Li-Ann Thio replies, wants to meet Jim McCurley face to face

because

I find face to face talks are very effective in disabusing falsehoods and clarifying misapprehension and well, heck, distortions, particularly those redolent with malicious intent.

I hope he & other NYU students take her up on this!

Does anyone else here notice her well, heck, distortions, particularly as her published letters & public speeches are the ones generally redolent with malice & “Always sweeping, uncompelling and with the tired litany of insults and presumptions”?

Think she’s trying to score brownie points there & come back to say in America she’s loved & feted, wined & dined by the intelligent gay community, unlike here where we just don’t get either ‘Schopenhauer’s Die Kunst Recht zu Behalten’ or her!

Since she keeps saying contextualization is the key read the full exchange!

An Open Letter to Dr. Thio Li-Ann by Jim McCurley (update with reply from Thio L. A.)
Thu at 3:13pm
An Open Letter to Dr. Thio Li-Ann

Posted by Jim McCurley , Class of 2010 at NYU Law on July 8, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT

I read your recent e-mail interview with Inside Higher Ed with some interest. It seems that you may be a little concerned about what awaits you at NYU this fall. As a gay person and a law student, I wanted to take the opportunity to reassure you and to welcome you to the university. I´m not sure if you´ve been to New York before, but I gather from your CV that you got a quite a fine education in the UK. Because of a few phrases you used in the interview, it occurred to me that you may not be familiar with some peculiarities of American English and I want to point out a few that may come in handy. First, we call chips “french fries” and crisps “chips.” Second, we generally call Members of Parliament “elites” and law students, well, “law students.” We don´t really use the word “diktat” a whole lot.

New York being New York, you may also find a few Yiddish words to be useful. Foremost among these is “chutzpah.” “Chutzpah” is hard to translate directly and its meaning is perhaps best illustrated by example. New Yorkers would say that a former NMP and graduate of Cambridge and Oxford who denounces gays in a rather vulgar manner on the floor of Parliament in a successful bid to enable their imprisonment calling the highlighting of her remarks by a few law students “ugly politicking” based on “their own prejudices, from whatever sources” has a lot of chutzpah.

Now, having grown up in a farming village in Kentucky and spent a number of years in the enlisted ranks of the Army, I share your distaste for both “ugly politicking” and “elite diktat.” As I´ve been called a “faggot” and been beaten up a few times, I don´t care much for “bullying” either, although I´m not sure having one of one´s own Parliamentary speeches circulated really qualifies as such. This may be yet another peculiarity of American English.

You are quite correct, however, that in the face of bullying, one must have courage. It also helps to have supportive gay friends. One of the nice things about gay folks is that we tend not to belong to either the “liberal camp” or “communitarian camp” which you described in your speech. We´re just into camp. Likewise, the gays at NYU don´t by any means have a problem with you, your right to your views, or academic freedom. We just don´t think that state power to imprison or discriminate against sexual, racial, or other minorities is a particularly “academic” question. Again, that´s American English for you.

Another generally appreciated feature of the gays is our sense of taste, which has been highlighted in television shows like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” You are a bit mistaken if you think that the gays at NYU want to censor you. It´s just that, like mixing polka dots with plaid or having George Wallace teach a course on civil rights in the American South, we tend to think NYU´s hiring you to teach a class called “Human Rights in Asia” demonstrates a lack of taste.

Dr. Thio, if you´ll have me, I´d like to be your supportive gay friend. We can have lunch, dish about men and listen to music together. I know a great tapas place in Greenwich Village and, as an American, I´d like to disabuse you of the notion that I have any interest in “refus[ing] to engage with dissenting views” or directing “intolerant animosity” at you. There are also a few great American songs I´d love to introduce you to. One of my favorites is called “Cry Me a River.” It was written by Arthur Hamilton.

I must make one friendly request before I let you go, however. We American gays are doing fairly well post-Lawrence v. Texas. Unlike our Singaporean brethren, we can´t be arbitrarily thrown into prison and can generally defend ourselves under the law. Unfortunately, the same can´t be said for our friends, the straw men. From “human right to sodomy” to “Americans … appropriating the rhetoric of human rights … [to] impose their views on a sovereign state,” you´ve spent a good deal of time knocking them down. Last I checked, they hadn´t done anything to you, so why not go a bit easier on them?

All the best,

Jim McCurley

NYU Law Class of 2010

Dear Mr. Jim McCurley a Response to your open letter

Posted by Dr Li-ann Thio , Professor / Law on July 9, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT

Dear Mr McCurley,

A faculty member forwarded me your Open Letter and I must say it’s wittiness made me laugh out loud, especially your comment about being “camp.” Touche. When I mentioned camps, I was thinking of Frankie goes to Hollywood’s two tribes song and perhaps it was a little ill-advised on my part, but such are my sorry cultural referent points.

I am a little weary of some of the sad posts from certain of my countrypeople who love to misrepresent and distort the nature of my views or the context and issue they were directed at. Always sweeping, uncompelling and with the tired litany of insults and presumptions, but then, perhaps they read religiously from Schopenhauer’s Die Kunst Recht zu Behalten but fail to see the irony.

It really is the last straw.

Contextualisation is key, I am sure you will agree.

I was sorry to read that you were beaten up – that is never justified; and being called “faggot” is as ugly as being called “homophobe” so perhaps we will leave the name-callers to their own devices and treat each other first and foremost as human beings with intrinsic dignity. (Is that a howl of protests I hear across the cyber-waves by the usual band of demonisers? C’est la vie.)

I find the internet not to be conducive to genuine communication as people will say what they will say and believe what they want to believe. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Anyway, please do come knock on my door or drop me an email and have a coffee with me when I reach your not so sunny shores (if you do caffeine, that is). I would welcome having a civilised conversation with you; you can ask me whatever questions you might have to understand where I am coming from and what my political convictions are – if you care to know the truth of things. I find face to face talks are very effective in disabusing falsehoods and clarifying misapprehension and well, heck, distortions, particularly those redolent with malicious intent.

Thank you for the letter,

All the very best,
Li-ann Thio.

Advertisements

One Response

  1. Thanks for sharing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: