Posted on 07/21/2005 3:35:13 PM PDT by Coleus
Worker's censure ignites debate
| Thursday, July 21, 2005 |
WAYNE - A William Paterson University employee censured for calling a film on lesbian relationships a "perversion" has sparked a debate over where free speech ends and discrimination begins.
Jihad Daniel, 68, of Hackensack said he was simply expressing his Muslim religious beliefs in the e-mail to a WPU educator advertising the film. But university administrators contend he violated the university's anti-discrimination policy. And the e-mail's recipient said she felt the e-mail qualifies as harassment, not free speech.
The dispute began in March when Professor Arlene Holpp Scala of the women's studies department sent out a university-wide e-mail announcing a film and discussion session for Women's History Month. The event included the screening of "Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House." The e-mail referred to the film as "a lesbian relationship story."
Daniel, who works for the university repairing computer network hardware and takes graduate communications courses part time, e-mailed a response to Scala.
"Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions," he wrote. "The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned."
Scala forwarded Daniel's e-mail to the Office of Employment Equity and Diversity, which is responsible for handling such complaints. "Mr. Daniel's message to me sounds threatening and in violation of our University non-discrimination policy," she wrote.
In June the university conducted an investigation that led to an official reprimand by WPU President Arnold Speert. Daniel challenged the decision in writing, but the university stood by the decision. That prompted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based non-profit organization, to take up Daniel's cause. The civil liberties group appealed the decision to Speert, but the state Attorney General's Office upheld the reprimand.
Reached at his home Wednesday, Daniel said he believes his right to send the e-mail is constitutionally guaranteed. "Even if someone didn't like what you said, you still have the right to say it," he said.
But in a phone interview, Scala said she does not consider this a constitutional issue.
"He used the word 'perversion' and that's discriminatory," she said. "There are kinds of speech that are not protected. You cannot cry out 'fire' in a crowded theater."
In a letter dated June 15, Speert officially reprimanded Daniel, saying he violated the state policy on harassment because his e-mail was "harassing or demeaning to gay or lesbian individuals." William Paterson is a state-run university.
University spokesman Stuart Goldstein said he could not comment on personnel matters, but said the school follows the state policy regarding discrimination and harassment. That policy prohibits "displaying or distributing material in the workplace that contains language or images that are derogatory or demeaning based upon any of the foregoing classifications." Sexual orientation is among those classifications.
Daniel appealed the decision in a letter to Speert, arguing that his e-mail was free speech protected by the Constitution.
"I used my Constitutional First Amendment right of Freedom of Expression to make a statement about a situation and clarified why I felt that way i.e., 'it conflicted with my Religious Beliefs,' " wrote Daniel.
David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the university misapplied the state policy.
"There are greater restrictions that can be placed on an employee rather than as a student, but in this case the university far overstepped its bounds," French said.
French said Wednesday that the law does not say that a negative comment about a protected group in general constitutes harassment.
"It has to be severe or pervasive such that it alters the terms or conditions of employment," he said.
The organization cited a memo by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that said speech must be "sufficiently serious ... as to limit or deny a student's ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program."
But in a written response to the organization, state Attorney General Peter Harvey backed the university's actions.
"Clearly speech which violates a non-discrimination policy is not protected," Harvey wrote.
Hard to believe but I agree with someone named "Jihad".
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
---"He used the word 'perversion' and that's discriminatory," she said. "There are kinds of speech that are not protected. You cannot cry out 'fire' in a crowded theater."---
A person who utters such idiocy should have 'moron' tatooed on their forehead.
Yes, over 225 years ago, countless men died and put their lives on the line JUST SO you could have the sacred right to never be offended.
"Hard to believe but I agree with someone named "Jihad"."
Same here. Was I magically transported to Bizzaro world while napping?
We've all seen this assertion a hundred times, but (it occurred to me for the first time the other day) is it true? I mean, seriously: if you believe there's a fire in the theater, aren't you obliged to shout "fire!"? And if you shout "fire" when you don't believe it, thereby endangering everyone in the theater likely to be caught in a stampede, isn't the issue one of fraud rather than speech? There are all sorts of situations in which you cannot legally lie, even though a lie is only speech.
OMG I hate that I have to support the muslim.
But he did not initiate the email, he responded to an email. He expressed his opinion in detail and requested tht he not be sent emails like that.
Boy, will the lib academia be shuck'n and jiv'n on this one..."how do we attack Bush when the two parties are a lesbian and a muslim?
Apparently truth is not protected free speech.
Tell them not to send any to me, as well Jihad, for once, I agree with you.
We should ban people saying "Its discrimination!" as if that is a bad thing to discriminate between people who behave with reason, and those who are unreasonable.
Apparently discussion to liberals means only accepting their point of view. A university is not a place to have any discussion of ideas, anyone remember what happend at Harvard earlier this year.
..."how do we attack Bush when the two parties are a lesbian and a muslim?"
Exactly!
He certainly has the right not to receive e-mail promoting lesbianism at work. He should have just used more "diplomatic" language in being asked to be taken off the Women's Studies e-mail list, i.e., "Please delete my name off your list as I do not desire being sent material of a sexual nature at my place of work."
Only someone devoid of any ability whatsoever to use logic and common sense would attempt to make that analogy. There is NO similarity. Period.
University spokesman Stuart Goldstein said he could not comment on personnel matters, but said the school follows the state policy regarding discrimination and harassment. That policy prohibits "displaying or distributing material in the workplace that contains language or images that are derogatory or demeaning based upon any of the foregoing classifications."
You know, I think the guy could have easily turned this around on THEM. I would have made the argument that sending me solicitations for a lesbian film was "displaying or distributing material in the workplace that contains language or images that are derogatory or demeaning..."
What kind of an upside-down society do we live in when you receive a solicitation for a lesbo movie and when you say "NO MORE", YOU are the one in trouble? God help us.
"He used the word 'perversion' and that's discriminatory," she said. "There are kinds of speech that are not protected. You cannot cry out 'fire' in a crowded theater."
If the fire is really present, as was the perversion, then it is ok to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
If this Jihad is 68, somewhere he changed his name. I bet before he was Jihad he was probably Roscoe La Rue. Which probably means Go Chew on My Dead Tennis Shoe
If the guy had been an evangelical Christian, the aclu probably would have tried to put him in jail.
The "fire in a crowded theater" phrase, while a non sequiter, is somewhat ironic in regards to this issue. Does this not demonstrate there is an anti-intellectual bonfire on our campuses if someone can show such a film and pass it off as "higher education?"
And another thing! Isn't flaunting women's sexuality and acts considered perversion by Muslims considered TORTURE if you are detained at GITMO? Using Dickie Durbin's reasoning, can't this guy claim he is being TORTURED right here in the good 'ol USA?
Not only do I also agree with "Jihad" the emailer, but his point is well taken. The school administrators thought this was a "Threatening" email. I saw no threats whatsoever.
I saw a person asking NOT to receive any further emails about these subjects. He did not threaten to take any action himself in any way. He said: Dont send me any more emails and here is why: I think the stuff you are sending me is a perversion.
And HE is at fault???
Do we now have to accept spam emails about all sorts of trash and pornographic junk because we cant afford to offend the sender of the email???
This whole case is just academia totally out of control.
The use of the word perversion in this context was not discriminatory, but discriminating, or discerning. Discernment is obviously lacking amongst other staff members at this institution.
"Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House."
Wouldn't including a sexually suggestive title in an unsolicited e-mail be grounds for Jihad's attorney to file a sexual harrassment lawsuit against the feminist Scala and her employer? I, for one, wouldn't want to think about what Ruthie and Connie are doing in every room in the house—especially since they look like this...
Well, just think stopped clock.
For liberals, this is their idea of a "win win." They can rage at the homophobic Muslim and feel guilty about their hate at the same time.
Have fun!
mailto:SCALAA@WPUNJ.EDU
-Toonces
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
Schenck v. United States (3 March 1919)
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
=======
Perhaps I am wrong here, but I had thought that the sentiment was the first step for the courts taking such decisions away from the states unto themselves.
The actual first amendment is a restriction on Congress's powers and was seen as such for many years. My father told me about going to the movies as a small boy and seeing such things as "cleared by Pennsylvania Censorship Board." Today, the courts would never allow such a question to be decided by the states, and consequently, they've made up a lot of rules that aren't there (such as having to prove malice when insulting a public figure, not being able to define pornography but knowing when they see it, etc.) Previous generations would have allowed Federalism to decide such issues...
I see though that the actual case was Federal, and applied to socialists urging people to avoid the draft.
This is just my two cents, but I believe we need to introduce the term 'differentiation' in a legal context as a positive means of discernment.
One can 'differentiate' without 'discriminating'.
I expect we will see a lot more of these culture clashes. I can't understand a university professor does not understand freedom of speech. It's protected speech if he wants to bomb children but let him request that he not be bombarded with lesbian propaganda and that is cause for termination.
Thank you. I never knew where the analogy came from.
I wonder what her reaction would be if this guy's imam issued a fatwa on her butt
Does "W" know about this crowd up in New Jersey yet?
It's about "falsely crying fire", not simply "crying fire". Comsymplibrulretards always get it wrong.
Dr. Arlene Holpp Scala is a full-time associate professor in the Women's Studies Department. She has been teaching at WPUNJ since 1981. Her teaching career began in the English Department at William Paterson College(WPC), where she worked as an adjunct teaching writing courses. In 1986, she received a half-time appointment in Women's Studies. In 1996, she received the University's (still a college, at the time) first full-time appointment in Women's Studies. Dr. Scala teaches "Women's Changing Roles," "Racism and Sexism in the U.S.," "Contemporary Feminist Issues," "Women's Studies Capstone," "Lesbian Issues," "Life Passages: The Female Experience,"and "Sex Equity in Education." She has also taught "Images of Women in Modern Literature" for the English Department and Freshman Seminar. She earned her doctorate at Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dr. Scala is the Feminist Collective's advisor. She is a member of many campus committees: Women's Studies Executive, Curriculum, Retention, and Program Review committees; Curriculum and Assessment Committees for the School of Humanities and Social Sciences; Race and Gender Project Steering Committee; and Senate General Education Committee. She is Women's Studies American Federation of Teachers representative . She is also the Women's Studies liason to the Collegeof Education.
She earned her Bachelors Degree at WPC, where she majored in English and minored in history. She also earned her Master's Degree in English from WPC. and a second masters in English Education from Teachers College, Columbia University. In 1996, after completing her dissertation study, Heterosexism in the Classroom: A Teaching Case Study, she earned her doctorate in English Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. As part of her doctoral studies she also completed a specialization in Peace Education, which included a focus on Feminist Studies.
She is a teacher-researcher and is currently researching student responses to September 11 and its aftermath, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another research project focuses on the influence of the Barbie doll on the socialization of college students. She will soon publish her article "Reading Bastard Out of Carolina Through Jane Caputi's Pop Culture Lens." Her published work includes
Teaching Note, The Silent Duchess, by Dacia Maraini, Radical Teacher, Number 65, Winter 2002-3.
"A Feminist Teacher Responds to September 11." NWSAction, Vol. 14 No. 2, Spring 2002.
"'Out' Lesbian Tenured," NWSAction, Vol. 12 No.2, Spring 2001.
"Del Martin and Phylis Lyon," a review of a National Women's Studies Association Conference Keynote Address, NWSAction, Vol. 11, No. 2, Spring 2001.
Teaching Note, Memoir of a Race Traitor, by Mab Segrest, Radical Teacher, Number 60, Spring 2001.
Re-print, "Gender Policing," Solutions for the New Millennium: Race, Class, and Gender, 2nd Edition, Kendall/Hunt,2000.
Co-authored, "A Reality Based Method for Teaching Issues of Class and Privilege," Transformations: The New Jersey Project Journal, Spring 2000.
"Gender Policing," Solutions for the New Millennium: Race, Class, and Gender, Kendall/Hunt,1999.
"Racism and Sexism in the United States: Introduction to Women's Studies," Transforming the Curriculum: Essays, Syllabi, and Teaching Resources from the New Jersey Project, Teachers College Press, December, 1995.
Dr. Scala is also an activist working on peace and justice issues. Her recent activism has focused on peaceful solutions to the U.S.'s military actions in Iraq, violence against women, reproductive rights, racism, and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender civil and human rights.
EXACTLY!
Like this:
"Bush and the Republicans created a hostile environment which led to this conflict between two parties, who would otherwise have been able to achieve solidarity in the struggle for social justice."
See how easy it is? ;)
Arlene Scala
Dr.Arlene Holpp Scala is the chair of the Women's Studies Department at WPUNJ. She has been teaching Women's Studies since 1986. She has published articles on gender, class, and pedagogy. Her current research is on femme identities and on college students' memories of the Barbie Doll. She and her partner Donna live in Englewood with their three cats and are frequently visited by their six children.
Do they mean the six children of their cats?
These bimbos are thoroughly predictable. Thanks for providing irrefutable evidence to support my claim.
No, he shouldn't have. Five is not three, and being offended by someone declaring something you like "perversion" is not discrimination.
The lady should be fired for harassment.
Discrimination is good. Discriminating people can seperate the offensive leftists from the mass of good people.
Several years ago, there was a movement afoot to mainstream something called "feminist jurisprudence." The point was to normalize the notion that a different, but equally valid legal theory, holding that an action may be prosecuted based not on objective standards, but on the perception of the "victim."
I guess this woman didn't get the memo stating the theory has gone down in flames.
Higher Indoctrination?
Then maybe she shouldn't p*ss off anyone named Jihad.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Don't you think an educated person would know better than to use a cliche?
bump
Just think of it as support what if right and you'll be fine. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.