Austin students want professor fired for writings on age of consent; UT says it’s protected speech

[Mappable 37]

Austin students want professor fired for writings on age of consent; UT says it’s protected speech

For weeks, University of Texas students have been protesting against and asking school leaders to fire professors with histories of sexual misconduct.

Now, a group of students is calling for the removal of another faculty member they say is promoting harmful ideas about the age of consent and sexual relations with minors.

Thomas K. Hubbard, a professor of classics in UT's College of Liberal Arts, has written extensively on relationships between adolescent boys and adult men, often using classic literature's depictions of homosexual relationships to suggest changing age of consent laws and challenging modern norms about youth sexuality.

But some students say he has used his position as a UT professor to further a culture that hurts young boys.

In his academic writing, Hubbard describes physical relationships between men and young boys in ancient times as "proper learning experiences." In one 2010 article published in the peer-reviewed journal, Thymos: Boyhood Studies, Hubbard examines sexual consent among adolescent males in antiquity, asking, "What can we learn from the Greeks?"

"Contemporary American legislation premised on children's incapacity to 'consent' to sexual relations stems from outmoded gender constructions and ideological preoccupations of the late Victorian and Progressive Era," Hubbard writes. "We should consider a different 'age of consent' for boys and girls."

In the same publication, Hubbard called age of consent laws a "sad by-product" of a "naive and self-righteous era" and compared them to prohibition.

Hubbard rebukes the idea he writes about pedophilia. Instead, he says, he discusses the phenomenon of "pederasty," which he described as the romantic courtship of adolescent males, usually 14 years or older with older men.

"How teen sexuality should be regulated and how legal violations should be punished are legitimate areas of research and debate among scholars and public policy professionals. Historical and cross-cultural evidence have a place in such discussions," he said in an emailed statement.

 

[workswithseed 2,109]

I mean owning slaves was a big thing, but don't make it right. 

[Rougarou 594]

This is embarrassing scholarship from my Alma mater and while it may be protected speech and I'm principally resigned to be on the professors side on this one, I think the students are right here and I'm rooting for them from a moral perspective.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Rougarou

[TwiceHorn 31,517]

On the one hand, that's some creepy shit.

On the other hand, a lot of our customs and mores about sexuality are really fucked up.  It's kind of strange how deeply we have internalized a lot of legalistic and sort of arbitrary rules concerning sexuality.

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

None of us had ever heard of this guy or his writing before the outcry.

I think it's interesting how this kind of up-in-arms student stuff fixates on these fringe teachers, guest speakers, etc. that get so much more publicity and generate so much more "support" due to the controversy.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2,652]

Yeahhh. So I clicked the thread thinking the students were over reacting.  After reading the article, I’m not sure they are. 
 

 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

[irishtexan 11,522]

I think it's one thing to have an intellectual discussion about whether or not our sexual mores are repressed, outdated, paternalistic, etc. It's another thing to specifically advocate that the age of consent be lowered so that grown men can fuck teenage boys without repercussion. 

[Brisketexan 105,192]

17 minutes ago, Xian said:

Yeahhh. So I clicked the thread thinking the students were over reacting.  After reading the article, I’m not sure they are. 
 

 

This, which leads to this....

27 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

This is embarrassing scholarship from my Alma mater and while it may be protected speech and I'm principally resigned to be on the professors side on this one, I think the students are right here and I'm rooting for them from a moral perspective.

The broad subject matter, and academic questioning of the origin, application, and effects of historical and contemporary sexual mores is completely appropriate and within bounds of an open and free academic environment.  We have lots of laws and rules, not just regarding sexuality.  Academic research and thought should be free to question any/all of them -- we'd have no big issue with someone doing research and writing on the history of laws on petty theft, and even advocating for abolition of such laws as they relate to necessities like food (as just an example).

That said....this dude is creepy AF, and I don't blame any student even a little bit for calling him out for being creepy AF.  AND, I think that oversight and examination of such research and writing is within the province of the particular College and its faculty, and they should do so.

 

[Auto Driller 2,506]

Embarrassing that someone would dedicate their career to public advocacy of pedophilia. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he has more than an academic interest in the subject.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,516]

42 minutes ago, Xian said:

Yeahhh. So I clicked the thread thinking the students were over reacting.  After reading the article, I’m not sure they are. 
 

 

I'm here as well. I thought perhaps the teacher was speaking about historical norms and some students were outraged. Instead this guy seems to be advocating sex with 14 year olds, or at least he wants a discussion on the topic.  Even if it's the latter and he only like to foster controversial academic discussions, it's a bad path to go down. And if he actually wants sex with a 14 year old, I don't think he should be left alone with college students, some of whom could be as young as 17 and definitely 18.

[Pato del Muerto 52,553]

So the protected speech argument. Is it because UT is a government entity?  If so, can no speech be restricted by termination?  Employment isn’t a right. 

[Brisketexan 105,192]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So the protected speech argument. Is it because UT is a government entity?  If so, can no speech be restricted by termination?  Employment isn’t a right. 

It's more about the context of academic speech and tenure.  

[TwiceHorn 31,517]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So the protected speech argument. Is it because UT is a government entity?  If so, can no speech be restricted by termination?  Employment isn’t a right. 

Yes.

While employment isn't a right, a governmental agency acting under color of law cannot penalize someone for expressing protected views.  Termination would undoubtedly be a penalty.

[Sbbruin 21,866]

So are his writings like "Penthouse Forum" for pederasts?

[Pato del Muerto 52,553]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes.

While employment isn't a right, a governmental agency acting under color of law cannot penalize someone for expressing protected views.  Termination would undoubtedly be a penalty.

So if the guy driving around in golf carts collecting trash on campus has a blog about fucking little boys, they can’t discipline or fire him?  Assuming those folks are university employees. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2,652]

so, I researched him some.  Let’s just say he looks exactly like you expected. 
 

UT profile
 

one creepy MFer 

[TwiceHorn 31,517]

13 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm here as well. I thought perhaps the teacher was speaking about historical norms and some students were outraged. Instead this guy seems to be advocating sex with 14 year olds, or at least he wants a discussion on the topic.  Even if it's the latter and he only like to foster controversial academic discussions, it's a bad path to go down. And if he actually wants sex with a 14 year old, I don't think he should be left alone with college students, some of whom could be as young as 17 and definitely 18.

I re-read it again.  He seems to be mostly advocating for reconsideration of age of consent laws.  The implication is that the age of consent should be lower, because they have been for most of history, but that's not expressly stated.

In the portion about Nambla, he expressly disavows their agenda and also states that he doesn't share their sexual orientation.

Your last sentence is problematic.  Most "regular" male professors want sex with women.  Should they not be around "underage" students?  If they're at the age of consent (17 in Texas, arbitrary, in my opinion, but not far off), what's the problem?

Edited December 5, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,517]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So if the guy driving around in golf carts collecting trash on campus has a blog about fucking little boys, they can’t discipline or fire him?  Assuming those folks are university employees. 

Specifically advocating breaking the law, as opposed to changing the law, might be a different deal as that may not be protected by the First Amendment.

[Auto Driller 2,506]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I re-read it again.  He seems to be mostly advocating for reconsideration of age of consent laws.  The implication is that the age of consent should be lower, because they have been for most of history, but that's not expressly stated.

In the portion about Nambla, he expressly disavows their agenda and also states that he doesn't share their sexual orientation.

Your last sentence is problematic.  Most "regular" male professors want sex with women.  Should they not be around underage students?  If they're at the age of consent (arbitrary, in my opinion, but not far off), what's the problem?

It has nothing to do with whether the professor prefers men or women. It’s the fact that he’s advocating to normalize sexual relationships with children that is the problem.

[TwiceHorn 31,517]

2 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

It has nothing to do with whether the professor prefers men or women. It’s the fact that he’s advocating to normalize sexual relationships with children that is the problem.

I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of his writing.

Also that's not what the post I referred to said.

Edited December 5, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[irishtexan 11,522]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Specifically advocating breaking the law, as opposed to changing the law, might be a different deal as that may not be protected by the First Amendment.

Question for you, law dog. Could the hypothetical maintenance worker be fired for advocating that the law be changed to allow grown men to sex 14 year old boys because philosophy isn't an essential function of his job? Basically, your job is to clean the grounds, not publicly opine about controversial topics like pederasty. On the other hand, that is an essential function of a philosophy professor therefor his speech is protected?

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

41 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

Embarrassing that someone would dedicate their career to public advocacy of pedophilia  pederasty. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he has more than an academic interest in the subject.

Small clarification, but meaningful.

He's not related to L Ron, is he?

[TwiceHorn 31,517]

15 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

Question for you, law dog. Could the hypothetical maintenance worker be fired for advocating that the law be changed to allow grown men to sex 14 year old boys because philosophy isn't an essential function of his job? Basically, your job is to clean the grounds, not publicly opine about controversial topics like pederasty. On the other hand, that is an essential function of a philosophy professor therefor his speech is protected?

No. Public employees get to vent their spleens about all manner of idiocy, japery, and mopery without employment ramifications.

[Huckleberry 33,058]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of his writing.

Also that's not what the post I referred to said.

Seems pretty accurate to me. He is advocating to legalize sexual relationships with children. 14-16 year olds are children, I think we can agree on that. So via his advocacy to legalize sexual relationships with 14-16 year old children, he is in turn advocating to normalize that behavior. There is little doubt, at least to me, that legalizing a behavior serves to normalize it as well. Just the discussion of legalizing something has some normalizing effects. Consider the difference in public perception of marijuana use 30 years ago compared to 10 years ago.

[Cajun 11,722]

Very conflicted here.

Dude is creepy as fuck but feeding the Cancel Culture crowd is no bueno.

This is like watching an ou/aggy game.

Meteor?

[Jerry Callo 8,714]

I was looking for something to feign outrage about, but this is not it.

[South Austin 52,542]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the other hand, a lot of our customs and mores about sexuality are really fucked up.  It's kind of strange how deeply we have internalized a lot of legalistic and sort of arbitrary rules concerning sexuality.

So how many 12-year-olds have you banged?

[Pato del Muerto 52,553]

So which Texas Rep is going to introduce the “if there’s grass on the field, play ball” Bill?

[gernblansten 3,197]

[jimmyjazz 46,021]

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems pretty accurate to me. He is advocating to legalize sexual relationships with children. 14-16 year olds are children, I think we can agree on that.

Well, that's kind of his point.  He's implying they aren't.  I find his perspective nauseating, but he would surely say I'm a prude.

Is there a biological argument to be made?  Are modern 17 YO kids the equivalent of former 14 YO kids?  I doubt it.  A "percent of life expectancy" metric would be fraught with obvious error.

I don't think many surlys would argue the fact that Americans tend to be overly moralistic.  That doesn't mean we're always off the mark, though.

tl;dr  Dude is a creep, should be working at Best Buy.

Edited December 5, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Rougarou 594]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of his writing.

Also that's not what the post I referred to said.

i feel like you can perhaps infer that if there can be any interpretation of pro-underage (as we call it and know it) in his publication called "''Sex in the Gym: Athletic Trainers and Pedagogical Pederasty,'' 7 (2003)"

[smuggs 9,353]

[Pato del Muerto 52,553]

3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

i feel like you can perhaps infer that if there can be any interpretation of pro-underage (as we call it and know it) in his publication called "''Sex in the Gym: Athletic Trainers and Pedagogical Pederasty,'' 7 (2003)"

Since that’s apparently already in your search history now, who published it?  Or is it just like a white paper on the subject?

Edited December 5, 2019 by Pato del Muerto

[Rougarou 594]

1 hour ago, Xian said:

so, I researched him some.  Let’s just say he looks exactly like you expected. 
 

UT profile
 

one creepy MFer 

He got his first academic award before most of us were born (1979) so he is using a picture of himself from, at best the '90's, which is amusing.

[Rougarou 594]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Since that’s apparently already in your search history now, who published it?

No idea and not looking it up, saw it on his list of publications that Xian posted from UT"s website: https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/classics/faculty/thubbard

[Gene Parmesan 4,008]

43 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems pretty accurate to me. He is advocating to legalize sexual relationships with children. 14-16 year olds are children, I think we can agree on that. So via his advocacy to legalize sexual relationships with 14-16 year old children, he is in turn advocating to normalize that behavior. There is little doubt, at least to me, that legalizing a behavior serves to normalize it as well. Just the discussion of legalizing something has some normalizing effects. Consider the difference in public perception of marijuana use 30 years ago compared to 10 years ago.

I believe 16 is the age of consent in several states already, so no we can't even agree on that.

[Huckleberry 33,058]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, that's kind of his point.  He's implying they aren't.  I find his perspective nauseating, but he would surely say I'm a prude.

Is there a biological argument to be made?  Are modern 17 YO kids the equivalent of former 14 YO kids?  I doubt it.  A "percent of life expectancy" metric would be fraught with obvious error.

I don't think many surlys would argue the fact that Americans tend to be overly moralistic.  That doesn't mean we're always off the mark, though.

tl;dr  Dude is a creep, should be working at Best Buy.

Right, my fault for mixing and matching different terminology.

14-16 year olds are absolutely children in our society legally speaking. That was what I meant by children in that post but I realize that the post and discussion are moving back and forth between moral, ethical, and legal use of terminology.

[Brisketexan 105,192]

To be honest, it should have been a big warning sign when he was named to the Jeffrey Epstein Endowed Professorship for Banging Youngsters.

[Pato del Muerto 52,553]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

To be honest, it should have been a big warning sign when he was named to the Jeffrey Epstein Endowed Professorship for Banging Youngsters.

That’s a highly competitive area of academia. 

[jimmyjazz 46,021]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To be honest, it should have been a big warning sign when he was named to the Jeffrey Epstein Endowed Professorship for Banging Youngsters.

Well played, Jeffrey.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To be honest, it should have been a big warning sign when he was named to the Jeffrey Epstein Endowed Professorship for Banging Youngsters.

[smuggs 9,353]

18 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

He got his first academic award before most of us were born (1979) so he is using a picture of himself from, at best the '90's, which is amusing.

Well, do you think he's going to be able to score any underage boys with a pic of him looking like Skip Bayless?

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by smuggs

[Samson's Wig 3,194]

Lots of things were culturally "normal" hundreds/thousands of years ago that no longer make any sense in our current culture.  What a strangely stupid argument for a philosophy professor to be making. 

[Brisketexan 105,192]

1 minute ago, Samson's Wig said:

Lots of things were culturally "normal" hundreds/thousands of years ago that no longer make any sense in our current culture.  What a strangely stupid argument for a philosophy professor to be making. 

Oh, so, I guess you're just blindly AGAINST sacrificing raven-haired virgins to the volcano god Kan-Laon?  Narrow-minded bastard.

[Samson's Wig 3,194]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, so, I guess you're just blindly AGAINST sacrificing raven-haired virgins to the volcano god Kan-Laon?  Narrow-minded bastard.

Well, I hadn't considered that.  Now I'm not sure.

[irishtexan 11,522]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

No. Public employees get to vent their spleens about all manner of idiocy, japery, and mopery without employment ramifications.

Makes sense. Like that dumb fuck court clerk lady who wouldn't process the gay marriage certificate because God hates fags.

[deadshank 24,653]

So Thomas K. Hubbard is the chariman of the TX Tow endowed chair for Chicken Hawk Studies?

 

[burntorangebongos 10,751]

I wonder if he is reasoning is influenced by writings like the novel, The last of the wine that takes place in Athens and features Socrates as a character. 

I remember stumbling onto this book in high school and being intrigued by the male homosexuality that figured prominently in it. The gist of the plot were that young dudes were courted by older men like they were debutantes and that they were encouraged to learn honor, courage, and dignity from the older man. But isn't that what a dad is for? Why do you have to be butt fucked to learn these things? 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,192]

Just now, burntorangebongos said:

Why do you have to be butt fucked to learn these things? 

Man....if that ain't a question for the ages.