Jump to content

Austin students want professor fired for writings on age of consent; UT says it’s protected speech


Mappable

Recommended Posts

Austin students want professor fired for writings on age of consent; UT says it’s protected speech

For weeks, University of Texas students have been protesting against and asking school leaders to fire professors with histories of sexual misconduct.

Now, a group of students is calling for the removal of another faculty member they say is promoting harmful ideas about the age of consent and sexual relations with minors.

Thomas K. Hubbard, a professor of classics in UT's College of Liberal Arts, has written extensively on relationships between adolescent boys and adult men, often using classic literature's depictions of homosexual relationships to suggest changing age of consent laws and challenging modern norms about youth sexuality.

But some students say he has used his position as a UT professor to further a culture that hurts young boys.

In his academic writing, Hubbard describes physical relationships between men and young boys in ancient times as "proper learning experiences." In one 2010 article published in the peer-reviewed journal, Thymos: Boyhood Studies, Hubbard examines sexual consent among adolescent males in antiquity, asking, "What can we learn from the Greeks?"

"Contemporary American legislation premised on children's incapacity to 'consent' to sexual relations stems from outmoded gender constructions and ideological preoccupations of the late Victorian and Progressive Era," Hubbard writes. "We should consider a different 'age of consent' for boys and girls."

In the same publication, Hubbard called age of consent laws a "sad by-product" of a "naive and self-righteous era" and compared them to prohibition.

Hubbard rebukes the idea he writes about pedophilia. Instead, he says, he discusses the phenomenon of "pederasty," which he described as the romantic courtship of adolescent males, usually 14 years or older with older men.

"How teen sexuality should be regulated and how legal violations should be punished are legitimate areas of research and debate among scholars and public policy professionals. Historical and cross-cultural evidence have a place in such discussions," he said in an emailed statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is embarrassing scholarship from my Alma mater and while it may be protected speech and I'm principally resigned to be on the professors side on this one, I think the students are right here and I'm rooting for them from a moral perspective.

Edited by Rougarou
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Xian said:

Yeahhh. So I clicked the thread thinking the students were over reacting.  After reading the article, I’m not sure they are. 
 

 

This, which leads to this....

27 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

This is embarrassing scholarship from my Alma mater and while it may be protected speech and I'm principally resigned to be on the professors side on this one, I think the students are right here and I'm rooting for them from a moral perspective.

The broad subject matter, and academic questioning of the origin, application, and effects of historical and contemporary sexual mores is completely appropriate and within bounds of an open and free academic environment.  We have lots of laws and rules, not just regarding sexuality.  Academic research and thought should be free to question any/all of them -- we'd have no big issue with someone doing research and writing on the history of laws on petty theft, and even advocating for abolition of such laws as they relate to necessities like food (as just an example).

That said....this dude is creepy AF, and I don't blame any student even a little bit for calling him out for being creepy AF.  AND, I think that oversight and examination of such research and writing is within the province of the particular College and its faculty, and they should do so.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Xian said:

Yeahhh. So I clicked the thread thinking the students were over reacting.  After reading the article, I’m not sure they are. 
 

 

I'm here as well. I thought perhaps the teacher was speaking about historical norms and some students were outraged. Instead this guy seems to be advocating sex with 14 year olds, or at least he wants a discussion on the topic.  Even if it's the latter and he only like to foster controversial academic discussions, it's a bad path to go down. And if he actually wants sex with a 14 year old, I don't think he should be left alone with college students, some of whom could be as young as 17 and definitely 18.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So the protected speech argument. Is it because UT is a government entity?  If so, can no speech be restricted by termination?  Employment isn’t a right. 

Yes.

While employment isn't a right, a governmental agency acting under color of law cannot penalize someone for expressing protected views.  Termination would undoubtedly be a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes.

While employment isn't a right, a governmental agency acting under color of law cannot penalize someone for expressing protected views.  Termination would undoubtedly be a penalty.

So if the guy driving around in golf carts collecting trash on campus has a blog about fucking little boys, they can’t discipline or fire him?  Assuming those folks are university employees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm here as well. I thought perhaps the teacher was speaking about historical norms and some students were outraged. Instead this guy seems to be advocating sex with 14 year olds, or at least he wants a discussion on the topic.  Even if it's the latter and he only like to foster controversial academic discussions, it's a bad path to go down. And if he actually wants sex with a 14 year old, I don't think he should be left alone with college students, some of whom could be as young as 17 and definitely 18.

I re-read it again.  He seems to be mostly advocating for reconsideration of age of consent laws.  The implication is that the age of consent should be lower, because they have been for most of history, but that's not expressly stated.

In the portion about Nambla, he expressly disavows their agenda and also states that he doesn't share their sexual orientation.

Your last sentence is problematic.  Most "regular" male professors want sex with women.  Should they not be around "underage" students?  If they're at the age of consent (17 in Texas, arbitrary, in my opinion, but not far off), what's the problem?

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So if the guy driving around in golf carts collecting trash on campus has a blog about fucking little boys, they can’t discipline or fire him?  Assuming those folks are university employees. 

Specifically advocating breaking the law, as opposed to changing the law, might be a different deal as that may not be protected by the First Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I re-read it again.  He seems to be mostly advocating for reconsideration of age of consent laws.  The implication is that the age of consent should be lower, because they have been for most of history, but that's not expressly stated.

In the portion about Nambla, he expressly disavows their agenda and also states that he doesn't share their sexual orientation.

Your last sentence is problematic.  Most "regular" male professors want sex with women.  Should they not be around underage students?  If they're at the age of consent (arbitrary, in my opinion, but not far off), what's the problem?

It has nothing to do with whether the professor prefers men or women. It’s the fact that he’s advocating to normalize sexual relationships with children that is the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

It has nothing to do with whether the professor prefers men or women. It’s the fact that he’s advocating to normalize sexual relationships with children that is the problem.

I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of his writing.

Also that's not what the post I referred to said.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Specifically advocating breaking the law, as opposed to changing the law, might be a different deal as that may not be protected by the First Amendment.

Question for you, law dog. Could the hypothetical maintenance worker be fired for advocating that the law be changed to allow grown men to sex 14 year old boys because philosophy isn't an essential function of his job? Basically, your job is to clean the grounds, not publicly opine about controversial topics like pederasty. On the other hand, that is an essential function of a philosophy professor therefor his speech is protected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

Question for you, law dog. Could the hypothetical maintenance worker be fired for advocating that the law be changed to allow grown men to sex 14 year old boys because philosophy isn't an essential function of his job? Basically, your job is to clean the grounds, not publicly opine about controversial topics like pederasty. On the other hand, that is an essential function of a philosophy professor therefor his speech is protected?

No. Public employees get to vent their spleens about all manner of idiocy, japery, and mopery without employment ramifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of his writing.

Also that's not what the post I referred to said.

Seems pretty accurate to me. He is advocating to legalize sexual relationships with children. 14-16 year olds are children, I think we can agree on that. So via his advocacy to legalize sexual relationships with 14-16 year old children, he is in turn advocating to normalize that behavior. There is little doubt, at least to me, that legalizing a behavior serves to normalize it as well. Just the discussion of legalizing something has some normalizing effects. Consider the difference in public perception of marijuana use 30 years ago compared to 10 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems pretty accurate to me. He is advocating to legalize sexual relationships with children. 14-16 year olds are children, I think we can agree on that.

Well, that's kind of his point.  He's implying they aren't.  I find his perspective nauseating, but he would surely say I'm a prude.

Is there a biological argument to be made?  Are modern 17 YO kids the equivalent of former 14 YO kids?  I doubt it.  A "percent of life expectancy" metric would be fraught with obvious error.

I don't think many surlys would argue the fact that Americans tend to be overly moralistic.  That doesn't mean we're always off the mark, though.

tl;dr  Dude is a creep, should be working at Best Buy.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of his writing.

Also that's not what the post I referred to said.

i feel like you can perhaps infer that if there can be any interpretation of pro-underage (as we call it and know it) in his publication called "''Sex in the Gym: Athletic Trainers and Pedagogical Pederasty,'' 7 (2003)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

i feel like you can perhaps infer that if there can be any interpretation of pro-underage (as we call it and know it) in his publication called "''Sex in the Gym: Athletic Trainers and Pedagogical Pederasty,'' 7 (2003)"

Since that’s apparently already in your search history now, who published it?  Or is it just like a white paper on the subject?

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems pretty accurate to me. He is advocating to legalize sexual relationships with children. 14-16 year olds are children, I think we can agree on that. So via his advocacy to legalize sexual relationships with 14-16 year old children, he is in turn advocating to normalize that behavior. There is little doubt, at least to me, that legalizing a behavior serves to normalize it as well. Just the discussion of legalizing something has some normalizing effects. Consider the difference in public perception of marijuana use 30 years ago compared to 10 years ago.

I believe 16 is the age of consent in several states already, so no we can't even agree on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, that's kind of his point.  He's implying they aren't.  I find his perspective nauseating, but he would surely say I'm a prude.

Is there a biological argument to be made?  Are modern 17 YO kids the equivalent of former 14 YO kids?  I doubt it.  A "percent of life expectancy" metric would be fraught with obvious error.

I don't think many surlys would argue the fact that Americans tend to be overly moralistic.  That doesn't mean we're always off the mark, though.

tl;dr  Dude is a creep, should be working at Best Buy.

Right, my fault for mixing and matching different terminology.

14-16 year olds are absolutely children in our society legally speaking. That was what I meant by children in that post but I realize that the post and discussion are moving back and forth between moral, ethical, and legal use of terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

He got his first academic award before most of us were born (1979) so he is using a picture of himself from, at best the '90's, which is amusing.

Well, do you think he's going to be able to score any underage boys with a pic of him looking like Skip Bayless?

 

 

Edited by smuggs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Samson's Wig said:

Lots of things were culturally "normal" hundreds/thousands of years ago that no longer make any sense in our current culture.  What a strangely stupid argument for a philosophy professor to be making. 

Oh, so, I guess you're just blindly AGAINST sacrificing raven-haired virgins to the volcano god Kan-Laon?  Narrow-minded bastard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

No. Public employees get to vent their spleens about all manner of idiocy, japery, and mopery without employment ramifications.

Makes sense. Like that dumb fuck court clerk lady who wouldn't process the gay marriage certificate because God hates fags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if he is reasoning is influenced by writings like the novel, The last of the wine that takes place in Athens and features Socrates as a character. 

I remember stumbling onto this book in high school and being intrigued by the male homosexuality that figured prominently in it. The gist of the plot were that young dudes were courted by older men like they were debutantes and that they were encouraged to learn honor, courage, and dignity from the older man. But isn't that what a dad is for? Why do you have to be butt fucked to learn these things? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...