Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: Free Speech Revisited

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:22:48 +0000

Emma, when you join a company you agree to uphold its values. I actually had to sign a piece of paper..read my post again for clarification. You CAN and in some cases SHOULD be fired for speaking out against your company’s values. I’ve seen it happen here. It has nothing to do with free speach.

She is free to speak..and to deal with the consequences.

I’ll remind you the school did not stifle her speach, which as you say is protected in the constitution. It simply fired her, she is still free to speak.

You are correct and I apologize for it…I guess you didn’t get your facts wrong, it was in fact your opinion that was wrong. You said the school needed to see one of two things that it didn’t see before firing her.

Wrong. The piece itself was grounds enough, and it has nothing to do with free speach.

I’ll say it one more time because this is very important: When you join a company, you agree to uphold its values. She did not. Nothing to do with free speach, she exercised that right and is now dealing with it.

Even worse, she didn’t just go against their values, she basically said “I can’t do my duties because I don’t believe gays are really gay, they choose a lifestyle.” Remember, her job was to hire people fairly.

So, sorry, you didn’t get your facts wrong. It was your opinion that was wrong. Come work in the corporate world and you’ll learn real fast how speach can get you fired. I’ve seen it happen and there was no case to be made with a lawyer about free speach.

And you didn’t address my initial comment. I see way too much cavalier “reporting” on this site for my tastes. I could just stop reading, but then I wouldn’t be having this healthy exchange.

You are a corporation yourselves. Quality matters. Get it right. Maybe you did with this one, look at the great conversation it has spurred.

By: TANK

TANK — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:50:44 +0000

So is ruby sachs a constitutional lawyer or professor of con law? If not, did she consult one before speaking so authoritatively on the meaning and application of the 1st amendment? There are limitations to free speech… But we need to know what it is first, right? Ya know, before writing an opinion about what it means and its application…good to know these things, or to know something about anything that we’re writing about. Think so?

By: John of Sydney

John of Sydney — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:15:20 +0000

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’.

By: Emma Ruby-Sachs

Emma Ruby-Sachs — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:10:22 +0000

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

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:54:38 +0000

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.

By: Trace

Trace — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:29:08 +0000

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?

By: drewski

drewski — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:01:34 +0000

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?

By: David

David — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:13:56 +0000

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.

By: Trace

Trace — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:25:48 +0000

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…..

By: Victoria

Victoria — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:53:05 +0000

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.