Last week, the dean of Indiana University's business school asked business professor Eric Rasmusen to remove his weblog from its home on the school's server. Rasmusen had written a post expressing his belief that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children, and are therefore less likely to make responsible teachers, doctors, and elected officials.

On his website, Rasmusen wrote that one "reason not to hire homosexuals as teachers is that it puts the fox into the chicken coop," adding that "male homosexuals, at least, like boys and are generally promiscuous. They should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires. Somewhat related is a reason not to hire a homosexual as a doctor even though you would hire him as a lawyer: you don't mind if your lawyer has a venereal disease such as HIV or hepatitis, but you do mind if your doctor is in a class of people among whom such diseases are common."

Quite predictably, the post angered people at IU, and led to demands that Rasmusen's web page be barred from university servers. Their logic was succinctly expressed by business school academic advisor Joe Boes, who told the Daily Student that Rasmusen's commentary fell beyond the bounds of free speech because it intimidates gay students: "I respect other people's opinions, but when they are expressed on IU's server, I do not think it is appropriate. ... When [students] are exposed to this type of opinion it pushes them further into the closet," he said. "This is an unfortunate incident, but Dean [Dalton] is handling the situation appropriately."

While Rasmusen moved his website off Indiana's servers and onto geocities, debate about the validity of IU's actions began to heat up in the blogosphere. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh--who had written the post to which Ramusen's controversial posting was a response--pointed out (with characteristic reserve) that IU had "apparently" violated Rasmusen's academic freedom. University of Toronto political science professor Henry Farrell disagreed. And Volokh disagreed back. (Readers who are familiar with Critical Mass will know that I think this one is a no brainer--fair play to Farrell, but Volokh owns this issue.)

The good news is that IU's dean did not consider his job to be done when he got Rasmusen to move his website (he was clever about how he did it, by the way: by all accounts, he "asked" Rasmusen to move the site, and Rasmusen graciously agreed to--no censorship there, just lots of misguided pressure dressed up to look like mannerly peacekeeping). University lawyers were consulted, and they determined that Rasmusen was entirely within his rights--as a citizen and as a state employee--to post what he did. "Certainly there are going to be times when there is going to be information that some people might disagree with, but that doesn't mean that information is illegal or violates policy," said a university spokesperson. Rasmusen's website is now back up at its original university address. You can read the full text of Rasmusen's original post--the one that 365gay.com calls "gay hate postings"--here, and you can read Rasmusen's follow-up post here. "I am pleased that Indiana University has the sensible policy that complaints from people who dislike a professor's views are not reason to shut down his Web site," Rasmusen said.

This won't be the end, though. IU's coordinator of gay, lesbian, and transgender support services told the Bloomington Herald-Times that Rasmusen should be prepared for some intense backlash: "I just expect there's going to be a huge negative response to it," he said. "I hope there is." That's fine if there is, and Rasmusen ought to be expecting it. As long as everyone involved can say his piece without fear of censorship or punishment, IU's marketplace of ideas remains intact.

UPDATE: Ted Hinchman has some thoughts on the ethics of academic freedom. His main point: Rasmusen may have been within his rights to post what he did, but he was nonetheless unprofessional to use a university server to sound off in an incendiary way on a subject far removed from his area of expertise:

Blogging on the university server is rather like festooning your office window with outward-facing placards.Ý It's using the university as a vehicle for your personal views, not merely as a resource.

The prof at IU was wrong, then, in more ways than one.Ý His post, wherever published, was morally offensive (in multi-faceted ways).Ý Published on IU's server, it was also unprofessional.Ý If you speak on university servers, you speak as a university employee.Ý And you have a professional obligation -- beyond any moral obligation -- to speak responsibly.

As long as one isn't coercing him, I don't see why one couldn't criticize such a blogger for being unprofessional.Ý Of course, his dean probably couldn't make this criticism except coercively.Ý But couldn't his colleagues?