PHYSICAL threats, intimidation and abusive language.
These were some of the things that prompted Professor Thio Li-ann to cancel her six-month teaching stint at New York University (NYU).
There were protests from some students, faculty members and alumni there about her anti-homosexual views.
In an exclusive interview with The New Paper, Prof Thio, 41, an ex-Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) said: 'I don't back down from a fight, but the point of a fight is not just a fight, there must be genuine dialogue and mutual respect and they didn't show it.
'There was both abusive insults and threats. It was disconcerting.'
She was advised by friends not to go because they saw how bad it was and were concerned for her well-being and safety.
She declined to give more details, and would only reveal that she received abusive e-mails, some of which contained physical threats.
She added that she had a few supporters at NYU who advised her that there could be campaigns or demonstrations if she went and 'things could get very disruptive'.
The protests mainly centred around views she expressed in 2007 as an NMP when Parliament was debating whether to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which deems sex between men as crime.
They questioned whether someone who is perceived to be against gay rights should be teaching a course on human rights.
Matter of principle
She said: 'I was planning to go because it was a question of principle. All ideas and viewpoints ought to be examined in any institution committed to academic freedom.'
A conducive environment was simply not there, she said.
'Academic freedom is not secured just by lip service to an abstract principle,' she said.
'It also requires a conducive, harassment-free environment where the spirit of free inquiry is welcomed and not infected by ugly politics.'
She was scheduled to teach two classes: Human Rights in Asia and Constitutionalism in Asia.
For her human rights course, she had planned to talk about human rights issues pertinent to Asia, such as the right to water and food and women's rights.
But her critics did not seem interested in what she had to say on these issues. All they cared about was her view on homosexuality.
She said: 'If you invite someone to teach at your institution, you treat them with some degree of respect and honour. You agree also that as an academic you have the freedom to believe what you want to believe and to make your legal arguments.
'Did they show that to me? In form, perhaps, in substance, no.'
She was also disappointed with the hostility she faced.
She said: 'To me, the sadness is, you're America, you're supposed to be for freedom and you've shown me that political correctness has killed academic freedom.
'Abusive'
'I have never suppressed anyone's right to free speech in my classes. The critics within the NYU have suppressed mine not by saying that I cannot speak but by creating an environment which is not supportive of free debate; it was just so abusive.'
Still, she is not one to shy away from talking about her beliefs. At the Kum Yan Methodist Church yesterday, she gave a presentation on her new book, Mind the Gap.
Prof Thio, who spent about a month writing the book in January this year, said that it was an expression about how a Christian thinks about politics and citizenship in the 21st century.
But she was quick to stress that the book was a personal undertaking and not related to her academic persona.
She said: 'This book is my first book written as a Christian for Christians. It does not form part of my formal legal scholarship, of course, though I do reflect a lot on the inter-relationship between law, morality and religion as well as relationships between the state and religion in a secular democracy.'
Would she go into politics again if she had the opportunity?
She said: 'I'm not closed to it, it depends.
'The irony of my life is this - my very first academic article was a critique of democracy and the NMP scheme. Many years later, what do I find myself doing?
'Life is endlessly surprising and sometimes, you just have to be responsible enough to step up to the plate, to serve rather than be served.'
These were some of the things that prompted Professor Thio Li-ann to cancel her six-month teaching stint at New York University (NYU).
There were protests from some students, faculty members and alumni there about her anti-homosexual views.
In an exclusive interview with The New Paper, Prof Thio, 41, an ex-Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) said: 'I don't back down from a fight, but the point of a fight is not just a fight, there must be genuine dialogue and mutual respect and they didn't show it.
'There was both abusive insults and threats. It was disconcerting.'
She was advised by friends not to go because they saw how bad it was and were concerned for her well-being and safety.
She declined to give more details, and would only reveal that she received abusive e-mails, some of which contained physical threats.
She added that she had a few supporters at NYU who advised her that there could be campaigns or demonstrations if she went and 'things could get very disruptive'.
The protests mainly centred around views she expressed in 2007 as an NMP when Parliament was debating whether to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which deems sex between men as crime.
They questioned whether someone who is perceived to be against gay rights should be teaching a course on human rights.
Matter of principle
She said: 'I was planning to go because it was a question of principle. All ideas and viewpoints ought to be examined in any institution committed to academic freedom.'
A conducive environment was simply not there, she said.
'Academic freedom is not secured just by lip service to an abstract principle,' she said.
'It also requires a conducive, harassment-free environment where the spirit of free inquiry is welcomed and not infected by ugly politics.'
She was scheduled to teach two classes: Human Rights in Asia and Constitutionalism in Asia.
For her human rights course, she had planned to talk about human rights issues pertinent to Asia, such as the right to water and food and women's rights.
But her critics did not seem interested in what she had to say on these issues. All they cared about was her view on homosexuality.
She said: 'If you invite someone to teach at your institution, you treat them with some degree of respect and honour. You agree also that as an academic you have the freedom to believe what you want to believe and to make your legal arguments.
'Did they show that to me? In form, perhaps, in substance, no.'
She was also disappointed with the hostility she faced.
She said: 'To me, the sadness is, you're America, you're supposed to be for freedom and you've shown me that political correctness has killed academic freedom.
'Abusive'
'I have never suppressed anyone's right to free speech in my classes. The critics within the NYU have suppressed mine not by saying that I cannot speak but by creating an environment which is not supportive of free debate; it was just so abusive.'
Still, she is not one to shy away from talking about her beliefs. At the Kum Yan Methodist Church yesterday, she gave a presentation on her new book, Mind the Gap.
Prof Thio, who spent about a month writing the book in January this year, said that it was an expression about how a Christian thinks about politics and citizenship in the 21st century.
But she was quick to stress that the book was a personal undertaking and not related to her academic persona.
She said: 'This book is my first book written as a Christian for Christians. It does not form part of my formal legal scholarship, of course, though I do reflect a lot on the inter-relationship between law, morality and religion as well as relationships between the state and religion in a secular democracy.'
Would she go into politics again if she had the opportunity?
She said: 'I'm not closed to it, it depends.
'The irony of my life is this - my very first academic article was a critique of democracy and the NMP scheme. Many years later, what do I find myself doing?
'Life is endlessly surprising and sometimes, you just have to be responsible enough to step up to the plate, to serve rather than be served.'
