University Administrator Fired for Her Faith
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=28065
5/27/2008
"ANN ARBOR (CNA) - An administrator at the University of Toledo who was fired for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of homosexual rights to the civil rights struggles of African Americans and expressing her Christian views against homosexuality has accused the university of violating her First Amendment rights when it terminated her employment earlier this month."
While she did comment on her beliefs as a private citizen and not as a company employee, I think its funny how they call foul now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Is the university of Toledo a publicly funded (read; Government) organization?
If not, she can take her first amendment rights and shove it.
I'm ambivalent. Fairness in employment cuts both ways: sometimes it will mean hiring (or not firing) people you disagree with. The position of the University seems to be that her religious beliefs interfered with her ability to carry out her job -- that seems reasonable, but I hate to see people fired for what they do outside of work without a clear indication that it affects the work itself. However much I might loathe Dixon's views, this seems like a borderline case to me.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 27, 2008, 07:58:20 PM
Fairness in employment cuts both ways: sometimes it will mean hiring (or not firing) people you disagree with.
I agree with Alyssa. I think we must be careful to let people express their views. How we deal with people of differing views can come back to bite us, if we don't allow a dialog to occur.
Anne
I favor freedom of speech. A person speaking as a private citizen should not be fired from their job simply for having those beliefs. This is the kind of thing that happened in the McCarthy Era. Unless the UoT can show that she acted in a prejudicial manner in the execution of her duties as an administrator, they should be held liable for the harm they have caused this woman.
when she is in that position, she HAS no personal view. it reflects on the university. and she has to consider that. Politicians dont get a private life, or a non official view. Shes the same.
she made her own bed, now she lies in it.
R >:D
Quote from: Rachael on May 27, 2008, 08:55:19 PM
when she is in that position, she HAS no personal view. it reflects on the university. and she has to consider that. Politicians dont get a private life, or a non official view. Shes the same.
she made her own bed, now she lies in it.
R >:D
And a large soft one it will be! She'll get a nice settlement for the inconvenience. This isn't the UK, you know. People are entitled to personal views. Clearly, she was not speaking as a university employee.
The email that I sent her:
------------------
Crystal,
I too have suffered discrimination and have fully experienced the pain and subsequent challenges. However the great hurdle in my life was far different.
I am asexual, an atheist, and transsexual. While I disagree with almost every one of your goals listed on your website, I do fully support you in your right to free speech. As far as I can tell, you have been wronged.
I wish you success in your legal proceedings.
Cindi Jones
no Claire, they are not....
when someone is in a position of media visibility, thier personal views must remain personal. Any public views they give reflect on thier position, intentional or not.
Politicians and officials in the US are accountable for what they think, This woman made clear she is homophobic, and as such, is unsuitable for such a position as the leader of an organization that is likely seeing itself as a font of Knowledge, not ignorance.
R >:D
Quote from: Rachael on May 28, 2008, 12:36:43 AM
no Claire, they are not....
when someone is in a position of media visibility, thier personal views must remain personal. Any public views they give reflect on thier position, intentional or not.
Politicians and officials in the US are accountable for what they think, This woman made clear she is homophobic, and as such, is unsuitable for such a position as the leader of an organization that is likely seeing itself as a font of Knowledge, not ignorance.
R >:D
She's not a public official. She's a bureaucrat at most and was not speaking in an official capacity. The law is clear on separation of church and state. Our Founders remembered those little problems you had in the 17th century when they wrote it.
It does not say so, and being a Christian site I doubt they would, but is it not possible she was fired for her views against Homosexuals?
Working for a university, they may not want that sort of discrimination on the staff. The university never said it was about her religion but her views in general.
QuoteThomas A. Sobecki, Dixon's attorney, said she was fired from her job "because she exercised her right to free speech... She spoke about something certain people at the university disagreed with."
Universities always promote diversity, having her on their staff stifles that. In the article she brought faith into it, and she may have made it her reason for being fired, but she could have written the article without ever mentioning her faith.
Quote from: Claire de Lune on May 27, 2008, 10:59:57 PM
Quote from: Rachael on May 27, 2008, 08:55:19 PM
when she is in that position, she HAS no personal view. it reflects on the university. and she has to consider that. Politicians dont get a private life, or a non official view. Shes the same.
she made her own bed, now she lies in it.
R >:D
And a large soft one it will be! She'll get a nice settlement for the inconvenience. This isn't the UK, you know. People are entitled to personal views. Clearly, she was not speaking as a university employee.
And the last time I checked, the Bill of Rights only applies to the government and it's entities, and therefore does not apply to a private university. Any law that states that a person may not be discrimminated against by an employer based on their religion ought not to be confused with the first amendment. And many of her claims and views which would have made her a candidate to be fired were not religious in nature, she was not practicing her religion, she was peddling bigotry and misinformation, how could she be trusted as a fair and balanced professional when such information is known?
The University of Toledo is one of 13 state universities in Ohio.
I take that to mean its state and therefore government funded... Religious views are not aloud... well, not aloud to be forced upon anyone by the staff atleast...
The motto on there website. Improving the Human Condition... I like that LoL... they promote diversity and as such would not want someone detrimental to the beliefs of the university on the staff... I can see there point at this moment, but would say it needs further research... <I'm too tired to do that now and am going to bed LoL>
She has a right to speak as a private person as long as she did not sign the letter with her official title. They are going to have to bail her out fat. Dumb decision.
Quote from: tekla on May 28, 2008, 09:29:01 AM
She has a right to speak as a private person as long as she did not sign the letter with her official title. They are going to have to bail her out fat. Dumb decision.
I agree, people are fully entitled to their views but as a public official she has a responcibility to those not of her persuasion. What I do object to is how the religious or the medical profession seek to pathologize trans people. It's either a sin or a mental illness. From the site: "one should hate the sin but love the sinner". Like which is it, am I a sinner going to hell or suffering a mental illness, I wish they would make their minds up .. :angel:
As long as she wrote it as a private person, to a public press (this might be different if it had been printed in the university paper, where it could have been seen as an official statement) then she is free to say that if she chooses. Fact of the matter, I've always been been a bit leery of that comparison myself and I never use it.
She is going to get a huge check, at the expense of the taxpayers of Ohio, and then get a nice job with some Christian School.
As long as all she did was express her opinion, and took no action in her job to prevent it, she is within her rights, even if you don't agree with her.
There is a deal going on here (California, but not SF) about the clerks giving out marriage stuff to gay couples, and the deal is... "you don't have to like it, but you do have to do it."
Quoteyou don't have to like it, but you do have to do it."
You always have the option to work elsewhere. Employers have a right to hire and remove anyone who they feel is the best for the business. That is what management is all about.
Here's an article from the Toledo Blade (apparently the local rag):
University of Toledo official fired over columnQuoteA letter to Ms. Dixon informing her of her termination, stated "The public position you have taken in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures as well as the core values of the strategic plan which is mission critical."
It went on to say her position calls into question her ability to continue in her role as an administrator in charge of personnel actions and decisions and that "the result is a loss of confidence in you as an administrator."
link to the article (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS21/805130363)
link to the letter (pdf file) (http://toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO45760512.PDF)
I strongly advocate a broad interpretation of the First Amendment. This letter makes a good case, but I'm not sure it's good enough, if she hasn't done anything to act against university policy. Perhaps the issue is that she was unable or unwilling to state clearly to officials that her views would not interfere with her work in the future.
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 28, 2008, 12:05:32 AM
The email that I sent her:
------------------
Crystal,
I too have suffered discrimination and have fully experienced the pain and subsequent challenges. However the great hurdle in my life was far different.
I am asexual, an atheist, and transsexual. While I disagree with almost every one of your goals listed on your website, I do fully support you in your right to free speech. As far as I can tell, you have been wronged.
I wish you success in your legal proceedings.
Cindi Jones
I could not have said it better, Cindi. If we wish to be taken seriously, we must support the right of free speech, especially when it does not agree with our own views. I know it is a difficult thing to do, but it is what will gain the respect of others. If there were any evidence that she practiced discrimination at her job, this would be an entirely different matter. It would also be different were she speaking as an official spokesperson for her university. But as it is, she seems to have done her job well. That's life. Not a day goes by that I don't have to deal with someone with different viewpoints than I hold. Welcome to the real world. I can disagree and still respect them, and I believe they know that. I, for one, do not want any government-sponsored thought police checking candidates for views someone considers incorrect. As tempting as that sometimes sounds, we are putting a dangerous mechanism in place which will almost certainly be used against us at some point.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Kristi on May 28, 2008, 02:06:51 PM
I, for one, do not want any government-sponsored thought police checking candidates for views someone considers incorrect. As tempting as that sometimes sounds, we are putting a dangerous mechanism in place which will almost certainly be used against us at some point.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
It goes both ways too. As a populace, we demand politicos to take positions they may not otherwise represent. Could you imagine a presidential candidate who didn't have to reaffirm his belief in Jesus every time he took the podium? I can't because he'd never get te run as a candidate in a major party. It would matter not what he believed (even in Jesus), he would not get elected. This is a far cry from the views our founding fathers had in mind when they put together this country.
I'm looking forward to the day when a fine and proven Christian candidate will have the guts to respond to the spirituality question with: "My faith is a cherished and sacred thing.... as it is with most Americans. I intend to not spoil that with politics. Americans come from all faiths. This is a race of issues and not religion. Judge me by my works." He will win and perhaps, this will no longer be a checklist item for the viability of future candidates.
C
Quote from: lisagurl on May 28, 2008, 11:30:12 AM
Quoteyou don't have to like it, but you do have to do it."
You always have the option to work elsewhere. Employers have a right to hire and remove anyone who they feel is the best for the business. That is what management is all about.
A public university is not a private business. The rules are quite different. If Ms. Dixon were on the faculty there would be know question of her academic freedom to hold these views; a black female civil servant? Well that's another story.
she spoke out against homosexuality. Its a social fauxpas to do so for whatever reason, its also probably against the universities diversity charter.
This isnt to do with her religion, its to do with her prejudice.
R >:D
Quote from: Rachael on May 28, 2008, 11:02:30 PM
she spoke out against homosexuality. Its a social fauxpas to do so for whatever reason, its also probably against the universities diversity charter.
This isnt to do with her religion, its to do with her prejudice.
R >:D
I have to disagree. If it had affected her job performance that would be one thing. But there is no evidence that it did. I just think we need to be very careful when we say that one particular view point is necessary to work anywhere. That will certainly come back to bite us. And if the university has a diversity policy, why would it also not include her? While I don't think anyone here would agree with her, who is to decide who gets in on the approved "diversity" list? If there is anyone excluded, then there is, de facto, no diversity policy.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Kristi on May 28, 2008, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 28, 2008, 12:05:32 AM
The email that I sent her:
------------------
Crystal,
I too have suffered discrimination and have fully experienced the pain and subsequent challenges. However the great hurdle in my life was far different.
I am asexual, an atheist, and transsexual. While I disagree with almost every one of your goals listed on your website, I do fully support you in your right to free speech. As far as I can tell, you have been wronged.
I wish you success in your legal proceedings.
Cindi Jones
I could not have said it better, Cindi. If we wish to be taken seriously, we must support the right of free speech, especially when it does not agree with our own views. ... I, for one, do not want any government-sponsored thought police checking candidates for views someone considers incorrect. As tempting as that sometimes sounds, we are putting a dangerous mechanism in place which will almost certainly be used against us at some point.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
I totally concur with both of those statements. I have forgotten whether or not she was identified in her op-ed piece as a UofT administrator. If she was, that may be problematic, but the qestion is, did the paper so identify her or did she identify herself with the university?
The reason the ACLU often defends the rights of hate groups is exactly what Kristi, tekla & Cindi have pointed out. Where does the proscription against 'free speech' stop?
If the thought-police are given free-rein, as i am sure the present administration would love, then we all march in lock-step, or else. Trust me, I don't want to march in lock-step with many of the people who write things I read or speak things I hear. But, the defense of the right to speak their minds is also the defense of me to speak my own.
Nichole
americans value thier free speach too much, and cry when someone offends them.
Just because you have the right to say something. Doesnt mean you should.
R >:D
Quote from: Rachael on May 29, 2008, 09:47:49 AM
americans value thier free speach too much, and cry when someone offends them.
Just because you have the right to say something. Doesnt mean you should.
R >:D
Quote from: Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of US (1809 - 1865)Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Good advice for you and Ms. Dixon
Quote from: Rachael on May 29, 2008, 09:47:49 AM
americans value thier free speach too much, and cry when someone offends them.
Just because you have the right to say something. Doesnt mean you should.
I absolutely agree with that, Rach. It's very good advice. I also very much agree with Claire. Ideas should be thought-out somewhat before they are spoken or written.
Most of your ideas here aren't moderated are they? You seem to enjoy that aspect of American free-speech that we 'value too much.'
N~
As I said earlier, that specific contrast makes me cringe. If one group is making a historical reference, other people have the right to debate it. And though it might make for a swell final exam question:
Compare and contrast the movement for gay rights in the United States with the Civil Rights struggle for African-Americans.
It does not work on a simple one to one comparison. I think she - as an African-American woman (among other things) has an absolute right to point that out.
While she may have been (pick one: silly, ill-advised, out-of-line, wrong, poorly informed...) to write the letter, unless it can be found in some way that is obvious to 12 people that it directly and overtly interfered with her doing her job, she can not be fired (from a public school) for doing so. And, since I'm damn skippy that they ain't gonna want this to go to jury in Toledo, they are going to settle out of court for a nice chunk of change.
And I rarely cry when someone offends me. I doubt that most Americans do. They might well give you some equivalent to the middle finger salute for it, but we tend to otherwise not let our feelings get hurt too bad. It's not a nanny state yet.
Quote from: Nichole on May 29, 2008, 10:51:44 AM
Most of your ideas here aren't moderated are they? You seem to enjoy that aspect of American free-speech that we 'value too much.'
N~
Oh believe me... they are.
Quote from: Rachael on May 29, 2008, 09:47:49 AM
americans value thier free speach too much, and cry when someone offends them.
Waddaya mean, "too much"? Not giving a damn what other people think is a more archetypal American charachteristic than having a thin skin.
Personally, I think Brits value their reputations too much. They don't cry when someone offends them -- they sue! I think the horribly restrictive British defamation laws are nuts. (But hey, it's your country, not mine.)
This issue is concerns Americans, and thus is based on American values, including freedom of speech and religion; British views on freedom of expression aren't germaine.
I rest my case.
R >:D
Quote from: Rachael on May 30, 2008, 12:27:53 PM
I rest my case.
R >:D
On what, dear? That someone else makes the same sort of statement in response to yours that you made above?
That's just mutuality in action. >:D An opinion expressed.
N~