Friday, November 27, 2015

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Lessons Learned from McCarthyism apologist Claire Potter of the New School

This Woman Shames and Abuses Sexual Assault Victims

Claire Potter is a fellow Yale grad who ran a blog for the Chronicle of Higher Education for a while. It was called Tenured Radical. Some of her favorite themes were pop culture generally, politics, educational policy, and in particular, sexual assault.

She used to teach history at Wesleyan University in Connecticut but recently switched jobs to the New School for Public Engagement in Manhattan. I have never met her personally. Since I am politically conservative, I do not interact much with liberal editorialists. To broaden myself, for several years, I was a fairly devoted follower of Tenured Radical. This was the only left-wing blog I followed because I honestly enjoyed the challenge of interacting with views quite different from my own.

Many of Claire Potter's posts were entertaining and sometimes smart. I engaged them in good faith. She was often heated and hostile toward conservatives, but in the spirit of engagement, I still gave her posts a full hearing and posted my reactions to her musings. I would leave one comment and then leave the discussion thread, since I generally avoid getting into back-and-forth in forums. Much of my interaction with her was cordial. One of her guest writers, Judith Brown of Wesleyan University, even responded to the comment I left about possible new directions in trades education by emailing me and exchanging various thoughts on how best to prepare students for life after a liberal arts education. Other than this friendly and very brief contact with Judith Brown, which had absolutely nothing to do with Claire Potter, gay issues, or sexual assault, I had no contact with Tenured Radical people outside the forum itself. I never initiated any contact with Claire Potter or said I ever wanted to contact her. I never sought to have anyone I know contact her or anyone who knew her. I never said I was going to have anyone I knew contact her or anyone who knew her.

It was a huge surprise on November 25, 2015, when Claire Potter, using her avatar Tenured Radical, went into the comments section under the Inside Higher Ed article about my difficulties at Cal State Northridge. She posted a comment outing herself as one of the trolls--and it seems, even, a main and leading troll--who sought to poison my workplace against me.

Unbeknownst to me, Claire Potter called people at my University to tell them she feared for her "physical safety" because of my presence in the comments section on her public blog hosted by the Chronicle of Higher Education and billed as a place to exchange opinions. According to her she got the top lawyers in the CSU involved. She also claims publicly now that she received information from Northridge suggesting that I had a pattern of making people (I presume she means women and gays) feel unsafe. I can't imagine Northridge officials volunteering information to her about these supposed other similar complaints, so it looks most probable that she went fishing for gossip about me.

I feel seriously violated and betrayed, especially because of what she based her supposed fear for her safety on. Mind you, I live in Los Angeles and she lives in New York City and we have no common friends or acquaintances. We work in different fields and belong to completely different political camps. There is virtually zero chance that we will ever cross paths. She is far more famous than I am. That she would look up my workplace and spend time talking to "authorities" overseeing me is shocking. That she would disclose to them my history as a sexual assault survivor and imply that I might be violent and dangerous because of my having survived sexual assault, is utterly beyond the pale, especially for someone who has established herself as a leading spokeswoman about sexual assault and Title IX.

I do not think the academy can sink any lower than Claire Potter has sunk. But... the good news is, we now have a clear lead on the subterranean and sleazy trolling network that we suspected all along was behind the putsches against me, John McAdams, and Carol Swain. It actually helps us tremendously to have one name that we can connect to all the backchannel manipulation, since so many of the trolls who engage in these character assassinations do so behind fake names and avatars. (Potter appears to be specializing now in gamer culture and social media, so she may know or might be some of these fake Internet phantoms like Pink Agendist; it will be hard to know without more investigation.)

As Mark Bauerlein and I had both indicated in our answers to interviewer Colleen Flaherty, as reported in Inside Higher Ed, there were too many signs of outside influence to doubt that off-campus groups had played a role in whipping hysteria against me and inspiring students to defraud the discrimination complaint system in order to try getting me dismissed.

The simplest explanation is of course the most likely one: Someone who knew the process of campus discipline, knew something about me and where I might be vulnerable, and had experience with Title IX complaints, was coaching the students in the hopes of filing a dramatic charge against me, boldly enough to override my tenure.

Some clarification finally came with the disposition letter on October 16, 2015: In that document, for instance, the fact that Complainant A met repeatedly and at length with one administrator who had no role in the proper chain of command laid out by the Faculty Guide. That administrator had multiple conflicts with me in the wake of off-campus trolls pressuring her to punish me for my off-campus work on children's rights.

But still, there were unanswered questions. More light was shed on the bizarre Reagan Library affair when Claire Potter outed herself as one of the trolls who contacted Northridge to complain about me. According to Potter's comment under the Inside Higher Ed article, she considers me "deeply disturbed" to the point that FIRE should be "wary" of assisting in my academic freedom matter. She claims that I visited her blog, Tenured Radical, "repetitively" and left "unprovoked" comments. She mischaracterizes my stance on gay parenting by saying that I based my whole stance on children's rights on my experience as a teenager being sexually exploited by older gay men. Anyone who knows my work at all knows that I ground my argument about children's rights in a broad swath of humanities-based and social-science research, including interviews with dozens of other COGs. Nobody who's ever read Jephthah's Daughters or even perused a few of my online essays would think to say I base everything on my own bitterness over what happened to me as a teen.

Some of my fellow COGs and I went back and scrolled through old Tenured Radical forums. We found that Potter was in substantial contact with Steven Salaita and many people involved in the boycott-Israel movement. Northridge has one of the most energized cohorts of pro-boycott people. We also saw that Potter had engaged with Jeremy Hooper, Straight Grandmother, and Scott Rose, all of whom have a well-documented history of emailing associates or family members of their "targets."

The gay community was built on blackmail. That's something that I learned very early on, growing up the way I did. When there was a stigma to gayness, blackmail was the currency of the whole gay economy. To get sex, you had to enter a network of other gays, in the process exposing yourself as gay to other people who might use that information against you. Within gay milieus, interpersonal conflicts are often contoured by blackmail: do something I want you to do or I will reveal your secrets in places where it will do you damage. Gay people do this to people they love just as much as they do this to people they hate. It is second nature in LGBT circles. Claire Potter is a product of her social set. So are the trolls who congregate in her comments section.

It seems that the Reagan Library affair will not be settled for a long time because there is so much more investigation to be carried out. At least now we have one name of someone in the academy who conspired to harm me professionally over a political disagreement. She did it in the classically gay style of blackmail, shaming, and gossip. She's connected to others who have a history of doing the same. We will keep looking for more clues. I think the story that emerges as we find out more will be epic. Epically shocking.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

More coverage about persecuted professors.  This one from Accuracy in Academia.

America’s universities used to care about critical thinking. Now they’re just critical — toward conservative thinking. Last week, we talked about Carol Swain, the African-American professor under fire for suggesting that radical Islam was a threat to security. (A theory the French would now certainly support.) Turns out, she isn’t the only one making waves on college campuses.

Read the rest here

Video about COGS in Colombia

Very interesting:

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Full interview (via email) I did with Inside Higher Ed

Dear Readers,

Today Inside Higher Ed ran a story about my academic freedom case as the lead story.

It was a very good article and the author Colleen Flaherty, did an excellent job. I do take issue with her characterization of Mark Regnerus as "discredited" and with her decision to include an extended quote from a deleted blog post from two years ago, which does not reflect the overwhelming focus of the work I do. But within the political limits of Inside Higher Ed, I think Ms. Flaherty did very well. It would have been unthinkable for her not to put some distance between the publication and the opposing view on gay adoption.

For people who want full context, here was the full transcript of my interview with Ms. Flaherty:

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Colleen Flaherty wrote:
Hi Robert, 
Thanks for getting back to me... Sorry I was tied up before. I'm wondering if I might be able to send you a couple questions now for background and we can follow up via phone tomorrow -- how does that sound? 
First, can you tell me when and where you've opposed adoption by gay parents, and why? 
I have opposed adoption by gay parents in various conservative publications, in speeches in multiple countries, and in briefs submitted to various federal courts. It is an issue that's extremely important to me, because I still hold dear the "child-centered" philosophy that I first picked up when I was working with Nickelodeon in the 1990s. As a bisexual person myself, I think LGBTs have great dignity and the community has contributed so much to culture and intellectual life. The problem is that practically speaking, from the child's point of view, gay parenting -- not just the home life but the larger culture -- imposes a lot of sacrifices that really go beyond what we should force on a child for the sake of an adult agenda. I've compiled the narratives of well over 100 children of gays (COGs) and overwhelmingly they didn't like being brought to gay pride parades or the poster children for their guardians' cause. Overwhelmingly they found one of the people in the gay couple a strange or difficult presence in their lives; usually they wanted a close relationship with a biological parent who was gay and then found themselves forced into an uncomfortable and sometimes hurtful relationship with that parent's gay lover, whom they usually don't see as a parent. While homophobia against their guardians affected them they found the deeper problems with the way the gay community treats its children much graver. You're the community's property and people want to control everything you say, all the way up until you're a senior citizen. Everyone including COGs has a mother and father somewhere (even if one's in the grave), but somehow COGs are not allowed to feel longing or loss about the parent that's missing, even though peers who have divorced, unmarried, or adoptive parents are given free reign to voice their sense of angst about disruptions in their lineage. Finally, after meeting so many other COGs and hearing real, sick stories of abuse that they were told to keep quiet about, for the sake of "the community," I just hit a breaking point in 2012. I felt this was not something to be pushing on people, and if there are gay parents with children, it's not fair to legally impose their gay lovers on their children and expect love and obedience from them. It goes against the very essence of the gay marriage movement, the idea that "dignity" is a real good and human right, and the idea that government should respect relationships as they exist -- the relationship between every human being and his/her mother and father is fundamental and has to be respected.
Next, what kinds of specific retaliation/backlash have you faced for this, outside of CSUN? How and when did you come to feel threatened by the HRC and/or other groups?
Oh my God, this would take so long to catalog. I've been tear gassed, targeted with vandalism, threatened, defamed, publicly humiliated and shamed, blacklisted from conferences, heckled, mobbed, and forced to cancel appearances. I've lost so much money because it's costly to deal with the frivolous complaints and accusations, then my personal relationships have been destroyed by activists threatening relatives, old friends, peers, and professional associates if they are seen being friendly with me. The moment I published "Growing Up with Two Moms" on August 6, 2012, Jeremy Hooper, a blogger who was working with GLAAD issued a fatwa of sorts, stalking everything I write and clipping quotations out of context, then sending these lists of distorted quotes to anywhere I was going to appear. It has never let up. In July 2013, GLAAD officially placed me on their Commentator Accountability Project list, which made it impossible for me to make appearances anywhere in the US or Canada. So I went overseas and used my languages, but this lead HRC to label me the #2 enemy of LGBT rights in its international "Exporters of Hate" report in September 2014. A lot of my writing about children's rights drew from critical race theory and my expertise in the history of slavery, which was like the gift that kept on giving: Jeremy Hooper would send a note about "you do realize he compared gay parents to slave owners" everywhere, and this made conservatives very skittish about working with me. It got worse when Paul Singer made a big public deal about funding HRC's international efforts, which had placed me as their #2 target -- Singer is a powerful Republican and his money flows through all the major right-wing think tanks, so this was an intellectual death sentence for me. It's been Hell. 
How does CSUN come into play? What kind of action has it taken against you, and why? What was the optional assignment you offered students, and what are the details on the student who claimed you retaliated against her for different views?
CSUN has been pressured since 2012 to get rid of me. I was copied on many of the early emails from activists like Scott Rosenzweig. Later I would hear whispers that emails were still being blasted to faculty and staff, but the activists stopped copying me so I would have no idea what everyone was saying about me. I was already cornered before this began, because I challenged what I considered very racist things going on at CSUN in 2010, 2011, and early 2012, so it was very easy for white leftists on campus to form a super-alliance with pro-gay people of color. I became the ultimate pariah. For a while, the provost Harry Hellenbrand protected me; he is an old-school Jewish liberal who just defended academic freedom whether it was anti-Zionist David Klein or me. I was confident that the students weren't being recruited to sabotage me. That all changed when HRC issued the Export of Hate report, because emails started coming from gay alumni and it worried me that gay students were getting copied on a lot of these emails. Weird things started in the fall of 2014, such as, for instance: People who weren't in my classes would show up and sit down and refuse to leave. At this point, the new provost (Harry Hellenbrand left his position) is Yi Li, and this was, from what I understand, his first major faculty controversy, so he seems to be engineering his own process of dealing with things. He rubber-stamped the findings of the Equity and Diversity office and wouldn't give me an opportunity to rebut any of the office's claims against me, including new charges that were changed or introduced at the end of the year-long investigation, which I never knew about and obviously never responded to, prior to the issuance Li's "disposition" against me on October 16, 2015. According to the faculty personnel handbook, since he found me "guilty" of "retaliation," which is very serious under Title IX, he has to impose one of three disciplinary actions: suspension without pay, demotion, or dismissal. Susan Hua, the Title IX Coordinator, told me on June 4, 2015, point-blank that they were looking at dismissal because of what they considered the seriousness of the charges. However, it's been more than a month and the provost has refused to meet with me and won't state what discipline he plans to pursue against me. In his latest message he says I will be permitted to "respond" to the disciplinary action--ostensibly, before the review board--when that is decided, but he refuses to meet with me, won't look at my rebuttal against the findings of the Title IX Coordinator, and will not tell me when he will make the decision about sanctions. So its been over 410 days and I am living in a constant limbo, knowing that some huge administrative battle is going to take place, I just don't know what it is. The planned strike complicates matters.
In terms of "why," here is the situation in a nutshell: In all four of my fall 2014 classes, I gave students an option to fulfill the 20% of my course grade that I usually call "thematic engagement," where I try to get them to connect the coursework to issues they will face in their contemporary experiences. They could do 10 responses to readings, which is the standard work I assign in all my classes. Then, because I had organized a conference off-campus at the Reagan Library, they had another option to attend a conference on modern-day challenges to children's rights and women's rights -- sperm-banking, surrogacy commerce, divorce, and adoption. If they chose to go to the Reagan Library they had to attend the full six hours and had to create a professional exhibit on the depiction of children's rights or family in the course readings. 
When I come up with this idea, I thought maybe 40 students at most would agree to go to the Reagan. I was stuck when 75% of my students wanted to go to the Reagan. I couldn't let some go and not others, so I went back to the funders and asked for extra money to expand the event into an adjoining room and pay for more of the meals and insurance. Everyone who wanted a seat at the Reagan and requested one, I gave to them. On October 3, 2014, the day seemed to me to go well; the four presentations were very good and the 80+ exhibits on literature were highly professional. But other things were happening behind the scenes. The main complainant, (Complainant A), came to the event and pressured presenter Alana Newman in Q&A to delve into a topic she didn't come to address -- namely, whether gay men should be forced to have sex with women if they want to have children. The exchange lasted for about 4-5 minutes, with Alana trying to get out of what felt like a trap. Complainant A went back to campus claiming that the entire event was anti-gay, and eight months later, went to the Title IX officer and showed her two brochures, one that did circulate about the Sexual Revolution generally, and one about gay marriage which was at most stacked on a side table, but never circulated.
After a dozen interviews and over a year of investigation, including intervention by FIRE in a 27-page letter, on October 16, 2015, the provost finally announced that I was not guilty of discrimination for holding the event because (1) the students were not, as alleged, "coerced" to go, (2) I had not, as alleged, deceived anybody about the content of the conference, and (3) there was no evidence that any anti-gay animus had interfered with anybody's access to university programs and activities. But at the same time, the provost claimed that my responses during the investigation were "vague, inconsistent, and contradictory," so he threw out my position as not credible, thereby giving all the credibility to Complainant A, who claimed I had threatened not to nominate her for an award. Based on the latter claim and on new witness testimony I was never told about, the provost said I was guilty of retaliation. 
What's the current status of your case at CSUN? Are you teaching currently, and was there some kind of resolution, or have they moved to fire you? 
My status is unclear. I am the only person in recent memory, according to administrators who told me so, who has faced disciplinary sanction at CSUN, and they don't really know how to handle this. I am still teaching, even as the case has broken in the press and the campus paper even published an editorial about the case in the CSUN Sundial. It is clear from what Susan Hua, the Title IX officer told me, that they wish to fire me but this will happen through progressive discipline, most likely, meaning that future investigations (which they promised to undertake in the disposition letter, explicitly) will be necessary to get me to dismissal. As I have stated, the disposition is overwhelmingly false and based on multiple violations of due process; additionally, my counsel has written refuting the legal basis for the retaliation claim since I took no adverse action against the student and she was ineligible to receive any awards anyway. 
Last, what does your case demonstrate about about academic freedom? As you know, often times liberal professors claim violations of free speech/academic freedom and gain sympathy, but that is not always the reaction for professors with more conservative views... 
Well, I think this puts to rest the notion that safe spaces, trigger warnings, or other supposed diversity measures are compatible with academic freedom. It's clear that academic freedom will not survive the current student movements across the country if the protestors get what they want. In my case, I was meticulous about making my classroom a safe space -- I didn't introduce gay issues into the conference, I didn't make the students attend the conference, and I clearly explained to them what the conference was about in case it was going to upset them. It didn't matter, because ultimately the students, or whoever coached them, wanted to punish me for opposing gay adoption in my off-campus scholarly life. There is no way, with so much organized trolling, for the calls for "safe space" to allow for dissenters from orthodox positions on things like same-sex parenting, even coming from someone like me who and a gay parent.

I think liberal scholars -- and here I don't feel bad naming Claire Potter, whose blog I followed for a long time -- have created their own snare. For too long they never confronted the enigma: How do you protect academic freedom and still ban what you consider "hate speech"? They rallied behind William Cronon when his emails were published, but then said nothing when my emails were published. [...] but will certainly not rally behind me as I am driven out of my job and the academy for giving my working-class students a fully-paid chance to attend and display research at the Ronald Reagan Library. At the heart of this is the sad irony that I am most attacked for my views, which come really from the lesbian and racially conscious left in which I was raised-- the defense of women against moves to remove their children or exploit their eggs and wombs, the rights of children not to be commodified and severed from their heritage as it happened under slavery and earlier adoption abuses. The fact that wealthy Republicans who see a profit motive in advancing gay adoption use gay rights as a way to incite left-wing people against me speaks volumes. In the end, this movement will consume the left even worse than it consumed the right. I will not rejoice, though a part of me just wants people to see the irony in how the left engineered the end to its own academic and political freedom.

Thank you so much for any/all clarity/initial background you might be able to provide here, 

No problem

Feministes contre la GPA

Un rapport de la Communauté Européenne provoque l'inquiétude de groupes féministes.  Ils parlent de marchandisation du corps.

Sept associations très diverses[1] ont publié un communiqué commun pour dénoncer les « intérêts privés, voulant vendre du ‘matériel humain’ », qui sont « en train de convaincre le Conseil de l’Europe d’admettre le principe de la maternité de substitution (GPA) ».

Ce communiqué est publié la veille de l’examen du rapport sur la GPA[2] par la Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et du développement durable du Conseil. La rédactrice de ce rapport, la sénatrice belge, Petra de Sutter, est également gynécologue et chef du département de Médecine de la Reproduction du CHU de Gent en Belgique, l'un des quatre hôpitaux belges pratiquant la GPA.

Lire le reste ici.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Are You Prepared for Thanksgiving Discussions?

The Marriage Reality Movement gives us some pointers on how to handle discussions with family members on the topic of marriage right here:

  1. Don’t fight old battles.
  2. Reintroduce the reality of marriage by using the term “marriage reality.
  3. Explaining marriage reality.
  4. Ask the key question.
  5. “But redefined marriage still unites children with their mother and father.”
  6. “But what about same-sex couples who are parenting?”
  7. The truth about donor conception.
  8. Homosexuality and gay lifestyles.


Friday, November 20, 2015


I've gotten massive backup!!  A big thank you!

National Organization for Marriage:

Family Research Council:

Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund:

WOOHOO! I am proud to be on this side!

And quick action got Carol Swain's Facebook account back up!

Thursday, November 19, 2015

The Diversity Fascists Have Found a Way to Block Carol Swain on Facebook

I got this message from Dr. Carol Swain:

I would like everyone to know that Facebook has blocked my account for 21 hours. The forum has been an effective means for me to get information out.  I have over 20,000 followers and my posts were reaching almost half a million people. Before blocking me Facebook stopped allowing followers to share articles like this one and they blocked on of my blogs about the student threatening to ruin me.

Re: Angry White Leftists Target a Black Conservative Woman

Monday, November 16, 2015

My letter to Italian friends

Dear Friends in Italy:

It was my joy and honor to visit Milan in April 2014 and speak with citizens who wanted to know more about the impact of same-sex marriage on children. My connections to Italy were strengthened further one year later, when Tempi first published a letter by me and five other children of gays (COGs) defending Dolce and Gabbana.

Today I write with some sadness because since my last trip to Italy, much has changed in the United States. Italians need to take into account recent history before they make a drastic decision redefining family or marriage. The US Supreme Court issued its historic decision in June 2015, ignoring completely the warnings from COGs that legalizing gay marriage would deprive COGs of rights and liberties. In the brief that I submitted jointly with BN Klein, I warned that not only would COGs become a second class denied the universal right to one's own maternal and paternal heritage. I also warned that COGs would exist in a separate legal system, deprived of free speech and due process of law. Why? Because the legal reasoning behind gay marriage depended on the idea that anyone--including COGs--who sees a deficiency in same-sex parenting is motivated by discrimination outlawed now by the new interpretation of the US Constitution (the 14th Amendment).

I spoke in my SCOTUS brief of the loss of liberties, courtesies, and dignities for COGs. What I predicted has come to pass. As reported in Foglio, I have seen my due process rights and free speech rights taken away from me by a powerful LGBT lobby, which has issued broad public statements calling me "anti-gay." My crime? I have studied literature and history to argue that there is a deep precedent for children's rights to a mother and father. Under pressure from outside groups, my university opened an investigation into me for anti-gay discrimination, based on student memories that were exposed as false. 

Contrary to established legal principles in the United States, I was never allowed to see the complaint against me, I was not told the exact charges against me until after I was found guilty, I was convicted based on evidence I never saw and witnesses I was never told about, and I much of the documented evidence I provided, including a video of the comments in question, was thrown out.

The courts in the US will likely have to decide this matter, since the university has refused to meet with me about the charges and litigation appears inevitable. 

But for Italy, the warning signs are clear. The children placed in same-sex couples' homes are treated under a completely different legal standards, because not only their bodies, but their thoughts and memories, are under the full control of the gay community for their entire lives. I was attacked often for talking about the history of slavery when talking about gay parenting. Perhaps the parallels I noticed provoked so much anger, not because they were far-fetched, but because they were quite pertinent.


Robert Oscar Lopez

Make Sure to Sign this Academic Freedom Petition

Very important:

The case of Carol Swain at Vanderbilt University is going to prove very important. Keep your eyes on it. The link above gives basic details. The organized trolling networks that are behind the putsch at Vanderbilt think that we aren't on to them, but we are!

Saturday, November 14, 2015


I didn't want to reemerge from my long reclusion until I had a critical mass of media material to share with readers. As many of you may know, I am now in a full-fledged administrative and legal battle with the leftist racketeers who have subverted the bureaucracy at California State University-Northridge in a vicious attempt to suppress my academic freedom, abridge my rights as a worker, and corrupt academic research into same-sex parenting in the hopes of intimidating expert witnesses who have pertinent contrary information for the courts on gay adoption.

Below is a round-up. The fight has just begin. Buckle up!

Articles By Me:
Public Discourse: Forthcoming

Anglican Mainstream:

Thursday, October 15, 2015

A podcast you won't want to miss!

A woman in Idaho died. She bled to death a day before she was scheduled to deliver twin babies to a commissioning couple as part of a surrogacy contract. Gut-wrenching, scary.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Transcript of the interview with Julia Gasper

Cogwatch 10  The Tyranny of False Myths.

Prof Robert Oscar Lopez Talks to Dr Julia Gasper.
ROL Welcome to Cogwatch 10.
I am joined here by Dr Julia Gasper from Great Britain, who is somewhat of a firebrand. She has recently come under attack in a profile in Pink News. once more. Pink News was very upset by a blog post Dr Gasper wrote about Ten Common Myths about Homosexuality. It seems to be a ten-point full frontal attack on all of the talking points that are so common in LGBT activism. I wanted to talk to Dr Gasper about these myths. She’s done a great deal of research .First of all I want to ask Dr Gasper, how did you first become interested in the topic of human sexuality as a scholar?

JG   It was when the whole question of changing marriage came up in England. Er.. I was a little bit involved in local politics in England. People were asking me my opinion of changing marriage, to allow same-sex marriage, and I was not very keen on the idea...was not very keen on it. I am frankly opposed to gay marriage. I have never objected to any other change in the law that homosexuals have made. But I found that giving a No answer made me intensely unpopular and some people became very angry and even insulting .

ROL   So you found that your training as an academic in the humanities was useful because you were able to look at the history and the literature and you were able to analyse the rhetoric, is that right?

JG   Well yes, I think one of the things I did get out of studying English Literature was that I think can understand when certain persuasion techniques are being used.  I think I’m pretty alert to them.  I should be by now.

ROL    Right, so out of the ten myths, propagated by the LGBT movement, which one do you feel is the most foundational myth, the most basic, that kind of feeds all the others?

JG  I can’t say actually...but  I suppose I put the “Born gay” myth first, because in a way that’s the cornerstone of all the other arguments, the one that the others follow from.

ROL   Actually I agree with you, because I also find that the Born Gay myth is the most problematic because that’s the foundation for an identity.  Once they say that what they do is what they are, then they go and create all these other myths. They re-write history, they re-write sexuality, and meaning.

JG   Yes, I think so. And I think that once you convince yourself you were born a certain way, you go back and edit all of your memories to fit that conviction.  An awful lot of our memories  - and you must know this  because you’re an Eng Lit person as well -a  lot of our memories are invented  (laughs). They’re certainly re-formed and re-shaped as we go through life.

ROL   Yes I agree, because I have also noticed this, when I talk to activists, one of the things that repeats over and over again, something they often say is “I always knew, even when I was a toddler,” and I totally don’t believe that, because some of them I did know when they were children and I don’t think it was anything like that clear to them at that young age.

JG That’s very interesting.

ROL  So this “born this way” myth, you think it leads  them to re-write their personal history. But why does it always seem to take this jump to them having to re-write national and world history?

JG  Well I think it’s about having a grievance, because an awful lot of leverage in the political sphere  depends on having a grievance. They’re modelling themselves on the black civil rights movement, when people certainly did have a grievance, a huge, gigantic grievance. And they’re modelling themselves on the feminist movement, when women in some ways did have some grievances, sure, such as equal pay and things like that’s a more problematical area. And unfortunately I think that an awful lot of what we call left-wing politics depends on having a grievance.  It’s a case of “I whinge, therefore I am”.  I’ve got to have a grievance. And with that grievance comes entitlement.  You know, you’re a victim, therefore you’re entitled to expect something.  That’s the whole narrative.

ROL   Let me ask you then, as they’ve gone back and they’ve re-written history - and
I know as a classicist,  how Roman and Greek history has been re-written to match this, and the mediaeval period too  - which historical revision do you find the most egregious?

JG   Well I’ve kind of focussed on the Nazi Holocaust. The thing is that that is such a byword for all human oppression, that by comparing themselves to the Jews in the Holocaust, they’re saying that our oppression is right up there, it’s grade A.  But I think that actually, if you look through history and compare it to what was done to so many other groups, slaves for example  - they could be beaten to death . You’ve only got to go back two hundred years, and children were sent up chimneys. I mean, wives were property...all over Europe, serfs were slaves. There were so many sorts of oppression, that although they [homosexuals] may have had it rough, I just think they’re exaggerating in the scale of things.

ROL They have made it seem as though the limitations placed on their sexual pleasure rises to the level of a social justice issue, uniquely among all other limitations.

JG  There were so many forms of repression and punishment that heterosexuals faced  - penalties and just prohibition on enjoyment. It was never regarded as your right in any way. Just because you were heterosexual, so what? There were an awful lot of job contracts where you couldn’t get married, and of course you couldn’t go round having any other sort of relationships either. I mean, it was just a tough world!

ROL  They still have that limitation, I believe that is still the case at Sandhurst  - that if you are married you can’t go on the officers’ training course. Is that correct?

JG.  That kind of thing, absolutely.  I mean the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge didn’t allow dons to marry until about the 1890s. Maybe the 1860s.  There simply were an awful lot of prohibitions, and if you know anything about the history of Christianity, there was
a generalised disapproval of sexuality, not just homosexuality.

ROL   Finally, what would you say to someone who said to you, so what? Maybe some of these claims, about the mediaeval church marrying people, or whatever, are not true, but what’s the harm?

JG  The fact is in the state schools this ideology is being forcibly taught to children,  I pay for that through my taxes, and if my children were still at school they would be being taught this. It is actually being stuffed down people’s throats. And secondly, if you disagree with it, you incur such hostility, such social disapproval, that it amounts to a form of tyranny. Society actually takes the attitude “People are not safe” if you express any other view! Recently, Dr Paul Church was sacked from the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, for disagreeing with some of these myths. (The one about the gay lifestyle being healthy).  Just for speaking out against it. And basically, if they are myths, they have to be exploded.

ROL   I do appreciate the fact that Dr Gasper just brought up a very important issue, which I’ll summarize. Tyranny itself is based on falsehood. So it’s not an innocent thing to re-write history, to create myths and propagate falsehoods and claim that they are true. That ultimately leads to tyranny.  So I want to thank you very much for your time Dr Gasper.
JG  Goodbye and hope to see you in the flesh before too long.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: 2nd Annual Conference of International Children's Rights

Over 100 activists for children's rights gathered at the College Stanislas in the Montparnasse district of Paris to discuss the impact of divorce on children's rights. I am proud to have represented the US-based International Children's Rights Institute in partnering with the French group Famille et Liberté to put on this wonderful event. I was able to bring four youth leaders from California as well, representing UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, Stanford, and Santa Barbara City College.

Here is a link to the Facebook photo album!

Monday, October 12, 2015

Monday, October 5, 2015

Why I support Pope Francis

As an ecofeminist sex-positive genderqueer Marxist I must highly commend Pope Francis. Watch this whole thing:

[UPDATE: This was satire and someone didn't get the joke and wow! That was a nasty email, NB: I am not a Marxist, though naturally I don't like pollution. Anyway I set this to private to see if I can record a better one! Lots of love to all, including Pope Francis, whom I sincerely respect.]

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Why I support Planned Parenthood

Watch the whole thing!

Friday, September 25, 2015

Why I support gay marriage

Watch the whole thing!

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Way to go, Lutherans!

This is awesome.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

The Advocate shows us how to abuse the word "homophobic" when discussing adoptions

This just came out:

I cannot say I totally understand this case, because I haven't had time to get deeply into it. From what I can tell, this is precisely why I have been battling the gay lobby on the adoption issue.

In the case of an Alabama high court ruling, which has the Advocate screaming "homophobia," a lesbian "adopted" her lover's children, but then the women got divorced. Now the ex-wife who is not really the children's mother, wants the rights of a parent, but Alabama is disregarding the adoption as illegitimate.

Let me make this very clear as someone who was raised by my lesbian mother with the help of her lifelong female partner. My mother's partner was a loving presence in my life and I remain affectionate toward her, but she was not a mother and I am glad she never adopted me. I had a father but I didn't have much of a relationship with him. Things were complicated. My mom's partner had her own children.

The fact that my mom was in a sexual relationship with her partner did not mean that my filial devotion was part of the "deal" between them, romantically. This is where the gay lobby is way off. Because so many LGBT people want to be parents but have not had the occasion to conceive children in former heterosexual relationships, gay and lesbian partners have a built-in inclination to want to become "parents" to the children of people they sleep with.

I get it, I understand, it's totally human and not sinful in and of itself. But you aren't the kids' parent. You are sleeping with the kids' parent. There is a difference.

This is not really a gay issue in some ways, because it's more of an adoption issue and something that blended families struggle with when there are stepparent adoptions.

On the other hand, it is a gay issue because gay parenting advocates keep wanting to make it their issue. And it is a gay issue because (1) gays as a group are more given to feeling the pressure to push stepparent adoptions on children, and (2) gay stepparent adoptions are worse than other stepparent adoptions because they are removing a parent of one sex and then permanently forcing a second parent of the other sex on the child, which is confusing and also throws the child's gender balance into chaos moreso than a heterosexual stepparent adoption. I am not saying that hetero stepparent adoptions are always beneficial -- they too have their problems -- but I am saying that the gay stepparent adoption is exceptionally risky, complicated, and to be avoided at all costs.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Excellent speech from daughter of lesbians, in Australia

This is so moving, thank you to Millie:

Thursday, September 17, 2015

It's gonna be one of those semesters

I'm already on week 4. It feels like this:

My recent piece on Taylor Swift


Sunday, September 13, 2015

My updated biography

This is posted through my job here.

Below is the full text:

Robert Oscar Lopez received his B.A. from Yale in 1993, with a Political Science thesis entitled: “The Pornographic Regime.” It was a reading of the theories of Catharine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin through the legal history of obscenity, discrimination, and First Amendment law. His advisor was Cathy Cohen.

After graduating from Yale, he worked for Hispanics United as a bilingual court advocate, then as a translator and paralegal for a law firm in New York. He dealt mostly with French-English translations involving asylum applicants from Haiti, Congo, and other African nations.

In 1996, Dr. Lopez took a position at MTV Networks, owned by Viacom, specializing in dubbing and acquisitions for Nickelodeon International. In that capacity he oversaw the translation of roughly 2,000 hours of programming into Spanish and Portuguese. He also led training seminars for Portuguese markets in Brazil. He was promoted twice while at MTV Networks, first to programming coordinator for Nickelodeon Latin America, then to the position of program operations manager.

Eventually Dr. Lopez left television to pursue graduate work in English and Classics in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. His first commercial publication came out in 1998. He defended his English dissertation, Antiquity and Radical Authority 1773-1861, in 2003, looking at the role that ancient literature played in inspiring modern British and American writers including Swift, Pope, Wheatley, Blake, Thoreau, Delany, and Brown. In 2003, the State University of New York at Buffalo conferred its doctorate on Dr. Lopez, and he began an assistant professorship in New Jersey.
For two years Dr. Lopez taught in New Jersey and continued his scholarship around the theme of ancient-modern connections in American and British literature, including black diasporic literature in English. In 2005, he returned to Buffalo once again to try his hand at teaching at a religious college while he finished his Classics graduate degree at SUNY Buffalo.

By 2007, Dr. Lopez passed his comprehensive exams in Greek and Latin and was awarded his MA in Classics. His MA project was “Cadmean Girls Gone Wild: Women and the Meltdown of Enmity in the Theban Civil War.” This project examined Pindar’s and Aeschylus’s respective versions of the war between Oedipus’s sons. It also looked at the role gender played in the poetic and dramatic presentations of the war story.

In 2008, Dr. Lopez’s screenplay, Snow in Miami, won first place in the Latino Screenplay Competition. It was a comedy about a Latino professor who was raised by a gay couple, a storyline to which Dr. Lopez could relate, having been himself raised by a lesbian with the help of her lifelong female partner.

Also, in 2008, Dr. Lopez moved to Los Angeles to begin his job at California State University-Northridge. He continued publishing in journals such as Nineteenth-Century Prose, Edgar Allan Poe Review, and the French series IDEA (Interdisciplinarité dans les Etudes Anglophones.) The culmination of much of his research was the publication of The Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman, by Rowman & Littlefield, in 2011. This was a monograph examining Phillis Wheatley’s conversation with Horace, Edgar Allan Poe’s conversation with John Winthrop, Henry David Thoreau’s conversation with Homer, William Wells Brown’s conversation with Cato, and finally Walt Whitman’s conversation with Virgil.

The Colorful Conservative received praise from Mark Bauerlein of Emory University and Steven Justice of UC Berkeley, both of whom considered it a unique exploration of the forgotten conservative streak in American letters.

Since receiving tenure in 2013, Dr. Lopez has been an active writer and commentator in conservative circles, publishing extensively in venues such as American Thinker, Public Discourse, Daily Caller, Ethika Politika, The Federalist, and most recently, the peer-reviewed publication Humanum Review. His focus shifted to concern for children’s rights, a topic on which he wished to combine his personal experience as an early product of same-sex parenting and the broad interdisciplinary research he has conducted into the history of family structures. He has delivered numerous lectures on this topic, to groups at Stanford, Notre Dame, Princeton, UCLA, Catholic University, and others. He has also delivered lectures on such topics in the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, and Italy. Many of his speeches are accessible at English Manif. In 2014, he was appointed president of the International Children’s Rights Institute.

In February 2015, along with co-editor Rivka Edelman (another scholar raised by gay parents), Dr. Lopez published Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family “Equality.” His current book projects include Solomon’s Babies, a collection of essays about writers who were raised by gay parents; Disco on a Hill, a collection of essays about gay exceptionalism; Discipline and Demonize, a collection of essays about the role of invective in world literature; and Putting Text on Trial, a collection of essays about the role of interactive and innovative events in literature classrooms.

Dr. Lopez is an active member of the Southern Baptist Convention and has sought to give support to conservative Christian students struggling to reconcile their faith and the demands of university life. He speaks or reads eight languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, Greek, and Latin.