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?
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.