Posted by Eugene Volokh:
University Associate V-P of Human Resources Sues Over Firing Based on
Anti-Gay-Rights Newspaper Article:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_30-2008_12_06.shtml#1228325274
Here's the [1]Complaint, in Crystal Dixon v. University of Toledo.
Here's [2]the article itself:
I read with great interest Michael Miller�s April 6 column, "Gay
Rights and Wrongs."
I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo
Free Press readers to consider.
First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of
ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At
the same time, one�s personal choices lead to outcomes either
positive or negative.
As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of
Toledo�s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take
great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual
lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here�s why. I cannot wake up
tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and
biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator
intended. 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. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to
their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience
with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices
wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene
E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive,
strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29
years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ
stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and
withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement
that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas
Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and
pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to
husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a
lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she
responded "to set people free�� I finally obeyed God."
Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a
homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor�s degree: For gay men, the
median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay
couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S.
household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the
median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000;
Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported
household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the
median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539.
The data speaks for itself.
The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University
of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and
former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had
multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially
different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual
employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact
that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their
sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is
working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and
cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.
My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God
created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created
humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences
for each of our choices, including those who violate God�s divine
order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when
the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that
violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates
the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically
transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing
them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically,
physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.
Crystal Dixon lives in Maumee.
The university apparently agrees that Dixon was fired because of the
article, but argues that the firing was justified:
A letter from [University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs] to Ms.
Dixon said her public position was in direct contradiction with
university values and told her that her position "calls into
question your continued ability to lead a critical function within
the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in your
capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be
challenged or placed at risk. The result is a loss of confidence in
you as an administrator."
Ms. Dixon cited her 25-year career in human resources in which she
has hired and recommended the hiring of both homosexual and
heterosexual people based on their qualifications.
"To say that I cannot have a personal opinion regarding the
practice of some humans and not be effective in my job as a human
resources leader is preposterous given my track record for the past
25 years," she said.
Matt Lockwood, a UT spokesman, said yesterday the university
welcomes dissent and input from others and the exchange of ideas,
but her public expressions called into question her ability to do
the functions of her job.
"Certain jobs within a public institution have restrictions on what
those people in those jobs can express," he said.
The University of Toledo is a state-run university. Three questions:
(1) Is the University's position constitutionally permissible, on the
grounds that "[3]the employee's interest in expressing herself on this
matter [was] not be outweighed by [some] injury the speech could cause
to 'the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the
efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees'"
(the so-called Pickering balance)?
(2) Is the University's position professionally and ethically proper,
or should public employers -- and especially universities, even when
it comes to administrative employees -- have more tolerance for public
debate on such issues?
(3) If the University's action is proper, then it suggests that pretty
much any public speech that suggests that homosexuality is immoral
could lead to a public employee's being fired, at least if the
employee does something related to human resources (which would
presumably include employees who are simply middle managers, and not
just vice presidents of human resources). After all, it's pretty clear
that Dixon wasn't fired for some especially rude way of putting her
views, and that she couldn't have avoided the firing by just using
different words -- it was the public expression of the views that was
the cause of the firing.
Given this, how should people who share Ms. Dixon's religious views,
and who are trying to figure out how militantly to fight against
pro-gay-rights causes, react? Of course, you might think the answer is
"change your views, and accept homosexuality as perfectly proper." But
let's assume that those who oppose homosexuality continue to disagree
with you on that. What should a reasonable person in their shoes do,
faced with the prospect that expressing their views -- and quite
likely expressing any opposition to pro-gay-rights policies, when the
opposition rests on a claim that homosexuality doesn't merit legal
protection of various sorts -- is becoming a firing offense as to a
large range of jobs?
It does seem pretty clear that at least some of the progress of gay
rights -- not all, but some -- is coming at he expense of the freedom
(whether or not constitutionally protected freedom) of people who hold
anti-gay religious views. Doubtless many who support gay rights
understandably think this a fair tradeoff, especially when the rights
are the rights of public employees, which have long been constrained
(and in my view quite reasonably constrained) in certain ways. But
what should be the reaction of those who oppose homosexuality on
religious grounds, and care a good deal about their and their
coreligionists' ability to express their views and act in accordance
with those views in their private lives?
Thanks to [4]Religion Clause for the pointer.
References
1. http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1jia0q8twdqvgbipjbvb.pdf
2.
http://www.toledofreepress.com/2008/04/18/gay-rights-and-wrongs-another-perspective/
3.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10402#5
4. http://religionclause.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
