Angela McCaskill | Gay Marriage | Maryland | News

Gallaudet Diversity Officer Featured in Ad Opposing Marriage Equality in Maryland: VIDEO

A_mccaskill

Angela McCaskill, the Gallaudet University associate provost of diversity and inclusion who was recently placed on leave after it was revealed that she signed a petition to put Maryland's marriage equality law on the ballot (Question 6), is featured in a new ad from the anti-gay Maryland Marriage Alliance opposing Question 6.

The ad seeks to show that people who speak out against same-sex marriage are bullied, oppressed, and punished.

"We're ALL at risk under Question 6," the ad claims.

Check it out, AFTER THE JUMP...

In related news, McCaskill plans to seek compensation for "emotional distress" endured after being put on administrative leave: “'I am dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance, a university that manages by intimidation, a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff and students,' McCaskill said at a press conference in Annapolis on Tuesday afternoon..."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. NOM must be doing cartwheels over this gift from Gallaudet. Doesn't matter though, there's no way this would've passed in Maryland anyway, judging by most of the polls I've seen over time (May SurveyUSA outlier poll excluded). It looks like another ugly election day for civil rights.

    Posted by: Bruno | Oct 17, 2012 5:42:20 PM


  2. "NO ONE IS FREE UNLESS EVERYONE IS FREE. This woman is hiding behind her Blackness and/or her religion as an excuse..."

    Her religion, Bob. You'll never convince me or any other Black American that we have any type of priviledge over White American men because of our race. Child, please. WHERE? Harlem? No, not now.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 17, 2012 5:47:06 PM


  3. Something tells me that if the petition referred to whether blacks would be able to marry or not, Miss Tolerance wouldn't have signed it...

    Posted by: grego | Oct 17, 2012 6:24:56 PM


  4. "The ad seeks to show that people who speak out against same-sex marriage are bullied, oppressed, and punished."

    Bullying and oppression are forms of assault--for someone to commit those things and then say they, themselves, are oppressed and bullied is the same as someone stabbing another person and then claim oppression when they get arrested. These people are sociopaths because they can't understand and have no empathy for the damage they do to others and society as a whole.

    Posted by: woodroad34 | Oct 17, 2012 6:29:20 PM


  5. As I and others have stated, polls underestimate gay marriage opposition by about 7 points; therefore, in order to one day win one of these votes, we have to have support above 57 percent in order to feel somewhat confident.

    n Maryland, Maine and Washington, voters appear to be warming to the idea of legal marriage of same sex couples, raising the likelihood that come Election Day at least one of those states will join six others that have approved gay marriage.

    That is, if the polls are to be believed.

    Gay marriage activists suspect voters - especially those who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman - might be unwilling to voice their true feelings in polls.

    New York University professor Patrick Egan looked at polling from 1998 to 2009 and found opposition to same-sex marriage was underestimated by seven percentage points.

    "The best guess about how polls translate into election results is to add just about all the people who say they are undecided to the share of people saying they're going to vote against gay marriage," Egan said in an interview.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-usa-gaymarriage-poll-idUSBRE89G1B720121017

    Posted by: Javier | Oct 17, 2012 6:40:48 PM


  6. First of all, most people know what side they are on at this point of the game. Those that drop their support of our community were never real supporters.

    Secondly, what needs to happen is the gays in Maryland taking control of the message war and lot letting this woman get what she wants. Which is attention. Period. They, the hate side, are trying to make themselves out as victims. We cannot allow that to happen. Go out there and strongly state why Ms. McCaskill was placed on administrative leave. Stop the defensiveness. Gallaudet did absolutely NOTHING wrong in placing this bigot on administrative leave. Be on the offense and not on the defense.

    Lastly, be hopeful. It will be difficult to win Maryland but not impossible. Keep the work and heads up. Only three weeks of this to go before we know the fate of marriage in Maryland.

    Posted by: Francis | Oct 17, 2012 6:44:54 PM


  7. Javier | Oct 17, 2012 4:11:36 PM

    Javier is right. Just like the moronic "straight-ally" mayors saying they would not allow Sh-t-fil-a into their cities, the university administrators have given NOM a huge rallying point here. I mean, it's almost like this was all planned. Find a African-American EEO/Diversity chief somewhere...who happens to have a very liberal or gay friendly boss (more likely at Gallaudet than, say, Georgetown)...have her sign the petition when anybody in their right mind KNOWS their name is going to be found on it. Assuming her boss is going to put her on leave or whatever, when he finds out. PERFECT way to inflame the African-American community against the amendment. Notice how suspiciously quickly she lawyered up: if she was tenured she wouldn't have had to worry about being fired for something like this.
    Whoever in the Gallaudet faculty discovered she signed it SHOULD have just kept his/her mouth shut. I wish the left-wing would just appoint me "czar of getting sh-t done intelligently", pay me a few 6 figures, and save them from these idiotic shooting themselves in the foot episodes. Obama would be ahead by 10 points. I'm beginning to worry all of the intelligent poly sci majors work for the Republicans.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Oct 17, 2012 6:46:20 PM


  8. Or...I should say, intelligent AND greedy. But seriously, it's time for a stiff dose of sarcasm after this cr-p happening for the SECOND f-ckin time this year.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Oct 17, 2012 6:48:14 PM


  9. and now it's a campaign issue designed to create a wedge.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Oct 17, 2012 6:49:02 PM


  10. "Doesn't matter though, there's no way this would've passed in Maryland anyway, judging by most of the polls I've seen over time (May SurveyUSA outlier poll excluded). It looks like another ugly election day for civil rights."

    Agreed. The legislators who passed the law allowing the referendum shouldn't have bothered unless the polling clearly indicated that victory was likely. It's not like the referendum joke that did pass didn't take a lot of political horse trading and chicanery...they could have just spend the time on something else. Yes, liberal politicians can be just as guilty of grandstanding on an issue as the right wing. As it is, it will just give NOM another "victory" they can claim. I think Maine and Minnesota have better chances, but are still going to be really close if they pass.

    The only hope is to keep Romney from being elected; no doubt he would get to appoint at least 2 and perhaps as many as 4 Supreme Court justices (Scalia has a lot of grandkids to send to Pepperdine and would no doubt like to get on the full-time lecture circuit where he can make millions a year telling the reich wing what they want to hear) and could truly set the country back to the 1890s.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Oct 17, 2012 6:59:48 PM


  11. @DERRICK FROM PHILLY -- don't misquote me. What I am saying is that SOME Black people expect a "pass" or Teflon, for SOME things they do, particularly regarding Gay Rights. Last year, when Kobe and another NBA player yelled "faggot", nearly all the posts on HuffPo from Black people discounted or refused to see the offense, but many fewer Whites excused the White player who did it. To ME, this perpetuates oppression, and is unhealthy, even though I am from VERY Black Oakland and I understand the damage better than most Whites.

    Posted by: Bob | Oct 17, 2012 7:08:26 PM


  12. @ECHTKULTIG: At the very least, battling at the polls in Maryland sucks money and resources away from the bigots in other states...although I'm not sure if we really stand a better chance in the others or not. Minnesota especially has never polled above 50% for our side, I think we can probably count on a loss there too. Washington and Maine seem like the best hopes.

    Posted by: Bruno | Oct 17, 2012 8:44:13 PM


  13. I'm not quite sure I understand why this woman was fired. She signed a petition opposing gay marriage - an issue that is still controversial and far from decided in American society. What is there about being a diversity officer that requires you to support the legalization of gay marriage (and I ask this as someone who now supports SSM.) Was this woman advocating discrimination against gays in ways that are illegal (housing, jobs, education, etc...)? Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why one has to be liberal on the SSM question in order to do her job. The dominance of political liberals on the school's faculty and/or administration should not be factor in hiring or retaining faculty. This sounds to me like a classic case of the cultural Left doing what it does best - harming a worthy cause (SSM) with politically correct behavior.

    Posted by: Mary | Oct 17, 2012 9:18:01 PM


  14. Fire her. She has no business being in charge of diversity. Wouldn't they fire someone who signed a white supremacist amendment?

    Posted by: reality | Oct 17, 2012 11:00:42 PM


  15. Leave the woman alone. She has a right to sign a petition to place an issue on a ballot. Moreover, being a diversity officer does not mean you have to support same-sex marriage, since that would disqualify at least half of all AMericans from such a position. The gay rights cause does not need any more stories to feed the meme that gay rights diminish free speech.

    Posted by: Javier | Oct 17, 2012 11:11:29 PM


  16. Mary, can you even get the fact straight? SHE WAS NOT FIRED. She was put on paid leave.

    "The gay rights cause does not need any more stories to feed the meme that gay rights diminish free speech." LOL...so true, but that train pulled out the station early this summer.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Oct 17, 2012 11:30:44 PM


  17. ""The gay rights cause does not need any more stories to feed the meme that gay rights diminish free speech." LOL...so true, but that train pulled out the station early this summer."

    OK, so I guess this means once you've made a blunder it doesn't matter how many more blunders you make? Sorry if I'm misreading you here, but this is how it sounds to me.
    And yes, I didn't read the story carefully enough - she wasn't actually fired. But essentially she got in trouble at work for signing a petition. This type of left-wing bullying is just what I've been trying to warn Towleroad readers about for months. Social conservatives absolutely PRAY for situations like this so they can reap the benefits politically. And I do mean literally that they pray - as in "Please, God.....Chicago '68....one more time? The ultimate NOM fantasy would be some kind of pro-gay riot on a campus due to the presense of an openly anti-SSM professor, or better yet, a mob of gay sympathizers outside a church holding up vulgar or anti-Christian signs.

    Posted by: Mary | Oct 18, 2012 12:31:10 AM


  18. Sorry Mary, but this isn't bullying. Her actions and her job title are not cohesive. A diversity officer that is anti-gay simply doesn't cut mustard for obvious reasons. Quite the contradiction. That's all this comes down to.

    You're right, social conservative groups like stories like this. But we cannot allow them to win the message war and twist and turn and fabricate stories. We can't be in fear of right-wing reactions. We have to continue standing up for what's right. In this case it was Gallaudet College doing just that.

    Posted by: Francis | Oct 18, 2012 1:10:35 AM


  19. @Mary and @Javier: She is the diversity officer, not the janitor.
    Javier, in order to be a welcoming voice for all kinds of students, she can not suggest any student's basic human rights should be put to a vote.
    Mary: Yes, there is still controversy over same-sex marriage rights, just as there is controversy over inter-racial couples' rights on places like Alabama (where 42% voted in 2000 that they should be denied marriage rights), and just as there is controversy in places like Afghanistan over whether females shoukd be allowed to go to school at all.
    But I would suggest that a "diversity officer" in Alabama who belittles bi-racial students or one in Afghanistan who supports a vote by men to keep girls and women banished to their homes is someone who has no business pretending to be the official promoter of diversity at an educational institution.

    Posted by: GregV | Oct 18, 2012 1:49:41 AM


  20. @ Mary, as long as schools can fire a perfectly qualified teacher because of being gay, I don't see a difference in firing this woman for her bigotry when her job is specifically to FIGHT AGAINST BIGOTRY. Her actions pointed out to the administration that she is obviously not the best person to represent the school in matters of diversity. Maybe Gallaudet should have just said they fired her because she was straight...last I checked, sexual orientatin is not a protected class.

    Posted by: RHR IN TN | Oct 18, 2012 8:24:34 AM


  21. I know English & American Contract of Employment laws are different but surely; even if not explicitly expressed in the terms & conditions of her employment contract there is an implicit understanding that she should be seen to operate in a non-discriminatory way to All students and staff at Gaillaudet U . I suppose it could hinge on her rights as a private citizen to express her views as she sees fit. However nuns and abortion clinics springs to mind . If she cannot perform her role due to her beliefs then does not "frustration of contract come in to it" . I wonder if she informed her employers at the outset of her views and her inability to treat gay people the same as everyone else - if not I would like to think her employers would sue her for every cent in salary they paid her since she was installed in post for taking employment under false pretences. I do not for one minute believe the guff emanating from her mouth about just wanting "the debate to be heard"

    Posted by: Lock | Oct 18, 2012 8:50:11 AM


  22. @Derrick from Philly: "You'll never convince me or any other Black American that we have any type of priviledge over White American men because of our race."

    As a white American, I'm sure many black Americans cannot be convinced that they could ever possibly in-a-million-years be racist. (For many it is simply by definition.) You must not live in a big city. When I did not have a car, I had to ride the bus. The amount of anti-white behavior from the black busdrivers must mean that anti-white behavior is written into the union contract. That's just the beginning of the story...

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Oct 18, 2012 11:07:37 AM


  23. Don't know if this is still open for comment as I live in France -- but having a great deal of experience with Gallaudet when living in DC I have observed the anti-gay bias of the institution. A disproportionate number of students seem to be gay -- don't know if there's some cross with the gay gene and the deaf gene (!) but many students I knew who were gay were oppressed by the administration for their sexual identity. I'm not surprised at this story.

    Posted by: billyexpat | Oct 18, 2012 12:52:12 PM


  24. I've taken my meds, had lunch and a quick nap. I'm feeling much better.

    Here's a better example of what upsets me. At all of my jobs, there has always been at least one person who is black, female, or both whom HR bends over backwards to protect. These individuals are frequently known as EEOC statistics and can do nearly anything they want to, including be utterly incompetent. If a white male like me did the same, I would have been fired. You know someone is particularly bad when a person from the same group calls them an EEOC statistic. Anyone in these groups who contends that there is no advantage over white males is dealing in an ideal world. I very much support Affirmative Action - especially giving extra help when needed - but let's keep incompetents out of work they should not be doing.

    While I have not been out at work, I have sadly noticed that sexual orientation, while it may be in the non-discrimination statements, is still routinely discriminated against. One firm I worked at started a diversity program which seemed to work - in spite of the overwhelming anti-gay bias in the workforce. No surprise to me, the program was stopped before it reached everybody - probably because it *was* working.

    In general, a button is pushed when definitions are too narrow. Such as racism is *only* a problem of white behavior towards blacks. Such as rape is *only* nonconsensual straight vaginal sex in the missionary position under the covers with the lights out. Sometimes, there are different words used rather than a sufficiently broad definition. While we gays justifiably combat heterosexism, we need to be on guard against our own temptation toward homosexism.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Oct 18, 2012 2:16:16 PM


  25. The problem here is that the people who are outraged at her signing of the petition don't seem to realize that the gay marriage issue has not been settled yet politically. As of now, there is not yet a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So she is not advocating that anyone's EXISTING civil rights be violated. What you think people's civil rights SHOULD BE is another question. We are entitled to think one should have a right to SSM just as she is entitled to think one shouldn't. If and when SSM becomes legal nationwide if she's still signing petitions against it, THAT is the time when a charge of intolerance would make sense.

    Understandably gay rights activists are frustrated with her, but do you really want to imply that the anti-SSM position (still held by close to 50% of Americans and reprsented in the laws of 43 states) is the equivalent of the KKK? What political good could possibly come from equating half of America with the values of the Klan? The middle will be outraged at this, not just the right-wing.


    Posted by: Mary | Oct 18, 2012 10:15:02 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Candy Crowley Talks About Fact-Checking Mitt Romney and the Debate on 'The View': VIDEO« «