Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Free Speech Revisited
The reaction to Ms. Dixon’s column and her subsequent firing from the University of Toledo made me think that more explanation was necessary. The fact is that her actions, from a moral and legal standpoint, are permissible and did not warrant dismissal.
This has been the case since the late 60s (how outdated some of us are in our political views). In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) the Supreme Court found that a teacher who criticized the board’s decision to raise school fees in a newspaper column could not be legally fired.
The test: are they speaking on issues of public importance? If so, then the court must balance the interests of the employer and the free speech interests of the individual. As long as the employee is not impeding the function (not intentions or wishes) of the employer, then their free speech is permitted. Their case is strengthened when the individual is speaking as a private citizen.
Dixon was speaking on a matter of public concern and was speaking as a private citizen (she didn’ t even say she worked for the University).
What’s important here is that legally, when you curtail the speech of someone with whom you don’t agree, you set a precedent for curtailing speech that supports minority groups. If Dixon can’t speak out about gay marriage, then Pickering can’t argue that kids shouldn’t have to pay more for school and a catholic school teacher can’t argue that creationism shouldn’t be taught in her classroom.
We depend on these whistle blowers for our side of the struggle, too. That means that we depend on a robust free speech guarantee for everyone. It is easy to support free speech when you agree with the speaker. It takes courage to support free speech even when the speaker is attacking the issue you care most about.
As a former resident of the US, I also used to believe that free speech was the ‘be all and end all’ of civil rights. Having now lived in Australia for many years, a country with sensible anti-vilification laws, I can assure you that a country can still believe in and value free speech, but curtail hatred. Unlike America, where the rule appears to be all rights and no responsibilities, free speeech in Australia comes with responsibilities – the responsibility to respect others and to refrain from vilifying others on the basis of a number of factors – much like anti-discrimination law. In all other areas of life we are taught that actions have consequences, but for some strange reason, the US courts and politicians and civil liberatarians have created a false ‘bubble’ in which this simple cause and effect does not exist. Under US law you can say anything you want and suffer NO consequences. Sure, let’s allow anyone to say whatever they like – but they should be prepared to pay the price when it infringes on the rights of others to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.
Dave,
Please be careful to read my commentary on the subject before you accuse me of getting my facts wrong. In the first column I wrote, “If the college could prove that Dixon somehow discriminated against employees or students, it would be one thing. And, if over time they could prove that her public comments interfered with her ability to perform her job because students and staff would not or could not work with her, again, there might be an argument for her firing.” (here is the link to the original column for your reference: http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-homophobic-administrator-fired-from-college/)
Without that proof, and none has been offered, this IS a free speech issue. And you should know that employees do not have a legal obligation to toe the company line outside of their professional lives. It’s actually a right enshrined in the Constitution. I encourage you to keep reading and commenting, but be more accurate in your accusations.
Best
Emma
I wish columnists (or bloggers? whatever you are) on this site could get the facts right. Not just you Ms. Ruby-Sachs, but this time it is you. This is not a free speach case. If you had remembered the whole story (it was reported on this site so you have the references) her speach indicated she could not carry out the stated goals of her employer. She made it very clear the very rights she enforces as an HR professional and the very policy she enforces when hiring someone who will then enjoy those rights are not something she agrees with. She said, basically “gays choose so don’t deserve and “special rights” and in my job I won’t grant them”. (I added that last part but I read her piece and the editorial response and that was what she was implying).
I mean, really, she wrote the piece in advocacy against the very policies her employer put forth in the competitive marketplace.
My company makes a product that at times has seen controversy in the marketplace. If I wrote a piece in the local paper supporting that controversy against the policy of my company and damaging our product’s market potential, I would be fired, and for good reason.
Employees tow the company line. If they don’t like it they can work elsewhere.
She will probably go live off her hateful church with bigoted parishoners giving more money so she can maintain her lifestyle.
Now that she’s fired, can we all please stop with the free speach crap and start working to end religion? That will solve all of society’s problems.
drewski, and it’s exactly why I’m not a supporter of ENDA. In fact, I would prefer to have the other “protected” removed from the special rights that they receive.
I fully support the University of Toledo speaking out so forcefully in demonstrating their principles.
When people are finally held accountable for their actions we will be in a better place. Do Unto Others as You Would Have Others Do Unto You. Why is that such a difficult concept?
Victoria…”freedom” of speech is also the responsibility to own your words and the consequences of them. Ms Dixon feels free to state her anti-gay prejudice, then somehow feels aggrieved that stating her prejudice in a newspaper could cost her her job. Her position did not offer civil-service protection of the traditional sort. Her position was in a state where employment is at the will of the employer. Her position was one where a statement of personal prejudice would allow a subordinate employee to file complaint through the grievance system, for Ms Dixon’s direct violation of university policy.
Ms Dixon has already shown herself to be the worst stereotype of the affirmative-action hire. She wears her blackness like the ultimate badge of victimhood, not like a personal trait which has no inherent bearing on an individual’s worth. She seeks to be free to express her prejudice, where a white person doing the same would be fired without any further question. A white MAN who did the same would not only be fired, but would likely become the local media target of a “What the hell was he thinking?” type of story. Now, if Ms Dixon finds herself so hard done by, she might to consider that she wrote a column for a newspaper; she was not in a confessional or speaking in a legally-protected setting. She demonstrates a vulgar arrogance, a presumption that none could possibly be as victimized as her ilk, but she seeks to do to others THE SAME THING that made her “oppressed.” Finally, she is clueless to the fact that it looks really really bad to be in HR and make a public expression of one’s bigotry. That alone justifies her firing. Considering the $7 billion hole in Ohio’s next budget, getting rid of this affirmative-action stereotype is an outstanding display of prudence by the University of Toledo.
Trace, why do some seem to have such a hard time with the obvious?
Ok Ruby, You’re courageous! However, are you sure free speach is the issue? Dr. Jacobs has a responsibility to promote a diverse envirnoment where people are hired for their abilities and what they can bring to the table. Ms. Dixon was entrusted to bring just those types of people to UT. UT is a public institution of higher learning and her position holds her to a higher standard. If she is so stunted in her own personal development as to still believe one’s sexual orientation is as simple as a personal choice then I’m going to show a little courage too and say this; Dr. Jacobs did UT a great service. I believe Ms. Dixon had reached her level of incompetence and her comments proved it! It’s 2008 and time for change. What better place to start than at institutions of higher learning where the young minds of this country are being developed. Ms. Dixon made obvious she lacked the intellectual ability to grasp even a basic understanding of the human condition. A person in her position should as a minimum know when to keep her personal beliefs just that! I also would like to remind you of something from 1968. There was written then a humorous little book entitled “The Peter Principle”. I find Ms. Dixon is further proof of the principle’s validity.
drewski, is it not odd that we know more about employment law in the state of Ohio that Ms. Ruby-Sachs? You know, Ms. Ruby-Sachs is not only someone that blogs for 365gay but professes to be an attorney?
Interesting…..
I fully agree with Ms. Ruby-Sachs strong analysis. One of the ugliest aspects of the left is the tendency towards censorship of controversial views.
I run afoul of this frequently because my criticism of religion and culture (usually pointing out how violent, misogynistic or homophobic they are) is too “disrespectful,” etc. for some spineless, PC pseudo-progressives.
No one should be fired ever from a public job for private remarks, no matter how hateful unless they are openly advocating violence.
Trace is right–Ohio’s an at-will state. Sometimes people here confuse that to mean right-to-work, which is a different creature, but at-will means you can be fired for damn near any reason. Moreover, she wasn’t covered by a union contract, and management positions in Ohio government (including universities) are very often at the pleasure of the governor, the agency head, or the president of the university. It doesn’t matter that Ms Dixon didn’t reveal where she worked; it matters that her stated position was a violation of University of Toledo policy and its mission statement. She doesn’t get a pass because she’s black and offended–the offense she caused was a legitimate reason for termination. She was head of HR, correct? That means any gay or gay-friendly University employee could take her OFF-WORK comments and reasonably assume that she would act on her personal feelings in the workplace. Here’s a simple test: If I’m white and I make a statement outside of work that blacks are never discriminated against, and that blacks get hired just because they’ll sue if not hired, would it be appropriate to be in a position to hire and fire staff? No it wouldn’t–because I’d expressed an opinion directly opposed to my employer’s stated policies. It doesn’t matter if I followed through on my bias; I’ve made it public, and my employer would have legitimate reason to question my appropriateness for the job. Now, if Ms Dixon happened to work anywhere besides Human Resources, it might be different, but her bias was squarely incompatible with her position. She was the one who made her prejudice a public matter, and she did nothing to refute any suspicion that she would act on it.
Once Again:
Be careful or you will become the very thing you fight against.
She is a homophobic douche…ergo, she can go screw herself. Loard knows that’s the only way she can get screwed…
You still don’t get it Ruby do you……1, she wants UNCHALLENGED “free” speech, 2, she was the VP in the Human Resource Department of a State University. How many lawsuits do you think would have to fight every time a gay or lesbian was NOT hired by the university ??? You want free speech WITHOUT consequensess .. well ain’t gonna happen. University of Toledo would rather fight ONE lawsuit against than have EVERY hiring come under question. Do you REALLY think she can keep her “personal religious” view out of when she does her hiring??? Maybe she can go to work for Liberty University where she would be more welcome. If you can’t understand that you are sadder than I thought you were.
Ohio is a Work at Will State. Basically, you can be terminated for any or no reason what so ever. You may also terminate your employment at will.
I used to believe in free speech, until I thought about it more and realized that despite all the wonderful claims, there simply is no such thing (both in the US and Canada). Truly free speech would mean no copyright or trademark, no obscenity laws, no libel or slander laws, no laws protecting your private information, no hate crimes laws, etc. We limit speech everywhere. So, acknowledging that reality, what kinds of speech should we limit, and whose speech should we limit? When someone is in a position of power over others who trust them to be unbiased, they should not be able to promote bias against those they are required to serve. It’s that simple.
Why the hell are you more worried about the free speech rights of homophobic bigots than you are about her victims?
Hate speech is nothing more than slander and libel on a larger more destructive scale. For instance,, if I said “Emma Ruby-Sachs eats kittens while sodomizing five year olds on sunday morning after spending all night smuggling illegal Mexican prostitutes in for guns” you could sue the living hell out of me for defamation of character. However, if I said “homosexuality is a choice and gay people are all child molesters” that would be “free speech”. Instead of harming one person, I would be harming the reputations of an entire class of citizen. What this evil b*tch in this college said was extremely damaging. It perhaps showed her bias, maybe the college in question after this article was released found evidence of legitimate discrimination on her behalf. Yes these things do happen.
Being an employee in the capacity of human resources and admissions means that you are by extension a spokesperson for the school. If she had made a statement about Jews, blacks or Muslims she would likewise have been fired. But suddenly because she mentions gays, we gay and lesbian people are supposed to endorse her right to slander, libel and defame us? NO. As far as I am concerned, she got what she deserved. More information will likewise come out. If she feels free enough to discuss her own prejudices and biases in public, it stands to reason that she has actively been involved in discriminating against students, faculty and staff.
So pull your head out of your ass and focus on issues effecting us, not our enemies. If gay people would focus more on ways to advance our cause instead of issues like this one, we’d have marriage equality and legal equality in all 50 states by now. Stop wasting our time.