Comments on When Equity Official Takes Anti-Gay Stance

• Bias and Discrimination
• Posted by Henry Collier , Hon Research Fellow at University of Wollongong on May 5, 2008 at 6:20am EDT

• What an ignorant and unprofessional person ... there are so many adjectives to describe equity officers who CHOOSE to discriminate and who CHOOSE to support bias and dogma. Gay and lesbian human beings deserve better than the unprofessional ranting of a systematically biased person.

• Whoa!
• Posted by kgotthardt on May 5, 2008 at 6:35am EDT

• This lady was in the wrong field (HR). There comes a time when most of us recognize that when our personal beliefs conflict so much with our job, we need to look for a different job.

• Legal Help
• Posted by Brent on May 5, 2008 at 6:35am EDT

• Ms. Dixon should contact the Alliance Defense Fund immediately. Their website is:

  http://www.alliancedefensefund.org

• Free Speech
• Posted by Lee on May 5, 2008 at 7:25am EDT

• If she were a faculty member she would still have her job. The faculty members at her university were free to publicly call her "ignorant." The real question here is: Do all university offiicals, faculty or otherwise, have the right to express their opinion in a public forum when that opinion clashes with policies of their institution? Or do only faculty members have that right?

• Evidence???
• Posted by Robert , PhD Student on May 5, 2008 at 7:30am EDT

• Is there any evidence that her political views actually caused her to discriminate against homosexuals on the job? Or is this just a preemptive strike by the administration to avoid controversy?

• Ironic bias
• Posted by Shawn on May 5, 2008 at 7:55am EDT

• It's interesting that everyone cited in the article is biased against Dixon's beliefs. But such bias goes unnoticed and is even celebrated in the article. Ironic, to say the least.

• How unfair...
• Posted by Rich , Administrator at eastern doctoral university on May 5, 2008 at 7:55am EDT

• and inappropriate of her employer to punish her (forced leave (even though paid), potential discipline)for personal opinions that were in no way presented as an offical position or representation of her employer. In addition, as the previous commenter noted, her personal opinions do not appear to have affected her job performance in any way. Where does it say we must give up our personal right of expression outside of work time?

• Standards
• Posted by Jessie on May 5, 2008 at 8:05am EDT

• The free speech position is interesting, but academic freedom applies to academics including students and faculty. It does not, nor should extend to staff. If she wants or deserves academic freedom she should get hired as faculty, not as an administration official. Although I respect her views based on her religious beliefs, her statements almost sound ignorant for someone with an advanced degree. Her only citations are Biblical and not rooted or consistent with current scientific research. And although some research is still inconclusive, drawing such a hard line based on dogmatic views can be very offensive and problematic for the community she is entrusted to serve. She obviously is in the wrong position at the wrong institution. She should be dimissed and should seek work elsewhere perhaps at a private religious institution. As an official she is expected, and rightly so, to uphold and support the mission, philosophy and views of the institution. There are no charges her views actually resulted in discrimination against anyone, however her credibility, ability to be fair, and neutrality has been eliminated and regrettfully, so should she.

• Again the right looks silly and shrill!
• Posted by Diogenes on May 5, 2008 at 8:10am EDT

• Interesting how the right wingers squeal when when of their bigots is outed. No doubt this chorus of frogs would run to defend the "rights" of a police officer who writes in a public forum that all blacks who are arrested are guilty by virtue of their race. Put a sock in it! Free speech does not mean being free of consequences. Don't believe me? Then tell you wife she looks fat in that dress!

• Did anyone read the article?
• Posted by Dean on May 5, 2008 at 8:20am EDT

• While Ms. Dixon's statements may have been inflammatory, did anyone read the article she wrote? The issue she's dealing with (apart from the biblical references, which are actually a positive support of all people as children of God) she appears to address with evidence to which no one responds.

  I also echo the earlier observation: where's the evidence that her performance has been affected by her beliefs? Has she followed university policy effectively and faithfully? Or is what's at issue her speech which, as others have said, would have been defended instantly if she were a faculty member?

• PC gone wild
• Posted by Frank , Doctoral student on May 5, 2008 at 8:50am EDT

• This is PC gone wild. I don't see anything in what this lady said that deserved the frenzied response of the university administration. Is there any doubt that sexual orientation is markedly different from racial identity? I have many friends who were previously gay and are now straight. And I have many female course mates who switch from lesbianism to "straightness" with what seems to me like effortless ease. Racial identity is not that variable by any stretch. Homosexuality,in spite of what the PC crowd may want to persuade us to believe, is a CHOICE, a self-indulgent choice. What detracted from the woman's otherwise sound and irrefutable argument, for me, is her infusion of religion into the debate.

• Crystal Dixon
• Posted by Gregg Schulte on May 5, 2008 at 8:50am EDT

• Bravo to Crystal Dixon! We commend your courage. Don't worry, Sister, the Lord will protect you and provide for you. Hang in there! Shame on the University of Toledo and its president; how biased can you get. It is one thing to protect a group; it is totally another to punish and publicly castigate someone for simply saying something contrary to the beliefs of that group. Where is the protection for Crystal?

• Equity Official
• Posted by Richard on May 5, 2008 at 8:50am EDT

• Personal views aside the University has an obligation to its community to ensure that Human Resource Offices are open and welcoming and that members of a diverse community feel comfortable walking in and having needs addressed that are both enforced by policy or perhaps gray or new areas where policies may not be in place.
  When Dixon chose to publish her personal views she decided to allow herself to be professionally questioned as being fair and equitable. Moreover, it puts the University in a position of questioning, given these bias views, would all members of the community feel as if they can go into the office and have concerns addressed. Sadly, the answer is no.

• Posted by E. Ponimus on May 5, 2008 at 8:55am EDT

• What a moron and a zealot...and a moronic zealot for going public with view so contrary to the values she should be upholding in order to function effectively in her job. She can believe in this bigoted biblical tripe all she wants to, but it has no place in higher education. Perhaps my views are biased, too, but do you see my institution represented in this screed?

• No grounds for suspension
• Posted by Jim on May 5, 2008 at 9:00am EDT

• U of Toledo President Jacobs had made a rookie mistake by taking disciplinary action against Ms. Dixon for her belief that homosexuality is a matter of choice, and his general counsel must be asleep at the switch. His action will precipitate a lawsuit which the university will almost certainly lose.

  I don't agree with Ms. Dixon's belief, nor that of evangelicals generally, but she is certainly entitled to believe whatever she wants. Unless the university can point to some tangible job performance where she fell short, then it basically has puninshed an employee for her religious beliefs. And for that, it will find itself in a heap of trouble.

• Posted by Mark H on May 5, 2008 at 9:30am EDT

• This HR official was supposed to enforce university policies that protect gays against discrimination. Yet she publicly attacked the very idea that it is possible for gays to be victims of discrimination. That belief disqualifies her from doing her job, does it? Or at a minimum it creates the appearance of her being unable to do her job. What gay victim of discrimination would trust her to investigate a complaint fairly? Would not an anti-gay person at Toledo feel encouraged to engage in unfair treatment of gays, knowing that the official in charge doesn't believe that's a problem? Administrators do not have absolute free speech: it is righlty limited by what is what is in the interest of the university. This is hardly a novel principle, despite the hysterical reactions of some commentators here. A faculty member who expressed similar views would be in a different situation, obviously, because he or she would NOT be in charge of enforcing the university's fair treatment policies.

• Crystal Dixon's homophobia
• Posted by Dr Arthur Frederick Ide on May 5, 2008 at 9:45am EDT

• Ms Dixon's rant against homosexuality and homosexuals in general by reference is not only against all current (and for the past 30 years) evidence to the contrary. Her sole citations are Biblical--of which nearly all are from sources far older than the Old Testament: coming from ancient Babylon, Akkadia, etc. where homosexuality was statused as an offense against the plethora of war gods who needed men to fight their battles. Crystal Dixon's religious beliefs are fine--but must stay out of the free speech forum for free speech is neither free nor unfettered, as the US Supreme Court has noted many times when it comes to inflammatory or libelous/slanderous statements, and as such is prohibited. Her comments belong in a literature or theology class where discussion can be made concerning such myths as Sodom and Gomorrah which are neither Judaeo-Christian nor biblical but incorporated from legends to justify attacks on people (a total misreading of Genesis 19:3ff, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel attempted to correct: Jeremiah 23.14 "I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah."

  Ezekiel 16.46 - 48 "And thine elder sister is Samara, she and her daughters that dwell at they left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelled at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters. Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou was corrupted more than they in all their ways. As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.")

  Homosexuality is linked to genetics and not to choice. Crystal Dixon should be fired and find a job teaching her interpretation of the bible. She has disgraced her institution and heaped scorn on academic standards that rejoices in the plethora of people and diversity. How dare she, a black woman who has benefited by EEO standards and rules, refuse the same opportunities to other minorities (gays and lesbians). Her article is sheer hypocrisy, and is worse.

• sexual orientation is not like race
• Posted by Clayton E. Cramer on May 5, 2008 at 9:45am EDT

• I know people who have changed from gay to straight. It can be done. Professor Robert L. Spitzer (who played a major role in getting homosexuality removed as a disorder from DSM-III), published a paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:5 (Oct 2003):403-18 examining the success rate of homosexuals who made a serious attempt at changing their orientation (not just behavior). About half were successful.

  I wouldn't agree that sexual orientation is a choice--but neither is it like race, which is genetically determined, and where no one successfully changes.

  What causes homosexuality? This is still an open question, but there are a number of studies now published that show that homosexuals were disproportionately sexually abused as children. Some of these are correlation studies; some are longitudinal (such as the Christchurch, New Zealand study). Is it really so hard to believe that premature sexualization might affect adult sexual preferences? And if so, that it might be possible to repair the damage?

  Unfortunately, the fascism that says that Dixon must be fired reflects the grave fear that many homosexual activists have that if the word gets out, and those who can straighten out do so, that those who are left behind will be even more isolated, and required to face that they are damaged.

• Sexual preference as opposed to what?
• Posted by bgn on May 5, 2008 at 9:55am EDT

• "Homosexuality,in spite of what the PC crowd may want to persuade us to believe, is a CHOICE, a self-indulgent choice."

  So is religious belief. Nobody is born Christian; you have to be baptized first.

• Silly Logic
• Posted by Mac on May 5, 2008 at 10:15am EDT

• Many of the comments here are disturbing and downright frightening. Would it be ok to have a Klan member and devout racist in charge of diversity for the University? How about a convicted rapist in charge of the women's center?

  Calling the President's (hopefully preliminary) actions "rookie" is almost laughable. Can you imagine a dispute over treatment of a gay staff person that comes to this HR director? How can there be any confidence in her acting fairly? What kind of liability is being set up for the University if they keep her on?

  By your logic we can have someone from big oil in charge of conservation, the Columbine killers (had they survived) in charge of school safety, a Luddite in charge of IT and an arsonist in charge of fire safety. It's just absurd.

• Tolerance
• Posted by David H on May 5, 2008 at 10:50am EDT

• It is discouraging that anyone who holds to views considered anti-homosexual is automatically branded as bigoted or homophobic. As learned indivuduals we should be aware that words matter and a clear difference exists between fear or intolerance and disapproval or disagreement. Name-calling only serves to silence opposition and debate and to breed in us the very real kind of fear, hatred and intolerance we speak so strongly against.

• Posted by Henry Vandenburgh on May 5, 2008 at 10:50am EDT

• I agree that the college should not limit speech of its employees. I'm pro-gay and on the left. But the next person they'll come for will be you or me.

• Really, David H?
• Posted by E. Ponimus on May 5, 2008 at 11:15am EDT

• Is it really that much of a stretch from "anti-gay" to "homophobic"? I'm comfortable making the leap. I read her entire diatribe, and I have no problem defending her right to express her views, but I do believe those views, especially as expressed, fundamentally (pun intended) impact her ability to carry out her job.

• choosing one's race
• Posted by elisabeth on May 5, 2008 at 11:15am EDT

• There's a slight logical fallacy in the right's oft-stated idea that race is immutable but sexual orientation is not. Throughout history people have moved between/among racial/ethnic categorizations. The whole "one drop rule" during slavery and jim crow times in the US reflected the anxiety felt by those who recognized that external characteristics were not always sufficient to ascribe "race" to an individual. Similarly, the US census has struggled to create categories that would be accepted by all individuals...

• A CHOICE?
• Posted by Tony P at Santa Monica College on May 5, 2008 at 11:30am EDT

• I am actually disgusted with many of the comments on here. Some of you with advanced degrees are just ignorant. How dare you suggest that homosexuality is a choice? Try this.. you "TRY" to be gay and see what happens. You won't be able to for the same reason that homosexuals can't be heterosexual. I also love those that "choose to go straight." Like putting on a new pair of shoes! Ms. Dixon should be terminated. As a public official she cannot divorce herself from her office simply by not mentioning she is a college leader. Court cases support this. The University of Toledo did the right thing. If she has those beliefs you can be sure they influences her practices in HR. For a Christian woman there was a lot of anger in those words and the university would be best served by terminating her. Administrative leave, due process and hopefully, termination.

• breach?
• Posted by Peter on May 5, 2008 at 11:30am EDT

• Do UT's policies preclude an amployee's exercising free speech on her own time if she is not specifically citing her employer's actions? I deplore what this woman wrote, but it doesn't appear that it was anything more than an op-ed in the local paper under her name alone.

• Violation
• Posted by Fellman on May 5, 2008 at 11:55am EDT

• This university has clearly violated her First amendment rights. I hope she settles for a pretty sum.

• Posted by b , she is dead wrong on all fronts on May 5, 2008 at 11:55am EDT

• Here is the real problem: gays are the last group to not have full civil liberties. What religious college can fire someone for being black?

  They can if you are gay. She is just dead wrong about biology too. Studies continue to pile up showing the genetic basis of homosexuality. The invoke the bible is fine, but the evidence of the bible merely make a moral judgement, not a biological statement. That leave a question: when a religious text offers moral judgement with no facts what-so ever, should we through thousands of studies to the wind?

  Still I think they might have gone too far. People can hold quirky beliefs, and as long as they don't act on them, they should be left as they are. We can't be a thought-police state. It's a tough one here, but needless to say, she was foolish and uninformed.

• Inability to do job
• Posted by Garrett on May 5, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT

• Ms. Dixon does have a right to free speech and if she was a staff member in a different position at the University it wouldn't be a problem. However, she has publicly identified a reason why she is not qualified to do her job. How can she properly investigate discrimination based on anti-gay bias (a job responsibility) and do it in a fair and unbaised way (a job responsibility) if she doesn't believe that gay's should have protection in the first place? If she was the Registrar her views wouldn't interfere with her job, but her views do interfere with her ability to fulfill her job requirements and therefore she doesn't belong in that position. You wouldn't allow a person who doesn't believe in God be a University Chaplain and therefore a person who doesn't believe in gay rights shouldn't be responsible for defending them.

• Posted by Dan Ross on May 5, 2008 at 12:40pm EDT

• Of course race and sexual orientation are different, and members of different categories of each have a different experience.

  But to say that race is "fixed" is in itself ignoring the fact that many people are biracial, multiracial, etc. And furthermore, it ignores that race and sexual orientation (and gender) are not independent variables.

  If women tend to make less than men, then isn't it the case that a lesbian couple would make a lot less than a gay male couple? (Maybe even less than an opposite-sex married couple, if one woman in each case is a stay-at-home mom, and domestic partner benefits are not available.) Or wouldn't Black gay males be more subject to discrimination than White heterosexual males?

  "Thousands" deciding daily to "leave the gay lifestyle" is an insupportable claim--that implies there are at least 365,000 people making such a decision every year. Where are they? Who are they? (Is she including China and India?) Do they end up in loveless or sexless marriages that end in divorce later? Do they cease their feelings or just their actions?

  But more importantly, to whom else does she "take umbrage"? The implication is that she doesn't take claims of discrimination seriously because of perceived choices, and does this include: people who are disabled due to their own drunk driving; atheists; non-U.S. citizens choosing to study or work in the U.S.; single mothers?

• Posted by Ken Noble on May 5, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT

• In 2004 Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. wrote:
  About 150 years ago, some German sodomites coined the scientific-sounding word "homosexuality," claiming that its devotees are born that way and therefore cannot help themselves. Other same-sex propagandists embraced the Spartan creed which saw same-sex relationships as more moral than the traditional man-woman marriage (a concept that became an important part of Nazi ideology). Both groups` ideas were widely accepted, and homosexuality became known in Europe before and after World War I as the "German vice."

  By now, the campaign to legitimatize homosexuality has succeeded in
  getting most of the media, and much of America, to accept it per se. The media-legitimization process began with the Broadway theater, spread to the movies and has finally reached television.

  Today, of course, the campaign to legitimatize homosexuality is
  focusing on gay marriage. The time is long overdue to recognize, combat and reverse the fierce effort to legitimatize homosexuality in America.

• Posted by AK on May 5, 2008 at 1:25pm EDT

• If she's an "alumnus," she's cross-dressing. Someone needs to get into her closet.

• Thoughts
• Posted by dan on May 5, 2008 at 1:35pm EDT

• As I tally it, there are 15 comments in support of these comments (virtually all of them by men) and 15 against.

  1. This is in no way a free speech issue. It is a core job function issue.
  2. Off-duty conduct is not immune from disciplinary or remedial action where that action bears a material impact on the institution or the individual's ability to perform his or her duties.
  3. The president made no "rookie mistakes", there will be no "tidy sum", this is not "PC run wild", and the General Counsel was not "asleep at the wheel".
  4. If terminated, this woman has no legal argument to make. ADL will likely know this
  5. Those suggesting she should be working in a religious institution where her beliefs accord with the school's dogma are correct.

  From an HR standpoint, this is a really easy case. Regental and University policies are clear. These statements irreparably harm this woman's ability to perform her duties as the institutional guardian of those policies.

  To the 15 guys that eagerly embraced her comments, you're confusing your own dislike of gays for what is professionally appropriate here. This isn't even a close call.

• Good Grief
• Posted by Oso Raro , Assistant Professor at Cold City U. on May 5, 2008 at 2:00pm EDT

• Fire her!

• If he can fake it okay...
• Posted by Ready to be a Chaplain on May 5, 2008 at 2:00pm EDT

• "You wouldn’t allow a person who doesn’t believe in God be a University Chaplain and therefore a person who doesn’t believe in gay rights shouldn’t be responsible for defending them"

  Actually, I see no problem whatsoever with this: The test of whether someone ought to be a chaplain comes down to the successful manner of administering the faith for an audience, the people who seek that Chaplain's services, not whether the Chaplain actually believes in God or any of the other hooey they sling. (Hell, I could do THAT job! "Put your trust in the Lord; let that guide and keep you through your time of sorrow." Blah, blah, blah... that's a perfectly "fakeable" job, as I see it.) I don't believe in everything my university does, but I enforce its policies nevertheless because I have the integrity to do so.

  But let's try this another way: if "a person who doesn’t believe in gay rights shouldn’t be responsible for defending them", does that mean organizations like the ACLU that routinely defend groups such as the Klan are unsuited to that job of defending such speech rights where the ACLU members do not personally believe in the message of the Klan or in their fundamental right to speak? You can't tell me there aren't perfectly capable, responsible ACLU lawyers defending the rights of people who they personally find to be sub-human because of their beliefs, yet these very people are able to divorce their personal views from the job in order to do the job their are entrusted to do.

  Likewise, as despicable and ludicrous as I myself find this woman and her views, there is no reason to assume she is incapable of doing her job effectively & responsibly SOLELY because she finds fault with a constituency she is entrusted to defend. Her views we may dislike, but her integrity has not from this fact alone been compromised.

  Ultimately, as another poster aptly noted, we can't turn into or support the thought police in a free society because the next ones they come for will be the rest of us.

  (Gee, real liberty is a b*tch, isn't it?)

• Missing the mark
• Posted by agreen on May 5, 2008 at 3:10pm EDT

• To our would-be chaplain:

  Although your analogy between an HR official and the ACLU is probably apt, you're comparing apples and oranges to say that ACLU advocates must share the views of the Klan in order to support their right to express those racist views. Rather, what both Dixon and ACLUers voluntarily have signed up for is to advocate fair treatment for all, regardless of how odious one finds their viewpoints or "lifestyles." And "lifestyles," as one of my favorite professors likes to say, is a vastly overused and misused term that more accurately describes decisions like whether or not to be vegetarian than where one happens to land on the spectrum of sexual orientation. And one reason we find occasional "switches" in sexual orientation is because people often have to experiment and soul-search before figuring out where on that vast spectrum we really are. A woman can be attracted to or in love with a particular woman, for example, without really feeling she's a "lesbian." I know, hard to imagine that such a "choice" is not always easy, but I imagine that multi-racial people face a similar "choice" in determining "who" they really are. Must they "choose" too, once and for all, thereby renouncing whatever other racial makeup they happen to have been assigned by nature? I don't know whether Dixon should be fired or not, but I'd be awfully skeptical of her ability to deal fairly with employees whose "lifestyles" she finds so reprehensible.

• fire her
• Posted by Jeff Weaver, Esq. on May 5, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT

• What the column fails to address is the fact that Ms. Dixon also happens to be a member of the University's Diversity Committee. This committee was established to address the overwhelming lack of support offered to minorities and LGBT students/staff/faculty at the university. Is Ms. Dixon entitled to her beliefs? Absolutely. Should she remain on the Committee? Absolutely not. Whether she should remain employed at the University depends on whether these personal views influence her job duties. If the university is an at-will employer, she can be fired for absolutely no reason.

• Not Understandable
• Posted by Patrick , Student at BGSU on May 5, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT

• This woman should understand, as should the other readers of this post, that this is a sensitive subject. Most of us here are just writing what we feel, as anonymous persons. However, she is a professional Human Resources representative. Regardless of her personal views she needs to understand that her position at a large, public university makes all her comments more closely considered and effective. Had she remembered to distance her personal beliefs from official university position, she may not have been in such trouble.

  Furthermore, everyone should remember two things:
  1. There is still no conclusive evidence to support whether or not Homosexuality is a choice,
  2. And the Bible is not a scientifically sound book. Any person whose ever written a research paper knows not to base evidence on two citations: The Bible and Wikipedia.

• Posted by One of God's Children on May 5, 2008 at 4:00pm EDT

• As someone who's gay AND one of God's children, I'm amazed, although I don't why I still should be at this time in my life, by the crass ignorance of those who blithely talk about homosexuality being a choice. As one of the writers suggested, those of you who are straight might want to try to be gay and see just how "easy" that is.

  For me to place myself in a straight relationship and "become straight" would be to lie not only to myself but to the other person, and in doing so cause untold damage. "Trusting in the Lord" while "going straight" will not miraculously prevent damage being done to those involved in the pretense, or whisk away the fear of being unmasked as a pretender, or assuage the feelings of hypocrisy. Believe me, as someone gay who was brought up Christian and who has continued to practice Christianity to this point, I have wrestled with this aspect of myself on a daily basis. It's been extraordinarily painful, so please remember, talking about sexual orientation being simply a matter of choice is an egregious slap in the face for those of us who are gay and have thoughtfully, humanly, painstakingly worked with this aspect of ourselves through lenses philosophical, theological, biological, sociological, and psychological.

  When I thought of responding to the comments published I wanted to be angry. I'm tired of people who know little of what they speak taking me and my life and throwing it amongst themselves like a child's ball in a very childish game of I don't like your politics/ideological stance/religious position so "I'm right and you're wrong." I'm a real person with a real life which is rich, complex, and very mixed in terms of happiness, pain, and meaning.

  Today's threaded comments, like most days, left me bemused and wary of the human race. The difference was today's comments really, really hurt. So people, please think before you jump astride your ideological/theological horse and tilt at today's windmill.

• Posted by Stephen Satris on May 5, 2008 at 4:35pm EDT

• I think the headline is correct that Crystal Dixon has taken an anti-gay stance; she mainly uses the Bible to support that stance. I suppose that, since I was raised as a Christian and have chosen to become an atheist, she would maintaina similar hostile stance toward me.

  As for the idea that gays, like atheists, have chosen to be that way, this is not so much an anti-gay stance as just ignorance of the facts. It certainly disqualifies her from her HR position at a public university.

  Steve

• Moron...
• Posted by Emma on May 5, 2008 at 4:35pm EDT

• She is a moron as is anybody who really believes that you can change your sexual orientation. You can deny your orientation and act accordingly, but you cannot change it.

• Posted by Ken Noble on May 5, 2008 at 6:05pm EDT

• The following was written by Avi Shafran in 2005.
  Anyone entertaining the notion that the advancement of "gay rights" needn't adversely affect those with moral objections to the normalization of homosexual unions should pay close attention to what happened to Christopher Kempling.
  The British Columbia public school teacher was suspended for a month without pay and received a black spot on his professional record for writing letters critical of the practice of homosexuality to a local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer.
  The Canadian Charter of Rights protects citizens' freedom of expression and religion, but that was apparently no bar, in the eyes of the British Columbia Supreme Court, to a local teachers panel's punishment of Mr. Kempling.
  As one of the justices wrote for the court in denying Mr. Kempling's appeal of the penalty: "Discriminatory speech is incompatible with the search for truth. In addition, [Mr. Kempling's] publicly discriminatory writings undermine the ability of members of the targeted group, homosexuals, to attain individual self-fulfillment..."
  The lesson of the Kempling case transcends its Canadian context; it is of no less import to Americans or Europeans. The issue of "gay rights" is not benign; the struggle between those who wish to make homosexuality acceptable as a normative lifestyle and those who do not is, simply put, a zero-sum game. To the degree that the gay movement's program is advanced, those who adhere to a traditional moral system will be not merely ignored, but vilified, demonized and penalized.
  That "gay rights" zero-sum truism is at the core of a legal brief recently submitted to the United States Supreme Court by the organization I am privileged to represent, Agudath Israel of America. We asked the Court to review and reverse a lower court's decision permitting the state of Connecticut to disqualify the Boy Scouts from inclusion on a list of charities to which state employees were encouraged to contribute. The reason the Boy Scouts were disqualified was the group's policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters or in leadership positions
  One of the brief's main points is that decisions like the lower court's patently malign traditional religious groups for their deeply-held beliefs. As The New York Sun noted in an editorial shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court's "same-sex marriage" ruling, "with a few exceptions, this cause [the acceptance of same-sex marriage] is being advanced through the denigration of Jews and Christians who adhere to the fundamentals of religious law."
  The editorial went on to recount the reaction of "a friend" of the editorialist to the opposition to same-sex marriages. Said the gentleman: "I see them as bigots..."
  Similarly, an American Civil Liberties Union advertisement several years ago in The New York Times compared those who object on moral grounds to homosexuality as akin to vicious racists of yesteryear. Those who espouse a traditional view of acceptable sexual behavior, the ACLU asserted, seek "to hide behind morality." But, the ad continues, "we all know a bigot when we see one."
  If disapproving of homosexual behavior is bigotry, then adherents of most religions - along with nonbelievers who nevertheless accept the validity of the traditional moral code - are, ipso facto, villains. What is more, there is no reason why the label is any less applicable to those who disapprove of other affronts to the moral ideal - like multi-partner or incestuous relationships. Either morality has true meaning and trumps what some people, even many people, wish to do, or it does not.
  And if moral scruples are indeed conceptually devolved into bigotry, there will be not only denigration and derision of traditionalists, but discrimination and legal action against them too - as Mr. Kempling's treatment and Connecticut's action against the Boy Scouts well demonstrate.
  The scenario of Catholic organizations, or Jewish religious schools, or devout Muslims being branded - and even prosecuted as - bigots, simply for operating or living according to deeply-held religious convictions is not unthinkable.
  It is, on the contrary, but the logical outcome of a process that began as a plea for "rights," is continuing as a demand that marriage be redefined, and that - unless it is stopped soon - will end as a triumphant crushing of the ability of religious, or just morality-minded, citizens and communities to live their lives freely, in accordance with their consciences and beliefs.

• Apples to apples
• Posted by (Still) Ready to be a Chaplain on May 5, 2008 at 6:05pm EDT

• "[Y]ou’re comparing apples and oranges to say that ACLU advocates must share the views of the Klan in order to support their right to express those racist views. Rather, what both Dixon and ACLUers voluntarily have signed up for is to advocate fair treatment for all, regardless of how odious one finds their viewpoints or “lifestyles.”

  Um, that was *exactly* my point: they don't have to share such views in order to be capable of dispassionate and effective work on behalf of constituents they may find reprehensible. I wrote:

  [ACLU Lawyers] are able to divorce their personal views from the job in order to do the job their [sic] are entrusted to do.

  Same goes for Dixon: just because she finds homosexuality reprehensible in her personal life DOESN'T mean she can't equitably apply the policies of her office to deal justly with her constituencies--i.e., to advocate on behalf of constituencies she may dislike, though she may find fault with their "lifestyle". So what is it about Dixon that makes you so sure we should treat her as the orange to the ACLU's apple? How are they really different? If we expect that ACLU lawyers do this work responsibly (I certainly do), why do you assume Dixon cannot?

  Or are you suggesting ACLU lawyers should never give voice to personal opinions contrary to their jobs as advocates without being faced with consequences similar to those now enjoyed by Dixon?

• Job Related
• Posted by Ricco on May 5, 2008 at 7:45pm EDT

• Assuming it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Ohio, then Crystal Dixon will be unable to do her job. Regardless if she can, like some have suggested, still do her job despite her bias, any law student, let alone an attorney, could easily use her public bias against the University, whenever she found no evidence to support sexual orientation discrimination. She is thus useless to the University in that position. The same goes for her zeal of her now public religious beliefs. This can also be used against the University by individuals claiming religious discrimination or harassment if she disagrees with their claims, since it could argued that she is not a reasonable unbiased investigator.

• To Chaplain
• Posted by Dan , a University HR Administrator at large research univ on May 6, 2008 at 10:15am EDT

• From your post: Same goes for Dixon: just because she finds homosexuality reprehensible in her personal life DOESN’T mean she can’t equitably apply the policies of her office to deal justly with her constituencies

  Yes, actually, in fact it does.
  1. As HR professionals, we commit to following the code of ethics of our professional association, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) which provides:
  (a)As human resource professionals, we are ethically responsible for promoting and fostering fairness and justice for all employees and their organizations.
  (b)Respect the uniqueness and intrinsic worth of every individual.
  (c)Treat people with dignity, respect and compassion to foster a trusting work environment free of harassment, intimidation, and unlawful discrimination.
  (d)Assure an environment of inclusiveness and a commitment to diversity in the organizations we serve.

  From the University of Toledo's own Mission Statement, something the chief HR officer would unquestionably be obligated to honor in spirit, as well as letter:
  1. Compassion, Professionalism and Respect: Treat every individual with kindness, dignity and care; consider the thoughts and ideas of others inside and outside of the University with a strong commitment to exemplary personal and institutional altruism, accountability, integrity and honor;
  2. Diversity, Integrity and Teamwork: Create an environment that values and fosters diversity; earn the trust and commitment of colleagues and the communities served; provide a collaborative and supportive work environment, based upon stewardship and advocacy, that adheres to the highest ethical standard;

  Your own agreement with Ms. Dixon's beliefs about homosexuality notwithstanding, your statement that she can still carry out this duty without prejudice is just flat-out wrong.

  Ricco's suggestion in his post that these comments have the potential to create problems for UToledo is right on. While it may not violate federal or state law, the University will be bound by its own policy statements and regental commitments.

  To have the chief hr officer, charged with the responsibility and holding accountability for fostering a climate free from discrimination and animus, publicly voice such remarks casts doubt on any investigation or redress undertaken by her office.

  One other observation: had she made some comments about women being "the weaker sex" and "needing to be protected and cared for by men" OR had a white male chief HR officer made comments regarding "young African-American male propensity to violence", this discussion would have ended 20 hours ago. And, with a few exceptions, that discussion would have been one-sided.

  Yes, it DOES mean she cannot do her job effectively. Yes, it DOES.

  She can do it at Wheaton, she can do it at Hillsdale, she can do it at Brigham Young, she can do it at Bob Jones, she can do it at Oral Roberts...she cannot do it at a public institution.

• Posted by Lee on May 6, 2008 at 12:10pm EDT

• Robert you wrote:
  "Is there any evidence that her political views actually caused her to discriminate against homosexuals on the job? Or is this just a preemptive strike by the administration to avoid controversy?
  Robert, PhD Student, at 7:30 am EDT on May 5, 2008"

  What you suggest is comparable to trying to find out if the light stays on when the refridgerator door is closed.

  I am gay and have been discriminated against in employment situations more than even I probably realize. However, typically employers don't send out a "you were not hired because you are ___" (Gay, Black, disabled....fill in the blank) letter.

  When hiring decisions are made alone by one person there is ample room for discrimination.

  When hiring by committee there are still plenty of ways to make sure a gay candidate's resume never sees the light of day.

  Hiring is constructed to be a discriminatory practice.

• Oaths no one cares about = strong evidence?
• Posted by Chaplain on May 6, 2008 at 2:30pm EDT

• "Your own agreement with Ms. Dixon’s beliefs about homosexuality notwithstanding, your statement that she can still carry out this duty without prejudice is just flat-out wrong."

  Wow. Just... wow. I pointed out that I find her beliefs disgusting, but you assume that because I would defend her right to voice those beliefs and still keep her job, I must share her views. I'll stick with my prior analogy: this is tantamount to saying an ACLU lawyer must agree that blacks should be lynched because the lawyer happens to defend a person's right to express that claim, however fundamentally stupid or reckless it is.

  No, I don't have to agree to defend someone's right to speak. No, I don't share her views. Yes, it's possible to defend someone you hate. Equally, it's possible to advocate for the rights of someone you hate. That's why I can advocate for her right to speak this tripe and keep her job. It's why I believe it's possible for her to advocate for gays on the job despite her personal feelings about them.

  Please realize that mature beings can and do divorce their ethical responsibilities from their personal prejudices. This is sort of fundamental to a strong democracy and it's important that people in positions of authority such as yourself understand this.

  Oh, and marking me as "flat-out wrong": this is not an argument, it's just a label. Your best evidence for making your point is trotting out a code of conduct that, let's be quite honest, no one honestly knows or cares about except the insular circle of HR wonks who take said oath. It's right up there with a University's "mission statement", something else only admin cares about. Neither faculty nor students know their own school's MS 9 times out of 10, and where they do they smell it for what it is: nothing but PR material. It bespeaks not a thing whatsoever about the actual curriculum as experienced by the student.

• Is sexual orientation and racial identity the same?
• Posted by Jim , Administrator at Private Higher Ed Institution on May 6, 2008 at 4:05pm EDT

• Ms. Dixon is offended by gays and lesbians who see their struggle for equal rights as a civil rights matter. Some other posters here have also expressed such a view. Let me point out one way in which these two struggles are similar: People use (or used) the bible to argue against equal rights in both cases, one in the past and the other in the present.

  I won't repeat Ms. Dixon's claims about what the bible has to say about homosexuality. Let's just say she has blown two verses way out of proportion.

  If you look to US history, you'll find that the best and most persuasive arguments found by the PRO slavery groups came from the bible. That's right friends, they found lots of relevant passages that instructed how to best treat your slaves, how to sell them, how to punish them, when they should be released, etc. The bible never points out that slavery is bad, in fact, with all these instructions it makes it clear that slavery is acceptable.

  Now, isn't that ridiculous? Should we really be using this book as a guide for moral behavior, especially when any nutcase can simply twist the words around to suit their own purposes?

• It is not a choice
• Posted by Betty on May 6, 2008 at 8:50pm EDT

• I am disgusted to read comments that homosexuality is a choice that someone makes. One person who commented said that he knows people that have easily switched between being straight and being a homosexual or lesbian. There is a difference between being a bi-sexual and being gay. People who are gay are born that way and their sexuality is as much a part of them as is their eye color, hair color, and adult height. Being gay has nothing to do with making a moral decision, but unfortunately, because so many people have discriminated against gays, many feel they must hide who they truly are in order to fit into society. I encourage anyone who believes gay people make a choice in regards to their sexuality personally get to know several gay people rather than make a blanket judgment. In fact, my guess is you probably know several homosexuals and lesbians, but you are just not aware of their sexuality.

• Posted by beergoggles , Silly woman.. on May 6, 2008 at 8:50pm EDT

• Of course race is changeable. Just look at Michael Jackson.

• Posted by Michael Schofield , Lecturer at California State University, Northridge on May 7, 2008 at 5:25am EDT

• There are two issues here. The first is this seems to be an unfortunate case of a member of one traditionally abused minority group (discrimination is too weak a word for what African Americans have had to endure) ranking herself above another traditionally abused minority group (and I think Matthew Sheppard makes it clear that "discrimination" is also too weak a word for the violence perpetrated against gays in America). Historically, during slavery, the "house" slaves would rank themselves above the "field" slaves, even though both were oppressed by white society. This is what is going on here. Both African Americans and gays are the victims of violence and hatred in America. I find it tragic that those who suffer in America attack each other rather than devoting their energies to those who oppress them. But I think the truth may be that Ms. Dixon believes she has no voice and cannot challenge the I'm sure very real discrimination she experiences and so feels the subconscious need to find power by spewing vitriol upon another abused group.

  As to the second issue, academic freedom, such freedom does not give one the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There is a difference between controversy for the purpose of venting bigoted beliefs and a calm, respectful engagement of ideas. It is the latter value that institutions of higher education value. As a composition teacher I frequently must remind my students that the object of argument is not to "win," but rather to try to get those who do not share your beliefs to listen to you. In that respect, Ms. Dixon has failed.

• New Courses To Be Taught By Crystal Dixon
• Posted by Mary on May 7, 2008 at 5:25am EDT

• Mr. Miller noted the "sad irony that I embrace so many gay people without fully understanding their challenges...But I am willing to learn." He then challenged others: "Are you?"

  Willing to learn, that is.

  Ms. Dixon might have simply stated her obvious position. That being: "no, I am not willing to learn anything that might lead to a better understanding of the challenges of any group, other than my own well-protected group."

  Instead, Ms. Dixon let loose with a bias-revealing rant. We are all biased in at least one area, but we all do not hold jobs that exist to purge the very bias to which we cling: Ms. Dixon does, for now.

  Ms. Dixon should not lose her employment over holding an unpopular (and frankly indefensible) opinion. In our country, we protect the right of all people to hold whatever opinion they desire.

  We do not however protect the right of people to hold specific professional positions for which their particular bias renders them clearly unqualified: Ms. Dixon is unqualified to hold the position she now holds.

  Do not fire her: Reassign her.

  Ms. Dixon works for a university, so a potential reassignment might be in the area of teaching.

  Ms. Dixon displayed the subject matter expertise needed to teach the following courses:

  "LOGIC OF THE AGES: A survey course on why anything involving what I –Crystal Dixon – consider a choice (such as Religious Affiliation, Political Affiliation, and Sexual Identity) should not be protected."

  A prerequisite to Ms. Dixon's new logic course might be:

  “THE STRATIFICATION OF SUFFERING: Why My –Crystal Dixon’s –Challenges as a Black Woman Trumps Yours (whoever you might be, whatever your suffering might be, whether or not I understand the first thing about it).”

  What do you suppose her reading lists might look like?

• Posted by kgotthardt on May 7, 2008 at 8:00am EDT

• Some of these comments must be so painful for GLBT folks to read. I know they were painful to me, especially the comment that "I have friends who changed from heterosexual to homosexual." Do you really think they "changed"? Do you think a major realization like this is like deciding to color your hair? Be reasonable and don't assume things about your friends' psychological processes and personal journeys.

  Regarding, "where’s the evidence that her performance has been affected by her beliefs?" I would agree that in making these public statements, Dixon has created a hostile environment for the very people she has been hired to defend. What member of the GLBT would feel comfortable coming to her now after she has publicly condemned them?

  While I defend her right to speak her beliefs, I have to question why she wants to remain in her current position. It might be her public statement is really a statement of her own inner conflict. Again, I would suggest she consider a job change. No one should be forced to work in an environment that contradicts his/her belief system, and no employee should feel he/she cannot find refuge in the Human Resources office which is legally bound to defend equality.

• Ms. Dixon's Column
• Posted by carol , teacher at Texas city ISD on May 7, 2008 at 2:30pm EDT

• I commend Ms. Dixon's courage in putting her beliefs in writing for public consumption. This country was founded on Christian principles and she is unequivocally correct in her position. Homosexuality is a sin, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Our country is degenerating at an unprecedented rate because we have turned our back on God's word. Gays are now proud, accepted and even exalted for being gay. Morality is the only solution to ameliorating the sorry state of our society. A thinking person grasps that absolute, whether they admit it or not. I only wish Ms. Dixon would make the transition into public office to effectuate her beneficial thinking the the many. The lady has integrity, brains and brawn.

• "Choosing the homosexual lifestyle"
• Posted by Diana at Portland State University on May 7, 2008 at 3:20pm EDT

• Dear Ms. Dixon,

  Living in the United States we are privileged to live in the "land of freedom" where people decide for themselves their lifestyles.

  Homosexuals, like blacks are minority groups, but that does not mean we can judge one another about what is right or wrong, or assume that everything is a choice.

  I encourage you to look at the prejudice you promote with your words, and ask if this is really how we want to promote the founding principles of our country.

  yours respectfully,

  Diana

• Anti-Gay Stance
• Posted by Carmen on May 7, 2008 at 4:15pm EDT

• I am an African American female alumn of the University of Toledo. I majored in Political Science and took quite a few sociology courses as well. I remember having the "debate" a few times about the similarities between black rights and gay rights, and I was always the odd ball. I was always the minority (no pun intended) in these arguments because of the extremely liberal views of my classmates and college professors (liberal college professors?? You don't say!).

  No one would care or know about gays' personal lives if they didn't feel the need to publicize it to the world. I don't have to put a bumper sticker on my car or a flag on my house for people to see I'm black. It's a physical feature. How in the WORLD is that the same as being gay?

  Male is to female as black is to gay---- uhhh... no. It makes no common sense and I'm glad to know that someone else understands and has the courage to stand up for herself. No one, including gays, should be mistreated. That's retarded. But don't compare your problems to mine. If I told the world about half of the skeletons in my closet, I'd be shunned (as would majority of us). But if I chose to reveal them then I choose to deal with what comes with it. I can't put my skin complexion in the closet. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

  I back her opinion 100%. God is going to bless her for standing up for what is right. No one else has a heaven or a hell to put her in.

• Ms. Dixon's comments
• Posted by a. mcewen on May 7, 2008 at 9:55pm EDT

• As an African-American gay male, the ignorance of Ms. Dixon's comments and those backing her up are what I see every day.

  She is an official dealing with equity and diversity. That being the case, she really should have used some common sense before writing her column. The university has an obligation to investigate whether or not she can do her job properly because her column demonstrates a potential bias against a potential group of students

  This is NOT a religious issue so whether or not homosexuality is a sin is IRRELEVANT.

  And just because one can't put one's skin color in the closet is no reason to demand that I as a gay male repress a part of my life. Repression is not healthy.

  The fact of the matter is that NO ONE can keep that aspect of their life private. Why shouldn't a gay or lesbian be able to walk across campus with their intended. Why shouldn't I be able to put up a photo of me and my partner at work. If I was heterosexual, no one would have a problem with it. Why should gays and lesbian repress our lives to suit the ignorance of others.

• Where the center of the argument should be
• Posted by Bill on May 8, 2008 at 5:00am EDT

• Here's what I wish we could see more of in debates like these: a discussion of the "sacred" side of sex. Rather than spewing gay-bashing rhetoric, I'd like to hear more about what God probably had in mind when it came to ANY form of sexuality: that it be a selfless, sacred act, and that the attempts we make to divorce it from it's true purpose--to procreate--lead to such tangled webs as we've seen by all the well-intentioned souls commenting on Cynthia Dixon's remarks. As a heterosexual male who has spent too much of his life NOT understanding the sacredness of human sexuality, I invite all parties in this disagreement, gay and straight, to partake in the following litmus test:

  Do I as an individual CHOOSE to engage in sex of any sort for MY OWN pleasure, or do I believe that sex is ultimately about the one I love? My guess is that most of us are too caught up in our "rights" to step back and think about those on whom we shower our love and sexuality--our beloveds. That's what Christ's love was about, and that's the way we'll be "judged" when it comes to our sexual exploits here on earth. And one more thing: you don't need any research to understand Christ's love. The heart is the one infallible instrument.

  Peace and selflessnes, for all.

• Posted by Kathryn A. Maxwell on May 8, 2008 at 8:05pm EDT

• Sometimes, when we think we've become inured to the idiocy that seems to reign in our colleges and universities, the administration at one of them will do something so inane that it is shocking.

  People who want to regulate speech are afraid of the truth. There is no other reason. So, your university is not only uninterested in seeking truth, but is determined to punish anyone who might be.

• Academic Nativism
• Posted by Frank on May 9, 2008 at 11:20am EDT

• Sure, and I'm thinkin' that it doesn't matter whether her public performance of her work was or wasn't in accordance with the U of T's guidelines and policies. Makes no difference.

  She's a Christian,don't ya know, and holds with Christian beliefs what are at odds with the University's dogma. Therefore, having revealed those beliefs (though, truth be told, not in her official capacity), well, she simply must be terminated.

  On t'other hand, since

  "No Christians Need Apply"

  'parently is another of this public university's policies, here I'm hopin' the board of trustees are ready for O, just a whalloping huge lawsuit....

• Double Standards
• Posted by Carlton at Jefferson Community College on May 12, 2008 at 10:00am EDT

• Most of the people crying out in Dixon's defense here seem to feel she's being persecuted for her religious beliefs. Yet her religious beliefs are likely to lead her to not do her job. Her religious beliefs are just as much a "choice" as she seems to think sexuality is (show me legitimate research that declares sexuality merely a choice--good luck finding it). There seems to be a double standard here that these people want to be able to discriminate against one choice, but be protected in another.

• To Carmen and Carol
• Posted by besh on May 12, 2008 at 1:35pm EDT

• Carmen, what you seem to not know is that the gay community has come out because invisibility was killing us. The truth is, people DID care about gay men and lesbians' personal lives--with the same hatred you see in these posts. People who were gay or suspected of being gay were routinely beaten and often killed. Have you no clue of the deep and institutionalized homophobia in our culture? Do a little research--look up Stonewall. That was the turning point. Gay people in the US decided that we had to come out, increase our visibility, demand to be recognized and protected as the contributing citizens that we are. Before we became visible, many people thought they didn't know any gay people. Now most folks know they do--their friends, neighbors, doctors, teachers, parents, children, etc. Our visibility is our survival.

  Yes, black people had no choice--they couldn't hide, and suffered for that. At the same time, as you state, you don't have to announce your presence. If your life depended on it, you would.

  You can't compare YOUR problems to MINE. Did you have to come out to your family? But it shouldn't be about comparing problems. It should be about living in love. By the way, my sexual orientation is not a skeleton in my closet. It is a beautiful part of who I am.

  Carol, the US was founded on equality for all and religious freedom. How you write Christianity into that I don't know. Nothing in this issue is about Christianity. If you are Christian that's nice. If you are a thinking person, why don't you see that Christianity is one religion out of many on this earth, with its one set of morals and laws that only apply to Christians. Besides, wasn't Jesus about Love?

  Ms. Dixon needs a different job, one that she can perform without interference from her religious beliefs.

• The Follow Up
• Posted by Dan , HR Administrator at large midwest research university on May 14, 2008 at 10:50am EDT

• She was fired.

• Dixon
• Posted by del williams on May 16, 2008 at 9:30am EDT

• As an individual, Ms. Dixon has the right to think what she likes and to what she likes in private council or among friends. As an administrator, who is hired to represent her institution in a sensitive area, her job is to represent the position of the institution. People who cannot accept that position and say so public are disassociating themselves from the istitution and can be fired. Standing on principle may be viewed as heroic, but it can also be fatal.

• Anti-Gay Stance
• Posted by Doug on May 18, 2008 at 4:30pm EDT

• It is interesting to see how many of you are calling for this lady's head and the rationale that you use. I've had to deal with your types before and in my view, you are a dangerous and repulsive lot. The adage “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” does not seem to cross your minds. You are as guilty of this as those fundamental Christians who don’t seem to understand that what they ask for themselves as Christians must be extended to other religions equally under the Constitution. An illustration of this is their demand to exhibit their religious symbols on public property. They don’t understand that Christian symbols in our public parks and government buildings, if allowed, would have to share space with the symbols of other religions including those of Satan worshipers, and I doubt that they would find that at all acceptable. Freedom of speech exercised in private, while it does have some legitimate limitations, does not end when one enters the work place door. In spite of your "education" many of you are nothing less than tyrants who will stop at nothing to squelch competing ideas and are right up there with the KKK with the exception that your robes are a little different and your headgear is of a different shape. Maybe you should consider living in a society where the expression of thought is considered dangerous or life threatening. My guess is that either you will fit right in or you will learn to appreciate the protections that are offered by our Constitution.

  The test of the lady’s employment should be as to whether she adheres to University policy in her job and whether she carries it out competently. To use personal beliefs as criteria sets a dangerous precedent. When it is your viewpoint that no longer conforms to the popular view of society, my bet is that you will be the first to bellow about your "rights" as you are being ushered out of your classrooms and offices with your box of personal belongings.

• Chrystal Dixon's stance on gays
• Posted by LouAnn on June 3, 2008 at 2:00pm EDT

• I have to applaud Ms. Dixon on her stance on gays and her courage in expressing that stance publicly. I couldn't agree with her more. We need to speak out more and not accept everything that is pushed at us.

• Posted by Rebecca on August 29, 2008 at 2:35pm EDT

• I firmly believe that this employee has a case in court if the University of Toledo fires her. She has not discriminated against anyone, she expresses her view. She has he constitutional protection to do that. To the person who said these views have no place in higher education, I am a law student, and I have the same view. I will be civil to any homosexual, my boss is, however it does not change the fact that they are sexual perverts. I am glad I declined this university's offer of admission, and will be sure to tell my loved ones not to support them either. Shame on you UT, the commitment to diversity should apply to all people, including those with differing opinions.

• Posted by Raven on December 4, 2008 at 10:35am EST

• Feel free to contact her at cydestiny@aol.com or call her at 419-346-7426. She is a Mary Kay rep...I did contanct Mary Kay to ask if this is the caliber of rep they want representing their organization.