Chapman’s statements prove to be detrimental to Purdue

Publication Date: 11/16/2009

Kevin Casimer

Guest Columnist

As the lead organizer for public demonstrations against Professor Chapman I can safely say Lydia Williams’ recent column (of last Wednesday) is representative of the most common mischaracterization of Chapman opponents.

I spent all day Wednesday collecting dozens of signatures from students who thought Chapman’s comments were damaging to Purdue. Everyone I spoke to knew perfectly well that Chapman has every right to say anything he wants. However, freedom of speech is a legal protection; it is naive and factually erroneous to believe that freedom of speech means freedom from non-legal consequences to that speech.

Imagine Pepsi hired a marketing executive who later wrote in a personal blog that Coke is his favorite drink: It would be damaging to Pepsi’s image and he would justifiably be fired. He would still have every legal right to state his opinion, but doing so would have consequences.

In the case of Chapman, he was hired and given tenure with the expectation that he would contribute positively to the reputation of Purdue. If his colleagues and employers believe he is instead having a detrimental effect, they have every right to say so.

The people who are speaking out publicly against Chapman, for the most part, are not asking that his comments be taken down or that he apologize for them; they are not trying to stop him from exercising his freedom of speech.

What we are trying to do is tell people who think that his hate speech and “academic dishonesty” are detrimental to the University, and that they can and should use their own freedom of speech to say so publicly.

The people I spoke with Wednesday are also fully aware that Chapman can’t really be fired for what he said, and are not asking for his forced removal from the University. However, a large number of students and faculty, and possibly individual administrators, believe Purdue would be better off if he voluntarily resigned. They have every right to say so publicly.

Finally, people are upset about Chapman’s comments for much more substantial reasons than they are being given credit for. People who hate gay people and say so publicly are a dime a dozen and getting riled up about just that would be futile and everybody knows it. The central argument of those speaking out against Chapman is that his comments are detrimental to Purdue and its reputation. Some might take this position because of the fact that his statements make it more difficult for Purdue to attract gay students or gay scholars (who would have to call this man a colleague).

Others have a firm belief that calling someone who would make such an academically dishonest argument a scholar is embarrassing to the University and belittles the status of all Purdue faculty and the value of a Purdue education. Still more simply look to the fact that Purdue is clearly trying to foster diversity as illustrated by the creation of the office of Vice Provost for Diversity, and cannot help but see how Chapman’s comments impede this effort.

Personally I believe Chapman hurt Purdue for all of these reasons, and believe that anyone who feels the same way has the right and obligation to say so publicly.

Kevin Casimer is a senior in the College of Liberal Arts and may be reached through the opinions desk at opinions@purdueexponent.org.