Posted on 10/30/2012 4:03:12 AM PDT by rhema
Proponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to reassure citizens that changing the meaning of marriage won't restrict the free-speech rights and religious freedom of those who oppose doing so.
However, that's not the message sent by Gallaudet University's suspension of a top administrator simply for signing a petition to put the contentious social question directly to the people of Maryland, one of four states where marriage is on the ballot in November.
The persecution of Angela McCaskill is just the latest telling indicator of the hostile climate surrounding those perceived as resisting efforts to redefine marriage.
McCaskill, Gallaudet's chief diversity officer, also is the first black, deaf woman to have received a doctorate from the federally chartered private university in Washington for the deaf and hard of hearing. The well-regarded McCaskill had worked at Gallaudet for more than 20 years as of 2011, when she took the job. Her formal title: deputy to the president and associate provost for diversity and inclusion.
McCaskill championed the opening of a resource center for gay and lesbian students at Gallaudet, and her work has been described as "LGBT-supportive." Gallaudet President T. Alan Hurwitz praised her last year as "a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes."
But McCaskill's status as a model "diversity and inclusion" officer changed when the university discovered she had joined 200,000 other Marylanders in
signing a petition to put to a referendum the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage. Her mere participation in the political process would come at the cost of her job and reputation. She would be excluded, not included, by the intolerant forces of "tolerance."
On too many college campuses, "diversity" long has excluded diversity of thought. McCaskill's case reveals the repercussions individuals increasingly face for even the slightest deviation from the politically correct norm.
Her signature on the petition signifies nothing more than her belief that this was an appropriate issue to put before voters -- that questions regarding the foundational institution of marriage are best reserved for the people of the state, not its legislature or courts.
In this sense she and her fellow Marylanders are no different from the citizens of Maine, Minnesota and Washington, who supported similar ballot actions this year.
"I thought it was important that as a citizen of the state of Maryland, I could exercise my right to participate in the political process," McCaskill explained through a sign-language interpreter at a recent news conference. She signed the petition after a church service in which her pastor addressed the ballot initiative, she said, but has not publicly taken a position regarding same-sex marriage.
What followed was a chain of events eerily reminiscent of the intimidation and coercion faced by many supporters of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
McCaskill's action as a private citizen was made public when the Washington Blade, "the newspaper of record for the LGBT community," posted online the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the Maryland petition. A Gallaudet colleague saw McCaskill's name and reported her to the university, asking for disciplinary action.
Hurwitz, Gallaudet's president, rushed head-long to comply. McCaskill was first asked to apologize for having signed the petition. When she refused, she was notified by email that she would be put on administrative leave with pay until the university decided her fate.
"It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer," Hurwitz wrote in a statement posted to the university's website announcing her suspension.
The forces of tolerance, campus edition, felt the need to make an example of her. By its actions, Gallaudet has signaled that administrators, faculty and students with politically incorrect views are not welcome.
Most likely to feel the sting of the thought police are those whose views of marriage are informed by their faith commitments. Will bringing traditional ideas on marriage, family, life and faith to bear in the public square be treated as a "thought crime" on university campuses, in workplaces, by government officials?
The consequences of altering the definition of marriage are only dimly understood. Angela McCaskill's experience sheds light on that prospective future. In the words of an adage: Actions speak louder than words.
Diversity is good — just so long as you share all of the official views, vote in the proper fashion, and do not say anything which deviates from the official party line. As long as you follow those rules, you can be as diverse as you want to be.
Signing a petition to put a referendum on the ballot? Silly person, the State knows so much better than the People! The People are too stupid to decide on their own. /sarcasm
Now people don’t often tie things together and thus we end up with unintended consequences.
Let’s hit the wayback machine to the 1960s. The country decides that racism must be stomped out, and that pretty much all means, constitutional or otherwise are justified. Hence we get laws and SC decisions which pretty much toss the concept of freedom of assembly out the window. Let me be clear that I have no objection to government functions and regulations being fully colorblind. It is when the law gets applied in a broad swath across private individuals that I have a beef.
Can there be a black students organization? Yes. Can there be a white students organization? No.
Do I have to be careful of the race(later expanded to sex, disability status, and nowadays sexual preference) of the person I hire or fire? Yes.
Now I’ll be honest, I don’t really care what the light in the loafer crowd does on their own time. I do, however strongly object to the concept that everyone has to accept, nay, like it and have that enforced by law. If I were Catholic and ran a bed and breakfast, I should be able to deny business to a gay wedding reception. It’s my damned property. However that won’t fly anymore.
In the eternal (and extremely misguided) quest for fairness any rights which get in the way are stomped. Freedom religion? Bah. Freedom of speech? Bah. Freedom of Assembly? Bah. Mere obstacles to be overcome and disregarded.
People don’t bother to weigh the rights of people affected by changed. Sure, an alleged right to marriage is denied gays (find me that right in the constitution while we’re at it), so to ‘restore’ that right we stomp the rights of a whole lot of other people for the sake of fairness. Bollocks.
Last survey I saw said gays were around 3% of the population. Catholics and Evangelicals are close to 50% (very rough estimate). Assume even that we take out the smorgasbord Catholics, we still have over 10x as many people getting their right to assembly, religion, and speech stomped on as the people we’re supposed to be helping. That’s not particularly ‘fair’ now it is?
Well said. Gays, contrary their assertions, don’t just get married and sit in their little houses and never bother anybody.
Fascists in academia at work.
I never realised the deaf were so fond of Homosexuals.
Maybe many really are deaf-———and dumb.
yeah I know I will get burned for that one .
I hope this opened McCaskill’s eyes to the true nature of homosexuality and the Leftists who support it. Maybe she’ll become a conservative as a result?
I agree with your post, but don't think that it's even as innocuous as you are perceiving it. This is not a quest for “fairness”. These people are mentally ill, and this is an expression of it. They are “going after” marriage because attacking others is their only joy in life. They are not “gay”. They are miserable and driven to force their misery on others.
Democrats join in this “quest” precisely to achieve the loss of liberty you have observed.
Hint: look at conditions in the state-run boarding schools for deaf children.
There have been some strange doings at Gallaudet. One year the students learned that their new president, though he knew sign language, was not deaf. There were mass protests that could be seen but barely heard as the protesting students furiously signed their outrage accompanied by sobs, moans, & facial histrionics. The administration caved and nominated a deaf-correct president.
You may well be right for a lot of people, but I know quite a few otherwise rational people who fall for the fairness argument. They don’t understand the costs involved to impose that ‘fairness’.
Fairness, for no reason that I understand, is a very compelling argument for a lot of people. They don’t get that life isn’t fair, and that trying to modify reality to change that will cause more damage than they can understand.
EXCELLENT response.
I work at a community college with a big sign language program. I thus work with more deaf people than Joe average.
I have to say, they really are a strange lot. They have an insular community and really don’t have much use for outsiders. They are also extremely entitled. They simply have an awful attitude out of the box. When you work with a new deaf person, they start with a massive chip on their shoulder, and expect to be able to get away with anything. Some eventually come around, but I don’t find the education enjoyable.
There are some odd things about their educational experience that aren’t common knowledge. For example ASL and English are not the same thing by any means. They work completely differently. Deaf people are taught in ASL and English is a second language and to be blunt, doesn’t seem to be considered of much importance. Professional deaf people that I have worked with are almost illiterate in English. Grammar, spelling, and syntax are all extremely shabby.
I imagine the students at Gallaudet didn’t want an outsider because they might get exposed to real world standards.
The deaf are allied with the homosexuals as part of a broad pan-leftist “minority” coalition.
Anyone who even uses the term “fairness” - let alone falling for the so-called argument is an imbecile. The very word is subjective, and is being used manipulately. Just like “nice” and “good” and a host of other words that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, which is, “what I say is fair, nice, good, how I define it.”
Those words, and that device, are especially pernicious because they are used to suppress dissent - because if you disagree with the person touting fairness, etc, you are ipso facto unfair, not nice, and bad.
This is kindergarten reasoning, and the fact that it can enter adult discourse is the symptom of the degeneration of our society.
Anyone who even uses the term “fairness” - let alone falling for the so-called argument is an imbecile. The very word is subjective, and is being used manipulately. Just like “nice” and “good” and a host of other words that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, which is, “what I say is fair, nice, good, how I define it.”
Those words, and that device, are especially pernicious because they are used to suppress dissent - because if you disagree with the person touting fairness, etc, you are ipso facto unfair, not nice, and bad.
This is kindergarten reasoning, and the fact that it can enter adult discourse is the symptom of the degeneration of our society.
Anyone who even uses the term “fairness” - let alone falling for the so-called argument is an imbecile. The very word is subjective, and is being used manipulately. Just like “nice” and “good” and a host of other words that can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, which is, “what I say is fair, nice, good, how I define it.”
Those words, and that device, are especially pernicious because they are used to suppress dissent - because if you disagree with the person touting fairness, etc, you are ipso facto unfair, not nice, and bad.
This is kindergarten reasoning, and the fact that it can enter adult discourse is the symptom of the degeneration of our society.
It’s like “Children of a Lesser God” with the message of “we have our world, you have yours, so leave us alone”. It seems that the deaf are more separated from the larger world than those who are blind.
“Professional deaf people that I have worked with are almost illiterate in English. Grammar, spelling, and syntax are all extremely shabby.”
Deaf here. No chip. Lost my hearing slowly over years. I am a hiring manager for a big Silicon Valley company.
In my experience, people in general have shabby grammer, spelling and syntax, not just the deaf.
If you work for a community college, you people already know that too many of your graduates come out of your system virtually illiterate and not prepared for a working life.
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.