Crystal Dixon files lawsuit against University of Toledo
I noticed this as an updated story in the Blade, Ex-administrator sues UT over firing which had been expected to eventually be done as far back as May when the Toledo Free Press provided an update, Dixon uses Web site to raise funds.
As the TFP article points out:
On the home page, Dixon provides supporters with two ways they can help: to send contributions to “help defray … ongoing survival expenses,” or to give tax-deductible donations to her legal defense fund.
“[The site] was all done on her own to help her with her attorney Tom Sobecki’s costs,” said Brian Rooney, attorney and spokesman for Thomas More Law Center, which is representing Dixon. Rooney said while Dixon must pay civilian attorney’s fees to Sobecki, Thomas More is a Christian public interest law firm, and therefore will not charge Dixon.
That’s not made clear on the Dixon website, www.crystaldixon.com which could mislead people. There’s also this link from Thomas More Law Center that I was sent via email that in part says:
As a result of the University’s outrageous actions, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, today filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court, Northern District of Ohio against the University, its President, and its Vice President for Human Resources and Campus Safety. The lawsuit claims violations of Dixon’s constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection of the law.
The Law Center is being assisted by local Toledo attorney Tom Sobecki.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “It’s clear that radical homosexuals have an inordinate amount of influence over the University President. He openly brags about being friendly to ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals.’ But he doesn’t care about the constitutional free speech rights of Christians.”
This appears to be a small change up of the quote made by Thompson in May:
“The University of Toledo brags about being friendly to ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals.’ They apparently are also proud of their hostility toward Christians.”
The firing of Dixon was also included in this piece called Gay “Jihad” Across US.
Unless I’ve missed something, I don’t recall either the University or the University President “openly bragging” or being influenced by “radical homosexuals”, what was said was UT protects gay rights.
The issue was and still is does a person have the right to free speech with no consequences to their professional career. At least that’s how I understood it, and the University of Toledo appears to have said no, there can be consequences to free speech and Ms. Dixon disagrees appearing to feel that as a citizen she can say anything and face no professional consequences.
Good for her, I hope UT ends up paying her $10 million and Jacobs is run out of town.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pmI believe in her personal views but not in what she did as an employee of UT. She deserved to be fired!
December 1st, 2008 at 8:47 pmShe deserves to be fired especially when she’s in a high profile public position and she should’ve kept her mouth shut if she wanted to keep her public job. She was in the Human Resource area of UT which all if not most public institution expects HR to embrace diversity of ALL backgrounds whether it’s color, sex, religion, etc, etc.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pmShe just needs to go away and stop crying for attention (and money).
The things you do in your private life can affect your professional life too.
Just ask Lois Feldman from Iowa. lol
December 1st, 2008 at 10:02 pmLMFAO SA lolol
December 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pmFor those who aren’t up on their Lois Feldman saga history.
I’ve had mixed emotions on the whole Dixon scenario from the beginning. We tout the fact that we have free speech but I don’t think the constitution protects us from facing consequences of our right to free speech. We live in a society where segments of it not only harass people because of what they’ve written or stated in public but they are encouraged to do so by political parties and campaigns.
I think it would have been more difficult for the University to have justified terminating her employment if she did not work in HR, it’s also clear that they did offer her another position, it was her choice to not take it.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pmSo what is it that she said? I think it was that having black skin is not the same as being gay. She did not demean or bash gays . Many Americans would agree with her statement. She has a history of non-discrimination in her job decisions.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pmOn the More Law website, Dixon says that the U.T. prez pressured her into hiring his niece over more qualified minority applicants.
Why gays and lesbians are outraged was also published in the Toledo Free Press.
It is probably the last paragraph of her letter that bothered some the most:
It’s ironic that she wrote about each of us faces consequences for each of our choices. It’s a scenario that we discussed here in detail, if her job performance did not exhibit a bias, should that matter? Since her feelings are known, that did change the perception and impression, fair or unfair.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pmThis is the order that society chose largely to follow until the last 40 years or so. The compassionate work of Joseph Nicolosi, Phd , and dozens of medical proffessionals with him, is extended towards those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.
In this paper taken from an upcoming book, Nicolosi describes his concept of same-sex attractions as a reparative drive.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pmThere are many that want out, and are finding that path. Their right to find help to do so is under attack .
http://www.narth.com/index.html
Some would take issue with the description of “unwanted homosexuality” when you start labeling it as if it is some type of a deviation or as Nicolosi prefers “gender-identity deficit” stating that homosexuality is a mental illness that’s when people start attacking. I have a hard time placing faith in his work especially when you take a look at some of his beliefs, that it’s some how the father’s fault and that by having a father shower with his son and rough house that somehow prevents homosexuality.
It’s not as those who support his theory are the mainstream, they are not and the American Psychological Association clearly states what most people believe, “The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.” They’ve also stated, “groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help.”
The very claim that many want out or actually have gotten out is also been raised, and questions of credibility as to the numbers reported and the real outcomes have been made for quite a few years.
Anyone interested in both sides of this issue should also read Jeffry Ford.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 amI hope she wins.
Our place of employment has no right to fire us over sincerely held religious beliefs even if we make them public.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 amIt seems UT allows other employees to express their views as employees of the University in print, why is she the exception? Why is it her view as a Christian shouldn’t be tolerated? It seems the University didn’t fire her for her job performance. They fired her for expressing her beliefs as a private citizen. Big brother anyone? I say sue em and get all you can.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 amIts funny how the “tolerant” left never has tolerance for those with viewpoints that are different from their own. Freedom of speech for me but not for thee = liberal fascism in the guise of political correctness.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 amWhich leads us back to the beginning, do you really have the right to freedom of speech without consequences, which is different than having freedom of speech.
Dixon was free to say or write whatever she wanted, no one prevented her from stating it. Was she discriminated against when she was terminated? Do her personal rights to religious beliefs supersede the University’s belief that her statements would make it impossible for her to continue in the job she held before she made her beliefs known?
I think we all realize that consequences can come with stating your opinion, it’s why many of you do not fully identify yourselves here on the blog. It’s why some don’t write letters to the editor where they have to fully identify themselves, it’s why some people don’t want to talk on camera about something that’s controversial.
Were the consequences too severe in this case? That’s another question that will probably be answered by the courts, the University did offer her a different position, it’s hard to see how that will not also impact the court proceedings. If it even goes to court, most of these cases end up being settled.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 amOdd that if you’re a university professor and tout a liberal / socialist agenda…it’s called job security. But, if you hold any kind of conservative values…it’s grounds for dismissal!
Unless she used university resources (ie her computer or, wrote her essay during work hours) or, prove that her beliefs influence her decisions on the job…leave her the hell alone.
People are hired to do a job in a workplace. If their job performance is not effected by their personal beliefs and continues to meet the expectations of the job…leave her the hell alone!
In the soviet republics, people could be fired and denied employment for going against the political correct grains that soviet society (read government) deemed good for public consumption.
Keeping in mind that this is still America and, the university is still required to have the burden of proof that her views effected her job performance…until PROVEN otherwise, leave her the hell alone!
All you conservatives who are cheering her being fired had better think twice about this. She’s been fired for a thought crime!
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 amIf her lawyers are good, they should also be in the process of digging up all kinds of coments made by Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, radical eviromentalists, other Christians, etc that work at UT and where they were not fired for expressing their religious or political comments on social issues of the day. This isn’t the first time that a UT worker made a comment to the press.
Hopefully, the students don’t have to pay higher tutition when UT loses this case.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pmWe Need Ron Paul,
None of those things matter. Dixon never in her essay mentioned her employment or, employer, used university resources or, time. Her essay was done as a private f’in citizen.
The ONLY reason she was fired is because some activists identified her as a university employee and made her employment an issue.
The university in trying to appease the group just did what they’ve done to white guys who say non-politically correct things…they fired her.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 amI thought it wrong before and I think it’s wrong now.
Sepp, we do not need ron paul, he would be horrible. See my blog for several examples of why
that said, free speech means that we have LIMITED freedom of speech protected from all level sof government, provided we are in a public forum. If she published it and is well known as the HR person at UT, then it is implied that she was representing them. They they have the right to fire her.
This is just like companies who are going to fire those who call in gay on the 10th. And, just like this, I support those companies right to do that…
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 amSepp, she did state where she worked:
We covered that when this first came up.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 amLisa, arguably she merely said she worked somewhere, not UT
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 amthat said, if it is common knowledge she probably was implying it
We could debate context, which would be rather pointless, but I think that writing the words, “an employee” directly after made it clear she was an employee of the University of Toledo.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 amWhen did disagreement become a reason to terminate people? As usual, a vocal minority cries foul, and an institution kowtows to their demands in an attempt to sidestep any negative press.
I think it’s bullshit that these little groups go after a person’s employer. Rather than engage in any kind of debate with the person in question, the tactic is to attempt to punish them into silence by having their livlihood and means of support taken from them.
It’s a tactic thats been employed by the left for years in order to stifle dissenting veiwpoints.
It’s a sleaze tactic that unfortunately due to overzealous political correctness, works all too well.
If she had said anything offensive while speaking AS a UT employee and FOR UT without UT’s consent, this would be different.
She stated her oppinion as a private citizen and, any opposing oppinion should have been directed at her personally and, not her employer as a proxi to punish her for her thoughts.
They ought to name a wing in the school of law after her…The Dixon center for free speech and constitutional law.
Last I checked, offending people was still legal.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 amSepp, that’s one of the points it’s going to come down to, do you have the legal right to hold a belief some may find offensive and still be able to be employed in a position where that belief may cause discrimination or the impression that discrimination would exist.
How long do you think a University employee working in a high level HR position would last if it were known they were a member of the KKK?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 amWas she a model employee ?
I doubt it.
Often, governmental employers let a paper trail build in the hope that a reason for ‘justifiable termination’ will surface.
Think this was the straw that broke the camel’s back ?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 amThey should have picked a different straw.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pmKey word Lisa “SOME” (might find offensive)!
Some people might not like what I think or, say…some people just might agree with me.
Does that give one side the right to harrass my employer into firing me?
“Oh look…Joe Doaks corperation has a guy working for them who thinks (fill in the blank)…we demand so and so be fired immediately!”
THAT is bullshit…but happens. It will only stop happening when Doaks corp tells these groups to stick it.
Besides, if these groups have a ligitimate arguements that they’re able to backup, they’d NEVER have to resort to threats in order to shut up the opposing veiwpoint.
99% of people are pretty reasonable but all reason goes out the window after a threat is made toward them.
Instead of the gays who disagreed with Dixon simply going after her job, they probably could have done better by going to her with their side of the story.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:09 amThey could have gained an ally but, chose to create a bitter enemy instead.
I doubt Dixon would ever listen to one word from them ever after this.
If we look at this from a personal responsibility factor, Dixon is the one who wrote the letter to the Toledo Free Press knowing she was employed in HR and I’m pretty positive she is an intelligent enough woman who realized that sharing her thoughts on the issue of homosexuality especially given how controversial the whole “conversion therapy” issue is, had to have expected some consequences.
Should the consequences been her losing her position? That’s what the courts will have to decide. We all face choices and I believe most of us realize that at times our choices create consequences.
She stood up for her convictions, but it also brought negative publicity upon her employer. It is very true that we don’t have the right to not be offended, and either way the University went with this one they would have faced problems. Keep Dixon in her current position then one group is offended, fire her and another group is offended. Offering her a different position was a compromise that she opted to not take.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:29 amUnless she’s speaking for her employer, her employer should be left out of it. Period.
These groups simply dodge any dialogue and simply try to harrass people out of a job in order to shut them up. I’ll stick by my guns and say it’s bullshit.
If the group in question had a valid point, they wouldn’t resort to sleaze tactics.
The great irony in this is that black groups for years have pulled the same stunt on whites who didn’t kowtow to the P.C machine as the gays are now pulling on her…so in THAT respect they ARE the same.
In the end, any group that has the truth on it’s side won’t need to resort to sleaze tactics that stifle the opposing veiwpoint. Their facts should stand on their own.
Look at history. ANYTIME a group or, government for that matter simply tried to silence the opposition via a threat it usually means that the person has a valid point the group doesent want heard by the rest of us.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pmMany years ago, I worked at a radio station and wrote letters refuting the claims of a bigoted minister and supported gay rights. In each of those letters, I *clearly* stated this was my *personal* opinion and not that of my employers. Yet I still had duties removed and hours cut until they forced me to resign.
However, *my* position wasn’t that of an administrator in charge of hiring, promoting, and firing people, which Dixon had! She and everyone else in that area must be held to a different and higher standard than the academic departments.
I wonder if Ms. Dixon conveniently forgot that the bigots used the *exact same book* in trying to deny civil rights based on race that she’s twisting to justify *her* bigotry. But that’s what usually happens with those who focus on assimilation, no matter where their background lies: they forget their history.
Next time Ms. Dixon opens her mouth to spew her bilious bigotry, she should read the passages regarding hypocrisy, and worrying about the mote in someone’s eye when there’s a plank in their own.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pmI guess the same thing that happened to you has been perpetrated by the liberal far left to ms dixon. What are you complaining about? Maybe you are the real hypocrite here. Look in the mirror.
December 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pmI think she’s pointing out that she was forced from her job because she spoke her personal opinion and no one made a huge issue out of it as far as supporting her. That if it’s wrong to force people out because they support gay rights, the opposite should also apply but that doesn’t appear to be what she experienced.
From a biblical standpoint, since I’m assuming that is the “same book” referenced, the Bible was used to try to justify slavery.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pmI think ms dixon spoke her personal opinion also. Not that I support what she did, while implying her position as a UT administrator. I do think that gays get preferential treatment by UT though. And it is not fair.
I have a real problem with her using her color as an example to support her position. I think it was racist. So, in my opinion, she used her color to attack gays.
The ultra liberal pinheads that run UT are more interested in promoting gays anyway. So, ms dixon, is out in the cold. This is a no win situation. Dixon deserved to be fired, and the UT king pins are shit heads. Go figure.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pmAs I said, NA… she’s an assimilationist who’s forgotten her history.
She forgets that if it wasn’t for a gay black man, they wouldn’t have all the positions they’re at today.
But I guess because he was a “radical” and nothing like her and the rest of the assimilationists, he doesn’t deserve being remembered…
December 8th, 2008 at 6:04 am