05/15/2008
Fired UT Administrator Dixon Says Column Was 'Divine Mandate'
Former University of Toledo associate vice president of human resources Crystal Dixon, who was fired from her job after writing a column for the Toledo Free Press in which she said gays "violate God's divine order," talked to reporters at her church yesterday, and told them she had a divine mandate to write the column.
Said Dixon: "Whether you agree with me or not is really not the issue. The real issue is that I, like every citizen in the United States, have a First Amendment right to exercise free speech and to express my religion. I did so as a private citizen and I have been fired by a university that I have loved, served, and supported for many years."
Dixon is suing the university.
Previously
Ohio College Administrator on Paid Leave for Remarks About Gays [tr]
Suspended UT Administrator Crystal Dixon Fired, Will Sue [tr]
Posted 5:50 PM EST by Andy Towle in Education, News, Ohio, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
PETERPARKER,
coincidentally, i just got off the phone with my first boyfriend, and i mentioned this bitch's sitch. he used to work as director of a regional HR office of a telecomminications giant. he doesn't think she has a leg to stand on, legally. as someone in authority, when she expressed a personal opinion outside the job environment, she should not have referenced her employer or her employer's policies. when she did, she became a defacto spokesperson for her employer. big no-no!
i hope he is right and that this woman just slinks away.
Posted by: nic | May 15, 2008 11:24:31 PM
All of you are full of SHIT - including you Peterparker. I've also looked through the links - and despite her appalling stupidity, ignorance and bigotry, and her position as VP of Human Resources (human resources - it boggles the mind to imagine what gay employees at UT must feel), she wrote that letter as a *private citizen*. She is not an elected official. She just has a job in - God forbid - HR. The byline was NOT Crystal Dixon UT VP of HR. The byline was simply "Crystal Dixon." She has to forfeit her rights to free speech because she's employed at a university?
So what if she addressed the policies of the university? Are those policies a secret known only to UT administrators?
She may be unfit for human resources, but this should have been handled as an internal university matter concerning her attitude, job performance and potential to discriminate against a class of employees.
Sorry folks - she wins (except for the awful makeup.)
Posted by: dave | May 15, 2008 11:47:20 PM
Sux to see the word cunt used so freely. Clearly we all have a lot to learn...
Posted by: Giovanni | May 16, 2008 12:01:58 AM
Girl needs a divine mandate to get herself some Rogaine.
Posted by: E | May 16, 2008 12:04:43 AM
Girl needs a divine mandate to get herself some Rogaine.
Posted by: E | May 16, 2008 12:05:35 AM
Girl needs a divine mandate to get herself some Rogaine.
Posted by: E | May 16, 2008 12:05:58 AM
Sorry Peterparker - I sort of addressed that to you because I though at this late hour my comment would directly follow yours.
Posted by: dave | May 16, 2008 12:06:57 AM
Giovanni, if you don't like someone's use of the word cunt, then try shoving your head up your tightly puckered asshole. See you next Tuesday!
Posted by: D.R.H. | May 16, 2008 12:29:56 AM
Giovanni, if you don't like someone's use of the word cunt, then try shoving your head up your tightly puckered asshole. See you next Tuesday!
Posted by: D.R.H. | May 16, 2008 12:31:43 AM
NIC - I hope your ex is wrong - because for every gay person "as someone in authority" (some job as VP of HR - you know how many VPs of whatever they have these days?) who could not therefore express his/her opinion publicly - we would have an even more difficult time making our case.
Posted by: dave | May 16, 2008 12:40:49 AM
Dave,
I think I have to disagree with you on this. Her right to free speech hinges only if the University if a federal (or possibly a state) employer. There is no requirement that private employers provide a forum for free speech to anyone. Employees have been fired for displaying Dilbert cartoons in their cubes that hit a little too close to the truth in some companies. Poor sense of humor in management, yes. Actionable legal case, not so much.
In Ms. Dixon's case, she was responsible for hiring and terminating employees and insuring University HR policies are observed faithfully. The University can reasonably be expected to lose faith in Ms. Dixon's judgement and to be concerned that her decisions may put the university at liability. All it takes is for one potential employee to say they didn't get hired because they were gay or non-christian and the lawsuit begins.
Private citizen or not, she expressed a bias towards a class of people in such a way (unless university management doesn't read the paper) that university management could not escape knowing this bias existed. As the labor lawyers at work tell our managers, it doesn't matter how you discover that bias exists. Once you know it exists, you have a responsibility to act or face the consequences and liabilities of inaction. (As a sidelight even if an employee complains but "I don't want any action taken" management must act because they know a bias exists. You can't be enjoined to overlook discrimination.)
This is not the same as being fired for *being* gay. Ms. Dixon was not fired for being Christian but for expressing a bias towards a class of people. The reverse is a LGBT person being fired for saying that s/he feels Christians have a below par intellect because they believe in spirits. It is the known bias that cost her the job.
Posted by: Ed | May 16, 2008 1:03:40 AM
Ed - Fair enough, very interesting and I see your point about private employers not being accountable to provide a forum for all points of view. Persons holding her "point of view" are not a protected class. And, yes, I personally would lose faith in Ms Dixon's judgment (as soon as I saw that hair and makeup ...) as an HR administrator.
For me, however, this raises a disturbing question about freedom of expression. Would the case be different, or perhaps less inflammatory, if she were a chemistry professor?
Posted by: dave | May 16, 2008 2:14:53 AM
Coda: And yes, she was responsible for hiring and terminating employees, but I suppose her degree of prejudice remains to be established in a court of law. We all have our prejudices - albeit some less toxic than others.
I don't believe that prejudice or bigotry can be erased or legislated away - ever. The U.S. is a racist, homophobic society, but so is every other nation on earth. I was shocked when I went to China and HK years ago and found out that (traditional) Chinese folks call Europeans "ghosts" - not complimentary. The Japanese are even more discriminatory.
I think the only way out is to recognize one's own bigotry and be aware of it.
Posted by: dave | May 16, 2008 2:40:45 AM
DAVE,
i think that you confuse freedom of speech with freedom of speech without consequence. this woman should not be jailed or put to death for her personal opinions. we all agree that that would be anathema. but, frankly, it pretty much ends there. protected speech does not imply that all speech is acceptibale within context.
let's simplify this. let's say that i am an administrator for the University of DAVE or the national chain, DAVE-MART, or the city manager of the city of Davesville. if i, as an employee of any of these entities, broadcast a message through whichever medium, that i am opposed to the philosopical idea(s) that my employer, DAVE, espouses, should i remain on DAVE's payroll?
i may have a foating-turd of a chance to cling to if i make personal observations without identifying myself as an employee of said entity; none, however, if i say that i am in the administration of said entity. why should the law make Davesville continue to pay my salary while i denegarate Davesville?
Posted by: nic | May 16, 2008 3:32:23 AM
DAVE...no need to apologize for posting that I am 'full of SHIT' because, hey, had that appeared directly below my post it would have been a *totally* appropriate, not to mention mature, way to respond to the opinions of another poster on a blog. (rolls eyes)
I stand by my earlier post that Ms. Dixon was not simply a private citizen expressing her views on homosexuality. If Crystal Dixon had simply stated her belief that homosexuality is a choice and a sin she would not have faced any consequences. But she didn't stop there. By discussing her personal feelings about homosexuality in an article in which she also described benefit disparities at the University of Toledo, she blurred the line between private citizen and representative of the University of Toledo. Her views on homosexuality could, therefore, have been reasonably construed to guide the human resources department of the University of Toledo, thus damaging the reputation of her employer.
Posted by: peterparker | May 16, 2008 3:50:15 AM
PETERPARKER,
how are you? i'm going through another bout of insomnia. it sucks because i have to be somewhere at 8:00 am.
Posted by: nic | May 16, 2008 4:41:58 AM
wtf is a "foating" turd? it should be "floating". sorry.
Posted by: nic | May 16, 2008 5:25:39 AM
Let God hire her, then.
UT was absolutely right to fire her. Even if her byline did not state her position, she speaks out in her piece about the university policy in a voice that sounds official, while at the same time criticizing a policy she herself has to administer.
Yes, it would be different if she were a Chemistry professor. For one thing, a Chemistry professor is covered by academic freedom (which is different from free speech). Staff are not covered by academic freedom any more than employees of Wal-Mart are. Now if said Chemistry professor claimed that all matter is composed of earth, air, fire, and water and that that is what should be taught in Chemistry classes, he would certainly come under scrutiny, but he might not be shifted to other duties unless he actually began teaching that in his classes.
Posted by: Kevinvt | May 16, 2008 5:34:31 AM
Let's hope there's a divine order coming down real soon to tell her to STFU.
Posted by: Jack | May 16, 2008 8:27:29 AM
Yes she does have First Amendment rights to free speech.
Yes she did exercise that right.
Like my beloved mentor said:
"You are entitled to your own wrong opinion"
My mom also said, correctly, "If you can't say something nice, shut your mouth."
Posted by: AaronJ | May 16, 2008 8:32:21 AM
Jesus, I hate this bitch.
Posted by: God | May 16, 2008 8:37:30 AM
Hey Ed, federal and state employees also have restricted speech. We have anti-discrimination policies and policies against threats and certain language. Ever hear of the Hatch Act?
I'm not sure how the idea of "freedom of speech" got so skewed and warped. We do not have the freedom to say whatever we want whenever we want - there are consequences.
Posted by: shane | May 16, 2008 8:38:48 AM
"For me, however, this raises a disturbing question about freedom of expression. Would the case be different, or perhaps less inflammatory, if she were a chemistry professor?" @ Dave
From my perspective, I would say 'yes and no' with the provision that the Chemistry professor didn't arbitrarily adjust students grades based on their religious beliefs. "Sinner: F, Saved: A, Sinner but GOP member: C" Now I believe that the University may still have the right to fire her since most jobs are at will (see my comments about employees and Dilbert above.).
I doubt that they would have fired her though as long as there was no evidence of bias in her grading or class leadership. What really did Ms. Dixon in was that she was the top of the food chain for insuring that bias didn't exist. She is the equivalent of being a bad cop. Its not as much that she violates university policies but she is also in charge of insuring that no else does. If an employee has a bias complaint, can the university rely on her to address according to their policies?
The truth is that there are many people with biases and prejudices today. Look at the Harvard president who the comments about women having poorer math skills and the firestorm that generated. Would the same firestorm have occurred if the groundskeeper said that. People in higher positions are held to a higher standard.
Posted by: Ed | May 16, 2008 10:40:11 AM
People who are wondering about the chemistry professor question should google Jonathan Katz, the Washington University physics professor and self-described proud homophobe. As was correctly noted earlier, academic freedom applies to faculty, not staff.
Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 16, 2008 11:09:39 AM
DAVE, one other thing that's not being talked about much; she was offered another position where her views would be less in conflict with her job requirements. SHE refused! She wanted this lawsuit and I'm sure she was encouraged/pushed/prodded by the Alliance Defense Fund, an extreme right-wing religious law group that manufactures cases so that they can take them all the way to the Supreme Court to push their agenda down the throats of America through, wait for it....wait for it....JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!!!
These people are lying, hypocritical scum with a nefarious agenda.
It's really amazing to me how many people think that the First Amendment, the right to free speech mean that people can say what ever they want and no one (citizen) can challenge it and no company can regulate or limit it. That is a complete misundertanding of the Amendment. The right to free speech simply means that the GOVERNMENT, through law, can't regulate or limit the free speech of citizens UNLESS it can prove that such suppression or regulation is necessary for the safety of society or pressing national interests. Even still it's a VERY tricky concept to interpret and impose. It has NOTHING to do with a person being able to say what they want without consequences. It doesn't mean that a blog owner can't throw a person of his/her site for comments or behavior that the OWNER finds inappropriate. It doesn't mean that a business owner can say whatever he/she wants in a letter to the editor without concern that the public may boycott his/her business. And it doesn't mean that any employer can't fire someone for making statements that reflects poorly on the company or calls the employee's fitness for their particular position into question, even when the statements aren't made at work.
If a man who works in a high end women's shoe store releases a YouTube video talking about his fetish for women's feet and how turned on he gets when he touches them, then his boss finds out about it and gets a complaint from a customer who sees the video, you can BET that the man would be fired even though the video was made on the man's own time. NO court in the country would rule it unconstitutional to fire the man based on his right to free speech rights.
Posted by: Zeke | May 16, 2008 12:23:27 PM