On Crystal Dixon & the Problem of ENDA
Reading the thread to my second post on Crystal Dixon, the University of Toledo administrator fired for saying some un-PC things about gay rights on her own time as well as e-mails from readers who had followed the story solidified my opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), indeed to most legislation which would prevent employers from setting their own employment policies.
In the ideal world, a university should be able to set its own such policies and dismiss employees who do not act in a manner consistent with the university’s values. But, this is no ordinary university, it is a branch of the state and thus (in my view) must have standards different from a private university or other enterprise.
That said, some of my critics do raise valuable points. As associate vice president of human resources, her anti-gay bias may have caused her to discriminate against gay employees or candidates for employment. In response, I asked if the university provided any evidence of such discrimination. If she, as a public employee discriminated against gay people, she should be fired, or at minimum transferred to a job where she wouldn’t be making employment decisions.
But, as this commenter to Pam’s House Blend who watched her on TV reported, “The university could find no instance of her being prejudiced against glbt people on the job!” If that’s the case, I stand by my criticism of the university (and remember I’m criticizing the university, not defending Ms. Dixon.)
We should leave the question of determining whether her un-PC thoughts led to discriminatory actions. That question naturally becomes more complicated in public employment when we need to consider a variety of other issues. A public institution works for all of us (and is paid for by all of us); it doesn’t just serve those who have a choice whether to purchase its good and services.
She should not be dismissed for her silly opinions, but should be let go if she has acted in a matter inconsistent with the university policy. It might not be easy determining whether those opinions become action.
It would be better if the institution could address such troubling issues in the manner it sees fit.
Which brings me to my opposition to ENDA. Such legislation would make it ever more difficult for a private company to address such complex issues on its own. Simply put, it deprives the company of the freedom from setting its own employment policies.
If Crystal Dixon worked for a private company, that enterprise would have a valid case for dismissing her because of her viewpoint. But, public institutions must have different standards. They shouldn’t be allowed to evaluate an employee on any criterion other than her ability to do her ob.
Right now, it seems the University of Toledo dismissed Dixons only when university officials read her un-PC Op-Ed. That is clearly a case of viewpoint discrimination. Just as, I believe, a public institution shouldn’t discriminate because of sexual orientation, it shouldn’t discriminate based on political, social or religious viewpoint. No matter how crazy. Just so long as it doesn’t impact on her job performance.
27 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] I’ll defer to Gay Patriot who has the update. Apparently her words do not affect her actions. I smell [...]
Pingback by Don Surber » Blog Archive » Just ask me — May 15, 2008 @ 7:15 am - May 15, 2008
Well thought out and expressed. Unfortunately many people react emotionally rather than logically which produces many wrongs. I have no problem condemning what Dixon wrote, but as long as she does her job properly there was no reason to fire her. However, given what she expressed I would want to take a long hard look at her official actions to make sure she was not allowing her personal prejudices to influence her on job judgment. And yes, there is a difference between public and private sector employment, and what rules can be adopted for either.
As for ENDA itself, the problem with most rules and regulations are that when governments try to define what constitutes improper behavior they mostly fail in that task. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. All one needs to do is look at McCain-Feingold to see that.
Comment by Fritz — May 15, 2008 @ 8:28 am - May 15, 2008
Great conclusion. Did you coin “viewpoint discrimination”? Discriminating against a person based on their (real or imagined) viewpoint. Great way of putting it. I think I’ll start using it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 10:20 am - May 15, 2008
A much better case made for Ms. Dixon, I like how you made it here. That’s not a slam, there appears to be more information coming out now that paints the university president in a negative light. However, with regards to ENDA I disagree with you and believe your view is a political loser at least with regards to sexual orientation. Your view does have support for that Pandora’s Box of “gender identity” and “gender expression”, which some want to include in ENDA, but I don’t believe the same concerning sexual orientation. I see this as no different than race, religion, national origin, etc. which are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Again I ask, are you calling for a removal of that portion of the Act so there are no “protected classes” at all? I personally cannot agree with that but at least would respect the consistency in logic as well as the ideal.
Comment by John — May 15, 2008 @ 12:28 pm - May 15, 2008
You might notice something, John.
Of the Title VII protected classes (race, color, religion, sex or national origin), all but one are immutable characteristics with which one is born with no behavioral compulsions.
The one that isn’t (religion) is specifically protected against discrimination in the US Constitution.
Since it cannot be conclusively proven that sexual orientation is inborn, and it HAS been conclusively proven that behavior related to sexual orientation is based on a choice, that qualifies under neither provision.
Ms. Dixon made a correct comparison; you can choose whether or not you are going to have gay sex, but she cannot choose her skin color.
The reason most businesses put in place nondiscrimination policies without prodding from the law is because they think it brings some sort of benefit. If businesses choose differently, they will bear whatever consequences that is.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2008 @ 12:51 pm - May 15, 2008
NDT: If you wish to believe that homosexuality in all cases is mutable, that’s your perogative. I disagree and whichever one believes it to be it’s irrelevant. Please show me, barring the civil rights developments of the 20th century, where the First Amendment prohibits private businesses from discriminating against persons based upon what clearly IS a mutable characteristic which of course is religion. No, it was designed to prevent government from inerfering and only later was it seen that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to extend this to private business.
You just made an argument when it comes to ENDA defending the principle that Dan gave of private companies having the freedom to set its own employment policies. His reasoning appears to be consistent, even if a political loser and a view I do not share. You, however, have chosen to ignore this principle and maintain “protected classes” in some cases which in my view is flawed reasoning.
Comment by John — May 15, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - May 15, 2008
I am (and long have).
NDT: Your arguments for the existing Title VII categories aren’t entirely sound. Sex (as in gender) is more mutable than you seem to acknowledge. And race is non-existent, that is, it’s a faux-category based on arbitrary prejudice to begin with. Finally, you appear to be eliding the (valid) distinction between orientation and behavior. Sure, I can choose my *behavior* based on my inborn orientation - just like Ms. Dixon can change her *behavior* based on her inborn skin color (how she will vote, whether she will riot or shop at Macy’s, etc.).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - May 15, 2008
Sorry, last sentence not clear, let’s try again. - Sure, I can choose my *behavior* regardless of my inborn orientation - just like Ms. Dixon can choose her *behavior* regardless of her inborn skin color (how she will vote, whether she will be empowered or a victim, whether she will judge others by their skin color, etc.).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 1:18 pm - May 15, 2008
I disagree with you but do respect the consistency of your reasoning. This is far better than what I hear from many on both sides. Any candidate who takes up your position on the national stage though IMO would be toast.
Comment by John — May 15, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - May 15, 2008
Truth and integrity aren’t cheap, John. Sometimes you have to be a voice in the wilderness.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - May 15, 2008
If I were an employer and found I had Commies or Nazis or Klansmen working for me I’d fire them so fast it’d make your head spin. Yes, I would discriminate against them and be proud of it.
This woman has freedom of speech. Employers have freedom of choice. No employer should be forced by law to hire people they feel uncomfortable with. That includes gay employers. If they want to fire someone for talking trash about gays, that’s fine with me.
One could choose to deny one’s attractions to the same sex, but one couldn’t choose these attractions in the first place.
Comment by Attmay — May 15, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - May 15, 2008
Indeed which is why even though I believe you are wrong I have respect for your reasoning. While it would still be a political loser for now, the beauty of your reasoning is that it does take away some of the bitterness in the Culture War.
Comment by John — May 15, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - May 15, 2008
These are political affliations which are not protected under Title VII. In fact, communist affliation is specifically excluded.
Comment by John — May 15, 2008 @ 1:57 pm - May 15, 2008
Sex (as in gender) is more mutable than you seem to acknowledge.
Call me when a man can become a woman, then, with another man, successfully conceive and bear a child that is genetically and biologically both theirs.
Sure, I can choose my *behavior* regardless of my inborn orientation - just like Ms. Dixon can choose her *behavior* regardless of her inborn skin color (how she will vote, whether she will be empowered or a victim, whether she will judge others by their skin color, etc.).
The problem is, though, ILC, if you chose to behave as a heterosexual does, there would be virtually zero there identifying you as gay - especially since there are no genetic markers or phenotypic indicators of you being so.
Ms. Dixon, however, will always be clearly and visibly black.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2008 @ 2:30 pm - May 15, 2008
Let’s take that for a test drive. Let’s take a straight man who behaves homosexually, say in prison. Does he stop being heterosexual? Is there precious little identifying him as heterosexual? Goodness, no.
Straw man alert! No one claims there is a clear-cut gene, like for blue eyes. Yet the difference in orientation remains profound, i.e., biological. The scientific action these days focuses on brain differences. They’ve discovered several.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 2:47 pm - May 15, 2008
Comment by David — May 15, 2008 @ 2:48 pm - May 15, 2008
I can’t join in David’s conclusion. I like NDT.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 3:06 pm - May 15, 2008
And, ILC, you don’t have nearly as much of your self-worth and your identity wrapped up in your sexual behavior as David does.
Let’s take a straight man who behaves homosexually, say in prison. Does he stop being heterosexual? Is there precious little identifying him as heterosexual? Goodness, no.
But, ILC, if one were to argue, as gay leftists do, that there is no choice involved in behavior and that it is all predetermined by orientation, this person could never “behave homosexually” in the first place.
The fact that he can, as well as the fact that “gay-oriented” people can have sex with the opposite sex and sire/deliver children, indicates to a strong degree that it is not an immutable characteristic, and that there is a considerable amount of choice involved in its expression.
Again, Ms. Dixon cannot choose to be white. Nor can she choose to act more like a white person, since there is no specific behavior that can be traced to skin color; she is black, and she will remain black, regardless of her actions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2008 @ 3:26 pm - May 15, 2008
NDT, again, you’re mashing together behavior and orientation. Orientation isn’t chosen/mutable. Behavior is. It’s really that simple.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2008 @ 4:02 pm - May 15, 2008
I hear arguments from the right all the time that employers should be able to hire whoever they like. If that is your view then you should be pushing for the repeal of all workplace discrimination laws. I can’t wait for GOP Congressmen to try to put up a bill removing nondiscrimination laws based on race, gender, religion and age. Please. I double dog dare you to take this on. I would love a landslide win in November.
Comment by Houndentenor — May 16, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - May 16, 2008
You know, gay employers could legally start firing “straight” employees for being “straight”. Is that exempt from your contempt for the right of association?
Comment by Attmay — May 17, 2008 @ 3:52 am - May 17, 2008
That unsubstantiated premise is critical to your dumb as a brick conclusion.
You have evidence that the right wants to ditch age discrimination, race discrimination, gender discrimination, disability discrimination? Perhaps, in your world a health spa would have to employ a 700 pound bed bound receptionist who sucks on three cigarettes at once.
The joy of deconstructing liberal drivel is in dealing with the wide open, no holds barred attacks on pure common sense.
Houndentenor, you need to reread “Lord of the Flies.” The dictatorship of liberal political correctness is not a pretty thing.
Comment by heliotrope — May 17, 2008 @ 9:19 am - May 17, 2008
You know, gay employers could legally start firing “straight†employees for being “straightâ€.
What do you mean, “could”? Under current law, they can and do.
And frankly, that’s fine by me from a legal standpoint. I think it’s kind of dumb on their part, but hey, it’s your business; run it however you like.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 18, 2008 @ 6:12 pm - May 18, 2008
I don’t buy Crystal’s claim that her race is immutable. The unchanging nature of her blackness is not genetic, it is social. She might be classified as a “black” person in the US, and be taught that she can never change that, but those categories are purely American. A black female colleague of mine, much darker than Crystal, recently traveled to Ghana, where children occasionally called out to her, “Hey white lady!” To those children, her clothing, language and manners as an American (”white lady”) trumped her skin color. Papa Doc Duvalier once claimed, reminiscent of the American “one drop” rule, that 95% of Haitians are white. Assuming the Crystal is like the majority of African-Americans, what’s to stop her from claiming to be white if she so desired? To me, she’s bigot hiding behind her faith, and her position at a tax-supported state institution necessitated her firing.
Second, if she really DIDN’T act on her beliefs, what kind of Christian does that make her?
Comment by gayohioprof — May 18, 2008 @ 8:34 pm - May 18, 2008
gayohioprof,
There is NO scientific basis for the anthropologist’s system for race classification. I will grant that Crystal has misspoken about her skin color in this particular respect.
But your pseudo-intellectual pathway for pinning bigotry on Crystal is fatuous at best and bordering on idiotic.
I will completely disregard your comment on Crystal’s “Christianity.” Should I assume that you issue the challenge based on your own assumed superiority in attributes considered Christian? In fact, I suspect that you disdain religion in general and a strong Christian faith in particular.
Your moniker reveals three of your “credentials.” I match you in two of them, but I am straight. Shall we compare number of PhD’s held and issuing institutions? When all is said and done, such puffery proves far more was said than accomplished.
How dare you brand Crystal Dixson a bigot? Your gayness has trumped any academic license that may have ever been accorded to your smug, complacent self. Teaching is not a pulpit, it is a sacred trust.
Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2008 @ 10:53 pm - May 18, 2008
#23: Most members of a public would not support a company that they knew was practicing such discrimination, legal or not. The market just would not bear it, and they would be limiting their field of potential employees. Those are probably the best arguments against such forms of discrimination.
Comment by Attmay — May 19, 2008 @ 12:13 am - May 19, 2008
[...] oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for a great variety of reasons (link solution in [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » A Social Conservative Misrepresents Gay Conservatives — July 23, 2008 @ 7:00 pm - July 23, 2008