Loading ...Ohio school cans administrator who opposed homosexuality
flockwoodA public university in Ohio supports academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas, as long as the people exchanging views don’t say anything too offensive or unpopular…
By JOHN SEEWER
Associated Press Writer
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — The firing of a college administrator over her criticism of gay rights has sparked a debate about free speech and whether universities have the right to regulate what employees say outside of their jobs.
Crystal Dixon filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court seeking to be reinstated to her University of Toledo job, which she lost after writing in a newspaper column that gay rights can’t be compared to civil rights because homosexuality is a choice.
“I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ’civil rights victims,”’ Dixon wrote in an online edition of the Toledo Free Press on April 18. “Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.”
She also wrote: “There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order.”
Two weeks later, Dixon was fired as the school’s associate vice president for human resources. School officials said her views contradicted university policies, according to the lawsuit.
Though Dixon’s attorneys say other school administrators were not punished for expressing their opinions, the public university defends its actions.
“We have asserted from the beginning that Ms. Dixon was in a position of special sensitivity as associate vice president for human resources and this issue is not about freedom of speech, but about her ability to perform that job given her statements,” university spokesman Larry Burns said in a statement.
Dixon did not mention in the column that she worked at the university, but she did defend the school’s benefits plans and how they apply to gay employees.
In response to the column, hundreds of people wrote letters calling her views disturbing while others were outraged Dixon was punished for speaking her mind. Conservative talk show hosts and members of her church rallied around Dixon after she was fired.
“It comes down to whether you’re speaking as an employee of the university or as a private citizen,” said Brian Rooney, a spokesman for Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which is representing Dixon. “If you’re speaking as a private citizen, your speech is protected.”
The university would have been within its rights to discipline her if she had stated she was a school administrator, Rooney said.
The nonprofit Christian law firm says its mission includes “defending the traditional family and challenging special rights for homosexuals.”
“Where is the so-called free expression of ideas and tolerance that universities so adamantly defend?” said Richard Thompson, president of the law center.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs and William Logie, vice president for human resources.
Jacobs responded to the column by writing his own piece in the weekly newspaper, saying that “her comments do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo.”
December 4th, 2008 at 6:25 am
I would think that since her position is in PR, that she mainly oversee the hiring and firing of employees. I know that sexual preference is not on an application form, neither is religious affiliations, so I am at a loss as to how her personal opinions would affect her job performance. I should think the university would be held accountable for their stand on the matter.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Most of us by now realize that “choice,” “special rights,” and “traditional family” are all politically loaded terms of art used in the culture wars.
In addition to Dixon’s cultural incapacity for even handedly carrying out her job responsibilities, she suffers from a lack of intellectual ability to represent the university in a responsible position.
She should have realized that all comparisons or analogies are imperfect, so to claim that this one is imperfect is merely to state the obvious. The problem lies in what she pointed to to make her case.
The claim that being homosexual is simply a matter of choice–like prefering chocolate to strawberry ice cream, or like choosing boxers to tidy whities–is intellectually indefensible in the 21st century C.E. A somewhat better, but still inadequate, analogy might be to claim that had blacks chosen to “stay in their place” there would have been no real racial problem in society, just like if those gays and lesbians would choose to “stay in their closets” there would be no real social problem there either.
When rights accorded to heterosexuals are denied to homosexuals one has violated a Constitutional guarantee of equality of rights. That is a “civil rights” issue. Only someone who is markedly less than intellectually able would suppose that “civil rights” applied only to members of a certain racial group, even though the “civil rights movement” did primarily concern (in the minds of many) the rights of a certain racial group. The fundamental issue, then and now, has to do with the denial of equal rights to all people under the Constitution of the U.S.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The civil rights laws of the United States and those of most states prohibit discrimination only when the discrimination is based on certain criteria. The usual ones are race, religion, national origin, age, gender, and the handicapped. These are generally referred to as “suspect classifications,” that is, that any distinction made between people based on any of these criteria is suspect from the word go.
Sexual orientation is not included as a suspect classification under Federal law, nor under the laws of most states, including Kentucky. The Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, several years ago, passed a fairness ordinance making sexual orientation a suspect classification within Fayette County. Similar ordinances have also been passed in Louisville and Covington. One was apparently passed in Henderson, a small town in Western Kentucky, then repealed.
Until our anti-discrimination laws fully recognize sexual orientation as a suspect classification, there will be no real progress on this issue, just as there was no real progress on civil rights until the civil rights laws recognized race as a suspect classification. One hopes that enlightened reason will win out here, but progress in these areas is always slow.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Its kinda funny that in the end losing her job was in violation of her rights. I also wonder if she was paid to write that column.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:04 am
AG: I believe that freedom of speech is included in the top ten of the bill of rights.
“Only someone who is markedly less than intellectually able would suppose that “civil rights” applied only to members of a certain racial group, even though the “civil rights movement” did primarily concern (in the minds of many) the rights of a certain racial group.”—Just because someone believes in the validity of scripture does not make them intellectually inept on certain racial groups; you are comparing apples to oranges thereby making you religiously inept. Homosexuality is not confined to a race (other than human which encompasses all races).
“The fundamental issue, then and now, has to do with the denial of equal rights to all people under the Constitution of the U.S.”–It is the homosexual who is violating the right to freedom of speech to Ms. Dixon–why is she not allowed “her views” and be able to say or write as she she fit (without discrimination for being heterosexual) as long as she does no harm or is hate-filled as some of the extreme rt wingers)?
Caleb: Since Ky is a commonwealth, how much does this weigh in on the civil rights laws/suspect classification ordinances?
December 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Peach, what did you mean by:
“It is the homosexual who is violating the right to freedom of speech to Ms. Dixon.”
Is the administration of UToledo comprised entirely of homosexuals? I’m a bit skeptical!
December 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Peach, neither the Jewish scriptures nor the Christian scriptures says anything about homosexuality or homosexuals. At most it discusses in a very few isolated passages a few instances of same-sex relations. Nor is there anything in those scriptures about “God’s divine order” that is relevant to the issue. The concept of homosexuality was a 19th century discovery. Perhaps you had some other set of scriptures in mind.
Just in case you assume, falsely, that the comment in Paul’s letter to the Romans about same-sex relations being unnatural, is about “God’s divine order,” you need to read the rest of Romans. If you did you would find it telling you about God doing what is unnatural too! Are we to assume that God violates “God’s divine order”?
Now we both realize that the scriptures (cited above) do have some things to say about races and about slavery, and about selling one’s children into slavery. They also talk about not eating shell fish, about not touching the skin of pigs, about not wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fabric, etc., etc.. But most of us do not take that stuff seriously–any more. It used to provide “fig leaves” for racism, for sexism, and other senseless attitudes and practices.
Why then should we pick out those isolated passages about same-sex relations–ignore the sense they have in their contexts–and try to elevate them into some kind of divine sanction for hatred of homosexuals? [And spare me the BS about loving the person and hating the sin.]
Certainly no one I have known, or read, has ever suggested or implied that there was some connection between one’s race and being homosexual. It even shows up in other parts of the animal world besides homo sapiens.
Also coming out of left field is the notion that homosexuals are attacking Dixon’s right to freedom of speech. Speaking for myself, I attacked her lousy argument about homosexuality being a matter of choice and as irrelevant to matters of equal rights under the Constitution. I am not a homosexual, and I did not challenge her right to freedom of speech.
I have worked at a couple of large state universities; and I am clearly aware that administrators of such institutions may very well consider what one of their staff/faculty says or writes as relevant to the evaluation their intellectual and/or moral suitability for continuing to be employed in such a responsible position in an institution of higher education.
Perhaps you might find it helpful to think of Dixon as comparable to an employee at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store, who publicly sounds off about all of the outrageously fat people who make up a large part of the customers at the store where she works.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Public universities are funded by state and federal tax dollars, these dollars are collected from working gays and heterosexuals alike. She is a sense was being subdisied by part of they gay community, the action taken was appropriate.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I will say this, her opinion is hers and she has the right to it as long as its not in a public forum, which that column was. Thats my 2 cents.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I’m going to go the opposite direction (I know, big big surprise): Any institution (especially a governmental one) that values free expression, open debate on controversial matters, and the general exchange of ideas is doing itself a great disservice by firing someone for voicing an unpopular opinion (at least in the eyes of the school’s administration) in a public forum.
Add to this the fact that millions of Ohio taxpayers who hold similar opinions as Ms. Dixon also subsidize this university (not to mention the many who attend, work for, and graduated from), and you have a big problem. In supporting her termination, you all are not only disagreeing with what she thinks (or what you read about what she thinks), but are asserting that her beliefs have no place in our nations public discourse, that she should be penalized for expressing them, and that she, and anyone who believes similarly, should be stigmatized by a government agency and have her livelihood threatened.
Wow… so much for tolerance, diversity, open-mindedness, etc. Maybe the university should run a disclaimer (conservative views only permissible if kept quiet) with its posting for her replacement.
The only things that should matter are: did she express this as a private individual (yes) and does she preform her job duties (one assumes). Anything else (where she worships, what she thinks, what her background is, who she loves, etc. etc.) are immaterial. What good is replacing “conservative” restrictions on speech and thought with supposedly “liberal” ones?
December 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I think we are confusing moral rights with legal rights here. We are basing what we believe the Bible says while ignoring what the constituion says. Since its a publicly funded school the constitution trumps. Something is missing here, there isn’t enough information to tell which side of the line this falls on. You can’t bash somebody publicly because of their sexual orientation and not expect to suffer some sort of repercussion while being employeed by a entity that is funded both federally and by state tax dollars. If you think that is fair, step across the line and become a religious extremists.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Um, perplexed, where in the constitution does it justify firing someone for printing a letter to the editor?
And she did not “bash” someone, but instead contributed to the ongoing public discussion about homosexuality. She did so as a private citizen, in response to another article. That seems like speech protected by the first amendment to me.
I think she’ll win her lawsuit precisely because her constitutional rights will trump the secular dogmas of intolerance.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Well, if she was paid to write that article, she will lose. Reveiw how religion has persecuted sects of the population in the past, in a 100 years, thats hat this will be. I’m not saying its right, but we don’t live in a religious run government country. We have a constitution that is all about equal rights. I’m sure some people are deeply offended by what we write on this blog. She is entitled to her opionion but not in a public forum. She is now that she is no longer employeed by a government entity.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am
UK, your comments raise a paradox. I won’t claim to resolve it, but will only name it.
If one truly supports tolerance, then should one endorse messages of intolerance? The school clearly has a strong policy of anti-discrimination. But does this mean it should necessarily tolerate words and deeds that undermine its core principle? Doesn’t that make the policy self-defeating?
Similarly, does a commitment to peace mean that you should always avoid force, or is sometimes force required in the name of peace? Some people believe so strongly in nonviolence that they would refuse to raise a hand against an attack on themselves or anyone else. Other people have crafted arguments that set conditions for a “just war” which they believe to be consistent with a philosophy of peace.
As I’ve said before, no freedom is absolute. Sometimes they infringe on each other and we have to decide how to reconcile them.
December 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Jose, I am not adverse to paradoxical thinking (I guess it comes with being Lutheran).
“But does this mean it should necessarily tolerate words and deeds that undermine its core principle?”
Words are fundamentally different from deeds, and words are what we are concerned with here. Ms. Dixon did not deny someone a promotion because he or she was gay. She did not say, I think being gay is an immoral choice, so I am not going to hire you. She did not say, “speaking as a university employee, homosexuality is wrong.”
All of those actions would have been wrong and she should have been fired for any of them.
Instead, she stated an opinion in a newspaper that homosexuality is not comparable to race, and that it is immoral. She did this as a private citizen. People may find her comments distasteful and wrong, but the solution there is more speech… not having her fired. She did not discriminate against anyone, and her words had nothing to do with her position at the university.
So, the university and anyone else did not need to “endorse” anything she said… it only needs to respect her right to participate in the public discussion in her own time. Permitting divergent views is not an endorsement of any of them.
In short, the university betrayed its commitment to tolerance in firing her.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am
UK, I beleive thats the same principals that derailed Dr. Holsinger.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Freedom of expression, both oral and written, from governmental prior restraint, except as such expression constitutes libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, or criminal conduct such as bribery, perjury, or incitement to riot.
Encarta Encyclopedia
UKLutheran: Thanks for putting my words more eloquently. Our thought are the same and it boils down to the justification of dismissing an employee for expressing her beliefs, on or off the job. Freedom of speech in one’s religious beliefs were what was original in the consideration of the amendment to begin with. I take serious offense when my rights are violated, and so should any American–this is what the majority of our fathers have fought for.
Jose: please continue reading down the article to the last paragraph: firm says its mission includes “defending the traditional family and challenging special rights for homosexuals.”
“Where is the so-called free expression of ideas and tolerance that universities so adamantly defend?” said Richard Thompson, president of the law center.
I would also like to add that I am sure this lady did not develop these viewpoints yesterday, so how has her job performance been in the past?
– “As I’ve said before, no freedom is absolute. Sometimes they infringe on each other and we have to decide how to reconcile them.” –Exactly what would you consider fair punishment for this lady in connection of her beliefs and job discription. Would past performance be justification of consideration of her dismissal?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Not you too, Peach! I did not say that Ms. Dixon should be punished or dismissed, and I’m not going to do so now. What I did say, right at the start, was this:
“Nor am I vouching for the legality of the university’s policies or approving its action against Ms. Dixon. Nor am I suggesting in any way that freedom of conscience should be abridged.”
As for my observation that no freedom is absolute, thank you for citing a few examples of limitations which are both reasonable and legal. One also might recall the famous observation by Supreme Court Justice Holmes, who wrote for the court:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
In a different thread our friend UKLutheran said:
“I say the right to free, peace[ful] demonstration and debate is as close to an absolute as we can come.”
And I can agree with that also. UK and I are probably quibbling over words. In my strictly technical mind, any limitation whatsoever means that the freedom is not absolute.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Jose: in another thread you stated: ” UK, please. While I never– NEVER– advocated violence or supported mob actions, I did say this in the other thread:
“It should be understood that violent and defamatory actions are not acceptable…”
I have a healthy respect for the rule of law, just as I support the freedom to voice one’s opinions.”
—-so if you support the freedom to voice one’s opinions then why are you backing the dismissal of Ms. Dixon?
““The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”——-well this would incite a riot, so therefore, it is not classified as freedom of speech.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Jose: :you said: “If one truly supports tolerance, then should one endorse messages of intolerance? The school clearly has a strong policy of anti-discrimination. But does this mean it should necessarily tolerate words and deeds that undermine its core principle? Doesn’t that make the policy self-defeating?”
—this paradox that you proposed does suggest that you believe in the universities action and back it–but then I would not want to put words into or about your mouth–so please clarify just what you believe they should have done with her as I ask earlier.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
AG: the term homosexuality was coined in the nineteenth century. Read Leviticus 20:13 and explain what that means here are some links: http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/lev.txt
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&version=9
William Tyndale was executed/burned at the stake for his translation in 1536. At best his version of scripture has been around for 472 years. Please feel free to interpret his thoughts of man lying with man as he would a woman in today’s terminology.
I am currently reading Romans (thankyou) I especially like Romans 2:11-12,and 8:35.