Thursday, May 15, 2008

University Fires Human Resources VP For Anti-Gay Statements

Last month, Crystal Dixon, who was Associate Vice President for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, wrote an op-ed in the Toledo (OH) Free Press which read in part: "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle...." University of Toledo President, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, quickly responded in another column, saying: "Although I recognize it is common knowledge that Crystal Dixon is associate vice president for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, her comments do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo. It is necessary, therefore, for me to repudiate much of her writing and to make this attempt to clarify our values system."

The University also fired Dixon after she refused the alternative of a demotion and pay cut. (Toledo Free Press.) Today's Toledo Blade reports that Dixon now says that her First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religion rights were infringed by the University's actions. She says she had a divine mandate to write the column and that she was speaking as a private citizen. However a University spokesman said that Dixon's public expressions called into question her ability to perform in her human resources position.

19 comments:

Barb said...

This infuriates me. God bless Cynthia Dixon for having the courage of her convictions and not bowing to political correctness.

Is this America or not???

What she said is absolutely right --she can't choose her race which is genetically determined. Homosexual orientation is a product of personal choice, and environmental influence from parents or peers or molesters or media or --any number of unwholesome influences that put an idea into a kid's head--plus a vacuum of good info and moral teaching in favor of heterosexual monogamy in marriage.

We have choice at the first homosexual temptation or idea-- just as we do with the idea or temptation to commit incest, pedophilia, or adultery.

Maybe the moral BGSU president will take her to Howard U. with him.

Meanwhile, we need to divest ourselves of this notion that homosexuality is just as safe and healthy as heterosex --when in fact, oral and anal sodomy are responsible for HPV throat cancer, a host of other STD's and the new flesh-eating bacteria that is afflicting the gay populations in major cities. These latest disease stats have convinced me that NO ONE ought to be doing oral sex --as HPV is epidemic among women--over 90 per cent of college girls are said to be infected by the time they are seniors --so why wouldn't HPV-caused throat cancer be an inevitable consequence of oral sex? And we all know what homosexuals can do to copulate --only oral and anal sex. And the promiscuity compounds the problem.

You go, Cynthia!!!

tim said...

Hey.... The first martyr for Expelled II

Barb said...

How so? I don't get it.

Barb said...

O yes I do. You mean a movie sequel about discrimination against free speech on campuses.

Yes, she is a martyr and the cause is similar. Anyone with a faith-based opinion on current events is not fit for our tax-supported schools apparently.

CrypticLife said...

If she'd been part of a private company this wouldn't be an issue. She'd simply be gone under at-will employment.

So I guess the question is, is firing someone for expressing an opinion they derived from their religion the same as restricting religion?

I don't think it is.

However, nor do I like restrictions on freedom of speech. While I disagree with her, I don't think it merited dismissal. Even the editor of the paper who she complained about agreed she was entitled to her opinion. It's only the "offensive" speech that needs protection -- freedom of speech is useless if it only protects speech that's already acceptable.

billposer said...

As a private individual Ms. Dixon is entitled to say such things, and even as a university employee in other capacities, but she was Associate Vice President for Human Resources. The University is justifiably concerned about having someone with such views in a position dealing with hiring and firing, working conditions, promotions, etc.

Note also that she was not fired for her comments about gay people. She was fired for refusing to accept the more modest discipline of demotion and a pay cut.

Barb said...

And rightly she refused it knowing it was wrong to do this because of a religious-based view she holds on sexuality.

There are people I know at the U who are afraid to go on record with their views on this matter --because free speech is no longer allowed at the U.

There is no reason to be sure that Ms. Dixon wouldn't hire a flamer in her position at HR.

what we have here is proof that an outspoken Christian person with traditional moral values cannot hold a job in their school. And would probably be graded down in some prof's classes.

Chimera said...

"Homosexual orientation is a product of personal choice..."

I don't know who told you this, Barb, but I do wish you'd stop repeating it. It's a lie.

And the rest of that comment is leavened with the yeast of innacuracies, wishful thinking, and outright lies.

"And we all know what homosexuals can do to copulate --only oral and anal sex."

I am really tempted to assume that you speak from personal experience, there. I will settle, however, for saying yet again that this is a lie.

Anonymous said...

Chimera,
Yes , it is a pack of lies. there is evidence that homosexuality is genetically connected. And there is evidence for homosexuality among quite a few animal genera. And while it is true that culture seems to be able to suppress the incidence of homosexuality expressing itself, it does exist in nature and has apparent genetic connections.
Evidence, however, is something that some folks will never look at. It's much too threatening.

Chimera said...

Anon, I just wish I knew why they found it so threatening. It makes no sense that they're afraid of something that has no impact on them.

Barb said...

No impact? What behavior brought AIDS to the US? gay vacationers from NYC and San Francisco and other major gay centers to Haiti who were sexually active, promiscuously, with strangers on their trips. It was first called GRID --Gay related Immune Disease.
The Red Cross brought to a meeting I attended the recommendations from gay activists themselves in California (An AIDS task force) who wanted to slow down the epidemic --they advised the gay groups to stop their "high risk behaviors" including fisting, rimming, golden showers, and multiple gay bathhouse "hook-ups." Dental dams and condoms were recommended of course. Just nice normal gay fun, of course.

This meeting was non-judgemental about the lifestyle --it was a meeting for school board members, and administrators and perhaps sex educators on how to handle the then coming AIDS crisis --we were to treat all bodily fluids as potentially infected and everyone's ID info as highly classified --to protect the privacy of infected carriers of HIV. This cost the health professions and the schools a lot of money to build in greater health privacy systems --not to mention the extremely high costs of treating AIDS and other contagious diseases spread by immuno-suppressed people who were more vulnerable to contagion. AIDS research and maintenance of people who have AIDS is expensive.

You used to be able to clean up someone's vomit or the bathrooms with normal equipment; now there's a whole high cost industry of materials and systems for dealing with needles and fluids.

So don't say it doesn't affect all of us.

MOreover, think of the effect of having gay children who give you no grandchildren--and kids who die young and break your heart from this behavior and the diseases they suffer from the behaviors.

Think of the sorrow for women and children afflicted because Daddy slept on both sides of the bed. And when Dad decides he'd rather live with and have sex with a man. And think of the families afflicted with AIDS because of the needle stick accidents in hospitals and doctors' offices --
and because gays donated their blood.

Gays give us no kids for self defense or for social security support of the aged. No entrepreneurs, inventors, teachers, health care persons and other taxpaying workers for the future.

They have no one to support but themselves, yet want all the perks of families and hetero married couples who spent tons of their own money to rear and educate the next generation.

I feel sorry for anyone who feels compelled to be gay --who lacks interest in the opposite sex --but there was a first thought/a first temptation to be abnormal --which could have been avoided. At the very most, instead of celebrating this sorry condition with parades and marriage, we need to be getting at root causes --which are not genes. It it were genes, every set of twins should be either hetero or homo --and that's not the case. They have not identified a gay gene --and even if they did --would we say a gene for alcoholism or obesity was a good gene? to celebrate? or would we still try to help people be sober and slender? The latter, of course.

We need to intentionally raise kids to be heterosexual and avoid the conditions that cultivate gender identity confusion and abnormal sexual interest.

Chimera said...

Sorry, Barb...I don't see where any of this can be said to have a personal impact on you.

You are not a gay man having unprotected gay sex with someone who has AIDS, so why are you so afraid that you might get it?

" MOreover, think of the effect of having gay children who give you no grandchildren."

So what? Lots of heterosexuals don't want to have children, either. And gays are capable of having biological children. I know several of them. Happy and healthy children.

"Gays give us no kids for self defense or for social security support of the aged."

Social security was a scam and a pyramid scheme from the beginning, and it is on its way to failing already. I think having children so they can support you in later life puts an awful lot of burden on the next generation, anyway. And you are trying to commit them to a contract in which they are not being consulted. How is that fair? And what are you going to do when they say no? How are you going to answer them when they ask you why you haven't taken the responsibility to look after yourself? And with this attitude, how can you call anyone else selfish?

And the fewer people we have for "self defense" the better off the rest of the world might be. Maybe if we don't have the military clout, we'll stop invading other countries on whatever pretext.

None of your argument show how you are being adversely affected on a personal level, Barb.

Barb said...

I don't have to be personally affected to have an opinion about public policy --to have a concern for the future --to believe that I have a voice to use to proclaim biblical truth---to care about others.

I've grown fond of you Chimera! Would hate to see you lose out on salvation and the place Christ has gone to prepare for His "sheeple" --and I believe with all my heart that we must agree with God about basic right and wrong in order to repent of sin and receive His grace.

Chimera said...

Not interested in your "salvation," Barb. I have other plans, and they most definitely do NOT include any religion but my own.

You're not just trying to affect "public" policy. You're trying to invade the lives of private citizens and establish "acceptable" rules of behavior for how they may live, whom they may love, with whom they may associate, and how they express their emotions.

You can't do that.

Barb said...

Well, I CAN tell them what the Bible says. It says the only legit sex is within hetero marriage. I really believe this is the Word of our Creator --yours and mine and everybody's, by the way.

I don't deny that I proselytize --try to get people to "seek and find" Christ. I don't deny that I contend for the Christian faith.

Key to understanding religious free exercise includes an understanding of just what it is that people believe and want to do. I really believe that God cares about U.S. public policy and cares about what we legitimate and what we make illegal. I think He wants people's standards to be HIS standards --and thus I advocate for public policy that reflects God's moral laws --which include "do not steal, bear false witness, murder, commit adultery, covet," etc. And He also forbade all sex outside of hetero marriage.

You can argue that my view is for a violation of separation of church and state, but even without the church, you would surely favor laws against stealing and murdering. Yet, there are cultures that don't consider it wrong to steal, lie and kill --just wrong to get caught. America accepts Judeo-Christian morals in this matter of stealing, murder and lying, perjury, etc. And SCOTUS just voted to prosecute child pornographers as before. Protection of children is a high value in the U.S. Less so in some other cultures.

However, when it comes to your private life as a citizen, you go ahead and do what you want behind closed doors, Chimera. I don't want to know what you are up to. I don't want to see you marching in a parade like some Lady Godiva in a nun's habit. and I don't want America's kids to see you doing it either!

Chimera said...

"Well, I CAN tell them what the Bible says."

Only if they are willing to listen!

If they indicate that they are not interested in hearing what you have to say, you have to stop talking to them about it.

You can have your own opinions of how people ought to live, but you are not allowed to enforce those opinions. If you don't want to witness perfectly legal and growingly accepted practises, then you be the one to stay behind closed doors.

Barb said...

There again, you don't get free speech. I have as much right to express unpopular views on a forum discussing such views as you do --granted many forums do not allow free speech but moderate so no one will hear the contrary views to their own.

Chimera said...

"There again, you don't get free speech."

You don't it.

Blogs are not free speech. Blogs are private property.

I am not and never have been talking about preventing you from voicing your opinion on any forum or blog. Anyone who engages in a forum or blog discussion is taking part on a voluntary basis.

When you proselytize, your victims are not volunteers with a willingness to listen.

Get that straight, willya?

Anonymous said...

I definitely do not agree with the action taken by the university. Everybody has the right to express their beliefs and values and this is definitely not right.

The VP was expressing its own view. Why should that be a problem.

See you guys at -
Management Community