Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Gallaudet University Diversity Officer compromised her own ability to perform

A Commentary

Timothy Kincaid

October 11th, 2012

As fellow Box Turtle Jim Burroway discussed, the Chief Diversity Officer of Gallaudet University, Dr. Angela McCaskill, has been placed on paid suspension as a result of signing an anti-gay marriage petition. Jim believes that the suspension is unwarranted and that she should not be fired (a position shared by the campaigns both for and against Maryland’s Question 6).

I, however, think that suspension may have been the University’s wisest choice. It’s probably not the choice that plays best into our campaign to win equality in Maryland, but I think it may be the choice that best serves the interest of the university and its students.

I respect Dr. McCaskill’s right to her political views. I defend her right to religious beliefs. And I support her right to participate in the political process.

But Dr. McCaskill’s rights are not the only ones that should be considered. Her employer too has the right to expect an employee to perform their job, and the LGBT students who attend (a group that the media seems incapable to find) have the right to have an advocate who advocates for them.

While political position is generally not a prerequisite for holding most jobs – and, indeed, may not necessarily determine whether a person can perform well in any job – there are some jobs in which perception and public advocacy do impact a person’s ability. In situations in which interaction with others requires some level of acceptance and clear communication, a perceived position which threatens or confuses those with whom an employee interacts can make it difficult or impossible to complete their tasks.

For example, a Dean of Theology at a church-affiliated university may be an atheist and still be able to teach religion and administer coursework without difficulty. But if she were to publicly identify as such and advocate for the cessation of all religion it would so complicate matters with her staff and alienate students that it would impact her ability to perform and would probably severely compromise the school’s ability to continue operations.

Similarly a Chicano Studies professor may believe that immigration law should be fully implemented and that all those in the country who did not follow the legally established steps should be deported immediately, and still be able to teach history and theory associated with that study. But were he to advocate for such positions in op-eds, he would find his classroom empty or devolved to chaos, a situation that the school would be both entitled and wise to address.

This is not to say that an atheist could not introduce difficult questions or a Chicano studies professor could not discuss the nature of law or challenge presumptions. Indeed, they should do so even if they are the most ardent orthodox Christian or a strong advocate for open borders. But the challenge should be part of a shared experience and should always keep the needs of their students in mind. It should never be easily perceived as “you are out there in public hurting me”. Their employer deserves better.

And, unfortunately, that is what has happened in this case. McCaskill’s job is to deal with matters that impact students who are not part of the majority, including gay students. She is paid to do that job.

And this is a doubly difficult job in that all of Gallaudet’s students are hearing-challenged and start from an outsider’s perspective. Being unable to hear in our culture is a significant disadvantage in that so much of our culture is driven by audio cues, nuance, and subtle shading of sound. A written sentence (e.g “I love Mitt Romney”) can have the opposite meaning when the spoken sentence is produced with aurally detected snark or sarcasm or irony. And ASL is not a word-for-word direct translation, it is a distinct language; a reality that presents further challenges to feeling a full part of society.

Complicating matters is that often non-hearing people feel more welcomed within the gay community (or, at least, that is what I’ve been told). Gay events often have signers and there is, by my observation, more general awareness that not everyone is exactly the same. So something that is perceived as hostile to gay people is likely to be felt as “personal” for many more students than just those who are gay.

This isn’t to say that McCaskill cannot support gay students with skill and charm. But her job is not limited to ensuring scholastic equality, it also entails addressing the specific concerns and needs of minority students. And feeling equal is unquestionably a specific need of gay students.

So the question is not just whether she can support the LGBT students at Gallaudet. It may be that gay students cannot be supported by her. She may come bearing the message that deaf and hard-of-hearing LGBT students are welcomed and valued, but those students may be unable to receive that message, it being drowned out by the perception of “this woman thinks I’m inferior and unworthy and wants to take away my rights”.

Jim notes that he has not seen so much as a hint that her job performance has been in any way diminished before or since signing the petition. I disagree.

While the time before her advocacy against equality became known may not reflect any job diminishment, clearly the time after that act became known has impacted her job. If a single gay student is feeling unwanted and unwelcome and betrayed, then she has accomplished the opposite of what she is employed to do. And clearly some are.

This may be a situation that can be resolved. McCaskill may be able to clarify that she acted rashly and without thinking. She may be able to regain trust. And, as she has a good history and is seen as having been an ally, I suspect that this is something that can be and will be repaired.

But she is specifically tasked with the job of making minority students feel welcomed and included and that she is their advocate. But as currently some are instead feeling alienated and confused, she simply is not performing her job. Gay students are heart broken and angry.

And until such time as those students can again feel that McCaskill, as a representative of Gallaudet, does see them as valued and welcome and included and equal and that she will advocate for their specific needs, then she should not be the one to do perform those tasks. And until Gallaudet can appraise the situation and determine that trust can be regained, they are wise to suspend those specific duties.

I think it is in the best interest of Gallaudet – and gay students, and Dr. McCaskill – that she relinquish diversity duties until after the election and things cool off and that her path forward be determined at that time. If marriage equality passes she will have an excellent pathway to putting this behind her. If not, it may be more difficult to regain the trust of gay students who will feel that society has chosen yet another realm in which to reject, deny, and alienate them and may be less ready to trust someone who played a part in making that happen.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Blake
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

Oh you contrarian you. Takes one to know one ;).

But her job is not limited to ensuring scholastic equality, it also entails addressing the specific concerns and needs of minority students. And feeling equal is unquestionably a specific need of gay students.

Is it? Or does she oversee people whose job it is to do so? Would her being one bureaucratic step up the latter afford her a little more leeway?

I misread the situation when commenting earlier on Jim’s commentary: she’s not even explicitly anti-gay. She just believes that gay marriage should be up for a popular vote. As others pointed out she may very well have the intention to vote a pro-gay position. Both the disappointed students and the outside activist have jumped to conclusions. Easy to do.

But that is precisely why we need to tread carefully & not assume we know whats going on in others’ heads. A lot of times it is way WAY more complex than we assume & we can all benefit from the benefit of the doubt.

So placing her on administrative leave rather than pulling Shirly Sherrod IS a prudent step by comparison. I just hope she’s reinstated ASAP.

Secret Advocate
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

Serious question:

What, exactly, does a “chief diversity officer” of a college or university do?

Anyway, I understand both sides of the argument (though, as I stated above, I’d like to get more information about the job of a chief diversity officer).

However, in the political maelstrom, the timing of this couldn’t be worse. Brian Brown may have sent the president of Gallaudet a box of chocolates this morning.

And that is in spite of the fact that we all know that an employee of the National Organization for Marriage would be terminated immediately if the employee signed a pro-marriage equality petition.

A simple compromise here could be to re-assign Dr. McCaskill to a different administrative position at the university, with no change in pay or benefits.

Duck
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

Blake, putting our rights up for a popular vote, which she did by signing the petition, IS (IMHO) explicitly anti-gay. One cannot be a supporter of a minority group and think that their civil rights should be voted on, I don’t care how nice she is to the students at Gallaudet or how many bake sales she has to support the Ali Forney Center the fact that she thinks our civil rights should be voted on makes her, at best, a two faced backstabbing jerk and likely a hypocritical bigot.

Tim — how will waiting until after the election make things better, regardless of the outcome of the election? If our civil rights are upheld it doesn’t change the fact that she signed the petition to put our civil rights up for a vote, indicating she thinks that a tenth of her colleagues and students are not worthy of the same consideration she gets by virtue of her inborn characteristics (e.g. her civil rights as an African-American woman aren’t up for a vote). If our civil rights are stripped not only did she sign the petition that made it possible, but by having signed it she tacitly supports said petition and thinks that a tenth of her colleagues and students are not worthy of the same consideration she gets by virtue of her inborn characteristics.

Regardless, I don’t see how she can continue as the Diversity officer for the University. Has she actually been an ally? Benedict Arnold was once considered a good guy too, but as it turns out, not so much.

Soren456
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

@Blake:

I think that anyone who “believes that gay marriage should be up for a popular vote” is either not a real friend of the gay community, or is horribly and destructively naive.

In any case, if the suitability of a public vote was her thought as she signed the petition, she proved that she does not possess a full understanding of the field in which she works, or of the issues that aim to defeat it.

Andrew
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

To my understanding, McCaskill *HAS* advocated for the LGBT community — on campus, as is her job.

This sets a very dangerous and far-reaching precedence, allowing employers to interfere with Constitutionally protected rights of free speech, petitioning of government, and of association. And it has serious boomerang potential.

In another thread, I posited a situation in which an employee signs a petition favoring Obamacare. The employer perceives Obamacare as something which will drive up costs and hurts the company’s bottom line. Therefore, the company should be able to get a list of all signers of said petition and fire any who work for them as threats to the company. Ditto for climate change and gas stations. The list goes on and on and on.

And why stop at petitions? Given that we know the stated platforms of political parties, employers should be able to scour the party rolls for employees and summarily dismiss anyone they feel conflicts with whatever arbitrary standard they claim contributes to the success of the company or the position itself.

Just as we have seen the problems with “money = speech”, what we have here is a situation in which employers suddenly assume the right to control deep, personal aspects of our lives, with boundaries we cannot even conceive of here.

And that also means you can totally give up on anyone who is an ally changing organizations from within. Because, of course, mere association with a group or idea will warrant termination, so those who bridge different communities will be forced to pick sides.

If you fight that war, you had better be absolutely sure not only that you’ll win, but that you can guarantee there will never be payback or backlash. Because you are advocating for a very sharp double-edged sword here.

homer
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

A diversity officer who thinks civil rights should be put up for a vote obviously harbors animus towards that minority group. How exactly are LGBT students at Gallaudet supposed to think that she will be honest and fair in any matter involving them?

What’s next, hiring a KKK member to counsel black students?

E. Manhattan
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

Andrew, McCaskill’s act was not neutral, was not irrelevant to her job – if she was a botany professor or a window cleaner, it would make no difference, but she is in a position where she supposedly supports diversity and equal rights for all students, and she publicly attacked her gay students.

It doesn’t matter whether her attack was carried out at work or at her church – an attack is an attack. And a person hired to support diversity and student’s rights at a college can’t simultaneously support and attack the students she interacts with and expect to keep her job.

She apparently thinks it’s fine to have one set of laws for her and her husband, and another, harsher, repressive set of laws for her gay and lesbian students. And she thinks it’s fine to publicly support forcing those laws on her students. She can’t perform her job properly with attitudes like that.

She’s now claiming that her attack was sort-of accidental. Yes, like like a sort-of accidental rape, or a sort-of accidental homicide. Sure, that makes sense.

Get rid of her. Let her find a profession where she can’t do further harm.

Andrew
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

homer, maybe her job performance? she has been:

According to Planet DeafQueer, McCaskill was an “ardent supporter” of Gallaudet’s LGBTQA Resource Center

What is her role on campus relative to her role in the larger matters of state? Is the university now responsible for the legality of marriages? No, not really – so in the scope of encouraging diversity on campus, creating safe space for students, ensuring the availability of resources, and creating opportunities for dialog… it sounds like she’s done that.

Again, can someone tell us where the boundaries are going to be?

E. Manhattan
October 11th, 2012 | LINK

Andrew, I’m tired of faux supporters who pay lip service to equality, but then support anti-gay measures because they really think of us as only 4/5 human.

I don’t care what her behavior has been on campus. A closet bigot is still a bigot.

Patrick
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

People should go back and read the original article linked to in boxturtle’s first discussion of this. It highlights and quotes how the lgbt students, staff and faculty feel betrayed by her, hurt by her and cannot trust her. In other words, her ability to effectively do her job has been seriously compromised by her actions.

I am also curious as to why someone found her name on the list of 10,000. Personally, I wouldn’t have the patience to read every name one by one. If I were looking at such a list, I would probably think of people I had suspicions they might sign and then look for them. If this were the case, and I am totally speculating, then it is conceivable that someone at the college did not think she had been such a wonderful ally in the past. Total speculation on my part.

Personally, if I were faculty, staff or student there, and if she retained her position (whether by legal recourse or not) I would organize a silent protest around her office, around the multicultural center (assuming they have one), etc. I would hold up posters asking if it’s ok for us to vote on the civil rights of deaf people, of ethnic minorities, of religious minorities, etc. Basically, I would work to help her see how shameful her behavior is for someone whose job it is to help promote and foster equity, respect, understanding and acceptance for traditionally marginalized groups. If she repented *and* atoned, such as by giving a talk where she recognizes how despicable and morally wrong it is to vote on the civil rights of minorities, then I would relent. However, if she simply said “my bad and I’m sorry if you were offended by my actions”, then I would continue the protest until she resigned.

Any diversity officer who thinks it is ok to vote on the civil rights of minorities is not someone I would want as a diversity and equity liaison to my students, staff and faculty. Period.

Andrew
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

But where is the boundary between the personal and the professional?

Extrapolating from this case, from gay rights specifically…

When should employers be allowed to dismiss or suspend employees for legally conducing ethical, constitutionally protected behaviors on their own time outside the workplace?

No one wants to touch that one. They all want to harp on what an awful woman she must be. Fine.

But what about you? What have you done that perhaps your boss might fire you for? Got an Obama bumpersticker? Marched in a gay pride parade? Smoked cigarettes? Ate bacon? Fucked without a condom?

Reasonable arguments can be made under the appropriate circumstances that each and every one of these actions could be viewed by an employer as a threat to the business and subject you to termination. Healthcare costs, public policy — these all affect the bottom line of virtually any business.

Where do you draw the line? And what makes you think the line stays where you put it, just because you think it should be so?

Signing a petition is Constitutionally protected – the right to petition your government. It’s not an imputed right (like privacy, freedom from sodomy laws, or abortion), it’s a specifically allocated right in the First Amendment.

Before you start tampering with that beauty, think very carefully.

Mark F.
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Since popular opinion is shifting our way, it makes perfect sense to support “putting our rights up to a vote.” Once we start winning these popular votes, same sex marriage will be seen as much more legitimate.

Mark F.
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Like it or not, our rights are being put to a vote either by elected politicans, judges or the public at large. That’s the system we have, so we have to work in it.

Andrew
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Is it me, or are people missing the point. It’s not just about gay marriage.

It’s way larger than that.

Why are so many in our community suffering from tunnel vision?

Timothy Kincaid
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

“When should employers be allowed to dismiss or suspend employees for legally conducing ethical, constitutionally protected behaviors on their own time outside the workplace?”

When those behaviors directly and significantly impact their ability to do what they are paid to do.

Secret Advocate
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

“I am also curious as to why someone found her name on the list of 10,000. Personally, I wouldn’t have the patience to read every name one by one.”

@Patrick:

Actually, there were more than 110,000 names on the list.

Anyway, the Washington Blade (an LGBT newspaper) obtained the list of petitions signers from the Maryland State Board of Elections (it is a public record), scanned it, and posted it online — with a search function.

Here is link to the Blade’s page with the list. If you click on the link “Civil Marriage Petition Signers July 12, 2012,” the list will come up (though it will take a while to load) and you will see the search function:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/07/25/who-signed-the-md-anti-gay-marriage-petition/

One can search for a particular name (including just a last name), or even a particular street.

Therefore, someone decided to check whether Dr. McCaskill had signed the petition, and she had.

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Well said, Timothy.

Andrew
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Tim, that’s a great and succinct answer. As I said in the other thread, that’s not entirely cut and dry. How do we weigh out Constitutional rights against that standard? In short, if someone decides that they don’t like me, does that qualify as sufficient reason to fire me. Don’t we need to have an elevated standard for the rights of speech, religion, etc. How do we measure the subjective quantities of “directly and significantly”… For example, could an aggressively pro-gay replacement be fired for having views that offend deeply religious students? By it’s very nature, the “diversity” position appears to be an “offend no one ever” kind of situation, preventing someone from having an opinion of virtually any kind… does that come with a concomitant loss of all speech rights? And… does the university have an obligation to spell those boundaries out… bear in mind – they have EXTENSIVE employee guidelines that discuss what is and is not acceptable behavior. Shall they now include voting, speaking, or petitioning their government in a special “do not do” section?

For example, we allow unpopular speech on universities all the time. Controversial professors fight to retain their jobs despite accusations by their students over class content being inflammatory – from whatever direction.

As SA points out, someone was fishing, and I have no problem with that. Universities are supposed to be places where we have a DIVERSITY of opinion. Knowing who signed the petition is an opportunity to engage them in conversation, not merely to punish them.

I find it inconceivable that someone cannot say, in their capacity, “here at this university, we believe in diversity of opinion, of gender, of sexuality, of race, and all people are welcome, and I will do everything in my power to fight for your right for a safe space at this school, to have your voice, and your presence be heard, and to ensure that you are protected from on-campus discrimination. I also have my own personal beliefs about how the state should handle certain matters. Shall we talk about what we believe?”

It’s not really relevant what the students believe she will do, it matters what she does in her capacity of her job. It doesn’t matter if I think my prof knows what they’re talking about, it matters if they teach their class well. And here’s the thing – this woman has apparently had a good, pro-LGBT track record in this job. So… how do you slice that?

Patrick
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

@Secret Advocate – thanks for the numbers correction. You reinforced the point I was making regarding that list – it seems not everyone was under the impression she was such a great ally, as we’ve been told she was, or they wouldn’t have looked for her name on that list.

Andrew
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

sorry, i think i’m just having a reaction to people baying for this woman’s blood without being particularly thoughtful – not everyone, but several. priya in particular creates a vision of a theocracy where everyone either passes through a very narrow definition of acceptable thought or they are subject to extreme treatment – and killing a career is extreme, kids. people are suggesting that it’s “only” a paid suspension… yep, cuz that’s no biggie. and that’ll never chill free speech on campus.

as you well know, i get very very tetchy when it comes to issues that relate to personal liberties and drawing boundaries between what is yours and what is mine. especially when duress is applied – such as when the government comes to lean on you, or when your employer can threaten your livelihood. but also when it’s easily turned on its head and used against us in another form.

i work for a born-again christian. he could have fired me a million times over, just for being gay (and called it something else). i’ve even broached political issues in the office, which is risky (and stupid). 13 years, and we often disagree but we get the job done.

Andrew
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

patrick, that’s a conclusion difficult to prove, since that person is refusing to come forward. i think it’s a little irresponsible to level that “evidence” without additional information.

Andrew
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Oh, and why is that, by the way, that someone has refused to come forward. Everyone here is lauding the transparency rules, but this person gets to complain without consequences? What happened to “actions have consequences” that I keep hearing so much about?

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

If a universities chief diversity officer had signed a petition supporting the KKK I doubt any of you would be protesting his being fired.

Ryan
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

False analogy, Priya Lynn. Equating the KKK to opposition to marriage equality is extreme hyperbole, equivalent to the rantings of Bryan Fischer or Porno Pete.

Secret Advocate
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

The First Amendment is not at issue here.

The First Amendment only applies to governmental action, or “state action,” to use the term from the case law. It does not apply to private action. The government can’t shut you up, but your mother can (unless your mother is a governmental official acting in the scope of her position).

However, there could be a statute that applies to a particular fact pattern. Here, an issue could be whether Gallaudet’s action constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion.

Back in the 1990′s, there was a contrversy when NBA player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (né Chris Jackson) of the Denver Nuggets refused to stand for the national anthem before games. He said that doing so would conflict with his Islamic beliefs.

The NBA suspended him, saying that he violated a rule requiring all players, team staff, and officials to stand respectfully for the national anthem before games. The NBA said that he would remain on suspension until he agreed to obey the rule.

The First Amendment was not at issue, because the NBA is a private entity. But the question was raised as to whether the NBA’s sanction constituted religious discrimination in violation of applicable statutes.

No litigation occurred, as a compromise was reached under which Abdul-Rauf agreed that he would stand and pray during the national anthem.

My point is that, while there can be legitimate discussions about what private employers can and should do with respect to employees’ views on political or social issues, the First Amendment does not apply to the discussion. In line with what I’ve said before, if an employee of the Maryland Catholic Conference were found to have signed a pro-gay marriage petition, the employee would be terminated immediately.

Gallaudet University, while it is Congressionally charted, is a private, non-profit corporation.

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Wrong Ryan. The present KKK has moderated a great deal and now opposes equal rights for blacks just as the anti-gays oppose equality for gays. The analogy is spot on.

Its time gays got over their stockholm syndrome and stopped feeling they need to cut slack to anti-gays they’d never dream of giving to racists.

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Let me put it another way Ryan. If a universities chief diversity officer had come out opposing the right of blacks to marry there’s no way any of you would be opposing his being fired.

You guys all have a double standard, you have deference for anti-gay attitudes you’d never grant to racists.

Blake
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

The reason your analogy fails, Priya is due to the public perception of the KKK. We’ve reached a national consensus wherein the assumption is that they are a terrorist group. While that thought is not always reflected in court rulings it is always present in the public discourse.

No national consensus has been reached even regarding anti-gay hate groups. That is why your analogy fails.

Blake
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

I think it makes us look terribly bad if we through this woman under the bus b/c she supports voting on our rights.

While we understand that to mean one thing; that understanding has not been well conveyed to the General Population nor is it accepted as true.

Most people are going to look at this situation & think we’re being terrifically close-minded & I’m inclined to agree with them. Were it not for the level-headed actions of the campaigners we would have already handed our a prime opportunity to exploit.

Perhaps she in not a student of history & doesn’t understand that people don’t like extending civil rights & she honestly believes that this is a legitimate vote.

Remember too that all this is confusing for those who don’t keep tabs on it. Is it okay to vote on a constitutional amendment as opposed to a referendum? What’s the difference? When we’re talking about voting on rights (on both sides) we conflate the Constitutional Amendments with Popular Vetos. Further complicating it: sometimes the amendments themselves are vetos & the legitimacy of the action turns on when the Amendment was introduced.

Like it or not states have a right to modify their Constitutions. Now they can’t modify them to take away rights already granted like CA did; but they can to reinforce the already codified meaning as GA & TX did. SO what’s happening in MD? Why do we expect her to differentiate between a Constitutional Amendment & a People’s Veto?

Let’s stop assuming we know anything about her because her name is on a petition.

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Blake, the KKK no longer lynches black people, they aren’t a terrorist organization, they have been a non-violent organization for many decades – they just advocate against black equality. What you think the public perception of them is is irrelevant, its what they are now that matters. The KKK opposes the equality of blacks just as the anti-gays oppose the equality of gays. There is no moral difference between supporting the KKK and opposing gay equality, only a hypocrite would suggest otherwise. The analogy is spot on and anyone who says Mcaaskill shouldn’t be fired but it would be okay to fire a KKK supporting diversity officer is simply a hypocrite.

If the tables were turned and gays always had the unchallenged right to marry and blacks were just beginning to get that right not one of you posting here would be opposed in the slightest to a university diversity officer being fired if he signed a petition opposing the right of blacks to marry. I’m sure most of you will make the obligatory claim that you would oppose the firing of such a person but both a person honestly belieiving that and one lying about that solely to avoid looking like a hypocrite would make the same claim.

E. Manhattan
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Andrew said “i get very very tetchy when it comes to issues that relate to personal liberties and drawing boundaries between what is yours and what is mine. especially when duress is applied”

And yet, he does not seem to think that being denied the right to marry is an “issue relate to personal liberties”.

Ms McCaskill’s actions show that she’s quite comfortable putting our freedoms up for auction – if the referendum she supports gets a majority, we can’t get married.

That’s not a minor transgression for a diversity officer, that’s a major block to her ability to perform her job.

She’d never, ever support a vote that might bring back slavery (slavery is common in the Bible, and acceptable to God, apparently) but considers it ok to support a vote to withhold marriage rights to gay people.

How can you say this is not an attack on our personal liberties?

Blake
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

If a universities chief diversity officer had signed a petition supporting the KKK I doubt any of you would be protesting his being fired.

Hahahahah!!! I found this on Public Advocate: http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/library/Petition.pdf

That’s what she signed.

Priya Lynn
October 12th, 2012 | LINK

Silly Blake, only people who oppose marriage equality ask to vote on it.

Patrick
October 13th, 2012 | LINK

@Andrew, the original article that was linked to by the first boxturtlebulletin article suggested, if I remember correctly, the person confronted her face to face, so the person is not exactly anonymous, not to Dr McCaskill anyway. There are many reasons why the person does not want to be identified in a broader context.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.