Three students point out professor’s opinion blog

Publication Date: 11/06/2009

Over the weekend, it came to the attention of myself and other student leaders that a Purdue professor had published a blog post entitled “An Economic Case Against Homosexuality.” The full text can be found here: http://bertchapman.blogtownhall.com/2009/10/27/an_economic_case_against_homosexuality.thtml.

Professor of Library Science Bert Chapman extraordinarily begins by attacking AIDS victims: “Let’s start with AIDS. U.S. Government expenditures on this disease have risen from $200,000 in Fiscal Year 1980-1981 to $23.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2008…  When you factor in what countries all over the world have spent on seeking to diminish this disease, without recognizing the morally aberrant sexual behavior causing its spread, we are probably looking… over $1 trillion dollars.” He continues, “Our ongoing U.S. political debate over health care reform also needs to factor in the economic costs of homosexual and other sexually deviant behaviors on our health care system in terms of pharmaceutical drugs, tainted blood supplies, and requiring doctors and nurses to treat sexually transmitted diseases which would not occur if people practiced chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and monogamy within such marriage.” He goes on to link homosexuality and prison rape, lashes out at the prospect of businesses providing benefits to homosexuals, and bemoans the prospect that he may indirectly be contributing to the wellbeing of homosexuals.

This is an actual Purdue professor making these claims. This is a salaried employee who decided that it is appropriate to publish his bigoted ranting.

How are any homosexual students – or any student – supposed to feel comfortable under the instruction of this man? The administration must decide whether retaining such an individual will be the best interest of the University. How is Purdue supposed to attract the best and brightest faculty and students while it continues to employ someone who would publish such reckless material?

Nicholas DeBoer

Senior in the College of Liberal Arts

I was recently directed to a blog written by Purdue librarian Bert Chapman.  His latest blog posting, “An Economic Case Against Homosexuality,” greatly shocked me. Mr. Chapman refers to homosexuality as “sodomite degeneracy,” and goes on to say that “our nation cannot afford the extremely high financial costs of this lifestyle.” Mr. Chapman continues to make his case by attributing the government cost of AIDS research and treatment to the gay community. He also says that, “Our ongoing U.S. political debate over health care reform also needs to factor in the economic costs of homosexual and other sexually deviant behaviors.” Mr. Chapman also criticizes the practice of extending insurance benefits to domestic partners; arguing that such a practice “makes it more difficult for them (businesses) to expand their businesses and create additional jobs in an economy coping with near double digit unemployment rates.”
Mr. Chapman’s remarks are not only factually inaccurate, but are deeply offensive.  Wholly attributing the AIDS epidemic to the homosexual community is irresponsible and evokes thoughts of the bigotry gays and lesbians were targeted with in the early 1980s. There is no reason to suspect that healthcare for the homosexual community would create a burden on government reforms.

Extending benefits to domestic partners has no more economic impact than the extension of insurance benefits to a heterosexual spouse. I am truly appalled at Mr. Chapman’s comments. While he has the freedom to think and say what he would like, discriminatory and inflammatory comments like these are not becoming of a Purdue University faculty member. I question as to whether Mr. Chapman’s tenure contributes to the anti-discrimination efforts of this university.

Griffith Rees

Senior in the College of Liberal Arts

Professor Bert Chapman’s recent blog entry regarding the “economic case against homosexuality” inspired me to help highlight other paths to fiscal responsibility in these tough economic times. My research shows that librarians are a shocking example of wasteful spending in our state and country. There are 433 public libraries in Indiana (not including public school libraries) in addition to 57 colleges or universities in Indiana. According to bls.gov, the average annual salary for all librarians in the federal government was $80,873 in 2007. That conservatively represents an annual cost of ~$40 million for Hoosiers (assuming only one librarian at each library). If we look at those public school libraries, the 95,615 public schools in the United States result in an annual national expense of over $7.5 billion.
If we stopped wasting money on librarians, America could use that money to, as Chapman suggested, combat pandemics like H1N1 (or even real pandemics like malaria or the type of AIDS that straight people get). Or better yet, if Indiana kept its $40 million, Mitch Daniels could take the whole state out to Taco Bell.

Getting rid of librarians makes economic sense. Walmart trusts people to check out their groceries, so surely we could implement self-checkout at our libraries. Replacing librarians with minimum wage workers to put books back on the shelf and assist people with self-checkout would save billions. This process could even generate new income if we allowed police to access these systems and fine those who don’t return books. Of course, a degree of service would be lost without librarians. However, I think we’ll manage locally as long as someone teaches the new workers to be as helpful as the last Purdue librarian I spoke to who offered to “help me do a search on ‘the Google.’”

Kevin Casimer

Senior in the College of Liberal Arts