Some observations -
- The article seems to say that no issues were found with how the Dr treated his patients.
The school quickly denounced his email but there wasn’t much they could do beyond that since he expressed his bigotry on personal time and there was no evidence his bigotry played out in the hospital. Bolli himself insisted that he treated all patients, “including queer patients, with the utmost compassion and respect.”
- His opinions on Homosexuality were not related to medicine or Science. They were moral pronouncements .
Even if we agree his opinions are “bigoted”; doesn’t he have the freedom to speak his mind, especially considering that he was responding to an advertisement/flyer that was sent to him.
Does his opinions on the moral nature of homosexuality disqualify him from editing a medical journal?
If a Doctor views pornography as filthy/disgusting etc, would this make him uneligible to edit medical journals because of his “hate” for people in the porn industry?
Is it possible for a person to denounce something as filthy/sinful etc in the strongest terms while treating those engage in these activities with dignity?
To me, it seems possible to do this.
Yeah, well I can see a small problem with saying you treat your “queer patients” with the utmost compassion and “respect”. I’m mean, he could’ve called them ‘faggots’ but used ‘queer’ instead, so that’s something!
Well, according to the group responsible for the Journal:
The American Heart Association has a zero tolerance policy with respect to personal conduct that conflicts with its guiding values and its commitment to an environment that embraces diversity and inclusion and values cultural, racial, gender and other differences to help it succeed in achieving its mission and goals.”
So it sounds like he wasn’t removed for that but for running afoul of ethics clauses.
I agree, it is possible.
It’s a tough call. At some point it probably boiled down to public relations once the email became public. If his email was a bit more even-handed it probably wouldn’t have been a problem, but he was quite vitriolic in his condemnation. I somehow doubt that he would have sent the same email in response to a ballet containing pre-marital sex between a heterosexual couple, even though that is just as sinful within Christian theology.
I think it is the use of the “strongest terms” that pushes it over the edge.
Did anyone read his parting shot in the journal? He really let his freak flag fly. Goes to show that many people don’t perform well outside their range of domain-specific knowledge. Kinda like Michael Egnor or Ben Carson in that regard.
I doubt it. It is his views that are the problem, not just how he chose to express them.
If he had written a polite and “even-handed” letter saying that he objected to a depiction of a heterosexual couple where one member was white and the other black, do you think he would have kept his job?
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of none of his patients complaining about him. It seems from the article that if any such complaint existed, he would probably have been sacked.
So that’s a plus point.
It’s not clear which ethics clauses he violated… unless the letter to the ballet group itself was a violation.
It sounds really strange.
So the problem was not that he held such opinions but that he chose to express them freely in a letter which was not intended for publication?
So freedom of speech is only available as long as it is expressed “mildly”?
This kind of action sets wrong precedents and makes it ok to sack people for their opinions expressed outside the workplace and which do not seem to effect professional conduct (atleast in this case).
I agree… which indicates that holding certain views and expressing them in public can cause a person to loose his/her job even though there is no evidence that the quality of the person’s work suffers because he/she hold these views
So much for freedom of speech/expression.
Freedom of expression does not mean you do not suffer consequences for the ideas you express.
It was. Obviously.
Actually freedom of expression means that your right to express your opinions is respected and protected.
Speaking inspite of “consequences” is what people have to do in places where the freedom of speech is not protected/guaranteed…
It seems that there are some taboo subjects in America… if we speak against the party line on these subjects… there will be consequences.
We have some subjects like that in India too.
Following this thread closely to see what the PS stance is on homophobic language and homophobia in general.
That’s why it’s so strange. How can a letter written to a ballet group fall within the purview of the ethical clauses of the AHA.
The AHA seems to be confusing ethics and morality and taking action to protect a particular moral view point about Homosexuality.
I think sexuality and race are viewed differently in our culture. Wishing that a TV show did not depict sex is a lot different than wishing a TV show did not have black people on it. While there are situations where sexuality and race are very comparable in cases of discrimination, I don’t think this is one of those situations. There is room for religious groups to identify a sin without discriminating against the sinner.
I am interested too.
How would you define “Homophobic language”…
Would any statement that says sex between people of the same sex is a grave Sin count as being Homophobic?
I don’t define it. That’s the whole point. Just asking that question is a serious red flag.
So asking what the definition of being a homophobe is a “serious redflag”.
It says a lot about the cultural context of how the word is used.
The Hindu right in India have some words like that too… they also don’t have a fixed definition… they basically serve the purpose of showing who is “us” and who is “them” and justifying extreme action against the “them”. In this case also, asking rational questions is a major red flag.