Comments on: Fired anti-gay university official sues school

By: drewski

drewski — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:57:27 +0000

Dixon indicated a fundamental disagreement with university policy. She wasn’t just management, she was senior management. Whether she dealt with students or employees, she made very clear that she held university policy in contempt. that policy statement is part of a contract: You tell me you won’t do x, then you do x, I can sue you and win. It doesn’t matter that state law doesn’t recognize those rights; it matters that the entity said those rights exist. If they change university policy tomorrow, then there’s no protection against antigay discrimination. Her words put the University itself on the spot. Or look at it another way: If you’ve ever worked for a government agency, you know how hard it can be to fire somebody, even if they’re management and not covered by union contract or civil-service laws.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:23:44 +0000

Quoting president Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, which represent Ms. Dixon in this lawsuit:

“Crystal Dixon has a constitutional right to PRIVATELY express her personal opinions…”

(The emphasis on ‘privately’ being mine of course)

This was not a private statement that she made. These were statements written specifically for publication. As such, their argument would fail on its face.

There is plenty of precedent for employers having the power to terminate the employment of persons in sensitive positions for conduct which by association damages the reputation of the employer.

This one is a no-brainer. She doesn’t have a leg to stand on. She made a choice between her convictions and her job when wrote the article. The employer has no obligation whatsoever to accommodate that choice.

By: rantboy

rantboy — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:15:06 +0000

I’m getting a little tired of the “I cannot choose not to be a black woman” argument, too. As the Wayans brothers demonstrated so admirably in White Chicks, race and gender ARE purely a matter of choice in these days of fabulous prosthetic make-up. Ms Dixon could, if she so chose, live perfectly successfully as a white male. Sure, it would involve uncomfortable posturing whenever she was in public, and constant denial of her true self, but she seems to feel that GLBT people can live like that forever and experience the same quality of life as everyone else, so perhaps she should put her money where her mouth is…

By: Johannes

Johannes — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:49:01 +0000

Ms. Dixon’s reasoning could easily be turned against her beliefs: if discrimation against gays is okay because homosexuality is “a matter of choice” (which I don’t believe), than the same argument could be made much more easily to support discrimination on the basis of religion, which quite obviously is a matter of choice.

By: Melissa G

Melissa G — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:34:17 +0000

I can understand why this woman may think her 1dt amendment rights were violated even if they weren’t.

Analogy: As a citizen, I have a right to state that our military should nuke bomb some of these Middle Eastern Countries that are harboring terrorists.

A military officer on the other hand, does not have a 1st Amendment right to write the same article.

Imagine if the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested in the New York Times or Washington Post Op Ed sections that our military should nuke Pakistan, what the consequences would be for our nation.

The same concept applies to this woman who is the chief Human Resources or hiring executive for this college.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:17:45 +0000

Wow. Being a homosexual college student, I would be very uncomfortable with such an associate vice president. Even if the person did not directly interact with students. Ans how could she not know her position would reflect on the university? I love freedom of speech and the like, but everything has consequences. An associate vice president is a public official. Anything she says while working in this job is a reflection on the university. The university has a right to protect itself.