University Suspends Administrator for Op-Ed on Gay Rights
Shortly after Crystal Dixon’s Op-Ed taking “great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims’” appeared in the Toledo Free Press, her employer, the University of Toledo, suspended her with pay from her position as associate vice president of human resources.
When the Ohio daily published her opinion piece, it did not identify Ms. Dixon’s position or place of employment, identifying her merely as a resident of Maumee.
While I do share her belief gay people are not civil rights’s victims, I don’t like some of the language she uses and don’t share her confidence in the work of “ex-gay” ministries. That said, she has every right to express her opinion, even if it be wrong-headed. That she did not list her job title at the university makes clear she was writing as an individual and not a representative of the University.
While gay rights’ advocates and others critical of her ideas have the freedom to express their disagreement, they should join me in condemning the University for suspending her. Yeah, she said some silly things, but on her own time.
Only if saying these silly things prevents her from doing her job should statements she makes away from work factor into any decisions her public sector employer makes regarding her employment. Government agencies should neither discriminate against someone because they’re gay nor against individuals because of their faith or their views on social issues.
And where are those who push for non-discrimination laws which would prevent private-sector employers from discriminating against gays in the case of this example of the public sector discriminating against a woman because of her political and social views?
One of them, Kim Welter, program manager for education and outreach of Equality Ohio, commends the university for its discriminatory action, telling the Cybercast News Service, “We appreciate the support of the University of Toledo, and feel they are handling the issue of her being an employee there the best way that they see fit.“
Yet, her organization doesn’t favor private sector employers handle their employees the best way they see fit. A quick gander at her Equalty Ohio’s web-site informs us that it favors the Buckeye State’s Equal Housing and Employment Act, a bill which would prevent private employers from acting in a manner similar to that taken by the University of Toledo and praised by Ms. Welter.
And the gay left accuses gay conservatives of hypocrisy! Here, we have a gay activist commending a university for discriminating against an employee because of her religious beliefs while fighting to prevent private employers from discriminating against individuals because of their sexual orientation.
Look, I’m not defending what Ms. Dixon said. I am defending her right to say it. If the crazy ideas she expresses on her own time don’t prevent her from doing her job on the state’s time, then she should be allowed to keep her job. And gay activists should defend her right to do so, particularly if they want us to take seriously their support for non-discrimination laws.
43 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As I asked you earlier, if her comments were so “hurtful”, isn’t the Toledo Free Press culpable for printing it?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2008 @ 8:59 pm - May 12, 2008
And I’m waiting for the NAACP or ACLU to get involved since Ms. Dixon is an African-American woman.
(Crickets chirping.)
You live by identity politics, you die by identity politics.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 12, 2008 @ 10:02 pm - May 12, 2008
Dan: The problem I see comes in with how she began her article, mentioning the school she works for -
“As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner”
If she had left this out, or perhaps put a disclaimer that her views didn’t represent those of her employer, I’d say that she has a good case. Since I’m not a lawyer, she may still have a good case and I’ll be interested to hear it made. Yet I do have a problem with the above, as well as the bulk of her article but that isn’t material here. I will say though that I think her intention wasn’t to pass herself off as representing her employer, yet her sloppiness in a very PC environment now means this one will be decided in court. I wish her well.
Comment by John — May 12, 2008 @ 10:03 pm - May 12, 2008
Let’s look at that again:
“As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner”
Where does she say she works for University of Toledo? I’m not seeing it. She mentions being an alumnus, but so what. She also mentions being an owner of some unspecified business, and also an employee of some unspecified (but presumably separate) business.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2008 @ 10:12 pm - May 12, 2008
as a gay leftist i must admit, the left is being very hypocritical here. she is entitled to her wrong and bigoted opinion, i hope the ACLU defends her
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Comment by queerunity — May 12, 2008 @ 10:26 pm - May 12, 2008
From an e-mail to University of Toledo President Dr. Lloyd A. Jacobs (UTPresident@utoledo.edu)
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2008 @ 2:15 am - May 13, 2008
The behavior of Kim Welter isn’t surprising. Compassion fascists are always hypocrites.
It is interesting to compare this case to that of Syracuse University prof Boyce Watkins. (Bill O’Reilly led his program tonight with a segment on the man.)
Watkins is a typical angry black race baiter. He called Juan Williams ” the Eternal Happy Negro,” and “a disgrace and embarassment to black people. ” If you visit Watkins’ website you’ll hear him going on about Rush Limbaugh, the drug-addict with only a high-school education. He calls Bill O’Reilly a racist.
In spite of this, when O’Reilly’s producer confronted the chancellor of SU she wasn’t interested.
So here’s the situation in the American academy today: Say some controversial and some stupid things from a stereotypically right-wing perspective and you get suspended. Be a full-blown left-wing hate-monger and you’re on the right track for tenure.
Comment by David — May 13, 2008 @ 2:17 am - May 13, 2008
John in #3, given that made clear she was an alumnus of the University of Toledo and placed that description before the institution, I understood the placement of the word “employee” afterwards to describe her general employment situation and not her specific employment with the university. Someone who didn’t know she worked there might assume she wanted people to note her familiarity with a work environment.
I will admit it seemed odd that she defined herself as both an employee and business owner, but assumed she owned and operated a small enterprise on the side.
So, I read it as did ILC in #4.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 13, 2008 @ 2:23 am - May 13, 2008
How do you reckon she’s a bigot???
Is it because she doesn’t agree with gay liberal victims? Aren’t you, in fact, showing your bigotry?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2008 @ 2:23 am - May 13, 2008
Dan: Perhaps, but I don’t believe she was clear enough and a disclaimer would have been wise. I look at it this way: if I had a taken an unpopular position while in the military and brought my experience to the debate phrased as she did in her article, I’d probably be in big trouble with the Hatch Act among other things. I see this as sloppiness on her part more than anything else. You know that I’ve sided with people even like the despicable Fred Phelps when it comes to defending free speech but I don’t believe this absolves people from responsibility for their own actions. Now, would I have fired her? Very doubtful from what I can see. Most likely I would have counseled her to be clearer in her opinion pieces that she isn’t speaking for the university.
There is something I’d like to say about this though. What if Dixon were parroting the beliefs of Ward Churchill on 9/11 and other matters? I recall many conservatives wanting his head and the university he worked at to fire him on that alone. The man’s stupidity in lying about his ehtnicity and his bit with plagiarism is what ultimately led to his downfall, but I do recall a glaring inconsistency here on free speech among many conservatives. Also, how do you square your position on Dixon with your comments against ENDA:
“[J]ust because people feel corporations shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate doesn’t mean we should deprive them of the freedom to do so, nor deprive other companies the competitive edge they would gain by not discriminating”
Are you saying that this maxim of yours doesn’t apply when it comes to the University of Toledo? If so, why? UoT may be a public university for all I know but I do recall you rejecting ENDA-like legislation even for the public sector. Why is it that this ‘right’ to discriminate only applies to homosexuality in your eyes but not elsewhere?
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 7:59 am - May 13, 2008
Aren’t you? Why do you presume that only gay liberals would see bigotry in Ms. Dixon’s comments? I realize that we are so used to sharp divisions in the country between left and right, but that’s not always the case and we do ourselves a disservice when we assume too much.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 8:07 am - May 13, 2008
this post inspired to write about gay rights intrusion on free speech rights, id love if you all shared your conservative opinions
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/05/open-forum-free-speech-where-do-we-draw.html
Comment by queerunity — May 13, 2008 @ 9:34 am - May 13, 2008
John, here’s where I call bullsh*t on you. There are numerous important differences between a professor at a public university teaching rank, and false, anti-Americanism in the course of his official duties, and a private citizen who happens to be an anonymous (or meant to be) university HR person expressing her kooky opinions about gays in a newspaper.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 10:49 am - May 13, 2008
ILC: And here’s where I return the bullshit call back at ya. By taking this line you will of course never again complain about liberal bias in universities, about conservative professors who are refused tenure or somehow let go because of their views, etc. Correct? Somehow I seriously doubt it. Seems to me that rank hypocrisy is the staple of both hardcore conservatives and liberals on this and quite a number of other issues, which frankly I’m weary of.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 10:57 am - May 13, 2008
Your quote of GPW says in essence that corporations should be free to discriminate against gays or any other individual, because (1) other forces can sort it out, like labor market forces, public pressure / consumer market forces, etc.; and (2) as Americans, we should have freedom of association.
Now what does that have to do with the University of Toledo - one way or the other? Government institutions must obviously be held to different standards than privately owned ones. But in the Crystal Dixon matter, we’re not talking about discrimination: only about a private citizen expressing her kooky opinions in a newspaper. Let’s not confuse the two. But if there is a connection I’m not seeing, then permit me to note that GPW is arguing consistently for individual freedom in both cases. Government’s duty to prevent discrimination in the official actions of its employees/institutions does not, or should not, extend to muzzling their off-duty expressions of personal conscience.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 11:06 am - May 13, 2008
John, let me make this clear: Your claims on this are radically, ridiculously inappropriate. I don’t know how to make this clear to you, but again: There are numerous important differences between a professor at a public university teaching rank, and false, anti-Americanism in the course of his official duties, and a private citizen who happens to be an anonymous (or meant to be) university HR person expressing her kooky opinions about gays in a newspaper. Would you like me to enumerate them? I can and will complain again about the Ward Churchills of the future, and for you to imply that that would be somehow remotely hypocritical is garbage. What’s gotten into you?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 11:11 am - May 13, 2008
(And P.S., I’m actually not a conservative.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 11:13 am - May 13, 2008
Looks like Mr. Ben Stein may have a sequel to Expelled! with this one.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — May 13, 2008 @ 11:26 am - May 13, 2008
If you’re going to take issue with something I wrote, at least have the courtesy to keep it in context instead of going off half-cocked. You neglected to respond to this part:
“UoT may be a public university for all I know but I do recall you rejecting ENDA-like legislation even for the public sector. Why is it that this ‘right’ to discriminate only applies to homosexuality in your eyes but not elsewhere?”
If Ms. Dixon’s 1st Amendment rights were violated then she has recourse to have the matter addressed and I wish her well (you forgot about that part too it appears).
Agreed - or did you miss that too? Yet what I was addressing were what I saw as the inconsistencies in Dan’s stated views, especially when it comes to ENDA and the public sector. Since you’ve jumped in to speak for him, why don’t you answer it then? Does this mean that you support a non-discrimination law when it comes to the public sector?
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 11:36 am - May 13, 2008
If you like. You can even repeat yourself ad nauseum if it suits you. However, none of this will disspell the inconsistency I see in your reasoning. What are you defining as “rank, and false, anti-Americanism”? You and I may largely agree on what constitutes this but many liberals may not. In fact, I assume many would consider conservative principles being articulated in the classroom as constituting this. Unless you are going to provide more specificity to your standard you are opening a very large loophole in the First Amendment. The fact remains that Churchill wasn’t fired for his teaching views, despite conservative demands, but instead for lying on his resume and charges of plagiarism the review panel found to be credible. Is he a despicable punk? Yep. Yet what happened to the “academic freedom” conservatives whine about when one of their own is let go for not toeing some imaginary line? Personally I think partisanship on both sides has become so rank that many activists will say or do anything for their “cause” without a care or thought about the consequences.
Tis a free country, complain to your heart’s content as will I when I feel the need.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 11:43 am - May 13, 2008
Inconsistencies, John? Hardly, there’s a huge difference between the public sector and the private sector.
I believe all state agencies should adopt nondiscrimination policies, hiring/firing on merit because we have no choice but to support them through our tax dollars. If a social conservative doesn’t like Disney because that great corporation offers domestic partnerships benefits to same-sex employees, he doesn’t have to buy their product. If a gay person don’t like Exxon because it is one of the few Fortune 500 companies not to offer domestic partnership protections, he can go elsewhere to buy his gas.
Looks like a followup post may be in order.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 13, 2008 @ 11:50 am - May 13, 2008
[...] University Suspends Administrator for Op-Ed on Gay Rights [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Clarifying my Views on Nondiscrimination policies — May 13, 2008 @ 12:31 pm - May 13, 2008
I read both articles, the first was a typical lefty point of view - I have close gay friends and relatives, therefore everybody deserves the same rights. Regardless of what is best for society. (a topic that has been going on in the comments on the Gay marriage post.)
Ms. Dixon’s response was from the other extreme, since her world view is based solely on religious doctrine, that is all that matters for society.
Both views were extreme, but both should be allowed to be expressed in a public forum. It is quite a stretch to infer from her article that she works for the university, and if she does, unless someone can prove that she is using her beliefs to discriminate on the job - she shouldn’t be fired for expressing a point of view.
There are many people out in the work force who have very firm beliefs in their personal lives that don’t affect their decisions at work. The thought police has once again gone overboard - little by little our rights of free speech are being eroded.
Comment by Leah — May 13, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - May 13, 2008
John, you’re pretty much frothing and foaming at the mouth, at this point. Enjoy yourself.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - May 13, 2008
Ok, then I apparently misunderstood your position. My apologies. One question though: why “policies” and not legislation?
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - May 13, 2008
It is quite a stretch to infer from her article that she works for the university, and if she does, unless someone can prove that she is using her beliefs to discriminate on the job - she shouldn’t be fired for expressing a point of view.
I disagree and think one can easily infer that she works for the university from what she wrote. However, as I said, this appears to be sloppiness rather than a deliberate misrepresentation on Ms. Dixon’s part so yes it would appear that university has a challenge in defending its position.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 1:12 pm - May 13, 2008
More tripe from some activists on both ends of the spectrum when discussing issues. Please, do continue validating what I said. Give it a moment and I’m sure some liberal will come in and do likewise so at least we’ll achieve “balance”.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - May 13, 2008
So writes Crystal Dixson a few lines into her op-ed.
Is the concept of “choice” in homosexuality at the core of her problems? Is it settled science that homosexuality is entirely genetic? Are we dealing with an “Intelligent Design v Evolution” type issue here? Are we locking onto a “majority of scientists think” level of proof?
Has Crystal Dixson committed a science heresy that offends the Grand Inquisitors in control of current scientific theology?
Comment by heliotrope — May 13, 2008 @ 2:12 pm - May 13, 2008
Ms. Dixon’s personal views on the matter are separate from the discussion on this thread IMO, but what the heck I suppose they can’t be entirely avoided:
1. Her view appears to be that homosexuality itself is a choice, that one can either pray away the gay or have it disappear through therapy. There’s nothing to substantiate this view and it is one that most gays would take exception to. If her view were more like that advocated by the Catholic Church, for example, I would still disagree with her but at least it would be more defensible and not as offensive - except in matters of law.
2. No, it’s definitely not “settled science that homosexuality is entirely genetic”. It is settled science that sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice. As for why some people are gay, the most anyone can tell right now is that biology and environment together somehow play are part of it. How much of each and to what degree is unknown.
3. I’m not sure what ID or evolution has to do with this.
4. Not unless one wishes to engage in logical fallacies to bolster their argument. That being said, one who advocates a very minority opinion does have the burden of proof to overturn a scientific consensus. If I advocated a geocentrist viewpoint contrary to what the overwhelming scientific consensus is, especially doing so from a religious perspective, would my opinion be just as valid or does the burden of proof fall upon me?
5. In some people’s eyes no doubt Ms. Dixon has, but that comes more from ideology rather than science. Yet what her view does appear to be comes from religious beliefs and not science. That’s fine but the two shouldn’t be conflated. She’s not alone in this, frankly I think many advocates (though not all even if I disagree with them) of GW theories are just as guilty.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 2:45 pm - May 13, 2008
Well, then, anyone who has “kicked the habit” is in regression and a ticking timebomb, as it were, and this statement by Crystal Dixson is without foundation and a bald lie:
However, I will take exception to your dictate that:
The scientific method has not a thing to do with the majority opinion of scientists. The scientific method requires proof. The proof is testable by other folk who always reach the identical end point. At that point the proof becomes scientific fact and is settled science.
Many cosmologists are beginning to understand that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is extremely flawed and are embarking on testing new understandings to help find the scientific facts.
If sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, then you can cite the scientific data and facts that prove the point.
It is never the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove the theory. The scientific method is pure skepticism. It assumes the theory is flawed and it continually tests it.
As an aside, ID v Evolution parallels the nurture/nature debate over sexual orientation. Both are a battle of theories with scant scientific fact involved. However, the Evolution people consider the ID people to be Neanderthals as do the sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice people consider their beliefs to be settled science.
Crystal Dixson was canned because she expressed a view within the scientific debate that displeased the powers that be. She has thought and spoken in a politically incorrect manner.
It should be a simple, slam-dunk case to prove that “it is settled science that sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice.” Thereafter, Crystal Dixson is toast for having muddied the waters with her whack-a-doodle voo-doo.
Meanwhile, if choice in sexual orientation is not settled science, then Crystal Dixson is being burned at the stake by the keepers of the theory.
Bring on the settled science.
Comment by heliotrope — May 13, 2008 @ 4:00 pm - May 13, 2008
Helio, I’ve always said that gay people who are always bashing Bush for his take on partial-birth abortion will eat their words when researchers announce that they can strip out the “gay gene” in genetically-engineered fetuses.
You will see so many GayLeftLibs jumping to the pro-life cause that it will make Rosie O’Donnell’s fat head spin.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2008 @ 4:44 pm - May 13, 2008
I’m one of those people who believe that sexuality is a very fluid thing.
Some people are hard wired one way or the other, many are what we would call bi-sexual, and others actually do make a choice.
Why is it completely acceptable that a man can be married to the same woman for 30 years, and then discover his ‘true sexual’ orientation as a gay man - and no one blinks an eye.
On the other hand, a man can be completely immersed in the ‘gay lifestyle’ and for whatever reason - God, family whatever - decide to become an ex-gay. And suddenly that is unacceptable, must be a farce, he is covering up his true leanings.
My arguement with Ms. Dixon is that she only sees one facet of the gay lifestyle, but in many avenues of life, we all choose only one side of an issue.
Either way, as an American citizen she has the right to express her opinion in her local paper, regardless of how she pays her bills.
Comment by Leah — May 13, 2008 @ 5:16 pm - May 13, 2008
Leah has it exactly right. There IS a considerable choice component to homosexuality regardless of how you slice it — which, as Ms. Dixon correctly points out, is far different than being black.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2008 @ 5:27 pm - May 13, 2008
People are missing the (valid) distinction between orientation and behavior. Behavior is 100% chosen, for all people. Orientation mostly isn’t chosen.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 6:09 pm - May 13, 2008
Indeed. The vast majority of “ex-gays” go on to find that they have only changed their behavior, not their inner configuration (i.e., orientation). They can be celibate, they can be heterosexually married, or whatever - but most remain gay inside, i.e., having a fundamental preference for and attraction to the same sex.
NOT that there is anything wrong with being celibate, heterosexually married, etc. Only that they’re behaviors - chosen, like all the alternative behaviors are chosen - either in accord with one’s basic orientation, or (depending on the person) going against one’s basic orientation.
Same with a straight guy who does homosexuality in prison, say. It doesn’t change his opposite-sex orientation. Eating a taco doesn’t make you Mexican. Doing it with someone of the same sex doesn’t make you gay, if your preference/need to begin with is honestly for the opposite sex. And doing it with someone of the opposite sex doesn’t make you straight, if your preference/need to begin with is for the same sex.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 6:15 pm - May 13, 2008
Ah, thank you. I knew I didn’t explain my meaning clear enough.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 6:21 pm - May 13, 2008
You mean like how many liberals are flocking to oppose radical Islam instead of blaming all troubles on the USA, the West in general and even Christianity? I suppose it’s possible and probably will change some minds, but many others are wed to the “choice” ideology come what may.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 6:23 pm - May 13, 2008
To be clear: It is entirely possible for any person to stop any unwanted behavior, FOREVER: see http://rational.org
I am not one of these people who coddles backsliders and relapsers. I have always said, if there were a reason not to have same-sex relations AT ALL (i.e., not even in the context of a good relationship, monogamy, etc.), I would not have them. There simply isn’t such a logically valid reason. Even the supposed Biblical prohibition is only that - “supposed”. But, that’s a huge topic for another time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 6:27 pm - May 13, 2008
[...] University Suspends Administrator for Op-Ed on Gay Rights [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Outspoken un-PC University Administrator Fired — May 13, 2008 @ 7:21 pm - May 13, 2008
[...] Gay Patriot has posted on the suspension and on the [...]
Pingback by Don Surber » Blog Archive » Holy Toledo — May 13, 2008 @ 7:59 pm - May 13, 2008
maybe i’m beating a dead horse that has been kicked aside, but when she identified herself as an employee of the university (i think its a huge stretch to say that she wasn’t in viewing in how its been written), it no longer became her personal opinion.
the question becomes what is the university’s policy on this sort of thing.
Comment by a. mcewen — May 13, 2008 @ 9:30 pm - May 13, 2008
Question: If the government can strip polygamy of protected status as a religious belief (which it effectively did during Utah’s ascension to statehood), can’t it also argue that opposition to homosexuality is not a protected religious belief either?
The government can simply say the state has a compelling interest in placing such outside the sphere of religion, as it did with polygamy.
Comment by Erik — May 13, 2008 @ 11:05 pm - May 13, 2008
#42 Erik: I do not clearly understand your comment. The Congress made it clear to the powers in Utah that their application for statehood would go nowhere if the state constitution did not outlaw polygamy. That was raw politics. To my knowledge, there is no overriding federal law concerning polygamy other than on federal lands and territories.
I am confused about how homosexuality could enter the realm of a protected religious belief. There have been many attempts to create a religion around a practice in order to gain first amendment protections. These are always troublesome problems for adjudication. If you are thinking of a religion organized around homosexuality that could break through the same sex marriage barrier, I strongly suspect it has been tried.
Religion does not get to trump the compelling state interest automatically. We are beginning to have a flow of cases involving Islamic people with multiple wives. Right now, they are in the regulatory courts concerning welfare issues. However, Denmark has recently taken the stance of requiring an Iraqi man to divorce is way down to one wife. As I recall, this man was an ally in Iraq and relocated to Denmark for his safety. He does not wish to comply. Similar cases have come to the fore in Canada and England. The US is currently dealing with an African man with three wives in a welfare case in NYC. When all is said and done, our system will not likely bend to the Islamic custom. Having said that, we have occasionally turned some parts of the law over to Rabbi council in one Hassidic Jewish community in New York.
You seem to touch on unsettled and, I might say, unsettling ground here.
Comment by heliotrope — May 14, 2008 @ 5:31 pm - May 14, 2008