ThinkProgress Logo

Special Topic

Harvard Law Professor Criticizes ‘Homeland Security Feel’ Of ‘Overreaction’ To Occupy Harvard

In a letter to the president of Harvard University, Harvard Law School professor Duncan Kennedy criticized the lockdown of Harvard Yard against the 99 Percent movement. On Wednesday night, hundreds of Occupy protesters marched from a rally at Harvard Law School to enter the heart of the world’s most prestigious university, blocked by Harvard security forces who began closing the iron gates that are normally kept open 24 hours a day. Harvard students, allowed in after showing identification, set up about 20 tents in the yard with the help of other students who joined when word went out about the lockdown. Harvard Yard remains closed to people without university IDs.

It seems to me an overreaction to have closed the Yard to outsiders last night,” Kennedy wrote to Harvard President Drew Faust. He copied the email to numerous other professors; ThinkProgress received a copy from a third-party source. Kennedy politely argued against the “Homeland Security feel” of the security response:

I understand that it might have been the view of some that it was important to protect the symbolic center the University against an equally symbolic contamination by “outsiders,” or that there were other questions of “image” involved. But as a participant, the massive security presence, albeit friendly enough, had a Homeland Security feel to it. And I think it would be better now to allow free circulation of outsiders. Again, perhaps there has been an overreaction.

Kennedy, a 69-year-old Harvard ’64 and Yale Law ’70 graduate, is a prominent legal scholar and civil libertarian.

A student participant in Occupy Harvard calculates that “at least 30 percent of Harvard students are richer than the top five percent of earners,” and notes that Harvard is the “beneficiary of an enormous subsidy from the city of Cambridge, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the federal government” because it pays no taxes.

Timothy P. McCarthy, a Harvard Law School lecturer explained the relevance of a school-specific Occupy protest to the Crimson: “If Harvard is going to be a place that produces people with power, then Harvard must be an institution where the public good is more important than private profit.”

Download Duncan Kennedy’s letter.

LGBT

Public Radio Host Seizes On Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal To Raise Questions About Gay Adoption, Then Apologizes

During the Friday edition of “To The Point,” Public Radio International’s Warren Olney asked “should gays and lesbians qualify” as adoptive parents in the wake of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal, in which former football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky is accused of raping young boys. In 1997, Sandusky founded a charity called The Second Mile, through which he encountered many of his alleged victims.

After discussing the details of the Penn State story with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Michael Sanserino, Olney spoke with Frank Cervone of the Support Center for Child Advocates about how Sandusky managed to avoid a background check conducted for foster parents and then turned to the “theme” — as he called it — of whether gays and lesbians made for fit parents.

Olney discussed the “lazy stereotype” of gay men acting as predators on young children with John Ireland of the Raise a Child campaign — who explained the strenuous multi-month screening process he and his partner had to undergo to become adoptive parents — and then introduced Jerry Cox, a “traditional family values” proponent from Arkansas’ Family Council. In 2008, the group had lobbied for a law that prohibited unmarried, cohabitating individuals from adopting. The state Supreme Court found the measure unconstitutional.

“The gold standard, at least, for child rearing and for a child to grow up is in a table home with a married mother and father,” Cox persisted and connected child rape at Penn State with gay and lesbian adoptive parents:

COX: I find it interesting that we talk about the Penn State situation and then we talk about other situations where certain categories of people say ‘it’s alright to adopt, it’s alright to be a foster parent. In both of those situations, the rights of the children seem to have been put second place. [...]

If you have a same-sex couple with an adoptive child, what you’re in effect saying is that moms don’t matter or dads don’t matter. You’re saying that one of the genders doesn’t matter. And the research is really to the contrary. The research seems to indicate that children fair much better if they are much better if they are in a stable home, male mother and father.

Listen (starting at 29 minutes):

While Olney did ask if children do better with same-sex adoptive parents than the foster care system, he didn’t challenge Cox’s erroneous claims that sexual orientation is related to parenting or note that a range of studies, including the the American Psychological Association, have concluded that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” In fact, a recent study found that the 2 million children who are currently living with LGBT parents are hurt not by the sexual orientation of mom or dad, but the social stigma and legal inequality that people like Cox perpetuate.

The program’s final guest Sari Grant of the LA County Department of Children and Family Services did disagree with Cox, however, noting that “what’s most important to our children is consistency, love and stability — it is not the configuration of the family.” “A lot of gay and lesbian families particularly have gone through some crises in their lives and have dealt with those and come out on top and are much more supportive of our kids — who are going through a lot, who have a lot of challenges — are willing to access services, be there for that child, not give up on that child, because of their own experiences,” she added. “They are an excellent choice, along with more traditional families.”

Olney generated some debate between Grant and Cox, before closing the segment and thanking his guests for tackling the “challenging” topic. But not all listeners appreciated Olney’s apparent attempt to use child rape as a hook to discuss the viability of gays and lesbians as parents and pressed Olney to apologize. Yesterday, Olney issued a statement describing the reaction to the program as a “misunderstanding.” “We had no intention of confusing the issues of child abuse and same-sex adoption,” Olney wrote on the show’s blog. “We apologize to anyone who drew that conclusion.”

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up