There are millions of people who are are not anti homosexuals who are against the marriage of 2 people of the same sex. THfs is clearly a matter of free speech and the Univeristy is acting like some fascist bully. She should be reinsteated immediately and the U should apologize and and pay her an indemization. !!

It is clearly not an issue of free speech as the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private employers like Gallaudet University. No one is trying to imprison the Chief Diversity Officer for her beliefs. In any event, free speech is not consequence-free speech.

As Chief Diversity Officer for a non-sectarian institution, she should be free from bias. If this is not possible for her, she needs to step down from that particular position.

The same ones who would condemn someone that stole from them, lied to them and cheated them out of their money.

And all of those things involve VICTIMS, while homosexuality does not -- which is why it is legal.

All of these are sins, wrongs clearly defined in the BIBLE, as is the basis of our laws.

WRONG. The bible is NOT the basis of our laws; we are a secular nation. Show us where the Constitution mentions God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious texts or deities.

Just as bestiality, adultery and incest are sins, wrongs. Interestingly enough, only the bestiality and incest are still prosecuted.

WRONG AGAIN. ONLY incest is illegal in this country; bestiality is only illegal in 37 states, and adultery is rarely prosecuted in the few states where it is still illegal (and usually involves paying a small fine).

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.

American Academy of Pediatrics

Peter Dimock's "studies" have been debunked by the unbiased, peer-reviewed studies of reputable medical and scientific professionals.

Also, homosexuals suffer a high rate of suicide, alcohol abuse/alcoholism, illegal drug use, numerous STDs, not the least of which is HIV/AIDS. When ALL over the world they are at the top of the list.

So explain why 85% of all HIV/AIDS cases worldwide are among heterosexual men, and the group with the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS is lesbian women.

Your ignorance is underwhelming.

So Air Force Veteran...people should be free unless it's people who do things you don't like? Oh...because The Bible says it's wrong. Well, last I checked our forefathers escaped England because of religious persecution...way to be a true patriot. Land of the free...but only for those who believe the same way I do. Of course, Jesus did say, "Love thy neighbor...unless he's gay...". Right? What an upstanding member of your church community you must be.

@Air Force: Stealing, lying and cheating are bad. You don't need the Bible to tell you these things are bad. The Bible also says to leave judgment to God, love thy neighbor, to not eat shellfish, no wearing blended fabrics, no hair cuts, etc. but I don't see any Christians these days protesting polyester blends outside department stores, I don't see any trying to shut down barber shops, none lobbying or signing anti-shellfishing legislation; but I do see quite a few Christians lying (just look at the 2012 election!), judging, and hating. Your point is obscured in general human hypocrisy and the general fact that basic human decency doesn't require religion (as many atheists, agnostics, and other areligious people prove daily).

Meanwhile, I don't reject your information about abuse leading to sexual confusion, but I do reject your conclusion. Your implication is obviously "everyone who is gay has been abused", which is definitely false.

As for those Yahoo and Google results you're suggesting:

A) A biased search term will give you biased results.

B) Just because it shows up on the Google doesn't mean it's true.

C) Yes homosexuals likely do have higher rates of suicide and substance abuse. Why? Because of people like you. Imagine being bullied from the moment you start dating and every day since for the rest of your life. Being unsure if you can have ANYONE (no matter how nice and put together they are) you like meet your parents because you may be disowned. Imagine walking down the street with your significant other and being harassed constantly (either being called a "sinner", people insisting that you were abused, that you are diseased, etc.), not being able to so much as hold hands without being accused of "shoving a homosexual lifestyle in [my] face". As far as STDs and AIDS goes, heterosexuals get those too.

I'm certain that black people for decades didn't feel to happy, even after the Civil War. Does this mean that dark skin isn't normal either?

So President Obama should not have been allowed to be our president because of his beliefs until old Joe opened his big mouth? You do remember that he was against gay marriage don't you?

What a bunch of malarky, an American can't have an opinion anymore.

Something just isn't right here. Dr. McCaskill, I believe has the right to say what she wants to say. Believe that's freedom of speech. I do have a problem with same sex marriage. It is totally wrong. The bible says 1 man and 1 woman (not man & man or woman& woman). Call me what you want to, but it is my right to think and speak as I want. I served 28 years in the military and I know I served with gays. No problem. It seems like in this day and time, the gays and lesbians try to push it down your throat, no pun, to the point that I am starting to push back. I believe straight people have as many rights as gays and if you don't like what I say - tough!!!

Air Force, jeez, citing the Bible while spewing hate - the epitome of all that is wrong with religion.

clearly defined in the BIBLE, as is the basis of our laws.

NO, IT IS NOT. Now either stop pretending to have been in the Air Force, or recant your oath, which you obviously failed to understand.

Indeed, you remind me of another seed from today....

http://magic3400.newsvine.com/_news/2012/10/16/14477268-homophobes-likely-to-be-closet-gays-study-finds?last=1350408489&threadId=3590342&sp=0&pc=25#last_1

what is it about a right to express ones own view on political issues, that the liberal establishment does not understand; if two persons of the same gender want to share their life together, that is their right under law,a civil contract is all that is required; however Marriage is reserved for a union of a man and a woman, since 4000 B.C., in every culture, religion, and government, each person has a right to their own political opinion.

I believe straight people have as many rights as gays and if you don't like what I say - tough!!!

Straight people actually have MORE rights under the law than GLTBQPAI. And I don't like it. Not because you have misstated the situation, but because it is wrong to deny a human being civil rights under the law based on nothing more than their sexual orientation.

What did you do to "earn" your rights as a heterosexual? Nothing. You were afforded them by birth as a citizen of this country. You have engaged in relationships with people to whom you were attracted. You were not prevented from marrying someone simply because they had red hair, or blonde hair, or brown eyes, or green eyes, freckles, crooked teeth, or poor eyesight. Why? Because all citizens of this country, no matter the characteristics they came into the world with, are afforded the same civil rights.

No matter how much you want to believe that homosexuality is a choice, it is no more a choice than heterosexuality is a choice. And it is wrong, immoral, unethical, and unbelievably judgmental to deny an entire segment of the population their civil rights as citizens of this country, based on the fact that they were born with a sexual orientation different from your own.

And, if you don't like what I say, tough. I have as much right to say it as you have the right to not like it. You don't have to like it. You simply have to accept that you have no right to deny anyone the same rights that you, yourself, are given simply by accident of your birth.

RIGHT, she should absolutely get to keep her job.

The notion of same-sex marriage is absurd. (I understand 25% of "gay" men *themselves* don't support same-sex marriage. And for good reason -- they're a product of a hetero relationship, just like the rest of us -- they're not some alien race.)

And don't be tricked by the tired and false analogy with race. That's a disgusting and facially dishonest analogy.

Congrats to the university for this sane decision. Don't capitulate to the mob.

Sorry Gay Community, as much as you want to, it is illegal to fire someone due to their political stance or their religious beliefs. Try again please...

Dr. McCaskill, has a right to his beliefs, however he does not have the right to employment at the university... especially if it can affect the manner in which that person conducts administrative role.

Its funny to see all the anti-gay people saying "it shouldn't matter if he is anti-gay its wrong for X-organization to exclude him for it, its freedom of speech!"

But as soon as a organization excludes someone for being gay "it is their right to uphold their own values!"

well guess what it, if its going to be played like that it is going to go both ways.

hypocrisy is a general requirement of bigotry and racism.

@Saxon:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage Marriage is not, and has never been, globally recognized as being limited to only heterosexual pairs.

2) Everyone has a right to an opinion. That's not what's up for debate. The question is, if your opinion prejudices you against the people you've been HIRED to PROTECT, is it going to interfere with your ability to do your job? Her opinion happens to clash with her job. If she were a clothing designer, or business accountant, or factory worker, it wouldn't matter. Since she deals with DIVERSITY, in this case, it does (now if her opinion were that Romney has a better tax plan than Obama, or that we should open more of the US for oil drilling, etc it wouldn't matter; it might if she had the oil opinion and worked as an environmental protection agent for a local eco-firm trying to go green, however, but her opinion on gay marriage wouldn't matter there in that case).

Sorry j70141 in Colorado try again please...., it is not illegal to be fired from a position if you feel their beleifs whether that be political or religious are in opposition to your firm or the position the individual holds.

For example you can not be fired for your religion but you can be fired for talking about it in the work place or for displaying religious artifacts. Also a private firm has the right to tell you to remove a political bumper sticker from your car or fire you if you do not.

These may seem over the top or wrong but hey this is the law!

Has she actually done something on the University or to a student that showed she wasn't doing her job? If she has then the University has a right to dismiss her if she hasn't then she should keep her job. It isn't what you think it is how you perform that shows your bias in a working environment. I'm for same sex marriage but just because someone else isn't doesn't mean they won't perform their job properly. If she said she was a Democrat and voting for Obama would she have to step down because she couldn't properly help people who are Republicans............of course not. Now is she said she wouldn't help people who are Republicans then it is a reason for dismissal. Everyone needs to step back and relax.

The only person who should be fired is the university's president. And how come the aclu won't give her assistance? this is one of those endangered oppressed females we've been hearing about this election cycle, isn't it? and how can this MAN fire this WOMAN? where's the unity ladies?

I am glad that the university recognized their error. The fact that this woman signed a petition calling for the issue to be put to a vote should have no impact on her employment for two reasons. First of all, signing the petition did not mean you supported the overturning of the law, only that you felt it should be put to a vote of the states electorate. And second, her personal views have nothing to do with whether or not she is performing her job well. It is not at all uncommon for people to do things and promote positions in their employment that they may not personally agree with. I am sure there are many HR professionals out there who have serious issues with the LGBT community. That does not mean that they are going to discriminate against them in hiring or other personnel related matters. They may support their employers diversity goals even though they may not support them in their private lives. There are many people who work at universities that use race as a factor in determining admissions when they are personally against this practice. Your private views should not affect your employment unless you allow them to impact how you do your job. This woman should be immediately reinstated with an apology from the university president for placing her on leave to start with.

Dr. McCaskill has every right to sign a petition as a private citizen and not have it effect her job. This blitheringly jackass American notion that everything we do everywhere should affect our jobs is beyond idiotic. No one, ever, at any time made any accusation of substance that Dr. M. could not properly do her job. Her job as the Chief Diversity Officer is to ensure diversity among the student body and faculty and to ensure compliance with applicable laws covering discrimination. That DOES NOT mean that she cannot voice her opinion regarding what the law should be. And her position on gay marriage is not at all relevant since Gallaudet University is not in the marrying business. It would appear once again that the progressive agenda is that anyone that does not support the liberal cause should be denied all employment and be sent to a reeducation camp until they learn the proper way to behave.

...joe, and the University has every right to fire their Diversity Officer who doesn't promote diversity.

The University should re-instate Dr. McCaskill, assuming she's being honest that she is not anti-gay people. She doesnt have to support gay marriage, it's her right not to.

However, it is also the right of students and the community to question her sincerity, and to scrutinize her actions going forward.

She made her bed, she's now welcome to lie in it.

Remember folks, she's the Diversity Chief...she doesnt have to like gays to make them "feel welcome".

I imagine, if she were the Diversity Chief and opposed christianity, the Christian community would say she has every right to her views and to be the Diversity Chief and not like christians, er, not support christianity, would be absolutely ok - admirable even - for having her own views and going against the grain. Right Christians? You'd feel ok with a Diversity Chief who doesnt support Christianity, right? Of course, otherwise you'd be hypocrites...right?

There is no double standard here. The diversity officer can hate gays. I wonder if the campus medical team are Christian Scientists? And the person who teaches women's studies is a Fundamentalist Baptist (or maybe a Taliban supporter)? But hey - people can be biased or bigoted on their personal time, but it doesn't interfere with their work (unless you are in congress) - right?

So ironic that an Air Force Veteran has no concept of why the military exists--to protect American FREEDOM.

As for the Galludet situation--she's a DIVERSITY OFFICER. Anyone else see a problem with that?

Supposed she signed a petition to declare the civil rights amendment invalid? Would she still be allowed to do THAT job? She's proved she is no longer to be trusted to be unbiased for that particular job.

I'm sure there are people who don't think people with genetic disabilities like deafness should be allowed to marry.

Wonder what she thinks about their opinion.

Air force Veteran said:

All of these are sins, wrongs clearly defined in the BIBLE, as is the basis of our laws. Just as bestiality, adultery and incest are sins, wrongs.

Er, actually the Bible says 'Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is a detestable thing.'

It never says anything about two women lying together. So...could it be hat the Nicene Councils, all the way back in 300 CE, were all men (and men almost universally think two girls together is 'hot') and figured if they put that in the Bible no one would read it so they left that out? Or does God just have a double standard?

The Bible says "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter" or thy son, daughter-in-law, son-in law or children of your children.

It does not, however, specifically forbid uncovering the nakedness of anyone else's children, nor does it say anywhere 'thou shalt not lie with a child as with an adult.' Back then, life was hard, infant mortality was high, and females got married as soon as their fathers gave permission and they started having kids as soon as they were physically capable of it in hopes of having ONE child survive to adulthood. as a result, Mary herself may have been about 12 when she was pregnant with Jesus--she was, if you remember the Bible story, engaged to Joseph but not yet married, and per Jewish custom she would have been between 12 and 14 years old.

Which, to our modern standards, is a child and therefore makes God a pedophile for getting Mary pregnant.

All men are created equal... What part of that aren't the Right understanding?

saxon said:

Marriage is reserved for a union of a man and a woman, since 4000 B.C., in every culture, religion, and government, each person has a right to their own political opinion.

My religion has never defined 'marriage' as 'one man and one woman'. We have sects for gays (the Minoan Brotherhood) and lesbians (the Dianics) and if two of our Minoans or two of our Dianics decide they want to celebrate the Goddess's gift of pleasure only with each other, any of our priests and priestesses can marry them as they choose.

But then when they go to file their marriage with the government the government refuses to acknowledge it--even though they will recognize the marriages of any of our other sects. That is a direct violation of some of our practitioners' 1st Amendment right to practice our religion as we so choose!

Oh and since worship of the Goddess, the Great Mother, goes back to when mankind was still fingerpainting on cave walls, our practitioners have defined marriage as any commitment between two consenting people for much longer than an of the Abrahamic belief systems--Jews, Christians, Muslims. So you cannot say marriage has only been defined as between a man and a woman since 4000 BC.

She can have her job back as long as she undertakes Diversity training - which she then conducts?

It's OK to be against same sex marriage.

Any so called 'diversity officer' that makes a stand EITHER WAY should be fired......this person is obviously anti-gay and should NEVER have been hired...hope their is no hope for re-hire!!

It's OK to be against same sex marriage.

Sure, if you're a bigot.

As Chief Diversity Officer for a non-sectarian institution, she should be free from bias. If this is not possible for her, she needs to step down from that particular position.

There is no such thing as being "free from bias". Every one of us carries biases. If you are for gay marriage, then you carry a bias against those who do not believe as you do. Someone at the university obviously had a bias against Christians who believe in male/female marriage. And of course she did have a bias against same sex marriage. This is the slippery slope of "diversity". Too many start by writing a list of what diversity includes, and if your point of view is not on the list, you are not "diverse". True diversity, however, would embrace ALL points of view, allowing even for those who prefer a more traditional view of marriage.

Liberals don't understand that diversity is more than just embracing the liberal point of view on everything (and calling those who disagree bigots).

Air Force Veteran - That says it all.........

Bruce-308647 - Someone at the university obviously had a bias against Christians who believe in male/female marriage.

You're free to hold bigoted religious views but the problem starts when you think the state should enforce the sharia laws of your cult against gays.......especially if your job title is "diversity chief".

You're free to hold bigoted views against the religious but the problem starts when you think the state should enforce the hateful views against Christians.......especially if they are citizens too.

The majority on here seem to believe that she should be fired because as diversity officer, she "appears" to be anti-gay. Yet there are politicians who have sworn to uphold the Constitution but then openly defy it and they get a pass and even re-elected for life. Why is that? Honest question.

Yet there are politicians who have sworn to uphold the Constitution but then openly defy it and they get a pass and even re-elected for life. Why is that? Honest question

Great question............I would guess that a lot of voters are not all that intelligent. People say they hate Congress and what to throw them all out then turn right around and vote their same guy/gal in. They went to get rid of the other guys Senator/Representative but not their own.

I hope this doesn't get collapsed...............I feel like I have spellcheckeritis (the collapse bug).

So explain why 85% of all HIV/AIDS cases worldwide are among heterosexual men, and the group with the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS is lesbian women.

Gee, I can answer that. Don't you know math?

Scenario: If we have 1000 test samples, with a 900/100 gay ratio (10% gay), if 500 of the test samples are infected, then 425 are hetero, then 75 are gay. That means that with your 85% argument, less than half of the infected are hetero and 75% are gay.

As for your question about lesbian women... I noted you WAY AVOIDED the gay men topic. The reason is, lesbian women aren't injecting AIDS into the rear with semen like men do.

You completely missed the point about lesbian women (no surprise); no one is "avoiding" anything about gay men. The point was that lesbian women are also homosexual, yet they have the lowest incidence (as a group) of HIV/AIDS. You and your ilk seem to think that AIDS is a "gay disease," yet it infects heterosexuals, too.

BTW, heterosexuals also engage in anal sex more than homosexuals do.

Yeah. Well... I guess that means Gay Men are certainly MORE likely to get AIDS then. This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they are more likely to engage in dangerous activities related to AIDS infection, would it? After all, AIDS doesn't discriminate.

And there goes your whole 'heterosexuals do more' argument again.

Let's see now... if nearly 100% of gay men engage in it, and only 10% of heterosexuals engage in it, there goes your math again... of course hetersexuals do MORE of it.... there are MORE OF THEM. duh!

If I were you, I'd just simply quit trying to use only liberal skewed 'facts' for your data. I know how desperate you people are to try and 'normalize' your behavior, but lying about and twisting the facts really does ruin your credibility.

Sure, if you're a bigot.

Erin honey, it's OK to be against same sex marriage, and, (are you sitting down??!?), it's OK to be a bigot.

It's not against the law to be a bigot.

If I were you, I'd just simply quit trying to use only liberal skewed 'facts' for your data.

And if I were you, I'd try to find some facts to support your data. Oh, wait, that's right -- there are no facts that support your idiocy.

I know how desperate you people are to try and 'normalize' your behavior, but lying about and twisting the facts really does ruin your credibility.

The medical and scientific communities have already "normalized" homosexuality, and their word on this trumps your insignificant, pathetic efforts to say otherwise. And, like so many "good" bigots, you confuse behavior with orientation. Also, I have not lied about or twisted any facts -- I don't need to. My credibility is still light-years ahead of what you'll ever attain.

BTW, I'm a straight, married woman who supports equality -- but how like an ignorant bigot to ASSume that I'm gay because I support equality.

It's not against the law to be a bigot.

No one has said otherwise, cupcake -- and I notice you've embraced your right to be one VERY enthusiastically.

And Erin honey, calling people names is really going to get them to change.

Well, sweetie-pie, I really don't care if you change or not. The point is that you're on the wrong side of history, and the laws. But then, the three of you also seem to have embraced being losers very enthusiastically.

That's why I'm now an ass-kissing libtard.

Of course, since you keep your head in yours so much, it's the most convenient place for you to reach. Perhaps that's why you're called a "conservaturd".

Erin, you're feisty!

Do you have children?

Oh no, I think you are wrong about that. I have a very clear mental image of what Erin looks like, and here it is

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=heidi+klum&qpvt=heidi+klum&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=A0EDE5CD7EEBAFEE722787269053FB94411AF41D

This is getting to be a bit fun... tick off a lib-tard day...

Okay, let's dive more into your lies...

there are no facts that support your idiocy.

Let's see now... I don't believe I put forth any facts... double-check... nope, sure didn't. All I did was put forth a little math. If you can't do math, don't blame me.

bigot... ASSume...

No wonder you are so worried about facts and truth. You are afraid that if you don't go along with the media hype, you will be considered a bigot and that would just ruin your day.

I have very bad news for you. You see, a bigot is someone that is uneducated or takes to a stance out of ignorance. Since you are presenting your opinions out of ignorance... I guess that makes you a... bigot? I hope that didn't ruin your day...

Then again, someone that 'name calls' and can't present facts is ignorant anyways. So no change here.

The medical and scientific communities have already "normalized" homosexuality

Ah yes, I remember reading about that. Interesting history about that. It appears that the gay and lesbian organizations kept raiding the APA meetings and demanded that they change their stance or they would continue harassing them. So they changed it.

No new scientific evidence to that change, just simple politics. If that isn't the height of utter ignorance, I guess I just don't know what is.

btw, there is an entire organization of doctors and psychologists that completely disagree with that standing and work to people that want to change their preference.

You can find them here: www.narth.org

When you start thinking for yourself for once, instead of being worried what someone will 'call' you if you don't conform to their thinking. Maybe then you will one day understand what it is like to be an 'individual' and know that just because someone doesn't 'think' the way you do, isn't cause for name-calling.

It appears that the gay and lesbian organizations kept raiding the APA meetings and demanded that they change their stance or they would continue harassing them. So they changed it.

That would be one of those "facts" that you deny having "put forth" -- and it obviously comes from the encyclopedia of your ass.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

In 1953, Evelyn Hooker, PhD, applied for a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grant to conduct research on "normal homosexuals." During this period of American history, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was seeking out communists wherever he suspected they might be lurking; homosexual acts were a crime; bomb shelters were springing up in backyards; and the term "normal" homosexual was thought to be an oxymoron. A variety of medical and psychological treatments to "cure" homosexuality were employed, including ice pick lobotomies, electroshock, chemical castration with hormonal treatment or aversive conditioning. Gay parties were raided by the police, particularly in election years when a crackdown on "sexual perversion" was seen as a positive step in the fight on crime.

Hooker's proposal to study gay men began as a result of a close friendship she developed with a former University of California, Los Angeles, student, Sam From, who introduced her to the gay subculture. She became one of the heterosexuals "in the know." It was From who told her it was her "scientific duty" to study homosexuals and promised her access to all the subjects she needed. Initially she demurred but eventually, with the encouragement of From and her colleague Bruno Klopfer, Hooker began an investigation that would ultimately result in the removal of homosexuality as a form of psychopathology from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III of the American Psychiatric Association. This research was the culmination of Hooker's lifelong interest in social justice.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.aspx

btw, there is an entire organization of doctors and psychologists that completely disagree with that standing and work to people that want to change their preference.

You can find them here: www.narth.org

ROFLMAO! An anti-gay hate group is hardly a credible, unbiased source of information:

Billing itself as the counterweight to the two most prominent mental health authorities — the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association — NARTH pushes the idea, with the zeal of a religious movement, that no one is born gay and that a person's sexual orientation can be changed through what is known as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy, also commonly called "ex-gay" therapy. At the heart of this argument is the belief that homosexuality is an unnatural deviation from normal sexual development, a form of mental disorder.

With these views, NARTH has emerged as the preeminent source of what many regard as "junk science" for the religious right — psychology that underpins the anti-gay movement's fervent opposition to equal rights and stigmatizes LGBT people as mentally sick.

Without the research NARTH provides, there are few avenues remaining for the religious right to condemn homosexuality, at a time when the American public is growing more accepting of LGBT people and more open to extending equal rights to same-sex couples. "There's no other play in the playbook except going back to the fire and brimstone," argues Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, one of several watchdog groups monitoring the reparative therapy industry.

But even as NARTH is held up as an authority on the science of homosexuality by both fringe groups and politically potent national organizations like the Family Research Council, its claim that LGBT people can be "cured" of their homosexuality is not backed by the evidence.

In fact, every major American medical authority has concluded that there is no scientific support for NARTH's view, and many have expressed concern that reparative therapy can cause harm. Most strikingly, in 2006, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated: "There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." The APA added, "Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/queer-science

Apparently, that prejudice and discrimination is "flourishing" in suckers like you, who fall for their bull@!$%# hook, line, and sinker. Talk about being uneducated and ignorant! A 6-year-old has more discernment than you apparently do.

I don't care what people call me if I don't conform to their way of thinking -- unlike lemmings like you. I have enough education to want to have informed opinions and factual data on which to base them, not the unsupported, biased rantings of insecure "experts" who you consult only to confirm your own bigotry and obtuseness. You, like all "good" bigots, don't bother to get information from both sides of the argument, weigh that information, and consider the source. If they say what you believe, you think they're "jeniuses," just like you're a "jenius".

What a bunch of pathetic morons. No wonder you consistently LOSE in the courts on this issue (as well as many others); your arguments are as feeble as you are.

Here you go Erin

Didn't take long to find at all... enjoy.

AIDS Rate 50 Times Higher in Homosexual Men: Center for Disease Control

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/aug/09082609

They always say fat women can bloviate the longest windbag possible.

Isn't that right, not a russian?

;)

lol...

I'm surprised that she didn't call the Center For Disease Control a biased bigoted organization.

I love how she votes for her own postings...

50 times higher?!!? Wow, that's a lot.

Is it true that AIDS stands for "Anal Inserted Death Sentence"?

This is one of the reasons that homosexuals have shorter life expectancies, than heterosexuals. I'm just saying that same sex attraction is a handicap in life, and that we should all hope that it does not affect us, or our children.

It is better if our behavior was compatible with our bodies. The purpose of a vagina is to have a penis inserted into it.

That's funny; I just searched the CDC website and it says nothing like that. Perhaps because you get your information from a christo-bigoted website like lifesitenews -- so you deserve to be as misinformed and uneducated as you obviously are.

Is it true that AIDS stands for Anally Inserted Death Sentence?

WOW. Then you'd all better take your heads out of yours immediately.

not a russian, yeah, I know that song too. It's actually called Anally Inflicted Death Sentence by the band S.O.D.

Erin, do you have children? Are you a mother?

Have you ever allowed a man to put his erect penis in your vagina?

HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

• Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).

Boy, does this one have her head in the sand or what?

I just read this in WikiPedia

In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who have sex with men^[2] with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases.^[32]

So, even though male homosexuals are a small minority in the US, their butt fking is responsible for a lot of AIDS.

I am Sooooooo Glad that I do not have the slightest desire to let another man put his erect penis in my anus. And I'll tell you what else, any man who lets another man put his erect penis in his anus has serious mental problems.

Geez, why don't you just go out there and fk horse, or a cow?

Listen to me guys, your man thing is supposed to go only one place, in a girl!

I guess she got embarassed at her lack of misinformation and didn't want to comment on the last two.

I like how she logs in with multiple accounts in order to 'vote' for her comments. LOL!!

Really? And heterosexuals do not transmit STDs?

Yet worldwide, approximately 85% of all HIV/AIDS patients are heterosexual men.

I guess she got embarassed at her lack of misinformation

I am never embarrassed at my "lack of misinformation" (in fact, I'm quite proud of it) -- YOU should be embarrassed by YOUR lack of information.

I am never embarrassed at my "lack of misinformation" (in fact, I'm quite proud of it)

She is proud of her LACK of information!?!? LOL!!!! I haven't had a laugh like that for a long time.

Apparently, j70141, you not only cannot speak English, but you cannot read it either.

You typed: "I guess she got embarassed at her lack of misinformation"

A "lack of misinformation" would be a "surplus of information"

I would ask how stupid one person could possibly be, but I suspect we haven't even begun to plumb the depths of yours yet.

Well, I guess you didn't catch my word play. Oh well. Yes, you certainly have an abundance of 'cut & paste' information, but it is still mis-information, since it is all word played to make off with a twisted meaning.

Again, you try to twist-play your words. There goes your 85% misquote again.

Since the world makes up, according to whoever you ask, anywhere between 90% - 98% heterosexuals, of course they would make up the majority of infected.

Let's ignore once again that homosexual men are 50 times more likely to get infected than a heterosexual. Anyone with half a brain can do that math and see the facts.

You, of course, believe that anything that makes homosexuals out in anything but a positive light could only be because they are discriminating. That, of course, is just plain ignorance. Which, once again, (other than the name calling you seem to like to play), is just bigoted behavior.

My only assumption that you believe Christian newspapers and such like are making up statistics and are lying bigots is only because you liberals just love to hide the facts and twist the truth, and figure that since you are doing it, then everyone must be doing it too.

I still haven't heard anything about your misinformation about the CDC:

That's funny; I just searched the CDC website and it says nothing like that. Perhaps because you get your information from a christo-bigoted website like lifesitenews -- so you deserve to be as misinformed and uneducated as you obviously are.

HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).

OOOOPPPSSS!!! I guess you were just simply misinformed again...

Agree 100%. I don't care that the university keeps her on, just NOT as the "chief diversity officer".

Shouldn't a chief diversity officer be familiar with methods and means of discrimination? How could she, a black, hearing-impaired woman, not understand that it is the paradigm of the tyranny-of-the-majority to have minority legal rights decided at the ballot box! She went to a segregated elementary school in Alabama, for chrissake. It seems that her education at Gallaudet [PhD] was lacking. This is a teachable moment for her and the university that they should embrace.

Ha Ha. Diversity and tolerance UNLESS you happen to disagree with the promoters of the radical homosexual agenda who are themselves anti diversity and intolerant.They expect everyone to accept their viewpoint while refusing to accept the viewpoint of those who disagree. And now to the point of costing people their jobs? Thought police in action! This lady should sue the pants off of this "institute of higher learning" and donate some of the money to organizations that promote a healthy marriage and family structure.

She is not hearing-impaired, she is Deaf. It is a cultural identity. Are you "silence impaired" because you are hearing?

@Will - I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you're Christian.

Would you trust someone at a school you are paying thousands and thousands of dollars to send your Christian children to, if the person in charge of making sure that they are treated fairly signs a petition trying to legally suppress Christians from practicing their religion because she believes that Christianity is an amoral religion that causes mental disorders and dysfunction, would you trust that person in their position?

The issue is not "she doesn't like gay people", because people are welcome to no like each other all they want, and while prejudices are generally pretty stupid, it's certainly not a reason to get in trouble at work UNLESS that particular prejudice would interfere with a person's ability to do their job (eg diversity officer, social worker, etc).

In this particular case, her prejudices cast her qualifications to do her job in quite a bit of suspicion.

She signed a petition to let the people decide through voting. There is nothing anti-anything about that.

@Go USA - Actually there is. The Constitution our forefathers created setup a government that allows for the freedom and choice of democracy without allowing one majority group to take hold and completely do away with the rights of people outside of that majority. This foundation has helped us elevate many minority groups to equal status.

Putting gay marriage (the rights of a minority) up to POPULAR vote is anti-American as it encourages the tyranny of the majority. I suggest you read more about our founding fathers and the history of the US.

will-2193211

Interesting that there are groups (you) out there that want to decrease peoples rights, decrease the rights of their children just to preserve their own (your) idea of what they (you) think a marriage and a family is.

Where other groups want to increase the number rights of people, increase the number of people who can enjoy marriage and increase the well being of their children.

Still trying to work out how blocking/barring/preventing equality is somehow good for society? Love to hear your answer to that one.

I didn't sign the petition because I actually support slavery. I was just saying I thought it should be put up to a vote of the people.

And it's only a coincidence that I signed it right after my pastor gave a sermon telling me that Jesus wanted me to do it.

So when can we put the right of straight marriage up for a vote?

Bad, bad idea, Bart.

Having been there myself, I can say with conviction that I am strictly against it in all of its forms.

While gay marriage is up for a vote, can we put this up to a vote too?

Banning Divorce

Banning Adulterers from re-marrying

After all, GOD was pretty clear about these two being pretty big sins too...and im very confused why America is so morally depraved as to allow these to exist?

and let's just be honest here, this heterosexual moral depravity of divorce and adultery far outnumbers how many gays exist, let alone the ones that actually want to marry.

Oh, but thats right, hypocritical christians would never put their own moral depravity up for a vote.

SILLY ME!

How stupid is this line of reasoning? To be certified as "Diverse", your not allowed to have any personal beliefs or opinions? Idiots!

Will, there is a big difference between the 'gay agenda' and the 'anti-gay agenda'. Gays are trying to preserve THEIR rights. Anti-Gays are trying to take away OTHERS rights. People are fighting to keep other people from getting married. There is not a quantity limit on marriages, so no matter how many gay people get married, you can still have your marriage. Until gays campaign to create laws to keep straight people from getting married, there is no comparison.

As far as this article, my first reaction was, her opinions are her own business, until I saw her job title. Clearly she is not cut out for that job. Not it a punitive way, if the University offers her a different position, that would be fine.

I love how straight people think it is diverse to be prejudiced against gay people and our equality. She has the right to sign any petition she wants, including one to ban interracial marriage (which used to be illegal in many states), but that does not exactly make her the model of a diversity officer. Maybe they should hire a KKK member as the diversity officer, that would certainly diversify their staff. Surely they hardly have any KKK staff members at the present time. But then it is only respectable to promote the idea that gay people should be second class citizens, not blacks or those with disabilities. So let's promote her and put her in charge of the university so she can put all of the uppity gays in our place, back in the closet.

The University must have just found out that suspending a person for exercising their 1st Amendment right of conscience and free exercise thereof is reason enough to shut them down. They might as well cut her a retirement check right now because "Gay" identity politics do not trump authentic civil rights.

Randy, at the very least, it's a conflict of interest.

@mixedpie

Do you really think the Founding Fathers would have supported Gay Marriage? Do you really believe they had Gay Marriage on their minds when they crafted the US Constitution?

I get the point you are trying to make, but don't try and pretend the Founding Fathers would have been in support of Gay Marriage.

Why doesn't the University do something truly novel?: Judge their employees on the basis of their actual job performance! Seems to me that those who are arguing that she forfeits her right to be "diversity" officer don't really believe in diversity. Does diversity mean that you must only believe one thing? So, if you believe in gay marriage you're in, but if you don't believe in gay marriage you're out? What happened to "diversity" there?

Of course, the issue of gay marriage really has nothing to do with marriage at all. It's really about equal rights! Supposedly, getting married is about love. If that is the case then the criteria should be that 2 consenting "available" adults should be allowed to get married. If it isn't about love and is really about gender, then two consenting opposite gender adults can get married for none-love based reasons, such as getting a non-citizen into the country, or for the purpose of gaining benefits, such as insurance benefits as a spouse, whether through private insurance or a public program. Some will say that only people who can have children together should be able to get married. So, if a couple decides not to have children or can't have them, should we force them to adopt? Or, should their marriage be annulled if they haven't fulfilled the "purpose" of marriage within say five years?

The fact is that marriage, in terms of state sanction, as opposed to a religious sanction, is all about the rights and obligations that the laws grants that status. If only certain people who love each other are allowed to benefit (or be burdened) by those rights, then there is discrimination to the extent that others are not allowed the equal protections of those laws. And, there is no legitimate government basis for such discrimination. It won't prevent gays from loving each other or being together, any more than it would prevent straights from loving each other or being together.

@witchrunner - actually what they are saying is that by accepting the role of a Diversity Officer you are forbidden to have beliefs. or morals. or ethics. After all, aren't each of those value judgments based on life experiences or religious teachings or cultural limitations on individuals?

But then again, a Diversity Officer that can't see the rights of those inclined to think differently are at least as valuable as anyone elses probably shouldn't be a Diversity Officer either....... Diversity Officer is another wasted idea for political correctness. It's a stupid concept and a waste of tuition and/or taxpayer dollars.

Gee, Steve, I guess it's a good thing Gallaudet is a private university.

The only thing I wish for gays and lesbians is to pick another name for their own union. Marriage to me is between two people of the opposite sex. Gays should be able to have a union with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but they should call it something else.

It's kind of like starting a new game that uses hockey sticks to strike a soccer ball around a football field, then naming it golf. It may be a great game, but you have to call it something else, because "golf" is already taken.

So my question is this: If she was signing a petition to support the right of gays and lesbians to marry, would she have gotten in trouble? I think she has every right to sign whatever she wants as long as she didn't do it on the job and during her paid hours. This to me is the same as firing a teacher because they found out that they went to a bar and drank with their friends (this has happened before). The basis behind it was that if they were teaching their students that they shouldn't drink then it was hypocritical of them to go drinking. Did it affect her job performance? Had there been complaints about her work performance before this? Was she on probation because of her work actions? If the answers are no, then I see no reason why her signing this makes her incapable of doing her job.

ready2change - So my question is this: If she was signing a petition to support the right of gays and lesbians to marry, would she have gotten in trouble?

Why would she get into trouble for supporting equal rights for all? That would be entirely consistent with her job.

The problem is that her action to keep gays as 2nd-class citizens is fundamentally incompatible with her job function.

Right. If you were a gay deaf person of any race (or if your child were and you were helping financially with your child's education) would you want to go to (or send your child to) this university? Despite the trials of her own life, she seriously misunderstood her job. Which makes her unqualified to do it.

steve: So, you are saying that the tree in the front of my house makes the perfect diversity officer? Well, it will help me pay my bills, so I'll give it a try. But, do you really believe that if the woman had signed a petition to legalize gay marriage she would have been suspended? Ah yes, political correctness. :)

“No one has the right to decide what my signature meant.”

Your voluntary, hand-written signature on a crystal-clear petition that admits of no middle ground, no leeway, no self-determination, no individual rights, needs scant little interpretation.

You're dissembling, doctor, and that's detestable for a "chief diversity officer" at an institution of higher learning. Moreover, your belated remorse doesn't shift the burden of proof to others.

Exercise your First Amendment rights, yes of course. But when you do so, and publicly throw down with the reactionary crowd of limitation and exclusion, don't pretend you are something else.

For shame.

Considering that she signed a petition like that, her being an advocate of diversity is kind of like having a Jewish person or a Muslim being the chief advocate for the consumption of pork. You can't do a job like that if it's not part of your personal belief system.

So when can we put the right of straight marriage up for a vote

Might not be a bad idea considering the divorce rate, child abuse, domestic abuse, etc. LOL

I beg to differ. She was the DIVERSITY OFFICER...her signature is proof that she was failing at her job. How can one advocate diversity with their own prejudice on their sleeve?

Tolerance applies... she can keep her job.. but not as a DIVERSITY OFFICER.

next question.

Have you ever attended university? I went to Berkeley, one of the most liberal institutions out there, and we had plenty of very conservative voices. They were not quashed. But they were also not the leads of the diversity department.

Isn't it ironic that those who complain most about college campuses and their "liberal ideals" generally never set foot on one? LOL

I agree she does have the right to sigh the petition. However, once she signed it she no longer has ability (or right) to head the diversity department. Can you say conflict of interest?!?

I agree she does have the right to sigh the petition. However, once she signed it she no longer has ability (or right) to head the diversity department. Can you say conflict of interest?!?

Thats like saying anyone who votes for Obama needs to lose their job in finance.. Its unbelievable how far gays will go to squash the opposing opinions, if you live in fear that you will lose your home, job and everything that you hold dear, if you sign a petition or voice your views. That is not freedom..

You're missing the point - her position was as a DIVERSITY OFFICER. If you're admitting to wanting to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, then you have NO BUSINESS being in a position that promotes and/or supports diversity.

Her position has to do with university fairness-nothign to do with marriage. Unless they can show that she has actually violated her position by denying something on campus to homosexual students then this University was just doing what they thought would piss off the least people. They have no right to hold her political beliefs against her unless there has been a tangible impact on her position which there has not.

How can people be totally missing the big picture here? The very concept underlying diversity is equal rights and opportunity to access the resources available. Duh! Equal rights for all means equal rights for all. If you separate a section of the population out as not being worthy of equal rights, you are not embracing diversity. She has no business in the position of Chief Diversity Officer, until that time when she is able to align her own moral and ethical stance with the requirements of those of her job.

You all seem to think "diversity officer" means looking out for non-white, non-straight individuals. Diversity can be many different things, even if you are in the "majority" of skin color, religion, etc. Diversity of thought etc. Wouldn't she be alienating somebody if she signed a petition to legalize gay marriage. It is almost like this person can't have an opion because if she does, and heaven forbid if she does, she is offending someone.

Becky-4512633 - They have no right to hold her political beliefs against her unless there has been a tangible impact on her position which there has not.

Ummm.....she took a public position to put the legal rights of a disfavored minority up to a popular vote by the majority. That's not merely a political belief but a public action to help deny those rights.

That action might be suitable for Bull Connor's secretary in Alabama, but not as "chief diversity officer" at a university like Gallaudet.

sunniebabie: your post was pretty good and I agree for the most part but, please, don't confuse racism with discrimination even if they sometimes occur at the same time (...she will be racist against gays).

I don't think it's a conflict of interest at all. Everyone is entitled to have personal values. Every person has a particular worldview that they are entitled. This PC mafia is actually seeking out people to persecute that don't agree with their agenda. I find them to be one of the scariest groups in America.

A minor point regarding a common grammatical impossibility: How can there be a conflict of interest (singular)?

Conflict of interests. Good point, I suppose. Never thought about it.

But I will now: thanks for adding another grammatical pet-peeve to my list.

You're welcome. We are a minority of two, but our number has doubled since this morning.

"Conflict of interest" is actually correct. It's using "interest" as a non-countable noun as in "difference of opinion" or "bucket of water".

I love you, Matt Taylor!

Good point, Matt.

Agreed - Isn't it funny how Libs are in favor of freedom of speech and expression, but only when it fits in with their agenda.

This whole incident reminded me too much of Orwell's 1984 and the Thought Police monitoring everyone for anti-party line thoughts and dragging violators away never to be heard from again. We have the right to express our opinions in America even if others don't like it. We should not have to fear for our jobs because of it.

I agree somewhat. However, the Constitution doesn't guarantee free speech with absolutely no consequences. I certainly think in some situations, espousing hateful or prejudiced views may legitimately jeopordize one's job.

This situation may be a bit extreme. Perhaps they could send her to some more "diversity training" courses or something if they think it is that big of a deal. I don't think she should lose her job over this. As her superior, sure, I would be worried she might be biased, BUT, up to this point in her career, has she dealt with gay people before? Has she shown prejudice in previous encounters or treatment? If not, then this may be a lot of alarm over nothing.

You're all so correct. The Chief Diversity Officer of a University should be able to be as bigoted as she wants. After all, why can't a diversity officer hate gay people? I'm sure she'd still be able to do her job well. Of course if she worked at Bob Jones University and was fired for signing a petition FOR gay marriage, I'm sure you people would have no problem with that...but that doesn't make you ignorant hypocrites or anything. I guess freedom of speech only counts when it's something YOU believe in, right?

And isn't it amazing how the conservatives are always for free speech and expression but only when it suits their agenda?

The train runs in both directions people - liberals are no worse than conservatives in this.

This woman did a bit more than exercise her right to free speech. She signed a petition, a public document. That document's intent was to restrict the civil rights of a segment of the population based on their sexual orientation. She didn't just say she was not in favor of same sex marriage. She signed a public document that would serve to restrict the rights of a portion of this society.

DOCJT: The document wasn't to restrict anything at all. The petition was to put the decision on the ballot for the people of Maryland to decide. No rights were restricted at all. Your post and the headline of this article are nothing more than LIES.

Go USA,

You evidently have a very narrow definition of "restricting". How sad for you. It leaves you vulnerable to all sorts of restrictions placed upon you.

Go USA-851295 - The petition was to put the decision on the ballot for the people of Maryland to decide. No rights were restricted at all.

It's the exact same as signing a petition to put the question on the ballot of whether blacks should be allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

That you don't understand why that's a problem for a "chief diversity officer" says a lot about you.

The train runs in both directions people - liberals are no worse than conservatives in this.

Agreed. If we all just practiced a little more intellectual honesty, rather than red or blue, we would all be just different shades of purple and this country would be in way better shape than it is - at the very least we would all be pulling in somewhat the same direction rather than bickering over stupid @!$%#. Damn these issues get tiring.

MsKat,

I don't see her opinions as espousing any hate. The danger here is relativism in which everything short of being pro-gay marriage can be construed as some degree of hate. That's what will get you sent to the "diversity training" that you talk about which is just as Orwellian as Kevin suggests. The objective of such training would be that you change your opinion to conform. The difference between an authoriatrian and a totalitarian state? The totalitarian state is the one in which the goal of mandatory "training" sessions is to create a people of one mindset with no differing opinions. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the hairs on the back of my neck stand up at the suggestion of such training and the thought that just by not agreeing with the activists will have me labeled as a "Goldstein" and subjected to the daily "Two Minutes Hate".

jimb, I didn't mean that what she did was espousing hate, I was just making a general statement about other possible scenarios. I don't think she did that at all. And personally, I don't think diversity training is really all that useful (or anything like that), but it does pacify some people...I guess they just want to see the effort. My main point was did she have a history of discriminating when working with this group of people? If she's been doing a fine job for however long and has dealt with gay people in the past with no problems, then the whole thing is moot, I think.

jimb-2097724 - I don't see her opinions as espousing any hate.

Right....she doesn't "hate" gays, she just thinks they should be 2nd-class citizens who are denied the same rights she enjoys.

Sounds a lot like the racist south McCaskill grew up in, but didn't learn the lesson of.

Maybe we should check all Atheist Diversity officers and see if they've donated any money to pro-atheist causes, in case they might be prejudice against people of faith? This madness just goes on and on!

is she biased towards gays and the answer is NO

As much as your opinion really matters, empirically, we have a petition that she signed that suggests otherwise.

John, I am tolerant in the sense that I don't care what you think about gay people, in fact, I fully support your right to believe anything you want. However, I become intolerant when you write your prejudices into public law.

You're being facetious, right?

While I fully support same-sex marriage, your last sentence is profoundly disturbing.

We should never limit the rights of the people to petition the government, no matter the cause. If some yahoo wants to petition the government to reinstate slavery, I fully support their right to do so. You should too.

It may be sick and hateful, but it's still their right.

Sensitivity training is not going to do what you think it will as she signed something based on her personal beliefs. It may make her aware of how her actions are perceived by others, but it won't change what she believes. She has a right to her beliefs and feelings on matters, but she shouldn't hold a position where you need to be accepting of someone being different in order to work with them because her personal beliefs contradict the position she held. She shouldn't have been fired, but she should have been given a different position that doesn't have the responsibility of handling diversity at the campus as now many people may feel they cannot go to her for their needs.

She shouldn't have been fired,

Perhaps YOU need to change your screen name. If you had read the article, you would know that she was NOT fired; she was placed on paid administrative leave.

So I made a mistake in misunderstanding that she was placed on leave, not fired. But my meaning still stands as I had stated after that:

she should have been given a different position that doesn't have the responsibility of handling diversity at the campus

So easy there with attacking me just because I made a slip. You missed where I was coming from with the FULL sentence.

State of Awareness - she should have been given a different position that doesn't have the responsibility of handling diversity at the campus

I totally agree with that. She's clearly unqualified for her current position.

Gay rights have unfortunately blinded people to get support no matter how many others get hurt. It is forceful and it is wrong. It is shocking to me how similar this issue is to pre-WW2 when people were encouraged to devalue those who were not on board with the PC philosophy in Germany.

Actually Donna, it's bigots exactly like you who put gays and Jews into labor camps during WWII.

You nuts always thought that it was your right to treat minorities like crap.

Actually it is different in the majority of the country and until that changes and until she takes a job as a marriage counselor it is irrelevant to her position. Unless there is proof that she has discriminated against homosexuals within her position they have no grounds for her suspension. I actually have no issues with gay marriage-I have no issues with them adopting heck I plan to be a surrogate for one. I do have an issue when others feel they have a right to punish people for their religous or political views especially when it comes to their jobs. It was a coworker that foudn her name? Why on earth woudl they be scowering a list like that unless they are trying to punish anyone who does not see thigns as they do and its disgusting.

Becky-4512633 - Actually it is different in the majority of the country

How exactly is it different? In both cases she thinks the legal rights of a disfavored minority should be subject to a vote by the majority.

Becky - we don't have to wait around until she beats up a gay student to take action. Imagine if a police officer were revealed to be a KKK member. Afterwards, *public trust* in that officer would be lost. Anyone who they arrested who was a minority would bring this up in court. Every jury would have doubt introduced about the officer. Remember Mark Fuhrman? His racist comments were used by the OJ Simpson defense team and they're part of the reason OJ got off because the jury had to wonder if Fuhrman planted the glove because he didn't like black people. If a police officer loses the public trust, they can no longer serve the public.

Sex between consenting adults is legal, but if it's a college teacher and a student, again, faith is lost. Anyone else in the class would wonder if the student earned the grades they did or not. Other students would wonder if they could improve their grade by going out with the teacher, etc. No one screams about constitutional rights when colleges ban teachers from dating their students.

This is the same thing. Any gay person from now on won't trust that she really has their best interests at heart. Any decision she makes in this role will have people wondering whether it was a fair and honest one or if she was swayed by prejudices, etc. Her actions stripped of her of public trust in her ability to do her job. From this point on, her motives will always be suspect, which prevents her from fulfilling the roles of her job... even if she does everything honestly and properly, it's of little use if people don't believe it. It's the same reason why judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have an interest - it doesn't matter if they make their rulings completely impartially if the public doesn't believe they did so and then faith in the legal system would be lost.

As for punishing people - this is funny. People seem to think they have a right to make public statement and have no CONSEQUENCES for it. A comedian has a right to make a horribly racist "joke" onstage - but I also have a right to denounce them on a website, refuse to buy their albums, picket their performances, etc. The CEO of Chik-fil-et had a right to be a bigot, but people also had a right to call him a bigot and boycott his stores. And people have a right to sign a public petition about stripping away other people's rights... but everyone else has a right to read every single name on that form and refuse to patronize any company they work for, print their names in the paper, run their names and faces on a billboard, kick them out of private clubs and associations, and anything else that would be legal... all of which would pale in comparison to nullifying their marriage, of course. It works both ways, and actions have consequences and prices. It's no more "disgusting" than what signers are doing, and arguably much less so - heroic, in my mind. There's nothing disgusting about avoiding the company of evil people and having nothing to do with them. There are certain kinds of behavior that are not socially acceptable, and attempting to strip people of their civil rights is one of them. They're not getting treated any worse than most folks treat white supremacists, jihadists, or members of other racial/religious/national/etc. hate groups today.

What she does at church (it is a petition not stumping on campus), by law (separation of Church and state you know), has no bearing on her position at work-especially since this is a state regulated institution.

You clearly have no idea how our constitution works. Nor do you apparently understand that granting gay people the right to marry doesn't impact the rights of anyone else in the least.

What you quoted has absolutely nothing to with what you said. I have a very clear understanding of the United Sates Constitution the thing is what you are talking about has nothing to do with the United Sates Constitution. Also you have no way of knowing how same sex marriage affects me, or any one else, you are not me. That is part of the problem of this whole argument...only one side is being considered. That is against the United States Constitution. This whole argument will get to the United States Supreme Court in about 2 years and will be decided once and for all. And if you notice I have yet voiced my personal opinion...it does not matter really I already know how the Court will rule and I can live with that. Can you? Well, I guess you will have to. BTW go and tell Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn they do not have equal rights with the rest of us. All gay couples do too, married or not. It is not about equal rights. That is a hint as to how the Supreme Court will rule.

No, you really don't have any idea how the Constitution operates, totherepublic. First, Gallaudet is a private institution, chartered by the Federal government, but still private. It is non-sectarian and promotes a diverse student body. The First Amendment applies to the government, not private employers. You want to bad mouth your private employer? You'll get fired. it doesn't matter whether it's about gay issues or donkeys, it's not a free speech issue. Separation of church and state, I don't even know where you pulled that from.

And I can state with 100% certainty that someone else's same sex marriage does not affect you. 100%. If you think your marriage sucks because two people get married, you need counseling or a divorce.

Cheif Justice Jennie has ruled.

Also you have no way of knowing how same sex marriage affects me, or any one else, you are not me.

If it affects you, it is because YOU allow it to -- that makes it YOUR problem, no one else's.

This whole argument will get to the United States Supreme Court in about 2 years and will be decided once and for all.

You have not been paying attention: it will be heard by the Supreme Court THIS TERM.

If she had signed a petition for legalization then she would be showing that she does embrace diversity. What I want to know, Republic, is if you'd have been fine with her being placed on leave from a christian university for signing a pro-homosexual rights petition.

Jennj-you are right the university is a public institution however like all employers they are nto allowed to discriminate against any employee based on religous beliefs and that is exactly what is happening here. They are punishing a woman for an activity that is perfectly legal and took place at church. It does not matter what side you are on as far as the belief of the gay marriage issue-they are acting illegally and if they fire her they are screwed. It is perfectly legal to sign a petition however it is not legal to punish someone based on their religion and that is what it will come down to.

totherepublic - Would she have been put on leave if she had signed a petition supporting same sex marriage-probably not. That is the issue

Signing a petition in support of marital rights for gays would be entirely consistent with her position as diversity chief.

But what she signed was completely at odds with her job junction. Seriously, is there another "diversity chief" in the entire country who thinks the civil rights of a disfavored minority should be put to a vote by the majority?

totherepublic,

Your retort is proof positive that Jennj owned you with her well-though-out arguement. If she is wrong, then do please tell us how your marriage is affected by someone else's (gay or straight).

you are right the university is a public institution however like all employers they are nto allowed to discriminate against any employee based on religous beliefs and that is exactly what is happening here.

Becky, the University is a private institution, as Jennj stated.

Actually, I really would like to hear a bit more from the anti-gay marriage people on this issue. How exactly would allowing gay people to marry negatively affect you? Because, to be frank, I don't see it. I cann't believe that it has anything to do with destroying the sanctity of marriage, because if that were the case, you would also be fighting to make divorce, multiple marriages, and adultery illegal. Right? Because those things definitely threaten the sancitity of marriage. And if it's because you believe that marriage is for people who want to have children, then women who've reached the age of menopause shouldn't be able to marry, and neither can men who are sterile or women who are infertile. Right?

Thank you Anita

Keeping her job should depend on her job perfomance...nothing else.

She can teach diversity and tolerance

One cannot teach what one does not know.

Anita-2036926 - If she is ensuring diversity at the school as expected by the school, what she believes in her personal life is none of their business.

This isn't about her personal, private beliefs, but her very public action to help deny the legal rights of a minority.

It's one thing to simply believe as a personal matter that gays (or mixed-race couples) shouldn't marry, but it's quite another to take an action to deny those legal rights.

Anita-2036926

You're very right. Just because you are not of a group of people does not mean you are incapable of advocating diversity. Diversity is about acknowledging and accepting each others differences. To say that a religious person that is against gay-marriage can't effectively promote diversity is rather short sighted.

That is like saying that because I am a white male, I can't support diversity for women, or African Americans. This person has done nothing to indicate they would not support and promote diversity on campus for the LGBT community.

Aren't we being anti-diverse in condemning this person for their religious beliefs simply because they are different than another? How does that promote diversity?

An open mind is required on both sides for diversity to be a success, that's what diversity is all about. This person has done nothing (according to the article) to indicate they are unfit for this job. If this person's beliefs make you uncomfortable, then you're missing the point of being diverse. Being diverse does not mean you're have to be a minority.

Horn-3011977 - Aren't we being anti-diverse in condemning this person for their religious beliefs simply because they are different than another?

We're not condemning her for her personal religious views about marriage, we're condemning her for the public action she took to deny gays equal legal rights.

Exactly. There was no denial of rights.

She didn't deny anyone their rights. She signed a petition indicating that she does not, personally, support gay marriage. She did not say that if marriage equality is the law in Maryland that she will not honor the law and support people's rights to be married in whatever form that legal marriage may take.

Until she prevents someone from exercising their legal rights and until she fails to support them in that exercise she has done nothing wrong but has participated appropriately in the political process.

I am a liberal. I believe we all have obligations to each other as citizens and as human beings. I do not support the current conservative focus of "every man for himself" in this tea party driven country right now. I support choice and I support marriage equality. I also support the rights of people to disagree with me and not threaten their ability to earn a living or practice a profession as long as they are doing their job appropriately and effectively and not infringing on my rights while they do it.

DOCJT - One cannot teach what one does not know.

Sure they can - they do it all the time in public schools.

Well, Anita, put your money where your big fat mouth is: if you could do a better job of teaching in public school, then do it, or STFU.

Anita-2036926 - She didn't deny anyone their rights. She signed a petition indicating that she does not, personally, support gay marriage.

Wrong. She signed a petition in order to make the civil rights of gays subject to a popular vote, something that is fundamentally un-American.

It's one thing to hold a bigoted opinion, but quite another to take an action with the intent of denying a minority their civil rights. She's clearly unfit to be diversity officer.

Actually, the our country has evolved from letting only certain people vote. We CAN vote on certain things. It's very unfair to call people bigoted because of their religious convictions. Lot's of religions and non-religions don't my beliefs or even my traditional marriage - it doesn't bother me a bit. Civil rights were never intended to include gay marriage. If marriage is so great, then why are so many straight couples not bothering to tie the knot? No one is denying anyone civil partnerships, power of attorney, the right to live with someone, etc. Is the tax break really THAT great?

Donna-467844 - It's very unfair to call people bigoted because of their religious convictions.

We're not doing that. We're calling McCaskill a bigot because she took a public action to help keep gays as 2nd-class citizens who are denied equal legal rights.

It doesn't matter how she performs her job. What matters is that she has lost the public trust. Every decision that involves gay people that she makes from now on will be suspect. Imagine a police officer that is revealed to be a KKK member and has a swastika tattoo. Every arrest he makes of a minority will now be suspect. Every minority defendant will bring this up. Every jury will have "reasonable doubt" as to the veracity of his statements in those cases. He can no longer function in his job if the public doesn't trust him in his job, even if her performs it perfectly. She can't be trusted to deal fairly with gay people after having signed this petition. It's no different than if she were having sex with a student in a class she were teaching. Even if it didn't affect her grading, everyone who got a lower grade from her would wonder and confidence would be lost, which is why that's also legal but prohibited by universities. Would you want a convicted embezzler to be handling your funds at an accounting firm? Even if you had no proof they'd embezzled from you - yet? The school isn't going to wait until this woman mistreats a gay person before removing her from the position. I once worked at an oil refinery - you didn't wait until someone had caused an accident or explosion before removing them from the field for having failed a drug test. You don't allow drunks to drive until they hit something, accounts don't hire convicted embezzlers, and you don't allow bigots to function as your diversity officer until they mistreat a student and the school gets hit with a lawsuit. Objectively, there's no controversy here, except people who are manufacturing it because they want to defend someone with the same immoral views as their own.

Donna: Civil rights were never intended to include gay marriage. If marriage is so great, then why are so many straight couples not bothering to tie the knot? No one is denying anyone civil partnerships, power of attorney, the right to live with someone, etc. Is the tax break really THAT great?

Wow. Um... I don't know how you have determined what civil rights people were "intended" to have. Of course, the fact that blacks and women like yourself were never intended to have the right to vote sort of makes the original intents somewhat irrelevant, doesn't it? Voting was originally restricted to free white males who owned land. Unless you want to argue that you should be stripped of your voting rights, that's a rather fruitless area to begin mining.

The whole point of civil rights is that you have them regardless of what anyone says - which is what makes putting them up to a vote so odious. Let's go back to the Declaration Of Independence, shall we? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Understand? These are human rights you have simply by virtue of being a sentient being, and they're inalienable - no one can take the right away from you. Heck, Rosa Park wasn't fighting for the right to sit in the front of the bus - she always had that right. She was fighting for that right to be recognized.

Marriage certainly sounds like part of the "pursuit of happiness" to me, and some Supreme Court justices have indeed considered it a fundamental human right. In that case, there needs to be a compelling interest of the state to limit it, and has been pointed out before, there isn't a logical reason in the world to do so. In fact, in the trial overturning Proposition 8 in California, the judge clearly showed that the plaintiffs couldn't produce a single valid non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage, and the courts have already determined that laws can't be introduced/based solely on religious reasons, which is why he struck it down.

Then you go on to what... try convincing gay people that marriage isn't so great so you don't really want it anyway? Really? And the complete and total insensitivity and cluelessness of what follows leaves me at a loss for words. Again, it's just like saying no one was denying Rosa Parks the back of the bus or to stand in the aisle. Unbelievable. It's INHUMAN to tell people that their relationships aren't "real", suggesting that they aren't "real" or the same as everyone else, and to require them to jump through a hundred legal hoops to try to secure the same benefits you get automatically. And it's not just tax breaks - it's visiting spouses in intensive care, making end of life decisions for spouses, inheriting property, getting social security survivor benefits, getting spousal health insurance benefits, being legally allowed to pick up your child from school if you're not the birth mother/father, and a thousand other things. I can tell you horror stories such as one where a single income gay couple saw the wage earner die suddenly without a will and the court giving a distant homophobic relative all money and property including the house, with her then giving the surviving partner 30 days to vacate the premises. Spouses have been denied the right to say goodbye to their loved one dying in ICU. Just this week it was revealed that a soldier died in Afghanistan and her wife wasn't even considered primary next of kin and thus wasn't notified right away, she couldn't identify the body, won't receive survivor's benefits, be eligible for grief counseling, etc. A woman told me about her partner of 32 years passing away and her needing to ask permission (fortunately granted) of being able to pick up the remains after cremation because she wasn't legally considered family. Can you imagine having to bow and scrape and plead to have your relationship being treated as "real" the day after someone you've been with for 32 years passes away? It's dehumanizing and torture at the worst possible time. But none of that matters to you, right, because marriage isn't so great anyway so what's the harm if religious folks get to force their religion on people who don't share it? Unbelievable.

Fortunately I would imagine most homosexual students are more mature than you and would not throw away their education based on the perosnal beliefs of a college admintrator. Marriage has nothign to do witheducation and if there are gay students there then it would prove she has not let her personal opinion on Marriage affect her job.

obviously Becky you have no clue what treatment homosexuals go thru to begin with, or you wouldn't have stated that. Its hard enough going thru college (i've been thru college twice for two different degrees) and going to a campus where the diversity director willingly signs a petition that would effectively limit your rights would make you feel very uncomfortable, wouldn't it ? you wouldn't know if you could guarantee equal treatment on campus or anything of that nature.. so yea, i would imagine that a lot of gay students had issues with it and questioned their education futures ... they could go to another university who's diversity director actually believed in diversity in his/her personal life as well and would treat students in his/her professional life accordingly.

bruste-The problem is the US Government should not be involved in marriage what-so-ever.

whynot,

Why not?

marriage is a legal union, so the government is involved & right now most states do not allow gay marriage; the government should not however be restricting 2 consenting adults from getting married. like other discriminations in the past against other groups such as women & other races, eventually everyone will wake up & one day there will be equal rights for gays.

HER opinion is one of many and part of that diversity you so passionately defend. Diversity only as long as you agree? Hypocrite!

@totherepublic:

Would you say the same thing if her opinion had been that we should let the majority decide if all Muslims should be subject to random search? Or that the races shouldn't be allowed to inter-marry? These are opinions that are also among the many and "part of that diversity." But our society's consensus is that these things are illegal discrimination. And it should go without saying that illegal discrimination may itself be legally discriminated against, and should be.

The emerging legal consensus, and my own legal opinion, is that the denial of equal legal rights to gay couples is nothing more than illegal discrimination.

God Herself forbid that two people, who are happily in love, should pledge their commitment to each other before their community the way you were allowed to!

Whatever would Jesus think?

RonB - And it should go without saying that illegal discrimination may itself be legally discriminated against, and should be.

She has not demonstrably illegally discriminated against anyone. She has expressed an opinion. She may actually just have signed a petition advocating a vote. I've signed petitions requesting votes on things I don't agree with because people should be able to express an opinion at the ballot box. If it is deemed unconstitutional that is a function of the judciary but I generally do not prejudge that except in really extreme cases.

That's a cop out. Here I have a petition asking that the right of the races to inter-marry be put to a majority vote.

If you sign it, I should warn you that you're not merely expressing an opinion (not that that isn't bad enough; why should minority rights be subjected to the whims of the majority?), you are engaging in a legal action that puts that petition one signature closer to being on the ballot.

Damn James, are you African-American? You realize that just 50 or so years ago (which could be during your lifetime), a black person could not marry a white person in some states - look up Loving vs. Virginia. Now, not even a generation later, there you are trying to keep others from being able to do what you and I are now able to do.

What do you say we re-visit this equal rights thing and roll it back 100 years or so - I'm sure you'd be down with having to eat in a separate restaurant or ride in the back of a bus or having to drink from a different water fountain.

Are you saying that if anyone doesn't agree with any rights, that it should just happen?

It takes people opening their mind some to see some of the stuff with equal/civil rights, I guess you just aren't ready to do that yet.

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.^[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Discrimination isn't a "political opinion", any more than declaring that you think all Muslims should be kicked out of the country or all Jews put in concentration camps is a "political opinion".

She didn't lose her job out right. she was put on leave following what could vary well be a conflict of interest.

UDunnoBro - I have nothing against gay marriage, but it is disturbing to me that people can lose their jobs based on an opinion.

This isn't about her personal, private beliefs, but her very public action to help deny the legal rights of a minority.

So a petition signature is that powerful? Her signature has not helped deny anyone anything.

Donna-467844 - So a petition signature is that powerful? Her signature has not helped deny anyone anything.

Getting a certain number of signatures is what determines whether people get to vote on the civil rights of gay Marylanders, so her signature directly contributed to the effort to keep gays as 2nd-class citizens.

You looked more intelligent when you did not care.

And you, totherepublic, looked more intelligent prior to making that post. Just saying.

If you follow the money trail you'll find that many of those outraged over the "sanctity of marriage" are upset because they believe same-sex marriages might endanger or decrease the legal benefits associated with marriage.

Take away any financial benefits from legal marriage and you'd see a massive decline in marriages in the USA.

Yes, the gov't has a vested interest in encouraging traditional marriage because by nature, as a rule, and as a group, those marriages produce the next generation. Also, realize that by financially encouraging traditional marriage, one spouse (again, traditionally, a wife) can stay home and help raise and nurture the children. All these things help build strong families and, as a result, strong societies.

Note that gov't, through laws that it enacts, can encourage behavior, restrict it, or not weigh in on it at all. (That's called personal liberty, by the way.) So tell me, why does the gov't have an interest in moving from having no opinion on same-sex relationships to actually encouraging them by force of law? The burden of proof is on those that are condoning same-sex marriage, not the traditionalists.

BC,

Wow, did you get that bass ackwards. Seriously, it's a little bit frightening.

Let's take this one step at a time...

Yes, the gov't has a vested interest in encouraging traditional marriage because by nature, as a rule, and as a group, those marriages produce the next generation

Yeah, this is totally wrong. If the government's vested interest in marriage lay in procreation, then why does it allow infertile people to get married, or people who are too old to have children get married? And then, what about all those people who have kids WITHOUT being married? Also, being gay doesn't mean you're infertile. Gay women can still carry children and birth them, and gay men still have sperm.

Also, realize that by financially encouraging traditional marriage, one spouse (again, traditionally, a wife) can stay home and help raise and nurture the children. All these things help build strong families and, as a result, strong societies

This is has NOTHING to do with marriage. If this was a governmental interest then why did the government give women equal rights in the work place???

Note that gov't, through laws that it enacts, can encourage behavior, restrict it, or not weigh in on it at all. (That's called personal liberty, by the way.)

That's about the only thing you got right here.

So tell me, why does the gov't have an interest in moving from having no opinion on same-sex relationships to actually encouraging them by force of law?

And what laws are being enacted to ENCOURAGE them? There is a difference between lifting a ban on something to allow those who want to partake in an act to do so, and going beyond that to encourage or force those who may NOT want to partake in said act, to well, partake in it. So where's the encouragement and/or force?

The burden of proof is on those that are condoning same-sex marriage, not the traditionalists.

Now, let me explain to you how this really works. That personal liberty you mentioned, that's protected through our Constitution and the civil rights in it, yes?

So here we go...

14th Amendment:

Contains privileges and immunities clause as well as sets gender up as a protected class that can not be the basis for discrimination in law.

Marriage:

Civil, legal contract governed by the state's contract laws, basically boiling down to legal capacity for informed consent. Includes 1000+ privileges with it.

Government:

In order to discriminate by gender (14th) within law (marriage) the state has to show a compelling interest in doing so. The lack of a provable interest means a lack of a compelling reason, which means, NO restriction based on gender.

We don't have to show how it BENEFITS the state, because it ISN'T the STATE that needs to be protected, it's the individual citizen. The STATE has to show why it SHOULDN'T be legal or how it harms society, since they're attempting to control certain citizens from doing what they would like to do.

So, you tell me, what is different about a gay marriage in regards to a straight marriage? Could it be GENDER??? And what is that provable harm being caused by gay marriage?

Sarah - I love it when you weigh in with reason and intelligence.

You're using you're attitudes as a basis for that statement. Real professionals simply do their jobs in accordance with the rules and regulations.

SO if she lived ina state where gay marriage was not legal then it would be ok to have her own opinion?

Here is the actual text of the ballot initiative:

"Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs."

It does not say in the language to reverse the decision, it merely asks whether MD residents are in favor of it. She exercised her right to put something on the ballot, just like casino gambling in MD or any of the other ballot questions. Putting it on the ballot does not show her feelings one way or the other, rather, her vote will do that. Luckily for all, that is still private.

What the university has to worry about is whether they violate the Voting Rights Act by disciplining her for her protected political activity of putting something on the ballot.

justoutsidedc - Putting it on the ballot does not show her feelings one way or the other, rather, her vote will do that.

The ballot initiative is a retention vote for the marriage equality law that was recently enacted. A "no" vote will repeal marriage equality.

Signing a petition to put the issue on the ballot is in fact taking action to help deny the legal rights of gays. It's exactly like signing a petition to put the question on the ballot of whether blacks should be allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

The law was passed with the understanding that it could be further explored on the ballot. That is why implementation was held off until Jan 1. A No vote will prevent it being executed, a yes vote will allow it to be executed. Putting it on the ballot is neural action because it does not decide the law nor does it advance or retard the law.

However it is parsed, the political act of seeking to put a question on a ballot is protected by the Voting Rights Act. If she is sanctioned for participating in that protected act, it opens the University up to penalties and civil action.

justoutsidedc - The law was passed with the understanding that it could be further explored on the ballot. That is why implementation was held off until Jan 1.

Without a petition effort and sufficient signatures, the law would have simply gone into effect. McCaskill made a very deliberate and public effort to see that the law is challenged so that the legal rights of gays can be denied by the voters.

However it is parsed, the political act of seeking to put a question on a ballot is protected by the Voting Rights Act. If she is sanctioned for participating in that protected act, it opens the University up to penalties and civil action.

The VRA might mean that the university can't fire her in retaliation for signing a discriminatory petition, but it doesn't prevent them from transferring her to a janitorial position. Putting a dumb bigot in charge of the diversity office is like having a white supremacist as affirmative action officer.

So being anti affirmative action makes that person a racist? Get real.

If your employed a person as a sales manager, and it is discovered that he frequent communication with a competing company, would you not want to look into it? this is a matter of conflicting interests, on one hand her job relates to ensuring diversity and on the other hand she signs petitions advocating for just the opposite.

SPAM