Angela McCaskill
A quick summery of the “Gallaudet vs McCaskill” story:
Angela McCaskill, the Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University (a university for Deaf students), signed a petition asking for Maryland’s marriage equality law to be put to a repeal vote. Months later, a fellow faculty member noticed McCaskill’s name on a list of petition signers. According to Planet DeafQueer:
LGBT students, faculty and staff we spoke to said they felt shock, disappointment, anger and betrayal upon learning of the signed petition. Some are calling for Dr. McCaskill’s resignation. Others are waiting for an official response from Dr. McCaskill and wondering if it will be possible for her to regain their trust.
Shortly after this, Gallaudet University President T. Alan Hurwitz put McCaskill on a paid leave of absence. Virtually everyone, including leading advocates for marriage equality, disagreed with this decision. (Although a few Deaf commentators I’ve read seem to agree with the suspension.)
Initially, McCaskill explained that she signed the petition after hearing a sermon at Church against gay marriage. She later altered her story, saying that she is neutral on the SSM question, and only signed the petition so that voters could decide. As publicity mounted, President Hurwitz issued a statement of surrender, “to indicate forcefully” that he wants McCaskill to “return to the community from her leave of absence.”
McCaskill, however, doesn’t seem interested in accepting a surrender, at least not unless she is given money. In a press conference hours after Hurwitz’s statement, McCaskill made it clear that she considers herself the victim of persecution, outed Martina Bienvenu as the faculty member who noticed that McCaskill had signed the petition, and also made it clear that Bienvenu is a lesbian. (Bienvenu’s sexual orientation is no secret, but McCaskill going out of her way to mention McCaskill’s female partner during a press conference seems gratuitous). McCaskill’s attorney announced that McCaskill wants “compensation” from the university for her pain and suffering.
Okay, that wasn’t as quick as I’d hoped. Some thoughts:
1) My initial reaction to this story was that I might agree with the suspension. In general, I’m strongly against any employee being penalized for their speech, but I do make an exception for cases in which something an employee says will reduce their ability to perform their job duties effectively. I’m not sure what a “Chief Diversity Officer” does, but it certainly sounds like a job that may require the trust and confidence of Gallaudet’s LGBT community, and she certainly seems to have lost that (judging from comments I’ve seen left by Gallaudet students).
Having given it more thought, I think I was wrong. This isn’t really about same-sex marriage; it’s about worker’s rights.
Transferring McCaskill to another position may eventually be the right thing to do, if over the coming months her notoriety for signing an anti-queer petition impairs her ability to do her job. But McCaskill should have the chance to try. Penalizing an employee for not doing her job well is, generally speaking, reasonable; doing so pre-emptively, as Gallaudet did in this case, is wrong.
Frankly, I don’t believe that McCaskill supports lgbt rights, and it’s unfair that Gallaudet’s lgbt students may be stuck with an opponent where they should have an advocate. But not every injustice can or should be remedied by resorting to a law or an administrative action. In this particular case, worker’s rights — the need of workers to be able to participate in political advocacy without fear of losing their jobs — is the most central issue. And – as we’ll see below — the right to not be penalized by employers is an especially crucial right for lgbt people.
2) Gay rights opponents are jubilant about this case, claiming that this shows that pro-SSM folks are against free speech (ignoring the many pro-SSM folks who have objected to McCaskill’s suspension). In comments at Family Scholars Blog, Maggie Gallagher listed seven other examples of people’s jobs being endangered over their opposition to gay marriage – although several of her examples were dubious, as JHW pointed out.
I responded to Maggie in that thread, and a couple of people emailed me asking me to repeat what I wrote as a post. So here it is again:
Maggie, why not ask instead: how many jobs are you not allowed to hold if you’re glbt, gay and married, or just publicly or privately support gay people?
Is it okay for a university to fire a librarian because he refused to sign a statement opposing homosexuality? (Maggie, is there any university which has circulated a statement supporting SSM to all employees, who have had to sign it to remain employed?)
Or how about the time the Kentucky Farm Bureau fired a man because he publicly supported SSM?
Some headlines:
* GOP Rep. Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay: ‘It’s A Choice Issue’
* Mom Whose Gay Son Came Out Claims Christian School Fired Her
* Teacher fired for views on same-sex marriage. These “views” came up only in a private survey given by the school to the teachers, not because she said anything in public.
* Eagle Scout Fired for Being Gay
* Water Polo Coach Claims He Was Fired for Being Gay (The school claims they fired him because of a Halloween photo on Facebook in which he was standing next to drag queens, as if that’s somehow better.)
* Parents Say AZ Principal Fired For Being Gay
* Gay Teacher Fired from St. Louis Catholic School on His Wedding Day
* NC Catholic Church Fires Gay Music Director For Marrying His Partner
* Catholic School Administrator Fired For Supporting Gay Marriage – ABC News
* Ousted Eastside Catholic vice principal fired for his gay marriage will sue
* Catholic school assistant principal fired over pro-gay marriage comments on his blog
What other jobs have people been fired from for being lgbt, or for being suspected of being lgbt? Correctional officer, camera operator, lawyer – that lawyer, by the way, may not even be gay, but he was accused of being gay on a blog, and apparently that’s enough to get fired – auditor, college soccer coach, college Dean, legislative editor at a state assembly, Alzheimer’s caregiver, cop, lawyer (again), lab assistant, and (of course) teacher.
Believe me, I could go on and on. And on and on.
And this situation, bad as it is, represents a huge improvement from just 20 years ago. At least now there’s a large mass of lgbt people who don’t need to remain closeted just to keep a job. Of course, the change in social mores that now allows lgbt people to be somewhat more secure than they used to be was resisted passionately by the religious right.
I think there should be a lot less of this sort of thing going on. Except in a few particular positions where it genuinely interferes with their ability to perform their job, no one should ever lose a job for being anti-SSM, pro-SSM, anti-gay, pro-lgbt, straight, or lgbt. Or, for that matter, for being liberal or conservative. The core problem, I think, is that people in the US have a strong tendency to demonize those they politically disagree with.
But Maggie, if you really think that this is some sort of unique “gay bullies” problem, rather than something engaged in by many people, including people on your side of the debate, then you need to take that plank out of your own eye.
The truth is, although this problem exists on both sides of the debate, the censorship is much, much, much greater coming from the anti-gay side. Look at some of the examples above. It’s unimaginable that any school would demand that all employees sign a statement of support for same-sex-marriage or be fired; but when the opposite happens, hardly anyone bothered to report it. No Democratic politician, no matter how pro-gay, is standing up at a press conference and defending the right of employers to fire anti-SSM employees (nor would any).
And to the best of my knowledge, no anti-SSM leader has ever stood up to defend the free speech rights of any of the people I listed. In contrast, pro-SSM organizations have repeatedly stood up for the free speech rights of people like McCaskill and groups like Chick-Fil-A.
I don’t deny that there are flaws on both sides. But this is not a “both sides are equally bad” situation. Overwhelmingly, the anti-SSM side is more opposed to free speech, and less likely to stand up for free speech of opponents.
3) Interestingly, if the petition McCaskill had signed had been a Washington, D.C. petition (DC is where Gallaudet is located), then Gallaudet’s action would have been illegal. “The only reason Gallaudet isn’t facing criminal charges is because marriage petition has to do with a Maryland law, not a DC one.”
DC isn’t alone – I’m told that about half of the states have laws protecting the rights of workers to politically dissent without reprisal from their bosses. I’d like to see that protection extended to the other half of the states.
4) An unfortunate thing about the debate over Gallaudet and McCaskill is that the most important voices — those of Deaf students at Gallaudet and the Deaf Community in general — aren’t being quoted. Part of the problem is that many monoglots like me can’t understand what’s being said (my fault, not theirs, obviously). To counteract this problem a little bit, I’m going to be following this story on Planet DeafQueer, which seems to be the only news source that ever reports what Gallaudet students say, and I’d recommend other folks do the same.
(Note: I added a few to the list of headlines after this post was initially published. –Amp)
Is McCaskill herself Deaf? An important piece of Gallaudet history is that in the past it has been pretty exclusively run by hearing people, creating a long-term on-going tension between administration and students. I am not up-to-date on if the students are more represented currently, but that too would be important in a “diversity officer” methinks.
Not to derail the main point, just noting that lack of representation of students in Gallaudet administration is a general, chronic problem.
I believe McCaskill is Deaf. At her press conference, she spoke in ASL, and there was an interpreter there to translate into English.
Also, I seem to recall reading that McCaskill was the first Black woman to graduate from Gallaudet, but I can’t find it now so I might be misremembering.
As I understand it, students at Gallaudet are better represented now (which isn’t to say things are perfect), largely because of their successful activism in the late 80s. The current president of Gallaudet, Dr. Hurwitz, is Deaf.
This particular issue is a free speech one, and I agree that workers should be able to vote how they want, sign what petitions they want, and not have that affect their employment unless it truly compromises their ability to do their job.
I definitely don’t think she should be fired or reassigned until/unless it proves to be a problem. The appropriate reaction would’ve been for her boss to sit down with her and discuss the issue, to get a feel for how well she was going to be able to do her job with respect to GLBT students.
Yeah, there is a major false equivalence between “people getting fired just for being gay or supporting SSM” and “people getting fired for refusing to do their jobs.”
How effectively can one monitor “how well she does her job”, though, in a position like that? If, since this emerged, the number of GLBT students coming to her for help declined, it could be because they no longer trust her, because social development has led to a better environment and fewer incidents for those students, or just statistical noise. Can the administration differentiate between those?
IMHO, since the students are the real people she serves, and since she can’t do so effectively without their trust, her retention in that position should be voted upon by the student body.
She seems much too young for that. I know that the first black man to graduate from Gallaudet was in the fifties, and I’d assume that the first black woman would have been not too long afterwards. McCaskill is no older than 50 or so, so she would have been a college student no earlier than the early eighties. I find it unlikely that Gallaudet got through the sixties and seventies without graduating any black women.
It looks like she was the first black Deaf woman to get a doctorate from Gallaudet. Her bachelors is from Alabama State. http://www.thebuffandblue.net/?p=3613
[headscratch]
What on earth does McCaskill’s status as deaf or not have to do with this? Why are you all talking about it?
I agree that the post is generally correct (this was a bad move, but there is much worse stuff going on from the other side.) But I don’t see why you need to be deaf (or not) to discuss the problem.
Oddly enough, although I am a die hard free speech nut, this MAY be one of the times where it’s OK to fire someone for speech: When you get hired on salary as a spokesperson and when your job has a lot to do with image as well as substance, then your employer can reasonably fire you if you do things which act to make your image less effective.
In that vein it depends what she did. If her job was go to around telling schools how much Gallaudet wanted more LGBT students to come, or if her job was to vet potential hires, then her job is mostly substance and her views should be protected.
OTOH, if her job was to act as a student liaison, a shoulder to cry on, and a confident; and if she was supposed to give support for students in their continued press for LGBT marriage and rights, then her job involves a lot of image and her statements should not be protected.
I’ve asked Maggie Gallagher repeatedly if she would apply her same “people will lose their jobs and STARVE” argument to people whose moral convictions were opposed to interracial or interfaith marriages rather than SSM. Naturally, no response; it’s a talking point, not an argument.
Amp, I really dislike the rhetorical ‘but not everything needs a law/administrative action’. Well, duh; nobody said it did. The question is whether this required administrative action, given that there were concerns about whether McCaskill could, in fact, do her job given her apparent views about LGBT rights.
If the Youth Activities Director of an all-female high school signed a petition proclaiming that it was unjust to persecute men for having sex with teenaage girls and that the age of consent should be 12, I doubt we’d be handwaving off questions about whether he should hold that job.
“Naturally, no response; it’s a talking point, not an argument.”
Yeah. That’s kind of my ongoing frustration in trying to talk to Maggie as though we’re just two people having a conversation. She seems to only pop in to FSB to recite sound bites that aren’t, in my opinion, all that…. thoughtful.
Mythago, in your example, the school would be justified in firing the director both because leaving him in place might put the girls in actual danger, and also because if they don’t parents will certainly yank their children from school.
I don’t think that what McCaskill did is comparable – her presence is hurtful to the lgbt students who used to trust her, but there’s no reason to think she’s potentially a danger to students, or that students are going to switch schools to avoid her.
I didn’t mention this in my post, but from what I’ve read McCaskill has had good relations with the campus lgbt community in the past:
I don’t think it’s impossible that, if the Gallaudet community is left to work this out for themselves, there may eventually be an apology from McCaskill and a mending of relationships. Before this story became a big national story, that seems to be how some people in the Deaf community were expecting things to play out.
Ampersand @10: So in other words, our hypothetical YAD loses his free-speech protection if what he says would upset parents or if his speech rather than his actions suggest he may not be trusted to do his job in an appropriate manner.
Why are those considerations irrelevant in this case? Of course, the considerations may weigh in favor of retaining McCaskill. I don’t understand why concerns about LGBT students get hand-waved when the Chief Diversity Officer signs a petition stating that they should be denied civil rights.
Also, the ‘students probably won’t leave’ is an argument unworthy of you, Amp. These are Deaf LGBT students attending a university largely run by, and oriented toward, the Deaf. It’s not like they can just blithely pack up and go study at one of a zillion other equally good schools if they don’t like it there.
What if a worker has an explicitly political job, working on a campaign or something like that, but it’s discovered that their politics are significantly in opposition to the cause their job is dedicated to? What should happen? Is it different than this Gaullaudet situation?
I think it really depends on the type of position and the requirements/expectations when they were hired. Actually supporting the cause is usually a basic requirement for being hired for a political campaign. Now, if someone were being hired for a non-p0litical job for a campaign (e.g., running the cafeteria at campaign headquarters), I don’t think firing would be appropriate unless it was made clear that that was a requirement or unless the person lied about their politics.
Is it different? Yes, because those requirements are usually much more explicit. I’m pretty sure that if I went to apply for a job with the Romney campaign without taking the Obama 2012 and Marylanders for Marriage Equality bumper stickers off my car (or if they looked at even the public parts of my Facebook profile), I’d probably be laughed out of the room.
I don’t think that Amp, Mythago, and I are really disagreeing about the fundamentals; we all seem to acknowledge that there are situations
Rather, we’re really disagreeing about the specific application in this specific instance: should the school have immediately removed McGaskill, or not?
And we have no way to know yet. “Chief diversity officer” might mean that she has to publicly support every diversity initiative on the planet whether or not it has anything to do with the school itself, i.e. she needs to support gay marriage.
Or, it might mean that she simply needs to do a good job providing resources and administrative and hiring and and back-end support to the various diversity groups on campus. Provided that she doesn’t discriminate based on political views (and there’s no evidence that she did,) it may be fine.
After all, most people in support positions don’t believe 100% in every political view held by every person who they support. Right? Inconsistency and variability are pretty standard human traits. You have a right to help, but you don’t have a right to make someone profess belief in your cause.
Moreover, “diversity” and “social justice for GLBT folks” are not the same thing. Given the stats, the chances are fairly high that at least one student who is specially diverse (i.e. has a diverse trait other than deafness and who is McCackill’s charge) is opposed to gay marriage. It would be ridiculous to assert that anyone who has a GLBT role has to reject any non-GLBT-favored opinions, unless you want to have special diversity officers for conservatives.
In the end, the firing may have been fine. Or not.
g&w, I agree entirely – although as I understand it, she was placed on administrative leave, not actually fired.
Why would a school have someone on their staff paid to do this?
As g-i-w points out, is there also a diversity officer for conservatives? Last time I checked, universities were supposed to encourage diversity of thought, and a main reason for ensuring diversity of ethnic, racial, sexual, etc. attributes among their students and faculty was to be a means of achieving this. Or is diversity of thought – at a university, of all places – unimportant and not worthy of support?
I’ve studied ASL at Gallaudet during the summers and at night classes while I was living in DC, and I know a few people who are or have been full-time students there, and from what I can tell, her job was pretty much the same as the multi-cultural affairs person at the school I went to for undergrad. Pretty much, be the main faculty person in charge of all the multi-cultural and LGBT student groups, be the first person that someone can go talk to if they’ve experienced any kind of discrimination or bias, and kind of just be the person there as the “this is the person who will take charge and do something if something happens” person.
At Gallaudet, it seems like the way that this usually plays out isn’t in terms of liberal and conservative, but in terms of language usage. And they have a TON of people on campus who are hired to work on that.
(Disclaimer: I have spent some time in and around the Deaf community, but I am not Deaf. Anyone who knows more about this than I do, please feel free to correct any misconceptions here.)
As ever, RonF, you prefer the ominous speculation to ten seconds of Google. God forbid you trip over anything that doesn’t confirm the Liberal Conspiracy.
http://www.gallaudet.edu/Diversity/About_ODI.html
That’s *a* good reason for ethnic, racial, sex/gender, and other types of diversity, but it should be very much a secondary one. (Minority students–of whatever variety–are there primarily for their own education, not to broaden the horizons of the majority.) The main reason for ensuring diversity is that race, gender/sex, orientation, etc. shouldn’t prevent someone from getting an education or make it unduly difficult.
It’s not worthy of legal support, because nobody polices it one way or another.
Well, that link states what the official definition of the office is. That doesn’t mean that’s what it’s expected to do. According to that web page the ODI has no role in either supporting or opposing redefining marriage. Yet when she did so it’s claimed that it affects her effectiveness at her job.
Would there have been a controversy if she had gone public supporting such a redefinition? No. So apparently it’s part of her job to either have no public position on the topic or have a position that supports a particular side – and that’s not in that web page.
KellyK:
Really? I fully agree with that goal. No matter what race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, etc. that you have, Gallaudet (and any other school) should ensure that the school should help you get the education you’re paying for. Now, let’s think about that “etc.”, and let’s have a look at the opening of the link mythago provided:
Go through the rest of that page. Not once will you see the words “race”, “ethnic/ethnicity”, or”sexual orientation” on it. We do see “diversity”, “welcoming” and “inclusive” a lot. We see that they value
How diverse are the various aspects of university life, how inclusive is the environment, how much respect from the institution and the university community do you think conservative students feel for their individual beliefs when they see a dean threatened with losing her job when she – off campus, even – espouses a belief they may agree with? Think this encourages them to speak up? To think they are included?
How about the goal of “Create an institutional culture in which the community engages in and grows stronger from difficult dialogues.” This should make them eager to jump in and join in with those dialogues, right
Conservative students have just as much right as black/white, gay/straight or male/female students to have barriers to their full participation in the mission, values and goals of this school removed. Calls for the head of a faculty member because they dared say something they agree with but others don’t puts up a big barrier to that.
g-i-w:
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that since there’s no law that requires colleges not to have a political bias that the school should not ensure that people feel free to espouse any kind of political position or social belief?
So long as it’s a private school then within reason it can do whatever the hell it wants.
BYU is under no obligation to specifically ensure that its students feel comfortable promoting either atheism or some sort of “Joseph Smith was a false prophet” competing religion, for example. Nor a “evolutionists are blithering idiots” platform.
Now, i personally believe that too many schools are far too intolerant of non-radical conservative thought. I don’t mean the “everyone but Nazis should die” craziness that isn’t really conservatism; I mean the people who share policies similar to those held by many reps and senators.
but that’s a belief; the school is free to disagree with me.
It’s sort of private. It also gets a lot of federal money, and a certain amount of federal oversight. I don’t totally understand how everything works with that stuff.
Pingback: Why I Oppose The Petition To Have Orson Scott Card Canned By DC Comics | Alas, a Blog