Gallaudet University President “Expects a Resolution” to Allow McCaskill to Stay

Jim Burroway

October 16th, 2012

Chris Geidner reports that Gallaudet University’s Chief Diversity Officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, is scheduled to hold a press conference with her lawyer in Annapolis, MD., today, possibly to discuss legal action that she may be considering after Gallaudet’s president, Alan Hurwitz, placed her on administrative leave. Hurwitz placed McCaskil on paid leave after it was revealed that McCaskill signed a petition forcing Maryland’s same-sex marriage law to go on the ballot as Question 6. Hours before that news conference was set to take place, Hurwitz issued a statement “indicat(ing) forcefully that Gallaudet University would like to work with its Chief Diversity Officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, to enable her to return to the community from her administrative leave.”

 I placed her on paid administrative leave as a prudent action to allow the university—and Dr. McCaskill—the time to consider this question after the emotions of first reactions subsided. While this has become an issue beyond our campus, as President of Gallaudet University, my number one concern is our university community—our students, faculty and staff and so many others who support us. I act on their behalf, not with any agenda other than their well-being as all of us work to prepare these university students for the future. While I expect that a resolution of this matter can be reached that will enable Dr. McCaskill to continue as our Chief Diversity Officer, this will require that she and the University community work together to respond to the concerns that have been raised.

…Dr. McCaskill has been, and can continue to be, a valued member of this community and we are very much interested in working with everyone to come to a shared understanding in an environment that allows the community to rebound and move forward.

Tybalt

October 16th, 2012

Diversity officer or no, I think this response to a (sadly unexceptional) political action is wrong.

Lucrece

October 16th, 2012

It’s a PR nightmare. A black female claims her religious liberty and economic well-being is assaulted by homosexual interests, and guess which side wins in the end? The one with the bigger population representation.

Andrew

October 16th, 2012

This feels strangely defensive. Methinks the lawyers have already met and the school is cutting its losses.

Regan DuCasse

October 16th, 2012

I’m getting very sick of the way the dissenters softball the gravity of what they are doing.
They whine that these responses to their political action is because they ‘disagree’.
They claim THEIR rights are compromised, for ‘stating their opinion’.

At any time, when a majority of people uses that advantage to do serious deliberate harm to a minority they defame and try to suppress, that is not stating an opinion or disagreeing, that is oppression.
She participated in a specific political action that is to be used against gay people in a way that harms them.
She didn’t express an opinion or disagree with a gay person.
She acted in such a way as to assure they’d continue to have a status anathema to the freedoms she has without challenge.
And considering her job description SHE acted inappropriately and the school put her on notice of it.

Andrew

October 16th, 2012

Regan, I’m sorry you’re feeling sick. Take two Constitutions and call someone in the morning.

Ryan

October 16th, 2012

Andrew, the constitution has zero to do with this. You’re aware that the first amendment doesn’t apply to non-government people and organizations, yes?

Andrew

October 16th, 2012

They do and they don’t. It depends on the context. There are, for example, elections laws that prohibit coercion. This may well fall into that category.

Now, they should and they shouldn’t is another matter.

Do you really want the same standard applied to your ability to sign a petition, join a political party, or vote your conscience? The government doesn’t get to call the shots, but your employer can call all the shots, even for lawful and constitutionally protected activities that take place outside of work?

This year, we have employers forcing employees to take unpaid time to stand behind political candidates on a stage for photo ops or face action. We have employees being told that if they vote the wrong way, their jobs are in jeopardy.

That seems to be the mode people here are embracing, as long as it favors your side.

I’ve been saying it for a week: this sword cuts both ways.

Soren456

October 16th, 2012

News at 11:00, I guess.

I’m not so much convinced that she’s anti-gay as that she’s stupidly ignorant of the issues that face us.

If so, this suggests that her credentials for the job are shaky. Personally, I’ll be looking for some reference to her actual understanding of the forces that face the students for whom she is supposed to be an advocate.

Boo

October 16th, 2012

Do keep in mind there are many Christian colleges that would fire someone on the spot for signing a pro marriage petition.

Mark F.

October 16th, 2012

Suppose polygamy was the ballot. If she signed a petition to put the issue before the voters, would that mean she was “insensitive” to the students favoring polygamy and should be fired? (Note: I’m taking no position on polygamy.)

Ryan

October 16th, 2012

Andrew, you’re being willfully obtuse. This isn’t a case of an employer firing an employee for voting the wrong way. This is the case of an employer potentially firing an employee for expressing a viewpoint that is diametrically in opposition to her job. It is no different than NOM firing an employee for expressing support for gay marriage, even if they did their job perfectly. That said, as I said before, pick your battles. The potential for groups like NOM and FRC to spin this and falsely present it as some unfair targeting of someone for their opinion is too great, especially right before an election. It kind of sucks for the gay kids at that school, but them’s the breaks. I also admit to not having the slightest idea what a diversity officer does, or if such a position is really needed.

Blake

October 19th, 2012

No viewpoint pro or con was expressed Brian. The petition & the referendum are about the text-of-the-bill not about the subject.

Timothy Kincaid

October 19th, 2012

Blake,

Your argument about the text of the bill being other than the subject of the bill is presenting a distinction without a difference. The text is the subject.

McCaskill did not respond to her pastor’s sermon about how every bill should be presented to the public for a vote. Let’s not pretend that this is the case.

Blake

October 19th, 2012

My argument appears to be a distinction without a difference but it is THE difference.

If we’re going to get our rights via the legislative process than we are subject to the legislative mechanisms in place. Including People’s Vetos. This is not Prop 8, where they’re using a Constitutional Amendment inappropriately as a People’s Veto. This process is a part of every bill that passes in Maryland. The petition and the referendum are related to and directly about the Bill itself. Not the underlying issues. One might vote against the bill & still support gay marriage. Because GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT THE ISSUE OF THE REFERENDUM; gay marriage is only the subject of the bill put up for approval by the people of Maryland. I thought posting the link to a copy of the standard petition form would make this clear; but I’m sorry you still don’t understand how the legislative process works in Maryland.

To reiterate.
In Maryland the only outlet for direct democracy is the people’s veto which was used for this bill. This is precisely why I oppose direct democracy. It does not guarantee rights for unpopular minorities and it can result in unethical plebiscites.

If we’re going to move toward marriage equality legislatively rather than through the courts we have to respect the legislative process.

When people in Maryland sign these sorts of petitions (which are all the same except for the Name of the bill) they are indicating their support for the principals of direct democracy and nothing further can be inferred. They are saying “Bill A” should be subjected to a plebiscite; and nothing more.

I don’t know what her underlying views are. Neither do you. Neither does anyone commenting here. And there’s no way to determine as much with the evidence we have available to us.

We’re all grasping at straws. You just think your straws are some sort of solid proof or something.

Priya Lynn

October 19th, 2012

Blake people who support marriage equality don’t want it put up for a vote. We know what McCaskill’s position is, you can play dumb if you want to.

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.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Born On This Day, 1951: Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury

Born On This Day, 1952: Gus Van Sant

Born On This Day, 1965: Kirk Andrew Murphy

Clinton Pays Private Visit With Pulse Families, Pays Respects To Victims

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1987: Reagan Names Gay Man To AIDS Commission

Born On This Day, 1816: Charlotte Saunders Cushman

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.