Linda M. Woolf wrote:
> "Paul C. Smith" wrote:
> > All of that nit-picking being done, I have one less
> > nit-picky comment. As Mike Scoles notes, one of the evaluations did
refer to a
> > faculty member as "a raging homosexual". Suppose s/he is not gay.
>
> I am somewhat disturbed by the above comment. It should make
> no difference whether the individual is gay or not. This is not in the
same
> category as accusing someone of unethical or inappropriate behavior.
I included the sentence "suppose s/he is not gay" so as not to speak for
persons who are gay. In other words, I added it in order to _avoid_ implying
that being accused of being a homosexual _is_ in the same category as
accusing someone of unethical or inappropriate behavior.
> Yet, the phrasing of "a raging homosexual" implies inappropriateness.
I wasn't certain of that, as I know a gay man who comfortably describes
himself as "flaming" (is that the same as "raging"? I have no idea). I
didn't want to speak for gay people if I didn't know whether or not they
themselves would consider that a negative term.
I was also leading up to the point about "slanderous evaluations", and it
would be far more difficult to make the point that the comment was
slanderous if the individual actually was homosexual (of course, the
"raging" part still could make it slander, but that's obviously a far more
difficult argument to make).
And it occurs to me as I write this that I'm confusing "slander" with
"libel". Oh well, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. :)
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
