At many colleges, human resources officials are leaders in promoting equity and diversity among those who study and work together. And while colleges periodically debate views of various officials that are seen as biased against various groups, it is highly unusual for the head HR official at a university to be the source of such a controversy. But at the University of Toledo, a column in a local paper by Crystal Dixon, the associate vice president of human resources, has set off such a debate and resulted in her being placed on a paid leave, pending possible further action.
In the column in The Toledo Free Press, Dixon asserted that gay people can change their sexual orientation and questioned how gay people could ever be considered “civil rights victims.”
Wrote Dixon: “As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle….”
Read more here.
[From me]
Why has she been suspended? For stating a fact? Give me a break. She states the obvious and gets suspended. What happened to free speech? Oh, that’s only if your abide by the political correctness policies in our nation. Sad.
What do you think?
18 Comments, Comment or Ping
AskAnAtheist.org
Why indeed has she been suspended? For stating a fact? For stating the obvious? Apparently not. That homosexuality is not genetically influenced is not a fact.
What happened to free speech? Fortunately, “free speech” does not protect all speech by anyone under any circumstances. Nor does it protect the job of an employee if the employer feels that her speech is inappropriate for her office. Fret not - free speech is alive and well.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to damage my credibility by professing to know for a fact that the root cause of homosexuality was either nature or nurture; especially since the results of research are not yet clear. I would however, venture that evidence suggests that there is a large genetic component.
I would propose that there are indeed facts that we can ponder: these facts are the various research efforts that have been conducted over time (including research still in progress), and their conclusions. Here is a good summary of the research for anyone who is inclined to consider facts:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
May 7th, 2008
Neil
If I were black I’d be really ticked off that the GLBTQ folks had co-opted the Civil Rights movement to justify their sexual preferences. Skin color is morally neutral but sexual behaviors are not.
Neil’s last blog post..United Methodist Conference wrap-up
May 7th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Neil,
Coretta Scott King (Martin Luther King’s wife) said: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood” and “This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
Almost in what seems a direct response to your comment, she says: “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King#LGBT_equality
If you were a black Civil Rights leader, you might not be so ticked.
May 7th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
I can chose to act on my sexual urges. A person can’t change the color of their skin.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..African American Woman suspended for claiming homosexuals are not “civil rights victims.”
May 7th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
I agree. Having said that, is this a response to something I’ve said or just additional info? I’m often not sure so I like to ask
May 7th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
It is in response to what you said to Neil. I seriously doubt Dr. King would have been sucked into this arena.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..African American Woman suspended for claiming homosexuals are not “civil rights victims.”
May 7th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
I personally won’t presume to know Dr. King well enough to say what he would or wouldn’t support. Since Coretta Scott King knew Dr. King better than either any of us here, I’ll have to go along with her on this one.
In any case, Coretta King is a good example of someone intimately familiar and connected with the Civil Rights movement, and judging by her statements, she doesn’t seem like she would be “ticked” by the connection between gay rights and the original Civil Rights movement, as Neil imagined that he would be if he were black - your comment about the ability to control sexual urges notwithstanding :^))
May 7th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
I don’t buy it. When are we going to start having civil rights for adulterers?
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..African American Woman suspended for claiming homosexuals are not “civil rights victims.”
May 7th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
Dr. Alveda C. King is the founder of King for America, Inc. which is a faith based organization. [32] Dr. Alveda C. King is the daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King.[32]
Dr. Alveda C. King stated the following to the Massachusetts General Assembly regarding the existence of ex-homosexuals is an argument that “gay rights” does not achieve civil rights status:
“ Thirty-nine years ago, my great-uncle, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered to mindful citizens of America a prophetic dream which envisaged all of this great nation’s people living in the full exercise of all rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. My forebear’s dream was deeply rooted in the American dream wherein the Founders of our Union saw every lawful citizen standing in dignity outfitted by unalienable rights from God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free from the tyrannies of personal whim and ideology handed down by kings, dictators, political groups, and yes, some institutions of democratic government….
Yet, there is a larger body of science represented even by the above scientists that agrees that mature behavior patterns rely much more on social shaping and choices than genetic predisposition, such that these behaviors may be successfully modified by a variety of means. The food addict may eat responsibly, the alcoholic may drink responsibly or not at all, and the homosexual may live according to a wide range of choices as well. Thus, binge drinking, overeating, cocaine abuse and other behaviors do not have to be granted public latitude as a matter of right in this great nation. Certainly, these and other mutable behaviors may be practiced; they may be under constitutional protection in fact (under our privacy clauses), but they may not be granted civil rights or public protection.
Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, “I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.” The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy…[33]
Source here.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..African American Woman suspended for claiming homosexuals are not “civil rights victims.”
May 7th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
Adulterers currently do have civil rights.
But now I’m really confused.
Are we talking about the root cause of homosexuality…
…or are we talking about whether Civil Rights leaders would be “ticked” about the connection between gay rights and the Civil Rights movement…
…or are we talking about your choice to act on your sexual urges…
…or are we talking about whether gays should have Civil Rights (or whatever you might have intended for your last post to mean)?
May 7th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
Homosexuals have just as many rights as any other citizen. But you shouldn’t give anyone “SPECIAL” rights based on who they sleep with.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Coming Soon: A Wii Pole Dancing Game
May 7th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
Well, since you are making me guess, I’ll guessing that your response means we’re now talking about none of the above, but rather a new topic: should gays enjoy “special” or “gay” rights. Great - then since you are now turning our discussion to another now topic, is it fair to presume you that accepted my points:
* ‘that homosexuality is a choice’ is not a fact - though I agree that having sex or not is a choice
* black civil-rights leaders would not necessarily be “ticked” about the connection between gay rights and the Civil Rights movement as Neil suggested.
So now on to you latest topic. What “special” rights are you opposed to?
May 7th, 2008
Jonathan
In my opinion, the argument that skin color is not a choice but sexual lifestyle is a choice is not at all relevant to the key issue here. The point is that neither the color of someone’s skin nor their (legal) sexual lifestyle practices should be the basis for discrimination in our civil society. This is the substance of overlap between the racial civil rights and gay civil rights movements and is not insignificant.
What are you talking about? If I violate your civil rights because you are an adulterer, I’m not justified in my actions.
I guess I don’t know where you’re going with “SPECIAL” unless you’re mad about hate crimes laws. Yes, racial minorities and homosexuals have as many rights as any other citizen. Though not as pervasive as in the past, discrimination based on race and sexual preference are still significant problems that need to be addressed in the maturation and development of our just and civil society.
ex-Negro = Michael Jackson
May 7th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
Why do we need special laws based on who someone sleeps with? Abuse is abuse. Bullying is bullying. I’m against all of that but not based on sexual preference but because they are human beings. That should be enough.
May 7th, 2008
Jonathan
Wikipedia summarizes the arguments for and against hate crimes laws: link
May 7th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
Marriage is in part a set of special laws concerned with, as you say, “who someone sleeps with.” I think marriage laws are good to have and I don’t see why we should not have them simply because they are “special laws based on who someone sleeps with.”
On the other hand, you said earlier that “Homosexuals have just as many rights as any other citizen.” However that’s not the case. Heterosexuals have the right to enter into a marriage contract with the person they want to share their life with because that person is of the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not enjoy that same right. Fortunately, that is beginning to change in some states with civil unions which offer nearly the same (and in some cases, identical) rights as marriage. My bet is that, before too long, you will be right when you say that “homosexuals have just as many rights as any other citizen” - you just might have to be a little patient
May 7th, 2008
Phil Hoover
There are some “civil rights” that all people should be able to enjoy…
But “skin color” and “sexual orientation” are not equivalents/synonyms….
Phil Hoover’s last blog post..Sixteen years ago last night…
May 8th, 2008
Jonathan
Phil,
Who claimed that “skin color” and “sexual orientation” are equivalents/synonyms? We should also make sure that he/she realizes that race and gender aren’t synonyms, race and faith aren’t synonyms, race and age aren’t synonyms, etc. even though they are all potential sources of discrimination that that have no place in our free, civil society.
May 8th, 2008
Reply to “African American Woman suspended for claiming homosexuals are not “civil rights victims.””