Who does get to decide what crosses the line?
I know we’ve been focusing on “Dann land” but the discussion related to Crystal Dixon is one where many questions concerning free speech, what constitutes hate speech, and do gays deserve the same civil rights protections as blacks. Then the news today where the two State Troopers were fired.
Does Crystal Dixon as a person have the right to express her opinion in a newspaper no matter who she works for if she is speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the University of Toledo? Is firing the two troopers excessive given they were involved in a prank that did not involve any members of the public?
I was listening to two podcasts from Troy Neff last night, his thoughts as well as some others, and an update from Michael Miller. This is a continuing theme on the selective nature of our outrage at people’s statements and behaviors.
Who gets to decide what crosses that line when it comes to situations like this? Especially in the Dixon scenario, where does her right to free speech begin and end?
Though I disagree with her views 100%, Dixon shouldn’t necessarily be punished for her views. If she went somewhere she shouldn’t have that reflected poorly on her employee then there is some grounds for punishment. She is whacked out but is entitled to her opinion. Re: outrage, I rarely get outraged and people who do get outraged it is usually just posturing…IMO.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pmI don’t think that it’s hate speech. That word is used too much.
on a practical basis, in light her of comments, the university has an obligation to investigate whether or not she can do her job properly. This is because as a human resources officer, she deals with equity and diversity on campus.
And how can you fairly deal with the two if you infer that you have a bias?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pmI’d suspect that if proper job performance evaluations were done if there was any sign that she was failing in her duties that would have been noted. What’s interesting is it appears her beliefs are not anything new, it was the act of writing the letter to the Toledo Free Press as an individual that this became an issue.
How do elected officials put their personal beliefs aside when it comes to issues that could conflict? They focus on all of those they are elected to represent (or at least they are supposed to). The same would be expected of an employee in an HR department. Despite their personal beliefs they would be expected to perform the duties related to the job. If she is not doing her job properly I agree that’s an issue, I’ve not seen anything to indicate that there is an issue, her suspension was directly related to the letter.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:28 pmDr. Jacobs is too politically correct for me, a UT grad 1971, A&S, journalism major. He is restricting her freedom of speech, something that’s been in our country’s Consitutition for oh, 230 years or so. He has a passing fancy with that document. If her suspension is directly related to the letter she wrote, then he has probably violated her rights as a U.S. citizen. I think he’s got a lot more explaining to do, besides worrying about the university’s image in that regard. I won’t be giving the university any money until he apologizes to her and all Toledoans and UT grads.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:50 pmA problem I see with the article written by Ms. Dixon was that she publicly flaunted her employment with UT, and in light of her article being contrary to the leadership position on the issues, it is troubling.
If a member of a corporation expressed views in public, that were contrary to the goals of that organization, that member would be dead meat.
Just another view point.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pmNot Again, she did not list herself as employed by UT’s HR department when writing the article, she stated:
Unless I missed something, and I scanned the article again, there is no mention of who her employer is in the letter that the Toledo Free Press published beyond just one mention of the word employee.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:07 pmTo me, and I hope it is ok with you that I have an opinion, even though it is contrary to yours, she definitely implied that she is a UT employee.
She also said she is a business owner, which probably means she is an employee of that business too.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:19 pmI don’t disagree with you that she mentioned the word employee, I disagree that saying employee would be described as “flaunting”.
And you know you can disagree with me,
May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pmFor what it is worth, I read it as saying she is and alumnus of UT and an employee of said institution. IF, she didn’t want it to be a confused statement it should have been more clear. I had no idea she was an employee of UT. But I think from the statement below, it is reasonable to conclude that she is. Or was.
“As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner,”
May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pmOk, maybe ‘flaunting’ wasn’t a good description, but on the other hand, and who knows, maybe it was. Was this all planned?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:27 pmThat’s a valid point that we don’t know Not Again.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pmThat’s how I read it too, that she mentioned she was an employee of UT just not which department.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:33 pmIs it typical of the HR function of an organization to take a position that is contrary to that of the organization? I would think that it is very disturbing. The folks are not on the same page, as is obvious.
I wonder why?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:33 pmIt also seems odd that the Pres. of UT would trash an employee in the press as he did. Why wouldn’t this be handled within the institution?
“It is necessary, therefore, for me to repudiate much of her writing and to make this attempt to clarify our values system.”
It seems like he has some real problems over there.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pmThis makes the most sense to me after reading each of the 3 Free Press articles.
# 2 a. mcewen Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“I don’t think that it’s hate speech. That word is used too much.
on a practical basis, in light her of comments, the university has an obligation to investigate whether or not she can do her job properly. This is because as a human resources officer, she deals with equity and diversity on campus. ”
And how can you fairly deal with the two if you infer that you have a bias?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pmI wonder why it is, the first amendment applies to some but not others?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pm“People talk about free speech but many always forget that free speech comes with responsibilities. Sometimes you just can’t say what you want. Or if you open your mouth, you should be prepared to face the consequences (especially if you are pontificating on something that has to do with your job).
In many cases it’s unfortunate and unfair, but it’s still a fact.
In short, Ms. Dixon has a right to free speech, but she really should have used a bit of common sense.”
May 7th, 2008 at 7:29 amGood point Kathy!!!
We are slowly giving up our rights in this country. What is wrong with people letting this happen???? It’s time to wake up and take our country back.
Regarding the trooper photos. Stupid, yes. This was based on a Dave Chappel sketch. The NAACP is okay with Dave Chappel doing something like this, but if you are white, that won’t be tolerated. When they start going after rapsters and what they do to their own race, the NAACP will have a platform. Govna Strickland wanting to appease fires these troopers. He sure did act quickly on this. He’s still acting on Marc Dann and his shananigans.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:25 amWell, the PC police got her, not again’s comments about expressing one’s views publicly with your name attached are – in my opinion – exactly correct… particularly in the Toledo area where everybody knows somebody who knows somebody you know. I could write a big thick book about people in this burg punishing one another for having differing opinions or approaches. The fallout here is actually similar to a lot of the hysteria in the Dann situation – everybody is running for cover and making public pronouncements that they hope will save their own jobs.
I’m a transplant from another state, and have talked to lots of other transplants over the years. Only Toledoans born and bred think there is anything other than a very hostile, often punitive, employment atmosphere in this town. I don’t know Ms. Dixon’s age, but wish I could have warned her. Her own naiivete took her down.
It also makes a good case for not giving your name (unless already a public figure) on the internet, which can be accessed from anywhere in the world, by anybody proficient on a computer – good guy or bad guy, honorable citizen, criminal or hacker.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:19 pmTruthseeker, I’m Toledo born and bred and I realize there is a hostile, punitive atmosphere in this town. It stems from the local paper and their crusades against people, people in power who use fear to control people and a total lack of acceptance of someone with a different or opposing view.
Very few of us have the guts to stand up and those who do? Aren’t supported.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm“It stems from the local paper and their crusades against people, people in power who use fear to control people and a total lack of acceptance of someone with a different or opposing view. ”
I assume this paper you refer to is the SJ?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pmSorry, I meant, Sojourners Truth
May 7th, 2008 at 9:21 pmNo, I wasn’t referring to the SJ, they don’t have that kind of power.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm13 ABC is right now reporting that Ms. Dixon has officially been fired from UT
May 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm