*That I happen to know.
I understand what you’re saying about Chapman’s wish to remain neutral in regards to Eastman and NOM, and I also understand why it would make sense for the law school to minimize this issue. But I believe the school has a moral imperative to at least comment on what is, by any measure, a newsworthy development in its community.
There is a vibrant debate surrounding gay marriage. People provide contrasting justifications, constitutional interpretations, as well as conflicting moral, ethical and spiritual frameworks California and the rest of America must digest. NOM is not a part of this discussion. It is a Southern Poverty Law Center certified hate group with a history of using dead and debunked stereotypes about gay men and women to further their anti-gay agenda. This is poisonous and hateful. NOM is devoted to skewing an issue whose syntax and debate is colored by constitutional interpretation; and as an advocacy group, Eastman’s position lends an air of authority to their cause. He is, in the world of sound byte advocacy, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange County. It’s not cynical for me to think that this title was a factor in his appointment as president of NOM.
It’s not that NOM is an outlier in the question of gay rights, it’s only interested in distortion and reactionary hysteria. I decided to email you and other Chapman personnel because, to be honest, it’s an embarrassment. Would a statement bring attention to this issue, maybe even attention that could shake this issue into a wider discussion? Yes, of course, but that’s the natural evolution of Eastman’s appointment and his header as a Chapman Professor. Eastman has a right to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not excuse Chapman from comment or clarification. A school with a stringent moral message looks hypocritical when it is offered a low-risk chance to neuter a hateful group and decides not to act.
—Patrick
Powered by Tumblr; designed by Adam Lloyd.
