., “fisting”). One of its collected works is the lesbian S&M book “Macho Sluts” — by female-to-male “transman” Patrick Califia. In that horrid book is a short story, “Finishing School,” that manages to combine pedophilia, incest, and sadomasochistic cruelty into one sicko tale involving the sexual torture of a young girl by her own mother.
Writing her vulgar Introduction in 2009, Professor Chapkis extolled “Macho Sluts” and Califia. “This is classic Califia, queering every encounter,” she gushed. “Nowhere in this collection does anyone sacrifice their own pleasure for another. Tops take what they want, bottoms get what they deserve, in all the best ways.” Really, professor? So a young girl–even in some perverted S&M fantasy–deserves to become the sex slave of her mommy? And she deserves to get beaten–Sadists call it “disciplined”–with a cane to the point of bleeding by said mom?
So repulsive is “Finishing School” that even the radical feminist Professor Chapkis, proudly sporting a mustache above, noted in her Introduction that she could “barely get through” it. Yet somehow that didn’t stop the gender-bending social justice crusader from enthusiastically endorsing Califia’s vile “Macho Sluts.” Such are the twisted priorities of “progressives,” but I think I’ll let Mike or someone else do the in-depth review of Chapkis’ obscenity-laden Intro. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
P.S. I wonder how many U.-Southern Maine moms and dads–you know, the types who created families and never once considered turning their kids into sex slaves–would be aghast to learn that their daughters (and sons) sat under a radical like Chapkis in the name of higher learning.
The 2004 Honda Accord sedan that my wife and I drive was compromised by a couple annoying issues. One of the issues was a non-functioning cruise control. Another was an intermittent radio. It worked sometimes, and didn’t work other times.
I spent $150 to find out that the cruise control problem was a broken throttle body connector. The Honda garage specifically described the problem and recommended putting in a new throttle body. $700. That seemed extreme to me, since they described the problem as a broken connector between the cruise control cable and the throttle body.
JUDGE SAYS NO TO CAMPUS CENSORS: AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera being arrested at the University of Regina last April. Yesterday, Saskatchewan Provincial Judge MaryLynne Beaton rejected the university’s claim that a peaceful protest at U-R against abortion and sodomy somehow interfered with students’ education. Canadian pro-family advocate Bill Whatcott–who with LaBarbera was arrested on a “Mischief” charge–says he will return to the camps to disseminate biblical truth.
“I find that the purpose of (their) attending the University of Regina was to communicate information and their actions were passive and non-aggressive,” Judge Beaton wrote. “The university’s response was disproportionate to the peaceful distribution of flyers.” [page 14, decision]
_________________________
Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judge Marylynne Beaton ruled yesterday that AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera and Canadian pro-family advocate Bill Whatcott are not guilty of criminal “mischief” after being arrested and jailed April 14, 2014 after peacefully protesting and disseminating factual literature at the University of Regina–against the wishes of school administrators.
In the 27-page decision, available HERE, Judge Beaton relied heavily on Whatcott’s claim under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms that he had a right to disseminate his religious views–and rejected the notion put forth by the prosecution that the two pro-family activists disrupted the educational mission of U-Regina.
Below is YouTube of a Regina Leader Post audio-story with Whatcott’s reaction to the decision, and beneath that the print report by the Leader-Post. You can go to Whatcott’s website HERE, and beneath that an excerpt the Leader-Post’s story on the decision.
Said LaBarbera in response to the ruling:
“I am gratified by Judge Beaton’s well-reasoned decision, and I congratulate my friend Bill Whatcott for once again leading the way in challenging Canada to live up to her ideals of liberty and freedom of conscience. It is preposterous in a country that claims to be free to criminalize dissenting speech at a public university. Yet this is what University of Regina administrators sought to do by cowardly attempting to banish Bill Whatcott and me from their campus. In the process they dishonored their students–who deserved better than clumsy attempts at censorship justified by condescending and odious appeals to ‘protect’ them from ‘hate.’
“Hopefully, this ruling will open up the door to a resurgence of true tolerance and freedom in Canada. The Left in Canada, as in the United States, does not want debate but rather control. They fear unfettered exposure to moral truth and compelling facts about homosexuality–hence their campaign to silence Christians and others who speak out against sexual immorality and gender rebellion.
“The very fact that I was detained and searched at length twice by Border police upon entering Canada–merely because I and AFTAH espouse historic, biblical, Judeo-Christian teachings on homosexuality–reflects escalating ‘thought tyranny’ and anti-intellectualism in Canada which, if allowed to take root, will only lead to more rigid repression against believers in this great land.”
More coming from AFTAH on this story; here is Whatcott’s reaction [order his book “Born in a Graveyard” HERE]:
SALON SPREADS A LIE: the liberal online magazine Salon became the conduit for Kate Geiselman’s absurd “effing” lie. See AFTAH attorney Charles LiMandri’s letter demanding a retraction and apology from Geiselman HERE.
Thank you to my friend and conservative columnist Gina Miller for deconstructing this libelous Salon piece based on an absurd lie concocted by Sinclair Community College professor Kate Geiselman. We hope that she and Salon do the right thing and retract this story.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
See pro-family attorney Charles LiMandri’s letter demanding a public retraction and apology HERE:
Watch the videos of the walkout and LaBarbera’s SCC speech HERE
Gina Miller writes:
____________________________
Salon Publishes Libelous Hit Piece on Peter LaBarbera
By Gina Miller
Spring has sprung with a vengeance on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’sPeter LaBarbera, although it’s not Spring’s fault, nor is it Mr. LaBarbera’s. The vengeance comes from anti-Christian activists and purveyors of “tolerance” and lies who have caused Mr. LaBarbera quite a bit of trouble since April. After being invited to Canada to speak to a pro-life group, and overcoming efforts to block his entry into the country, he was then arrested there for “trespassing” while he was standing for free speech on a public college campus, a charge which was later changed to “mischief” and is still pending. You see, our neighbor Canada has laws against “hate speech,” and they consider telling the truth about homosexual behavior to be “hate speech,” and that’s why they targeted Mr. LaBarbera.
On April 9th, just before he left for Canada, he was invited by the Traditional Values Club to give a speech at Sinclair Community College (SCC) in Dayton, Ohio on the topic of the radical homosexual movement. A couple of intolerant, pro-homosexual teachers, who are apparently obsessed with hatred for the Traditional Values Club, organized a large walk-out of his speech, which he handled with an abundance of grace. One of the teachers, Kate Geiselman, subsequently decided to write a column, published on April 16th by Salon.com, which calls him an “anti-gay bigot” in the headline. In it, she claims he was “angry” at the walk-out, and as the teachers and students filed out of the room, she declares that he said, “You’re leaving? Are you effing kidding?”
One small, but important detail, however: Peter LaBarbera never said that, which makes her column pure, actionable libel. He did say “effing,” but it was in response to a heckler who flung the actual F-word at him during the walk-out, and Mr. LaBarbera was repeating to the audience what he heard the guy say (replacing the guy’s F-word with the euphemistic “effing”) in illustration of the “tolerance” of those walking out.
Another of the teacher collaborators, Rebecca Morean, posted a comment at the Salon column, stating in part:
LaBarbera certainly said “Effing.” I, and many others heard it, as we were the first to eject ourselves. I’d rather be accused of saying that btw than being a bigot. Odd sense of outrage. There are other tapes, and the fact that the one posted means he didn’t say it is silly. The mic wasn’t by his face.
Another small, but large, detail: a two-minute clip of the walk-out reveals that Mr. LaBarbera was holding the mic and speaking into it the entire time, so the mic was indeed “by his face.” It would appear that Ms. Morean is not concerned with telling the truth, because videos of it also reveal what Mr. LaBarbera said, which does not include, “You’re leaving? Are you effing kidding?”
Here is what he said, as transcribed from video recordings:
“I suppose this is a walk-out. Well, this is, this is what I say, not, not even people willing to hear from the other side. I think this is, this is regretful. [heckler interjects F-word] ‘Your message is ‘effing’ garbage,’ that guy just said. Yeah, yeah this is a shame, but, well, those of you who remained are exhibiting true tolerance… I mean this is—this is the Left in action; I’m sorry. You know, tolerance for me but not for you. Don’t even want to hear a viewpoint. That’s their right, and I just think it’s immature…”
So, a heckler flings the real “F-word” at Mr. LaBarbera, and he responds to the heckler by saying, “‘Your message is ‘effing’ garbage,’ that guy just said.” This is quite a different story than what Ms. Geiselman claims, as does Salon in publishing her column.
I also obtained statements from witnesses who were in the audience and testified that Mr. LaBarbera did not say what the two teachers claim.
Al Giambrone, a co-founder of the Traditional Values Club, wrote:
I was present for the entire event… I was sitting in the third or fourth row on the end seat next to the center aisle directly behind one of the instructors who lead the walkout. I had a perfect view and was well within earshot of Mr. LaBarbera (even if he hadn’t had a mike) when the walkout occurred. I paid careful attention to his reaction and what he said when they walked out because I was curious to see how he would handle it. I knew it was coming. I was quite impressed by the way in which he responded, by his presence of mind and by his effective but respectful demeanor, not only during the walkout but through the entire event. At no time did I hear him use any inappropriate language nor did I see him display any contentious reaction even when hostile members in the audience gave him what many would consider good reason to do so.
LYING PROF DOUBLES DOWN: April 17 tweet by Sinclair Community College professor Kate Geiselman, who made up a preposterous “effing” quotation by guest speaker Peter LaBarbera to humiliate him and make him look like an angry “homophobe.” LaBarbera said “effing” only to relay to the audience that one of its members had angrily used the real F-word to attack his speech. Pro-family attorney Charles LiMandri has written Geiselman and Salon Magazine to demand an apology and retraction.
In this post:
2-minute video of Sinclair Community College professor-led “walkout” [begins at :16 point of video];
Part One and Part Two of YouTube videos of Peter LaBarbera’s talk at SCC, sponsored by the Traditional Values Club;
Copy of April 24 web post by SCC professor Rebecca Morean on Salon.com, backing up the “effing” lie told by fellow SCC prof Kate Geiselman in her Salon hit-piece against LaBarbera;
Go HERE to read AFTAH attorney Charles LiMandri’s letter to Geiselman and Salon.com demanding a public retraction and apology.
______________________________
Dear AFTAH Readers,
Refuting a leftist lie is hard work, but it must be done.
Below is the video of the Sinclair Community College walkout on my speech at the Dayton, Ohio college April 9, 2014–provided by the Traditional Values Club, which sponsored the talk. As you can see, the professor-led walkout began right after I started speaking–and ironically, after I had commended the audience for demonstrating true tolerance by listening to a dissenting viewpoint!
Note that I did not come even close to uttering the quotation absurdly attributed to me by SCC writing professor Kate Geiselman in the liberal online magazine Salon. Geiselman accused me (the “antigay bigot” in the headline) of responding recklessly to the walkout: “You’re leaving? Are you ‘effing’ [substituting for the F-word] kidding?”
Below is a transcription of my remarks at the podium as the professor-led walkout begins–painstakingly produced by pro-family writer Gina Miller [see Miller’s excellent piece on the controversy on Barbwire.com HERE]:
“I suppose this is a walk-out. Well, this is, this is what I say, not, not even people willing to hear from the other side. I think this is, this is regretful. [heckler interjects F-word] ‘Your message is ‘effing’ garbage,’ that guy just said. Yeah, yeah this is a shame, but, well, those of you who remained are exhibiting true tolerance… I mean this is—this is the Left in action; I’m sorry. You know, tolerance for me but not for you. Don’t even want to hear a viewpoint. That’s their right, and I just think it’s immature…”
[See my attorney Chuck LiMandri’s letter demanding a retraction and apology from Geiselman HERE.]
Constructing a bogus narrative
Honestly, I think the admittedly hard-of-hearing Geiselman heard me say “effing”–I was merely relaying a barb from a man in the audience who hurled the real F-bomb to denounce my talk–and then used that to concoct a bogus narrative casting me as the angry “homophobe.” Later, Professor Rebecca Morean, who can be seen leading the walkout in the video below, repeated the Geiselman’s lie [see graphic at bottom of this article]. Morean has boasted about her role in the walkout.
What these politicized professors–who greatly dishonor their noble profession–fail to appreciate is that real tolerance and diversity were on display at their college that day, between conservatives like me and the few liberals (including some students) who did not take part in Morean’s cowardly exercise in leftist groupthink. We went back and forth on the homosexual issue, and perhaps emerged with the same views with which we came–but also with greater understanding of the other side’s position. In other words, we had a civil, lively, yet respectful discussion at an institution of higher learning. Imagine that. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Read the Traditional Values Club’s description of their YouTube video of the professor-led “walkout” below. The walkout begins at :16 point of video; notice Prof. Morean standing up and signaling the mass exodus:
Video of talk confirms LaBarbera did not say what Geiselman and Salon.com allege
THE LIES OF THE LEFT:Above is the headline for the Salon.com hit-piece by Sinclair Community College writing professor Kate Geiselman, who fabricated a quotation and attributed it to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. Dozens of students, apparently led by liberal SCC professors, walked out on LaBarbera as he began his April 9 talk at the college–but he never reacted by saying, “You’re leaving? Are you effing [read: a substitute for the F-word] kidding?” A videotape of the walkout, and testimony by firsthand witnesses, confirm that Geiselman’s account is bogus. Click on graphic to enlarge.
Dear AFTAH Readers,
Below is the demand letter sent yesterday by pro-family attorney Chuck Limandri to Kate Geiselman, the Sinclair Community College (Dayton, OH) writing prof who fabricated an outright lie about my SCC talk in an article in the liberal online magazine Salon.com. I was invited to speak on April 9 by the school’s Traditional Values Club–which (I later learned) is despised by a cabal of leftist profs at SCC. Note that Limandri’s letter was also sent to Salon editor Cindy Jeffers. We cannot allow the Left to libel and slander us at will with zero consequences. More coming on this. Thanks.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Letter by Charles Limandri to Kate Geiselman and Salon.com editor Cindy Jeffers:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: [Charles Limandri] [e-mail addresses redacted]
Date: Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Subject: LaBarbera v. Geiselman
To: [Kathryn Geiselman]
Cc: [Cindy Jeffers, Salon.com]
Dear Ms. Geiselman:
Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by Peter LaBarbera with respect to a potential claim for defamation against you. As you know, you falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of using profanity at a talk that he gave at Sinclair Community College on April 9, 2014. The article in which you made that false and defamatory statement is here: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/16/%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99re_leaving_are_you_effing_kidding%E2%80%9D_an_anti_gay_bigot_gets_humiliated/. A Youtube video of the staged walk-out that you organized of Mr. LaBarbera’s presentation is here: http://youtu.be/hxxMiyhxXzo. The audio on the two minute video makes it perfectly clear that Mr. LaBarbera did not utter the unprofessional and defamatory words that you attribute to him. This has been confirmed by multiple witnesses who were in immediate proximity to Mr. LaBarbera during his entire presentation. You further falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of being “a person who makes his living telling lies” in the internet posting attached above. You did so even though you did not even have the decency to listen to his remarks before publicly excoriating him.
In Ohio, libel is defined as a false and malicious publication made with the intent to injure a person’s reputation or expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or to affect him adversely in his trade or profession. Becker v. Toulmin (1956), 165 Ohio St. 549; Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118. Pursuant to Ohio law, a publication which of itself reflects upon the character of a person by bringing him into public ridicule, or which affects him injuriously in his trade or profession is libelous per se. Westropp v. E. W. Scripps Co. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 365; The Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118. Therefore, the publication of a false statement ascribing to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper conduct of his lawful business, trade or profession is libelous per se and damages are presumed. Landrum v. Dombey (1971), 30 Ohio App. 2d 200, 202. “A statement that someone is a liar is clearly one which would tend to injure a person’s reputation, and courts have considered such statements to be defamatory on their face”. Dillon v. Waller, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 5860, 12, 1995 WL 765224 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County Dec. 26, 1995); See also, Dale v. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n, 57 Ohio St. 3d 112, 117, 567 N.E.2d 253, 258, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 178, 16, 136 L.R.R.M. 2898 (Ohio 1991).
By your false and defamatory statements you have maliciously sought to injure Mr. LaBarbera in his reputation and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace. You have also sought to injure him in his trade or profession. We hereby demand that you issue a public retraction of, and a public apology for, your false and defamatory statements made against Mr. LaBarbera. If you and Salon.com do not do so within ten (10) days from the date of this e-mail, then we will take all necessary steps to protect Mr. LaBarbera’s rights including bringing a lawsuit against you and Salon.com for compensatory and punitive damages. Please place any homeowner’s insurance carrier and professional liability carrier that you may have on notice of this claim. Such liability insurance may be available to satisfy this claim if you are a member of a teacher’s union. We look forward to your response or the response of your legal representative within the next ten days.
Sincerely,
Charles S. LiMandri
Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate
National Board of Trial Advocacy
******************************
Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
President and Chief Counsel
Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund
P.O. Box 9520
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
This is a neat piece by my good friend, Brian Fitzpatrick, pegging off the anti-intellectual, professor-led student “walkout” at my April 9, 2014 presentation at Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio. The talk was organized by the Traditional Values Club, a wonderful group of people who have weathered considerable vitriol and hatred from the intolerant Left at SCC.
On the same topic of blind ideology opposing reason, readers should be aware that a writer for the liberal online publication Salon–SCC Professor Kate Geiselman–made up an outright lie about what I said at Sinclair in her celebratory yet inaccurate account of the walkout. In reacting to the walkout, I never said “Are you effing kidding me?” as she claims. Ironically, Geiselman teaches creative writing at SCC. Creative, indeed. I am demanding a retraction and apology from Salon.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
In the video below, skip to 2:00 to see the Sinclair Community College’s student newspaper The Clarion’s coverage of the professor-led “walkout” on speaker Peter LaBarbera of AFTAH.
Skip to the 2:00 mark in the video above to see the Sinclair Community College’s student newspaper’s coverage of the April 9 professor-led “walkout” on speaker Peter LaBarbera of AFTAH. Following the interview with LaBarbera is one with Anne Soltysiak, Sinclair Psychology Professor, who refers to LaBarbera’s talk as “the hate speech on campus.”
_______________________________________
‘Gay’ Activists Drive Socrates to Drink
By Brian Fitzpatrick
This essay first appeared on Barbwire.com April 25, 2014 [professor Rebecca Morean’s actual comments are in bold]
So, I’m sitting here with my old friend Socrates, chatting about our favorite subjects: intellectual curiosity, civil discourse, and how to cook chicken (he prefers a spit over an olive wood fire), when a news story comes in over the e-transom:
Socrates seems confused. “Why protests this community college its own guest speaker? Is not a college a place of learning? What does ‘gay’ mean, and why is it wrong to oppose ‘gay?’” (We haven’t gotten past the headline yet, and Socrates is already spewing questions like an erupting volcano. He doesn’t touch-type, so I’m doing my best to keep up.)
“Yes, a community college is a place of learning, but they didn’t want to hear what LaBarbera had to say, Socrates.”
“That is most strange for a place of learning. Is it not better to hear out a speaker, even one with whom you disagree, and then counter his arguments with better arguments?”
