Anti-Gay Writing Gets University Official Fired

[WillParkinson]

(Toledo, Ohio) The University of Toledo has fired a senior administrator who penned a column for a local publication attacking LGBT civil rights.

The op-ed article for the Toledo Free Press was titled "Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective." In it Crystal Dixon, the university's associate vice president for human resources, wrote that homosexuality is a matter of choice and that it has consequences.

"I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman," Dixon wrote in the article.

"Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and friends of Ex-Gays) and Exodus International, just to name a few."

The article appeared in the Free Press as a rebuttal to an editorial, "Gay rights and wrongs," written by editor-in-chief Michael Miller which said Ohio lags in LGBT civil rights.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/05/051308tol.htm

Not sure how I feel about this one. Unless she used her position or the name of the school in the writing she is entitled to freedom of speech, no matter how hateful and ignorant.

[joeybee12]

1. Yeah, I agree...

...free speech is free speech, no matter how repugnant.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Her department is supposed to enforce anti-discrimination policies

Would it have been any different if she had denounced darker skin? People of a different religion (which is far more of a lifestyle choice that sexual orientation)? American residents who do not speak English?

The University of Toledo is a state-run school with an explicit policy banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Her job was to enforce those policies. She not only failed to do this, she actively violated those policies.

Her removal is fully justified.

[WillParkinson]

4. I'm still not convinced.

While her personal belief is what was stated, there's no saying for sure that it influenced her decisions on pursuing discrimination against gays.

And if it was written on her own time it still is somewhat of a free speech issue.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Influenced or not, it created the appearance of impropriety

If the vice-president of human resources, responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination policies, comes off as a bigot, how does that reflect on the company (or in this case, the university and the state that runs it)? Whether or not it actually affected how she did her job is irrelevant; the fact remains that had she not been put on leave (she has apparently not been fired), it would have given the appearance that the school and the state see nothing wrong in her comments.

Tell me: Would you have confidence in a bank whose chief lending officer wrote about how money laundering and bank fraud were no big deal?

[WillParkinson]

29. You are correct...

I suppose people would always wonder, "Was I fired because..."?

I hadn't considered that and the problems it would cause the university.

[Hobarticus]

7. Define "free speech"

How exactly has the gov't restricted her right to free speech, here?

You have no rights with your employer to free speech. Well, you do, but if you live in a state like mine, they also have the freedom to kick you to the curb.

[Jamastiene]

40. Their personal beliefs DO get in the way. Trust me.

They can not and do not separate their personal beliefs from their jobs. I know. I met up with a mental health counselor after mental health counselor at our local county health department who always said the same thing, "Ya gotta get right with God" and all that bullshit. They cannot and do not separate their personal beliefs from their jobs.

That woman should not be in that position. There are plenty of other jobs she could go get that wouldn't stand in the way of justice for any gay person suffering from discrimination. With her in that position, they'd hear nothing but bullshit from her. They are better off without her and she is better off away from that position.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. It's not free when you state you intend to discriminate.

[saltpoint]

2. Since she worked at a University, and since it likely has a library,

I'm wondering if she might have popped in for a little research.

If that suggestion isn't too traditional.

The profs at that school would likely have asked the same question of lazy students had they failed to research points for their papers.

Shame on Ms. Dixon.

[Hobarticus]

6. U-Toledo has a very good point...

She was an associate VP of human resources. HUMAN RESOURCES. Her job may involve dealing hands-on with LGBT personnel and potential hires.

Could she guarantee that her now very public opinion wouldn't figure in personnel decisions? If I were a university lawyer, I'd be hoping and praying that no one took us to court on the basis that they were denied a job, because someone in her position very publicly and unashamedly disapproves of LGBTs.

They did offer her another position, albeit lesser paying, before she was suspended.

At the end of the day, what she did was pretty goddamned dumb. It's not like she was VP of Not Dealing With Anything That Might Get U-Toledo Sued.

This isn't a violation of her freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that your gov't can't restrict your right to speech, it says nothing about your employer can't shitcan you for being stupid and potentially causing them trouble because of what you said. Go ask Imus about that.

[moose65]

8. Well, that's true

I think she was monumentally stupid. Sometimes I don't like everything that my employer does, but I don't think I'll be writing any editorials about it for the local paper.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[MNBrewer]

10. Heterosexuality is a choice, then too.

When did you choose to be heterosexual?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNBrewer]

13. And I chose what to have for dinner last night.

What's your point?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SacredCow]

23. Where is the EVIDENCE for autism?

No specific gene or defect has been discovered. Or do you believe that autistic children are making a "lifestyle choice?"

[LostinVA]

25. Oh brother -- once again, when did you choose to become straight?

[Zuiderelle]

27. No, they are losing their jobs for discriminating, regardless of whether they believe it's a choice

Why does it matter if it's a choice? So, I choose the person I love and that person is a woman. Why the hell would that make me less worthy of equal rights than a woman who chooses a man? Seriously.

It is not a choice, anyway, evidence or not. Those who do make actual choices are bisexual and deserve the same rights as all of us.

[LostinVA]

24. When did you choose to become straight?

As a tattooed lesbian, I can honestly say your post is ridiculous.

[mitchtv]

31. beyond ridiculous

insulting& creepy "The writer of this article
stepped out on a limb by calling homosexuality a choice. It
is just that until someone PROVES it is not a choice

NO DEAR it is not just that , How very, very ignorant. 3 posts , no profile ?

[Creideiki]

14. Here's what the APA says:

From: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

---------------------------------

Now, we come to another thing to consider--should we protect people against discrimination on traits that they have chosen for themselves (assuming that the anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-research types are correct)? We already protect people against discrimination based on religion--that's a choice. We allow for freedom of association--that's a choice.

So is choice really the issue or is it that this makes people feel ooky? Because if it's okay to discriminate against people because they make me feel ooky, then I'd like to see anyone willing to eat eggplant fired. Eating eggplant is clearly a choice, and when I see someone eat eggplant, my gag reflex immediately kicks in. I also know people that used to eat eggplant that stopped, so clearly I've got legal basis for this. Join PFOXE--Parents and Friends of eX-eggplant Eaters!

[Zuiderelle]

15. I doesn't even matter if it's a choice, it's discriminatory. She is saying we shouldn't have equal

rights because we choose to be gay. As wrong as she is about our choosing to be gay, she is even more wrong to say that THAT, even if it were true, could be a reason for us to not have civil equality.

I mean, what part of "Non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" does she not understand?

[Dogtown]

16. That's *not* the issue, longshore.

You're trying to argue in favor of her bias, because it supports your views.
"I don't hate people who call themselves gay"; bet you hate the sin & not the sinner, neh?


The issue *is* whether an employee heading up HR has the right to weigh in on a matter that she might have to review impatially. Her personal feelings seem to be clearly in contradiction to the mandate of her profession.

This is also not a matter of "free speech", that only applies to government sanctions.

I don't want her to work in that field, and I hope you don't either.

[SacredCow]

18. What's that horrid smell????

Oh... Dead troll. Cleanup in GLBT....

[mitchtv]

30. I chose to be strate

It didn't work

[TechBear_Seattle]

Gotta love these single digit posters

They sign up, say something patently ridiculous, and we never hear from them again.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zuiderelle]

11. Since they have an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation...

they were fully justified and correct to fire her. How could it be labeled as free speech, when she is actually violating the very policy that it is her express duty to enforce?

[SacredCow]

17. I heard Oxycontin-Boy wail about this on the way to work this morning....

Right off, it offends the hell out of me when African-Americans use this arguement... "I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman." And just what the frak makes you an expert on how it feels to be gay?!?!? It's like listening to a Lion describe the motives of being and living life as a kangaroo! I promise you that if I made a blanket statement in a LTTE that "Daily, x number of African Americans choose not to be members of gangs," I would be crucified for assuming to understand the plight of inner-city people. But the difference is that I would never assume to speak for a group to which I don't belong.

Now should she have been fired? My heart says yes (especially in the light of her position in human freakin' resources fer cryin' out loud!!!), but my mind is on the fence. She certainly has her right to her opinion, and to express her opinion in a public forum. But I wouldn't be shocked if in her contract there's a statement that she could not advertise her political views. A good friend of mine is in a similar position, and he can't even have a political bumper sticker on his car (which is used for work purposes- if it wasn't I think they couldn't stop him). If it was her first time, maybe a warning would have been a better start.

[Zuiderelle]

19. She was in a hiring position at the University. They offered her a different position.

It makes complete sense to me that they would not want someone who is publicly discriminatory towards a group of people that are specifically protected in their anti-discrimination policy. How could they possibly trust her to hire anyone fairly? In the end, I think you're right, technically, and I assume (and hope) that the University does have a contract that explicitly forbids publicly talking about political views. GLBT rights couldn't be more political these days. It's not just an opinion. It's a political opinion that directly contradicts her duties to the University.

[SacredCow]

21. If they offered a different position, then I'm feeling better about her dismissal...

THAT crucial piece of info doesn't seem to crop up in much of the coverage.

[Zuiderelle]

22. Oh wait, I'm wrong. I think I mixed that up with a different story. She was fired.

The university initially placed Dixon on administrative leave and then held a disciplinary meeting with her. She was officially terminated from her $134,383 job on Monday.

"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," said the letter of termination, obtained by the Toledo Blade newspaper.

The letter also said that her views made it impossible for her to continue as an administrator in charge of personnel.

[SacredCow]

26. Regardless....

I've very little doubt that there was some clause in her contract about making potentially inflammatory public statements. Bottom line- she (likely) stupidly breached her contract, and they would be completely within their rights to dismiss her.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Tyler Durden]

34. Homosexuality and Mysogyny! The last 2 "acceptable" prejudices??

FUCK homophobes. FUCK mysogynists.

EQUAL RIGHTS AND SOLIDARITY!

[lightningandsnow]

35. Oh, ableism is pretty "acceptable" too.

And a lot of more "subtle" racism is considered acceptable.

Bigotry sucks. All of it.

[MNBrewer]

36. don't forget anti-Atheism

That's pretty common, AND acceptable

[saltpoint]

37. Responding from another angle, it might be instructive for the

students at this university in Ohio to hear Ms. Dixon debate Gore Vidal on this subject at a mutually convenient time.

Like maybe the third week after classes begin for the Fall term.

We'll see how many students walk out persuaded that Ms. Dixon knows what the hell she's talking about.

[MNBrewer]

38. Oh MAN

I wouldn't wanna put my oratory up against Gore Vidal's for anything!! Even if we agreed, he'd shred me.

[saltpoint]

39. Hi, MNBrewer. Agree. I have listened to Vidal in a debate or two

and I thought to myself, "Good god, I hope I am never on this man's bad side."

He is extremely bright and quick, quick on his feet, too.

[Jamastiene]

41. Her free speech wasn't violated at all.

She said her piece. Now, it's time they get someone in the job who can treat GLBT with some damn respect instead of griping and complaining about us. She can go find another job and keep spewing her filth. I wonder when the truth starts really coming out how many gay people she has shortchanged. That's the real story here to me. You can bet there are going to be some who have suffered because of her inability to retain her composure on this issue. She obviously has serious issues with us.

[insleeforprez]

42. I don't believe she should be fired for this

The university is fine if it wants to make it clear that their beliefs are different than hers, but it does not accomplish anything to merely censor the opposition. We need to ENGAGE the opposition in rational debate, for that is the only way we can truly (and fairly) change minds.