ASEE Officers Respond to ‘Is All Diversity Good?’
‘A Teachable Moment’
ASEE has very actively advanced the position that regardless of gender, age, race, ethnic background, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin, all individuals must be provided with equality of opportunity to pursue and advance in engineering careers. The ASEE Diversity Committee was created and charged in 2011 with a strategic plan to position the Society to increase diversity in the profession.
In the September issue of Prism, in the “Email from Readers” section, a letter from Wayne Helmer was printed entitled, “Is All Diversity Good?” in which an intolerant position on homosexual/lesbian/bisexual/transgender lives was asserted, entwined with selective quotes and inaccurate information.
The Diversity Committee thinks this presents a teachable moment. This letter is evidence that there are individuals amongst our noble ranks of educators who are opposed to diversity in one form or another. In fact, there is a continuum of folks that spans the spectrum from individuals asserting intolerant judgments to those who are oblivious to the need to openly discuss diversity to those who are acutely aware of diversity issues. The very fact that individuals with a vehement opposition to one form of diversity or another exist in our ranks as educators and role models, is a wake-up call to anyone who is oblivious to these issues. We have made progress on these issues, but persistent efforts to address and actively make climates more welcoming are ongoing efforts that everyone can advocate.
With the goal of widening perspectives beyond the narrow ideology presented, we find it pertinent to address the inaccurate assertions and judgments about the LGBT community. which is as diverse as any large social group.
The opening question asks, “are all forms of diversity good?” No. When diversity of opinions or belief represents intolerance and attempts to deny basic human rights, there is no place for them in our community.
The argument that the LGBT lifespan is shorter is a myth propagated from discredited research by Paul Cameron published in 1994 using selective obituary sources. Facts that correct additional myths are here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths.
Promiscuity can proliferate sexually transmitted diseases. However, promiscuity is in no way synonymous with LGBT individuals or lifestyles. There is a complex body of research exploring promiscuity rates in heterosexual and LGBT populations and, as expected, both range from monogamy to promiscuity.
The Bible is a religious document, compiled in a time very different from the present, and is not embraced by everyone in our community. We cannot look to this source for guidance on ASEE’s diversity policy.
It should be noted that anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses are higher in LGBT populations, but recent studies have determined that this is due to the “stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself.”
The original email espouses that “their” emotional and spiritual needs are just like “ours.” ASEE is an inclusive community and does not divide our members into “us” and “them” by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other attribute.
Today, tomorrow, and each day after, let each of us approach our community as an opportunity to advocate diverse and inclusive climates. The educational enterprise should support ethical environments rich in intellectual variety and at no time should we, as professors and key stewards of that enterprise, teach intolerance or engage in condescending treatment of any student or member of our communities. In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
Members of the ASEE Diversity Committee
http://www.asee.org/about-us/policy/diversity
Move Beyond Outrage
As the Executive Committee of the Engineering Deans Council (EDC), we wish to express our outrage at the recent publication of the inaccurate, intolerant, and prejudicial letter from Prof. Wayne Helmer in the September 2013 issue of Prism. We agree with ASEE’s president, president-elect, and past-president that it was not appropriate for publication in a magazine produced for engineering education professionals.
An explicit objective of EDC is to “promote diversity and inclusiveness in all aspects of engineering education, research and engagement” and we fully subscribe to the ASEE Statement on Diversity http://www.asee.org/about-us/policy/diversity. We also believe it important to move beyond simply decrying the objectionable content of the Helmer letter, as well as the error in judgment that resulted in its publication, to seeking to enhance even more the teaching, learning, and working environment for LGBT engineering faculty, students, and working professionals.
With this in mind, we have asked the EDC Diversity Committee to make recommendations, as soon as possible, for specific actions that can be taken by EDC collectively and our individual members to create more welcoming environments on our campuses. These recommendations will then be circulated to the EDC membership and submitted for review and implementation no later than our April 2014 meeting.
Only by working together to recognize the value of diversity and inclusiveness in strengthening engineering education, research, and practice, can we ensure the strongest possible engineering workforce and the ability of that workforce to meet the global challenges of the twenty-first century.
Sincerely,
Louis Martin-Vega
EDC Chair
Dean of Engineering
North Carolina State Unviersty
Gerald Holder
EDC Vice-Chair
Dean of Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Support for Diversity Reaffirmed
Regarding: “Is All Diversity Good?” published in Prism September 2013
On behalf of its members, the Executive Board of the ASEE Corporate Member Council registers full support and encouragement for ASEE’s diversity initiatives and encourages all engineering colleges to build environments that value diversity and inclusion.
Corporations across America understand that diversity is essential to the advanced innovation that propels business performance. Innovation and creativity. Innovation relies on full engagement of all employees, and therefore, industry invests in diversity. Companies routinely support employee affinity groups to build inclusive environments for all employees, including racial and ethnic minority groups, women, people in the LGBT community, and numerous others.
CMC member organizations have supported and will continue to support ASEE’s efforts to increase the number, diversity, and quality of engineering graduates. Diversity and inclusion improves the field of engineering itself.
Sincerely,
ASEE Corporate Member Council Executive Board
Enriched by Full Participation
I write this letter to the parents of current and future engineering students, and to all others who read the letter from Dr. Helmer that was published in the September 2013 Prism.
Please know that those of us who have devoted our careers to ensuring that all students have equal access and support in their efforts to earn engineering degrees strongly disagree with the comments made in Dr. Helmer’s letter. We have worked particularly hard to banish stereotypes and other ways of thinking that serve to make our students feel that they do not belong or that they cannot become successful engineers. We seek to emphasize that our profession is enriched by the full participation of all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual or religious orientation, or any other visible or nonvisible differences.
Given the importance ASEE has placed on increasing diversity in the engineering profession, and despite my personal belief that all opinions should be heard, I believe this letter should not have been printed. Certainly not without an accompanying statement that countered its contents.
Dr. Bevlee A. Watford
Professor, Engineering Education
Associate Dean, Academic Affairs
Director, Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Diversity
College of Engineering, Virginia Tech
Member, ASEE Board of Directors
Tolerate Other Opinions
I do want to express what now is clearly a “minority opinion” on the letter. This was published in Prism as an “E-Mail from Readers” in response to the article “Secrets Are Out.” In support of free speech rights, the writer (who clearly identifies himself) starts with bringing up facts/findings that none of us would wish on any human being – shorter lifespan, illness, disease. You might wish to ask for more information regarding the source of those findings, or bring other studies to bear. But it is stated from the writer’s perspective. Following that, he then draws a conclusion about the behavior – not the person. He shares his perspective about the impact and needs of people and his position of faith in this situation.
You might disagree with his position. You might even call him intolerant or prejudicial, but he has his perspective. What free speech and diversity is all about is being tolerant of differences of opinion. It’s not about publishing only those viewpoints you agree with. It’s not about muffling or refusing to publish a counterpoint perspective. When we start doing that is when you could accuse us of being intolerant and prejudicial.
Now, after saying all that – I’m not sure ASEE Prism’s role as a magazine is to get in the middle of a hot button for many people on homosexuality. It should be all about promoting engineering education, and careers in STEM. So if there is a reason not to publish reader responses or articles of this nature, it should be around whether the content achieves those goals. That measure should be applied to both the contents of the “Secrets Are Out” article and the reader’s response.
Terri F. Morse
EO&T Program Director, External Technical Affiliations,
The Boeing Company
Member, ASEE Board of Directors
Publication Was Justified
I read Professor Helmer’s letter to the editor just a few days ago. My own strongly held belief is that “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I may be misquoting, but that was my “civic religion” in New York City public schools. It would be a dull world indeed if we all marched to the same drummer.
Although it is true the letter did not tie in a response to any aspect of engineering education and so may seem rather far afield, it was (except for the last two or three paragraphs which were a statement of his religious faith) in response to initial original content in Prism. In addition, ASEE itself as an organization has felt a need to create a policy statement on diversity (http://www.asee.org/about-us/policy/diversity). So these are topics of importance to the community that comprises ASEE. Therefore, I think you were correct in publishing such a letter. I would like to think most readers see the exchange for what it is and can evaluate it for themselves.
I do believe there were errors made in how the letter was presented. A standard disclaimer that says the “views expressed are not those of ASEE” would have been helpful, as would noting that the letter’s content was at variance with a specific ASEE policy statement (see link above). The artwork needlessly drew readers’ eyes to the letter; perhaps no artwork should be a part of the letters section. Finally, including the references contained in the original letter from Prof. Helmer would have encouraged point-by-point refutation of the “facts” he listed. Engaging in dialogue is difficult but important work, something we want to model for our students, undergraduate or graduate, American or international.
I think, going forward, correcting those errors would be preferable to not publishing. I think the criteria for not publishing should be kept strict and high. Exactly because this is not a monochromatic blog with a free-for-all comments section is why we need to engage debate in such a widely disseminated, “prismatic” publication. I look forward to a lively letters section in the next issue.
Most sincerely and with thanks for all your work,
Suzanne Keilson, Ph.D.
Zone I Chair, ASEE
Loyola University Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Member, ASEE Board of Directors
Disappointed in ASEE
I received an email from one of my faculty this weekend about the “Is All Diversity Good?” letter in the September Prism. She wanted to develop a school response to the “vile letter” from Wayne Helmer that ASEE printed in its magazine. I had not received my Prism, so I waited until today when I could see what she was talking about.
I was disturbed as a member of ASEE for over two decades and a past member of the Board that ASEE chose such a hate letter to print in Prism, especially with all the work that ASEE has done with regards to promoting diversity.
I saw the response letter from the three presidents on the website; they were correct to say that Professor Helmer should not be allowed to air his religious beliefs through ASEE or Prism.
I am truly disappointed in ASEE.
Sincerely,
Pat Fox
ASEE Campus Representative
Associate Chair, Technology Leadership and Communication
Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI
Indianapolis, IN
Readers Comment on ‘Is All Diversity Good?’
Editor’s note: A letter published in the September Prism by Wayne Helmer, a professor at Arkansas Tech University, drew an unusual number of responses. Below, we are publishing all that arrived by press time. As was the case with Helmer’s letter, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of ASEE.
Words Can Do Real Harm
There is a fine line between voicing a perspective and causing harm. Although Professor Helmer’s Letter to the Editor published in the September 2013 issue of ASEE Prism is couched in the language of compassion, it reminds us that words are powerful; they have the potential to do real harm to individuals and to create a hostile culture within engineering. Every day in this country there are students and faculty in engineering classrooms who feel harassed, bullied, or unwelcomed. How many students have changed their major out of engineering or dropped out of college because of the culture within engineering? How many universities have lost excellent faculty members because of the hostile environment created by their peers?
When faculty members send explicit or implicit messages that specific individuals are not welcome within engineering, or that individuals need to ‘change’ to be accepted in engineering, they are promoting a culture of exclusion. They are limiting diversity. How many times have female engineers and/or engineering students received the implicit or explicit message that they need to change – to be one of the guys – in order to be successful in engineering? If LGTB individuals are marginalized or made to feel unwelcomed by a faculty member, their peers pick up on those messages and feel it gives them permission to also marginalize them. Faculty members are role models for students; they establish the culture for engineering education. Their behavior towards their students and colleagues has far reaching repercussions.
As Scott Page and Lu Hong’s research has shown, diverse groups of problem solvers outperform compared to homogenous groups of the best individuals. Engineering needs diversity, all types of diversity, to solve the complex problems facing us today. WEPAN, the Women in Engineering ProActive Network, advocates for a culture in engineering that is inclusive and that embraces and celebrates the rich dimensions of all diversity. Our Diversity Vision, Strategic Goal and Statement, found online at www.wepan.org, reflect our respect and value of diversity in all of its representations.
WEPAN’s core purpose is to propel higher education to increase the number and advance the prominence of diverse communities of women in engineering. As an organization of more than 1,000 university and industry-based professionals, we appreciate the opportunity to share WEPAN’s perspective on this issue with the engineering education community.
C. Diane Matt, CAE
Executive Director and CEO
False Facts, Dehumanizing Metaphors
We, the undersigned faculty, staff and students of the School of Engineering Education, and the Deans of the Colleges of Engineering and Technology at Purdue University, are writing to express our strong disapproval of your decision to publish what we see as Dr. Helmer’s offensive letter in the September issue of Prism.
We question the judgment that the editors exercised in deciding to publish a letter that so profoundly counters the efforts of so many engineering educators to create welcoming and inclusive environments. It is especially disturbing since it comes at the same time IEEE is revising its code of ethics to be more inclusive, and considering that it is in direct opposition to the diversity values espoused by ASEE’s Diversity Statement.
While we must hope that the editors believed they were providing a platform for free speech, the absence of a statement (such as “these are the opinions of the author and do not imply endorsement by ASEE”) emphasizing that ASEE neither shares these values nor testifies to the validity of the claims, results in the simple promulgation of harmful, damaging myths.
If the editors endeavored to promote dialogue about how diversity is sought in engineering and inclusivity addressed in engineering curricula, this letter fell very short of engaging the community in a healthy debate founded on data-driven evidence from reliable sources. The false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language, and dehumanizing metaphors in Dr. Helmer’s letter make it read hatefully, not constructively. Scholarly writing that directly spoke to ASEE’s Diversity Statement would have been more in line with sound editorial practice than publishing a poorly argued polemic.
We reaffirm our commitment to the wholehearted and wholebodied diversity of our student, staff and faculty populations in the fervent belief that diversity of thought and experience makes ours a better profession. Because of the class, race, gender and sexuality-based organization of our society, diversity of thought and experience is often intertwined with the experiences of populations historically and contemporaneously marginalized in that society, including LGBTQ people. While we have now seen Dr. Fortenberry’s apology on behalf of magazine, we still want to express our fervent hope that the editorial board makes more reasoned and grounded judgments regarding their decision to publish such poor examples of engineering education professionalism in the future.
Sincerely,
Faculty (alphabetically)
Robin Adams, associate professor
Gary Bertoline, professor, Dean of Technology
Monica Cardella, associate professor
Heidi Diefes-Dux, professor
Morgan Hynes, assistant professor
Leah Jamieson, professor, John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering
Brent K. Jesiek, assistant professor
Krishna Madhavan, assistant professor
Matthew Ohland, professor
Alice L. Pawley, associate professor
Mary K. Pilotte, associate professor of professional practice
Senay Purzer, assistant professor
David F. Radcliffe, professor, Kamyar Haghighi Head, School of Engineering Education
Karl A. Smith, cooperative learning professor
Ruth Streveler, associate professor
Staff (alphabetically)
Rebecca Fry, Director of Development
Lynn Hegewald, Instructional Support Coordinator
Billi Jennings, Director of First Year Advising
Patrick La Petina, Instructional Support Coordinator
Russell Long, Director of Project Assessment
Loretta McKinniss, Graduate Coordinator
Lisa Tally, Director of Communications
Graduate students (alphabetically)
Catherine Berdanier
Paul Branham
Dana Denick
Emily Dringenberg
Trina Fletcher
Molly Goldstein
Ming-Chien Hsu
Cole Joslyn
Jeremi London
Anne Lucietto
Andrea Mazzurco
Jacqueline McNeil
John Mendoza-Garcia
Marisol Mercado
Lindsey Nelson
Nichole Ramirez
Anastasia Rynearson
Noah Salzman
Nikitha Sambamurthy
Mariana Tafur Arciniegas
Julia Thompson
Natascha Trellinger
Amy Van Epps (also associate professor of library science)
Ruth Wertz
Jacob Wheadon
Qin Zhu
Perplexity, Then Horror
In seeing the “Email from Readers” in the September 2013 issue of ASEE’s flagship Prism magazine, my first reaction was perplexity, wondering if perhaps someone had created a facsimile of the “Email to the Editor” and circulated it as a some kind of twisted cyber-hack, since the letter was defamatory, replete with inaccuracies and patronizing innuendo, and extraordinarily homophobic. However old-fashioned and stodgy ASEE may sometimes be, in my 25-plus years of membership in this organization and participation in various of its meetings and activities, I have not found it to be intentionally unprofessional, unscientific, or mean-spirited. Thus, I had to doubt that this email could actually have been printed in ASEE Prism. Clearly, had that been the case, the Editor would have been fired and some serious internal exploration of what could have gone so wrong in the organization’s flagship publication would ensue.
ASEE is, after all, a technical professional society, interested in evidence-based work. Although the actual citations for the “evidence” the letter-writer offered up were not provided, anyone even remotely familiar with current knowledge would recognize that the allegations are not supported by research, nor would they hold up to even limited scientific scrutiny. Would ASEE publish a letter which claimed, for example, that a certain race of people are smarter, and offered up Biblical scripture to support hateful and erroneous allegations?! I think not. Anyone can find almost any kooky assertion on the Internet and “cite it,” but professionally trained scientists and engineers not only know better but presumably adhere to the tenets of scientific methods, including understanding when findings do and don’t support causal relationships.
Now the unfortunate truth is clear – ASEE in fact knowingly and deliberately published this individual’s sad diatribe. The result not only insults members’ intelligence, and unkindly publicly highlights the limited perspectives of one of its members, but also damages the Society and so many individuals it touches and influences.
I am simply horrified by the judgment used in publishing this letter. Please don’t expect to see membership renewals or support from me in the future.
Carol B. Muller, Ph.D.
Founder, MentorNet
President, Blue Sky Consulting
Embarrassed and Troubled
I am so embarrassed to see ASEE publish a letter, “Is All Diversity Good?” by Wayne Helmer, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Arkansas Tech University. Dr. Helmer says that: “We would do well to teach the truth about the homosexual/lesbian/bisexual/transgender lifestyle.” The truth is that the so-called lifestyles mentioned are no more a choice of lifestyle than Dr. Helmer’s male gender and implied heterosexuality. Even more troubling is that he seems to say that his interpretation of “God’s plan” is the only truth possible.
A better title for his letter would have been: “Is all free speech good?” I hope that he finds forgiveness for his own sake and for the students that he alienates.
Andy Lau, P.E., M.S.
Associate Professor of Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Anti-gay Myths
I am hopeful that your inbox is flooded with letters objecting to Wayne Helmer’s bigoted letter.
Please go to the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/)or other social justice organizations to find that his bullet points are myths of the anti-gay community. Though I welcome discussions on the virtues of diversity, they should not contain easily verified falsehoods to promote their argument.
regards….
Mark Moldwin
Professor, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences
University of Michigan
College of Engineering
All Views Are Welcome
The fact that you published the letter by Wayne Helmer in the September 2013 issue really shows that all views are welcome at ASEE even though not everyone will agree.
Jennifer Sinclair Curtis
Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering
Associate Dean for Research and Facilities, College of Engineering
Interim Director, Florida Energy Systems Consortium
University of Florida
Policy vs. Leaders’ Action
The centrality of diversity in engineering education and practice is affirmed in the ASEE Statement on Diversity. We know ASEE as an organization that is committed to diversifying the participation of those who teach, practice, and support engineering.
The email from Professor Helmer, published in the September 2013 issue of ASEE Prism, while not representing ASEE policy or public statements, does cause concern about how policy and public statements are matched by leadership behavior.
We’ve no doubt that many, including other ASEE members, share Professor Helmer’s misunderstandings of the science and opinions on the value of diversity for all.
Articles like the pictured ASEE Prism feature (October 2011), “Secrets are Out,” are part of an important dialogue to actively work against such misunderstandings and bigotry. It is important that ASEE continue to work with all its members, and those who support its work, in this effort.
As an organization with strong interests and experience in examining the approaches one takes as an educator, in this case as educators committed to diversity in engineering, we hope that the decision to publish the email, the context within which it was published, and the lack of editorial comment accompanying the letter will be reviewed and reconsidered.
Do the leadership of ASEE and the editorial staff genuinely believe that such a statement would be in service to its diversity statements and organizational goals? Do the ideas therein offer engineering educators and practitioners meaningful and helpful tools to support their diversity work? Does the message offered contribute a meaningful basis for discussing the question “Is all diversity good?”
Our concern here is less with Professor Helmer – we know folks who share his point of view, and similar bigotry. Our concern is with the choices made by the ASEE leadership and editorial team that welcomed such bigotry into this conversation.
After dealing with all the hurt, anger, and disappointment generated by this incident, how will the ASEE leadership and editorial teams renew the faith that ASEE is an organization committed to diversifying the participation of those who teach, practice, and support engineering?
Sincerely,
Janet Bandows Koster
Executive Director & CEO
Association for Women in Science
1321 Duke Street, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
A Beneficial Discussion
I just wanted to commend and support your decision to publish the controversial letter by Wayne Helmer last month. I think it is beneficial to have a constructive discussion about these topics in engineering education, and such a discussion is impossible if viewpoints such as those held by Professor Helmer are always suppressed.
Keep up the good work!
Tim Gilmour, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Engineering
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR
Hope for a Groundswell
We, the Diversity and Inclusivity Committee of the Biomedical Engineering Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, would like to add our voices to what we hope is a groundswell of support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) members of the engineering and engineering education communities and condemnation of the appalling decision to publish the letter to the Editor by Prof. Helmer in the September issue of Prism magazine. We echo the sentiments of the President, President-Elect, and Immediate Past President of ASEE that the factually incorrect and intolerant nature of the letter should have precluded its publication in a magazine supported by an organization committed to valuing diversity.
We encourage Prism readers and indeed all ASEE members to re-read the excellent October 2011 Prism article that prompted this letter and familiarize themselves with resources available to support LGBTQ students and professionals in their own institutions, including Out in Science,Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (www.ostem.org) and the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals (www.noglstp.org).
Respectfully,
Professors Naomi Chesler, Randolph Ashton,
Kristyn Masters, John Puccinelli and Mitchell Tyler
A Travesty
I am appalled at the lack of professionalism exhibited in Prism with the letter, “Is All Diversity Good?” It reflects extremely poorly on the entire engineering profession. As a teacher, I have a difficult enough time getting people to think beyond their own narrow viewpoints to see the global benefits that engineering brings. The trash published by Prism just makes my job harder. It is based on poor data and very strongly biased toward a particularly narrow view that is anti-diversity. The conclusion of the editorial is NOT based on the scientific method and is nothing more than an attempt to promote a narrow-minded religious dogma! That is not the purpose of ASEE!
Do something publicly about this travesty!
I am a voluntary member of ASEE. I do not need to remain a member.
Dr. John Reis
Department of Engineering
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC
Alienating LGBT Engineers
I’m a retired engineer/educator from Toronto who is tired of seeing homophobic statements in the engineering world. Publishing Helmer’s letter only promotes his small-minded view of gays and lesbians. Criticizing individuals’ personal lives within a professional context only serves to alienate LGBT members of the engineering field! Would you publish a letter that promoted misleading and condescending anti-racial or anti-women views? Yes, many, many engineers I met over the years don’t think women should be in engineering, but a professional journal wouldn’t publish a letter giving voice to their mistaken ideas. Your Association’s president, president-elect, and immediate past president all seem to understand that — why don’t you?
Robert Steadman
Toronto
Open to All
The National Engineers Week Foundation encourages young people to take up engineering careers. The National Engineers Week Foundation Diversity Council strives to ensure that all young people see engineering as a means to a fulfilling life of personal reward that contributes to an engineer’s communities.
All means all, including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersex, as well as those questioning just what their sexuality is or might become. For every well-known LGBTQI pioneer like Lynn Conway or Alan Turing, who suffered historically documented discrimination, there are and have been LGBTQI engineers quietly dealing with discrimination in the workplace and the profession. Such discrimination is not without its costs, not only to the individual engineer working in a hostile environment, but also to the profession in terms of lost productivity and engagement.
The engineering education community needs to make clear to all future engineers that the views of Dr. Wayne Helmer (September 2013 Prism) are not widespread, that respect for an engineer is based on that engineer’s work, period, and that the engineering and engineering education communities need, invite, and welcome the participation of all, including our LGBTQI students and colleagues.
Michael D. Smith, D. Eng.
Chair
National Engineers Week Foundation Diversity Council
And co-signed by these members of the National Engineers Week Foundation Diversity Council:
American Society for Engineering Education Diversity Council
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME
IEEE-USA
MentorNet
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering
National GEM Consortium
National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical
Professionals
Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers
Women in Engineering ProActive Network
Shocked and Affronted
As a mathematician who taught in an engineering school culture at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, where I learned of the creative profession of engineering, I have been a member of ASEE for about 25 years. I enjoy reading about the profession and I particularly enjoy the features and “snippets” in Prism. However, I was totally shocked and my sensibilities were affronted when I read the Email from Readers item with the title, “Is all diversity good?” as found in the September 2013, Volume 23, Number 1 issue.
While I do not really know about the truthfulness of the bulleted claims in the letter I assume that issues of gender, indeed, of gender change, might be difficult for individuals. Still, it is their choice, I believe. I do not believe it is proper for ASEE to permit the propagation of such issues of faith, a very personal view, on such issues as diversifying the profession to be inclusive and respecting individual natures. Indeed, as I read the letter carefully, that pompous word of “only” with regard to the way for “abundant life” that some Christians espouse popped up, and that makes this letter even more onerous in a professional publication.
Think about what you are permitting the writer to say to your members. Would you permit white supremacists to espouse their views in your pages with their use of the word “only” as used in their ethos?
I can only hope that somehow this slipped through the editorial process and is recognized for what it is, a huge mistake which is insensitive to a large constituency of the ASEE membership. No, I will not drop membership because of this – there is too much good in the membership and ASEE publications to be subverted by such views in print, but I am very disappointed that you have permitted these views to enter the formal publication cycle of ASEE.
I hope that other personal, unscientific, and offensive views will not be forthcoming in ASEE publications. e.g., the positive value of racial stereotyping, the counter-scientific notion of creationism, and the foot dragging by the antiscience faction with regard to the issue of global warming. However, I just urge you to think VERY carefully before you step over the line and go beyond professionalism in engineering and enter the field of permitting personal, religious, and unscientific viewpoints on individual lifestyles and choices to be published in ASEE literature.
I wish you continued success and thank you for “listening.” Take care.
Sincerely,
Brian J. Winkel,
Founder and Emeritus Editor – Cryptologia and PRIMUS
Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Sciences
United States Military Academy, West Point NY
Gross Injustice
The researchers in the Research Institute for STEM Education (RISE) at the University of Oklahoma are appalled that the editor of Prism chose to publish Wayne Helmer’s email in the September 2013 issue. Dr. Helmer is making claims without any factual basis or citation. The editor has permitted Dr. Helmer to use Prism inappropriately as a forum for religious commentary and bigotry. While Dr. Helmer has a right to his opinion, the Prism editor committed a gross injustice by including Dr. Helmer’s email in the publication, ostensibly a professional newsmagazine, not a forum for personal sermons. Furthermore, without disclaiming the views as contrary to the diversity statement of the organization and as not representative of the organization membership, the editor impugned the integrity of both ASEE and its members.
Dr. Helmer’s commentary exemplifies the great and urgent need for educating faculty for cultural competence within the many and varied dimensions of difference encountered in today’s institutions. Public institutions have a responsibility to provide safe spaces for learning for ALL students, regardless of whether the faculty approve or disapprove of the students’ sexual orientation. At our institution, faculty attend seminars to be allies to members of the LBGTQ community.
RISE recommends that the leadership of ASEE make a strong response to the publication. The letter from the current, past, and future President of ASEE on the ASEE home page is not sufficient. As longstanding ASEE members, conference attendees, and authors, we demand that the Society directly addresses this matter in the next issue.
Susan E. Walden, Cynthia E. Foor, Randa L. Shehab,
Deborah A. Trytten
Research Institute for STEM Education
College of Engineering
University of Oklahoma
Emphasize Inclusion
I write as an engineering educator who happens to be a gay man regarding Dr. Wayne Helmer’s letter about diversity in the September 2013 issue of Prism. While grateful for Dr. Helmer’s offer of help, the help I really want is from my fellow engineering educators in emphasizing the values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion within our engineering education community.
It is our responsibility to ensure that each and every student in our charge is given each and every opportunity to build engineering knowledge and develop engineering skills. For engineering students who are not heterosexual in a world that is heterosexual-normative, those opportunities include introduction to and socialization with other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender engineering students through professional organizations like NOGLSTP and oSTEM (Out in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), and through meetings like NOGLSTP’s Out to Innovate and oSTEM’s National Conference.
Hopefully, the days are gone where an engineering student who is not “straight” thinks there is no place for them in the engineering profession, that they are alone in their engineering pursuits. Hopefully, that student knows that there are other LGBT engineering students, that there are successful LGBT engineers and engineering educators, and that their instructors and the engineering community are supportive of their success. That is a community worth building, and I invite each of you, including Dr. Helmer, to join us in its construction.
Timothy A. Wilson, Sc.D., P.E.
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Chair, Department of Electrical, Computer, Software, and
Systems Engineering
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
A Spur to Organize
We are Scientists, Technologists, Engineers, and Mathematicians. Our predecessors sustained more than half of the U.S. economy since 1950, and we are vigorously training to carry this torch forward.
Prof. Wayne Helmer’s letter to ASEE is paradoxical, inaccurate, and woefully misplaced. However, it is important to convey that, in the STEM fields, voices against Gender and Sexual Minorities (GSMs) reverberate across academic and professional landscapes, because there are so few of us and because conversations that include GSMs are so infrequent.
The leaky STEM pipeline needs no additional pressure to force talent out of the field, and we value everyone’s contributions. Alan Turing’s work led to the computer. Lynn Conway (pictured with Helmer’s letter) has produced a lifetime of innovations, which enabled development of Intel’s Pentium processors and their contemporaries.
This incident evidences the need for organizations which, like oSTEM (Out in Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics), pursue a world where all members of the STEM community can work in a safe and supportive environment that celebrates their contributions and differences.
For women, people of color, and more recently GSMs, opponents of inclusion use the same argument: this category is “too much” diversity. History indicates that it is only through much hard work (and lengthy professional diversions) by minority members and their allies that we accept and value each other’s professional expertise.
“If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse gift will find a fitting place.” – Margaret Mead
The National oSTEM Executive Board
Dr. Eric V. Patridge, President
Why Diversity is Necessary
The Society of Women Engineers (SWE) applauds ASEE for its support of diversity in engineering. A recent letter to the Prism editor asks, “Is All Diversity Good?” SWE responds simply with an unwavering and emphatic “yes.”
SWE’s Diversity Principles state that “we acknowledge and respect the value of a diverse community.” The complex and critical challenges facing our nation and our planet demand that engineering be an inclusive and diverse profession. It is the full and authentic contribution of all engineers that fuels innovation and provides the creativity necessary to address those challenges.
Betty Shanahan CAE, F.SWE
Executive Director and CEO
Society of Women Engineers
Rigid Thinking
Sometimes…..in my great naivete and wanting to see the world as generous and welcoming, I feel wrapped in disbelief that such thoughts are still so ingrained in many people. I think such thinking and the unwillingness to consider a different perspective must be the result of a person’s early hurts around fairness and acceptance….people who must have been forced into accepting a certain way of thinking and belittled if they tried to use their own minds. It’s so sad that rigid thinking so often accompanies the individual as he or she builds a personal and professional life.
So…how do we change minds without blame? What is the contradiction we can offer and still reach for the good human beneath the irrational behavior? How can we respond in a way that might cause him to reconsider his words without making him defensive? How do we say to someone – you have a great mind and you need to find a more realistic and generous perspective towards others because the thoughts you now advocate do not belong in a world where you are successful and respected?
A friend once told me – if I could learn to do this, I would be able to effectively deal with anybody.
I am still trying to find the right way.
Laureen Summers
Washington D.C.
Lack of Judgment
Late last night I received a stream of emails responding to the “Email to the Editor” written by Prof. Helmer in the Prism September issue. Having not yet seen the actual publication, I was skeptical of the authenticity of the piece and thought it was a scam. When that was verified by a trusted colleague, I was amazed that ASEEs Prism magazine would give a voice to a completely subjective and prejudicial perspective. I don’t see the rationale. Every organization has members who are homophobic, racist, misogynous…prejudiced in some way. Did you want to remind us that ASEE is no different? A personal response to Prof. Helmer with a copy to his chair and dean would have been more appropriate since the engineering school should know who is teaching its students.
I am disappointed by the lack of judgment shown by an organization that I have valued for decades for its role in facilitating research-based, constructive discourse on many topics important to engineering education.
Sincerely,
Susan Metz
ASEE member
Women in Engineering Proactive Network Co-Founder
Director of Diversity and Inclusion
Stevens Institute of Technology
Prideful and Arrogant
I would like to reply to Professor Wayne Halmer’s email (Is All Diversity Good?) in the September 2013 issue of Prism.
I was amazed by Professor Helmer’s comments concerning the “effects of homosexual behavior.” There are no data that can back up his contentions that these results are any different from those that occur in heterosexual relations. It is even more disturbing since he is a man who has spent most of his career dealing with facts and data and the use of these to promote knowledge. He has failed miserably in this respect in his letter.
He also claims to know what God’s plan for their lives is. How utterly prideful and arrogant that is.
Finally, I am concerned that Prism would print such a bigoted religious diatribe. Prism is not the venue for those kinds of letters.
Respectfully,
Robert Baren Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Temple University
Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Engineering Must Catch Up
Professor Wayne Helmer asks if LGBT engineers should be welcomed in the profession, expressing concern that “the behavior” is addictive, abusive, shortens life expectancy, and promotes disease and sexual promiscuity. I am not sure exactly which behaviors he means to implicate. CAD can certainly be addictive, especially with the emergence of next generation fab labs, but is it abusive? Is it spreadsheeting that promotes disease, or is he referring more broadly to any activity involving shared keyboards? I am pretty sure he’s right that those all-night problem sets and marathon code-debugging sessions probably took years off my life. And I suppose heat transfer in open channel flow might have something to do with promiscuity, but I’m still experimenting with noise and vibration.
The relevant behavior of LGBT engineers is our engineering behavior, which should be encouraged – no matter what couplings we have or how prurient minds imagine they might fit together.
I appreciate Professor Helmer’s concern for my soul as well as my body, but as a bisexual engineer who is also a practicing, self-affirming Presbyterian, I note that not all Christians believe as Professor Helmer does, and in fact national denominations including the Episcopal Church (US), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Friends General Conference, and my own Presbyterian Church (USA) have welcomed LGBT people as professional leaders in their local and national organizations. I hope engineering catches up quickly; we risk losing not only LGBT talent, but also our allies who won’t tolerate an intolerant profession.
Donna Riley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Picker Engineering Program
Smith College
Offensive and Irrelevant
There is no place in a professional engineering publication – or anywhere else as far as I am concerned – for the bigotry and intolerance expressed by Professor Wayne Helmer in the letter that appeared under “Email from Readers” in the September 2013 issue of Prism. The Obligation of the Order of the Engineer, which I have sworn to uphold, tells us “to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance, and respect.” That includes tolerance and respect for all people, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. The Fundamental Canon of the Code of Ethics for Engineers from the National Society of Professional Engineers, which includes Helmer among its members, states that “Engineers in fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: 3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.” Helmer’s statements are clearly not objective due to their religious perspective.
ASEE has members from all over the world and from many different religious backgrounds, not to mention those from the diverse populations that Helmer says need help because of their “detrimental, negative lifestyle.” Sexual orientation, whether the attraction is for one’s own or the opposite gender, is not a mental disorder that needs fixing. Efforts to make people change can be destructive and are not supported by medical, health, and mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.
In my opinion, the email letter from Helmer was extremely offensive, not relevant to engineering education, and unworthy of our profession. Is anybody minding the store to see what is being published in Prism?
Susan M. Blanchard, Ph.D., ASEE Fellow
Founding Dean (Retired)
U.A. Whitaker College of Engineering
Florida Gulf Coast University
Fort Myers, FL
Allies Needed, Not Saviors
I am responding to the shockingly ignorant and offensively inaccurate letter authored by Wayne Helmer in the September 2013 issue of Prism. Helmer questions whether diversity in “sexual preference” is good, characterizes all LGBT lifestyle as destructive, promiscuous, addictive, abusive, and life-shortening, and suggests that LGBT people should seek emotional and spiritual change through Jesus Christ.
All people are entitled to their religious viewpoints, but those viewpoints should not intrude on the rights of others. Harassment based on religious beliefs is unacceptable in this society and needs to be addressed. An educational Society like ASEE and its Prism publication editorial staff need to step up and address this kind of misinformation and bias.
If you substitute another minority group like Jews or Black Muslims would you have considered printing a letter like Helmer’s? Schools and universities are places of learning and are also a microcosm of society. The climate within that microcosm has a direct impact on how well students learn and interact with their teachers and peers. The point of including lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, intersex, and questioning (LGBTQI) people in the diversity equation is to make the learning environment – and ultimately the workplace – a safe and welcoming space to study and bring one’s whole self to a project or innovation without fear of harassment. This is a work in progress and Helmer’s backward-facing viewpoint is a harsh reality of how much work still needs to be done to educate, correct myths, and – if nothing else – teach tolerance of one another in academe and in industry.
According to the Human Rights Campaign and Campus Pride surveys, LGBTQI students report being harassed verbally and physically at twice the rate of non-LGBTQI youth. Engineering and the sciences are hard tracks for every student to complete, but with the added stress of harassment and bullying on top of it, LGBTQI students are more likely to experience negative educational outcomes along their career arc. I can’t imagine what a LGBTQI student would feel like sitting in one of Helmer’s classes after reading a piece such as this.
What LGBTQI students need are allies, not saviors. Creating a supportive environment for LGBTQI students improves educational outcomes for all. It’s not about religion, politics, or plain bigotry. Diversity inclusion is about supporting all students to reach their human potential, innovating, creating, and driving to fruition their career path which helps all of society. Engineering as a profession should be interested in welcoming the best engineering talent, including the talent of LGBT people. Educators can be allies or they can be bullies. What would Jesus choose to do?
What WE at NOGLSTP.org choose to do is work to support and encourage LGBT individuals in engineering and other STEM fields, and to provide resources to organizations and individuals working to make engineering and other STEM fields more LGBT-friendly. Helmer’s letter illustrates how necessary this work is, and how far we have to go to counter ignorance, stereotypes, and bigotry.
Rochelle Diamond, Chair
National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists
and Technical Professionals
No Right to a Soapbox
I am appalled that Prism magazine (September 2013) published Professor Wayne Helmer’s letter expounding his religious views. He is entitled to these views, but Prism magazine should not give him a soapbox for preaching them. ASEE exists to advance the cause of engineering education, which is open to all people with the interest and credentials to participate regardless of their position in the diverse spectrum of humanity. ASEE is not a place to advance religious beliefs.
Ward O. Winer, Ph.D., P.E.
ASEE Fellow
Eugene C. Gwaltney Jr. School Chair Emeritus
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Outrageous Decision
I am quite appalled that you would publish such crud as Prof. Helmer’s email.
That he has an axe to grind against homosexuals may not be particularly interesting, or surprising. But that you should consider it worthy of quoting in your publication, thereby giving it some measure of endorsement and credibility, is outrageous.
Needless to say, I no longer want to be associated with ASEE.
Alex Hartov
Professor of Engineering
Director MS/PhD Program
Thayer School of Engineering
Dartmouth College
The Right to Choose
I was saddened and disturbed to read the written attack on diversity that was printed in the September 2013 issue of Prism magazine. The attack upon homosexual / lesbian /bisexual / transgender lifestyles represents the typical response of the “so-called conservative Christian.” People have the right to choose their sexual lifestyle as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. All people were not cast in the same mold, which is what diversity recognizes.
According to the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
We do not promote the establishment of any religion (this includes the Christian religion) in the USA. One must remember that most STD’s are transmitted by heterosexuals and that most wars have been religious wars, and Christians and Muslims have been responsible for many of them, as in Ireland and the Middle East. As Christians say, “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but pay no attention to the log in your own eye?”
Robert C. Creese, Ph.D., PE, CCC
Life Member ASEE
Professor of Industrial Engineering
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
Praise for Helmer
I support your decision to print the controversial letter by Wayne Helmer. It was, after all, a response to an article that appeared in Prism.
I’ve known Wayne Helmer for over 20 years. He is a dedicated educator who has helped hundreds of students to succeed, both straight and gay. There’s not a hateful bone in his body.
Thanks,
Paul Leiffer
Chairman, Department of Engineering
Professor, Electrical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering
Le Tourneau University
Inclusivity is Our Job
I write in response to Prof. Helmer’s letter in the September edition of Prism. His condemnation of gay people may mask an attitude toward the role of educators that raises a concern. The issue is not whether engineering educators should “encourage” diversity. Diversity exists regardless of our embrace of it. Diversity has always existed in our colleges; but some differences between people are easier to see than others. Our job is not to encourage diversity, to tolerate it, or even to accept it. Our job is to ensure that our public educational environments are inclusive. Inclusivity ensures that all students, as well as all staff, faculty, and administrators, are welcomed into our communities of learning, regardless of their color, religious background or beliefs, ethnic or cultural background, sexual orientation or gender identity, whether they are immigrants or native-born, able-bodied or have hidden or obvious disabilities.
As an educator, especially in a public institution, it is my deepest responsibility to lead by example, and to help my students develop into citizen-engineers who understand that diversity and democracy go hand in hand. It is not our role to judge each other, but rather to learn from each other. That is how we can best prepare our engineering students to serve society and make the world a better place.
Emily Allen, Ph.D.
Associate Dean
Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering
San Jose State University
Narrow and Exclusionary
We just received access to the latest edition of Prism Magazine, dated September 2013 online. While we had read accounts of the email by Wayne Helmer published in this issue, we withheld judgment until we had an opportunity to view the actual message. We are also aware that you have issued a letter of apology concerning the publication of this message.
As members of an active engineering education community, we are writing to express our frustration and outrage that you and the editor of Prism, Mark Matthews, found this message fit for publication in a magazine purporting to showcase “the best engineering educators produce.” It has nothing to do with engineering education or the values of ASEE. Many of us joined ASEE because we support the mission of ASEE and the statements the organization has made on diversity. We did not sign up to be members of an organization that condones hate speech and a narrow, exclusionary perspective on the world.
The publication of this message does damage to our community and our profession. It suggests that we condone expressions of prejudice, and find bigotry to be an acceptable level of discourse. We note that while you have issued an apology, no such statement has been issued by Mark Matthews. Mr. Matthews seems to have lost one of the key qualities necessary to be a good editor: sound judgment. The engineering profession and engineering education community in particular, expect to have higher standards in their publications than this.
Sincerely,
Members of the Engineering Education Research group (PEER)
Joined by
Members of the University of Toronto Engineering Positive Space Committee
Correspondence can be directed to:
Prof. Susan McCahan
Vice Dean, Undergraduate
Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
University of Toronto
Highly Inflammatory
Upon receiving the September issue of Prism I was appalled to read your selection of comments by Wayne Helmer to the editor in the “Email from Readers” column. As a member of ASEE, I strongly feel that emails or letters that strike to denigrate others should not be given public access through our organization. While we are all free to voice our opinions, the choice of ASEE to print highly inflammatory prose about the LGBT community is not representative of an inclusive engineering community which, I hope, we strive to be.
Elizabeth Podlaha-Murphy
Professor of Chemical Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA
Diversity and Democracy
I write in response to Professor Helmer’s letter in the September edition of Prism. His condemnation of gay people may mask an attitude towards the role of educators that raises a concern. The issue is not whether engineering educators should “encourage” diversity. Diversity exists regardless of our embrace of it. Diversity has always existed in our colleges; but some differences between people are easier to see than others. Our job is not to encourage diversity, to tolerate it, or even to accept it. Our job is to ensure that our public educational environments are inclusive. Inclusivity ensures that all students, as well as all staff, faculty and administrators, are welcomed into our communities of learning, regardless of their color, religious background or beliefs, ethnic or cultural background, sexual orientation or gender identity, and whether they are immigrants or native-born, are able-bodied or have hidden or obvious disabilities.
As an educator, especially in a public institution, it is my deepest responsibility to lead by example, and to help my students develop into citizen-engineers who understand that diversity and democracy go hand in hand. It is not our role to judge each other, but rather to learn from each other. That is how we can best prepare our engineering students to serve society and make the world a better place.
Emily Allen, Ph.D.
Associate Dean
Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering
San Jose State University
Destructive and Inaccurate
As engineers and engineering educators committed to diversity and inclusion, we were appalled at your decision to publish the intolerant and offensive letter to the Editor by Prof. Helmer in the September issue of Prism magazine. We agree with the President, President-Elect and Immediate Past President of ASEE that, while Prof. Helmer is entitled to his opinions and free to judge others based on his religious beliefs, those opinions and judgments do not belong in the pages of a magazine devoted to engineering education.
In defending the decision to publish the letter, ASEE Executive Director Norman L. Fortenberry, has said that the letter offers “an opportunity for a discussion among ASEE’s membership about the value of diversity.” We fail to see how promulgating a destructive message filled with inaccurate statements can be deemed more important than offending and disparaging current and future engineers and engineering educators by an organization ostensibly committed to diversity.
Finally, we would add that the letter not only mischaracterized homosexuality, as noted by the Presidents, but also disrespected members of the bisexual and transgender communities. The diverse perspectives of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community enrich our field and increase our ability to solve the complex problems facing us today and in the future.
We the undersigned affirm unambiguously that members of the LGBT community will be warmly welcomed in our research groups, our classrooms and our professional meetings.
Sincerely,
Debra Auguste, City College of New York
Sangeeta Bhatia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Naomi Chesler, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Andre Churchwell, Vanderbilt University
Cato Laurencin, University of Connecticut
Susan Margulies, University of Pennsylvania
Shelly Peyton, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Manu Platt, Georgia Institute of Technology
William Reichert, Duke University
Rebecca Richards-Kortum, Rice University
Christine Schmidt, University of Florida
Sheldon Weinbaum, City College of New York
Joyce Wong, Boston University
Fan Yang, Stanford University
Apology Was Not Warranted
I’m concerned about the ASEE Board’s hasty reaction to the article by Professor Helmer in the September issue of Prism. In response to questions about this article, the ASEE Executive Director, Dr. Fortenberry, earlier wrote the following:
“While we do not assert the equal validity of all viewpoints, we
published the letter because because in our judgment: 1. It represented a
sincere response to content published in Prism. 2. The views
expressed are probably not unique. 3. While many may find the content
objectionable, within its context it was apparently not intended as an
ad hominem attack. 4. It offered an opportunity for a discussion among
ASEE’s membership about the value of diversity..”
So, my question is: what changed? Are the reasons given by Dr. Fortenberry above no longer valid and if so, why? Was it pressure from the Board that made Dr. Fortenberry write another letter a few days later implying that Professor Helmer’s letter contained “views that are generally considered outside the mainstream of public debate”? How did Dr. Fortenberry determine that Professor Helmer’s letter is “outside of the mainstream” when his views are likely not unique as Dr. Fortenberry himself earlier asserted? Since ASEE chose to publish articles on a controversial social subject, should ASEE not also expect that there would be some in its membership who would disagree with the stance taken in the original Prism articles? Or does ASEE expect every member to conform to a politically correct pradigm?
The Board wrote that “we find the letter in question to be intolerant and prejudicial.” Who’s the judge of what’s tolerant and prejudicial? By the way, I understand that the author’s original letter contained references but those were left out by ASEE in the article. Furthermore, I learnt that the author’s original letter did not contain his affiliation, so why did ASEE decide to publish his affiliation?
I find this whole saga to be quite unfortunate indeed from the way both the Board and the Executive Director handled the issue. This is a country where we should have open debate of ideas and issues. In my opinion, diversity is not about changing other people’s belief system, but it’s about mutual respect. I may not personally subscribe to what another person believes in, but I respect their right to believe in that belief system. I may not personally subscribe to the gay life style, but I should respect those who are gay and respect their right to live as they please; On the other hand, I should not be compelled to accept that the gay life style is normal, and I should be able to air my views, albeit, in a loving way, without fear of vitriol being thrown at me just because I believe differently than you.
In conclusion, I believe that Dr. Fortenberry should not apologize for publishing Professor Helmer’s letter, given the previously published articles on this controversial social issue that has no relevance to engineering education, and to which Professor Helmer had every right to respond. Dr. Fortenberry should instead be apologizing for not publishing a counterpoint to Professor Helmer’s letter in the September issue of Prism.
Name Withheld
Prism welcomes letters. Please send an email to editorial@asee.org. Letters may be edited for length and style. They must also be in response to the substance of content appearing in Prism; be relevant to advancing engineering education, research, service, or practice; not be mean-spirited or engage in personal attacks; and not serve a narrow ideological, commercial, or “institutional booster” interest.
Shackling Free Thought
Ten pages of apologies and dictates upon what cannot be said and what cannot be thought has a chilling effect upon free discourse. Free debate should be nurtured in engineering education and the piling on shown in the October issue promotes the closing of doors and shackling of free thought.
Thomas Ask, D.Prof., P.E.
Professor of Industrial and Human Factors Design
Pennsylvania College of Technology
Hypocritical Judgmentalism
For the past 11 years, I have had the privilege of receiving Prism as a member of the Valparaiso University College of Engineering National Council. Like many whose letters were published in the October issue of Prism, I was rather shocked by the letter from Prof. Wayne Helmer, and am gratified to see the overwhelming response that found Prof. Helmer’s letter inappropriate. I also appreciate the Leadership Statement. Treating others with respect is a basic ethical precept. In fact, for Christians the very most fundamental tenet is to “do unto others.” The Lord’s Prayer, which many recite at worship on a weekly basis, includes the line, “Forgive us our trespasses (debts) as we forgive those who trespass against us (our debtors).” I find that Prof. Helmer’s judgmentalism regarding the LGBT community to be hypocritical, given this fundamental tenet. The Bible also warns us about being judgmental.
Craig W. Selover
10144 Elgin Avenue
Huntington Woods, MI
Where’s the Logic?
Several of the letters in the October issue seem to unwittingly advocate a contradiction. If we believe in tolerant, inclusive diversity we cannot simultaneously call for censorship and condemnation of a Christian member of our community who compassionately stated his opinion regarding a previous article. Either we support diversity or we don’t. Trying to have it both ways defies logic.
Larry F. Stikeleather, PE, Ph.D.
Professor , Biological & Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC