University of Toledo official fired over column

The University of Toledo confirmed yesterday that an administrator who wrote a column critical of gay rights for a local publication has been fired.

[dante2810]

I fully support free speech right and her right to say stuff like she did. The problem here is her position. She was part of the Human Resources Dept, who deals with ALL people. How can any GLBT students or faculty have any confidence in dealing with her and how can the school have confidence in her treating them fairly when she has so blatantly made her beliefs clear.

Put in perspective: HR director doesn't like gays. Police officer doesn't like African Americans. Judge doesn't like Hispanics. Doctor has issues with women..... see the point?

If you do not like a segment of society, do not accept a position of authority where you will be working with them and making decision on their behalf. You undermine your own abilities and the reputation of your employers.

The University had a judgment call to make and they had to cut loose ONE person for the benefit of a larger group.

[KirkW]

I agree the her right to speak is guaranteed and she should feel free to exercise those rights. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences.

If you are in a position of some note and speak your mind on a controversal subject or take an unpopular position, you should expect that someone may take issue with your comments or that you may put your position at risk.

Here was a smart lady with no common sense and she stuck her foot in it and paid the price.

Instant Karma

[1noteasilyfooled]

KirkW wrote:

Here was a smart lady with no common sense and she stuck her foot in it and paid the price.
Instant Karma

Agreed!

[aRodeojock]

Amen, Kirk!

I absolutely believe that she has the full ability to express her First Amendment Rights to free speech and her lifestyle choice of being a Xian.

BUT, her now publicly expressed views on homosexuality and the LGBT community which she serves completely contradicts the duties of the position she held. I hope that she does file a law suit and when she loses, she's required to pay for the University of Toledo's legal expenses.

[OkieDarren]

dante2810 wrote:

I fully support free speech right and her right to say stuff like she did. The problem here is her position. She was part of the Human Resources Dept, who deals with ALL people. How can any GLBT students or faculty have any confidence in dealing with her and how can the school have confidence in her treating them fairly when she has so blatantly made her beliefs clear.
Put in perspective: HR director doesn't like gays. Police officer doesn't like African Americans. Judge doesn't like Hispanics. Doctor has issues with women..... see the point?
If you do not like a segment of society, do not accept a position of authority where you will be working with them and making decision on their behalf. You undermine your own abilities and the reputation of your employers.
The University had a judgment call to make and they had to cut loose ONE person for the benefit of a larger group.

I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but you gave the reasons this was the right decision far better than I possibly could have. I've said all along it was right, tried to argue the point, and couldn't quite get it all to fit into place properly, this was really excellent.

[Will]

dante2810 wrote:

I fully support free speech right and her right to say stuff like she did. The problem here is her position. She was part of the Human Resources Dept, who deals with ALL people. How can any GLBT students or faculty have any confidence in dealing with her and how can the school have confidence in her treating them fairly when she has so blatantly made her beliefs clear.
Put in perspective: HR director doesn't like gays. Police officer doesn't like African Americans. Judge doesn't like Hispanics. Doctor has issues with women..... see the point?
If you do not like a segment of society, do not accept a position of authority where you will be working with them and making decision on their behalf. You undermine your own abilities and the reputation of your employers.
The University had a judgment call to make and they had to cut loose ONE person for the benefit of a larger group.

Crystal Dixon was NOT the "HR Director", she was associate VP of human resources -- a mid-level management position at best.
It's probably the case that her position was NOT a "policymaker" position -- mid-level managers seldom do make policy. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the original Toledo Free Press (TFP) editorial to which Ms. Dixon replied noted that the domestic partnership (DP)benefits policy, which exists at University of Toledo's (UT) main campus where Dixon worked, was put into place by a prior UT president, not by a mid-level manager.

Not only does this fact support the conclusion that Ms. Dixon likely was not a policymaker, it also supports another conclusion: since the DP policy itself likely wouldn't have come into existence unless there were homosexual employees to take advantage of it, either Ms. Dixon probably had no authority to hire (mid-level managers don't usually have authority to hire and fire in such a bureaucracy) OR she probably hired some homosexual employees while she worked at the UT main campus. Consequently, whether the homosexual employees got there IN SPITE OF HER or BECAUSE OF HER, they STILL got there, so Ms. Dixon's personal opinions likely had NO EFFECT on her job performance.

But above all, Ms. Dixon's personal opinion was NOT that she "[did] not like a segment of society" -- THAT is just the tag that gay advocates put on anybody who they think is not politically-correct enough.

[dante2810]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Consequently, whether the homosexual employees got there IN SPITE OF HER or BECAUSE OF HER, they STILL got there, so Ms. Dixon's personal opinions likely had NO EFFECT on her job performance.

Again. My first post made the point that she is in a position of title, VICE PRESIDENT of Human Resources, which by name itself makes her higher up that just a "mid-level" management position. If that is not the case, the title itself would be misleading to the average person. Her TITLE thus give the appearance of authority.
Again, go to my example of other figures in so called "mid-level" positions like you typical police officer, your misdemeanor court judge or even just a teacher. What they say REFLECTS on the whole of their employer. Simple fact.
Ask any law enforcement, any person who's title in a company gives the image of leadership and they will tell you that their actions DO reflect on those they work for. It is a natural result of being given responsibility.

Did you read her letter? Here is the link.
http://www.lightingthefuse.com/...
She made a good comment about the benefits disparity (which is the topic she was responding to from a previous letter) and THAT should have sufficed. By mixing in her personal views, she crossed a line. A simple statement of fact was lost in a personal expression that had NO VALID REASON to be placed in the response to University Policy. Read Her Letter.

Now add to that the fact that the University gave her an opportunity to move past this:

"She has been fired," said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal-defense group which is representing Dixon.

Rooney told Cybercast News Service that the university had offered Dixon "another position, in a different part of the university, not in human resources" because she had argued in her editorial that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex and should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.

"She said no, that's when she was fired," Rooney said. "We are going to do everything we can within the law to try to show that the firing was improper and potentially illegal."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp...

...removing her from a position of authority and responsibility (again, regardless of her duties, the title implies that she deals with students and faculty) but still giving her a chance to continue with the University. She refused. And the University acted in a way they felt was best for their reputation.
Remember, kids actions reflect on parents, employees actions reflect on employers and government officials actions reflect on government. Fair? No, but it is reality.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Crystal Dixon was NOT the "HR Director", she was associate VP of human resources -- a mid-level management position at best.
It's probably the case that her position was NOT a "policymaker" position -- mid-level managers seldom do make policy. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the original Toledo Free Press (TFP) editorial to which Ms. Dixon replied noted that the domestic partnership (DP)benefits policy, which exists at University of Toledo's (UT) main campus where Dixon worked, was put into place by a prior UT president, not by a mid-level manager.
Not only does this fact support the conclusion that Ms. Dixon likely was not a policymaker, it also supports another conclusion: since the DP policy itself likely wouldn't have come into existence unless there were homosexual employees to take advantage of it, either Ms. Dixon probably had no authority to hire (mid-level managers don't usually have authority to hire and fire in such a bureaucracy) OR she probably hired some homosexual employees while she worked at the UT main campus. Consequently, whether the homosexual employees got there IN SPITE OF HER or BECAUSE OF HER, they STILL got there, so Ms. Dixon's personal opinions likely had NO EFFECT on her job performance.
But above all, Ms. Dixon's personal opinion was NOT that she "[did] not like a segment of society" -- THAT is just the tag that gay advocates put on anybody who they think is not politically-correct enough.

She got fired right? Someone thought she blundered.. that's what happens!

[Barney]

It is interesting that so many have no problem with a government university firing someone based exclusively on her views.

[Mark]

As many previous posters have said; we have a right to free speech. We also need to realize that when we open our mouths, there are sometimes consequences.

I doubt anyone will truly know what the truth is in this case. The "religious Right" are already busy spinning this into an issue of an attack on them by the "Gay agenda". This has NOTHING to do with an attack on religion. It has to do with an individual who spoke in a public forum, expressing her religious views, which can impact her ability to do her job. Just the viewpoint slightly,: what about a police officer who expresses no respect for African Americans, or a Science teacher who feels evolution is a myth? If they make their views public, can they effectively do their jobs?

[Paul]

dante2810, KirkW, 1noteasilyfooled, aRodeojock, OkieDarren,-- you kidding right?
When the truth is told in America about homosexuality this is what happens to you, you lose your job! Academic freedom only applies if you're on the band wagon, even though it's going over a cliff. If you speak the truth then it's not academic freedom any longer, it's unemployment.

[Will]

To see why I think University of Toledo (UT) overstepped its legal bounds, let's start with a background look at one of the US Supreme Court cases that established the groundrules for this area of the law:

[FROM: PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)]:

"Appellee, Board of Education, dismissed appellant, a teacher, for writing and publishing in a newspaper a letter criticizing the Board's allocation of school funds between educational and athletic programs and the Board's and superintendent's methods of informing, or preventing the informing of, the school district's taxpayers of the real reasons why additional tax revenues were being sought for the schools.

.....

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
.....

The Board contends that "the teacher by virtue of his public employment has a duty of loyalty to support his superiors in attaining the generally accepted goals of education and that, if he must speak out publicly, he should do so factually and accurately, commensurate with his education and experience."

... Because of the enormous variety of fact situations in which critical statements by teachers and other public employees may be thought by their superiors, against whom the statements are directed, to furnish grounds for dismissal, we do not deem it either appropriate or feasible to attempt to lay down a general standard against which all such statements may be judged. However, in the course of evaluating the conflicting claims of First Amendment protection and the need for orderly school administration in the context of this case, we shall indicate some of the general lines along which an analysis of the controlling interests should run.

An examination of the statements in appellant's letter objected to by the Board reveals that they, like the letter as a whole, consist essentially of criticism of the Board's allocation of school funds between educational and athletic programs, and of both the Board's and the superintendent's methods of informing, or preventing the informing of, the district's taxpayers of the real reasons why additional tax revenues were being sought for the schools.

The statements are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here.

Appellant's employment relationships with the Board and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with the superintendent are not the kind of close working relationships for which it can persuasively be claimed that personal loyalty and confidence are necessary to their proper functioning.

Accordingly, to the extent that the Board's position here can be taken to suggest that even comments on matters of public concern that are substantially correct,... may furnish grounds for dismissal if they are sufficiently critical in tone, we unequivocally reject it."
.......

[Will]

dante2810 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again. My first post made the point that she is in a position of title, VICE PRESIDENT of Human Resources, which by name itself makes her higher up that just a "mid-level" management position. If that is not the case, the title itself would be misleading to the average person. Her TITLE thus give the appearance of authority....

LOL..."the appearance of authority"?

Come on. We ALL know that people often are given "titles" but little or no "authority" to act independently.

And we ALL know how the "associate vice president" title works -- pretty much the same way that an "associate professor" title or an "associate dean" title works.

The entry-level position is the "assistant" title -- "assistant" professor or "assistant" dean. Then, when you've been around long enough, your job doesn't substantially change, but you become "associate" -- "associate" professor or "associate" dean. Then, when you've really been around long enough, you become TENURED -- meaning that they drop ALL prefixes to your title and you become a FULL professor or a FULL dean, or in this case, a FULL vice president.

With all due respect to Ms. Dixon, she probably had too much seniority to be an "assistant" vice president but not enough to be a FULL vice president -- in short, she was probably not entry-level management but probably no more than mid-level management. Mid-level managers don't generally make policy and they have little if any independent authority.

[dante2810]

Paul wrote:

dante2810, KirkW, 1noteasilyfooled, aRodeojock, OkieDarren,-- you kidding right?
When the truth is told in America about homosexuality this is what happens to you, you lose your job! Academic freedom only applies if you're on the band wagon, even though it's going over a cliff. If you speak the truth then it's not academic freedom any longer, it's unemployment.

What truth did she speak? It was all opinion.

[dante2810]

Will wrote:

To see why I think University of Toledo (UT) overstepped its legal bounds, let's start with a background look at one of the US Supreme Court cases that established the groundrules for this area of the law:
[FROM: PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)]:

This is the full ruling. It is not Apples to Apples with this case. Some similarities, but different situation and context.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...

[Will]

dante2810 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the full ruling. It is not Apples to Apples with this case. Some similarities, but different situation and context.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...

As I said, I'm just laying out the legal BACKGROUND with the Pickering case -- the Pickering legal doctrine of balancing the public employee's 1st Amendment rights against the public employer's needs for "loyalty", "confidential relations", and "office efficiency and harmony" has been refined by a couple of later SCOTUS cases and several federal appeals court cases, particularly in the 6th Circuit where Ohio is located.

In a nutshell, SCOTUS created an EXCEPTION in certain cases in which the balancing of the parties' interests would be presumed to favor the public employer over the public employee who claims that some adverse employment action was primarily intended to chill the employee's exercise of a protected 1st Amendment right.

The various federal circuits have developed varying standards for applying this exception.

As time permits, I'll comment at more length on the standards that the 6th Circuit applies in determining which public employees fall within the exception that presumes that the public employer's interests outweigh the public employee's 1st Amendment protection.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Paul wrote:

dante2810, KirkW, 1noteasilyfooled, aRodeojock, OkieDarren,-- you kidding right?
When the truth is told in America about homosexuality this is what happens to you, you lose your job! Academic freedom only applies if you're on the band wagon, even though it's going over a cliff. If you speak the truth then it's not academic freedom any longer, it's unemployment.

uh.. NO. I am dead serious.
The poster 'Mark' above explained it crystal clear.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Paul wrote:

dante2810, KirkW,
When the truth is told in America about homosexuality

Explain the 'truth' paul... I'd like to hear your 'interpretation'.

[Robin Hood]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Crystal Dixon was NOT the "HR Director", she was associate VP of human resources -- a mid-level management position at best.
It's probably the case that her position was NOT a "policymaker" position -- mid-level managers seldom do make policy. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the original Toledo Free Press (TFP) editorial to which Ms. Dixon replied noted that the domestic partnership (DP)benefits policy, which exists at University of Toledo's (UT) main campus where Dixon worked, was put into place by a prior UT president, not by a mid-level manager.
Not only does this fact support the conclusion that Ms. Dixon likely was not a policymaker, it also supports another conclusion: since the DP policy itself likely wouldn't have come into existence unless there were homosexual employees to take advantage of it, either Ms. Dixon probably had no authority to hire (mid-level managers don't usually have authority to hire and fire in such a bureaucracy) OR she probably hired some homosexual employees while she worked at the UT main campus. Consequently, whether the homosexual employees got there IN SPITE OF HER or BECAUSE OF HER, they STILL got there, so Ms. Dixon's personal opinions likely had NO EFFECT on her job performance.
But above all, Ms. Dixon's personal opinion was NOT that she "[did] not like a segment of society" -- THAT is just the tag that gay advocates put on anybody who they think is not politically-correct enough.

She gave the University of Toledo a black eye. Her opinion would have tainted the public's perception of the University of Toledo permanently
if left to stand.

To protect itself from permanent damage to its reputation and to stay in business, the University of Toledo was forced to react instantaneously, definitively, and publicly.

Its called "damage control"

[Will]

Robin Hood wrote:

<quoted text>
She gave the University of Toledo a black eye. Her opinion would have tainted the public's perception of the University of Toledo permanently
if left to stand.
To protect itself from permanent damage to its reputation and to stay in business, the University of Toledo was forced to react instantaneously, definitively, and publicly.
Its called "damage control"

LOL. Yo mama.