Labels: Family Issues, Homosexuality, Political Theory, Humanities, Language, Academia, Histo

 

 

Responses to "The Love That Dare Not Speak His Name"

1. She wasn't expressing her faith as part of her duties or in any official capacity, and so she shouldn't be disciplined or suffer any official consequences. Others in the department are free – also in an unofficial capacity – to voice disagreement with what she said. One quote of Miller's that the author above doesn't note is this one: "The university operates in an atmosphere of idea exchange, and while I recognize the institution's desire to distance itself from her, this is a basic free speech issue and I am disappointed she has been punished for expressing her views."

   Anyone on any side can be guilty of trying to censor or silence opposing views. Ironically, there are those who chide Pope Benedict XVI for going directly against the teachings of Pius IX in that matter. You don't have to agree with the Catholic Church or Ms. Dixon to still think they have a right to voice their opinions.

   Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 15, 2008

2. Re: “it’s nobody’s business what goes on behind closed doors,”

   Then the one who believes this should have no problem when he comes home early one day and finds his wife naked in bed with another.

   Comment by sedonaman | May 16, 2008

3. Sedonaman:

   Good one, and while it’s barbaric to legally allow the betrayed spouse to fatally shoot the cheating spouse, and anyone else in the bed, I’ve always believed the cheating spouse should be required to register as a sex-offender with the state. I see ads for those online matchmaking services all the time and firmly believe the prospective soul-mate shopper should read words like: “registered as a sex offender in Vermont – likes cheap motels and other men’s wives” – on the attribute list along with “enjoys outdoor sports” and “loves children and dogs”. Shouldn’t a “for profit” matchmaker be responsible for proper screening, I ask you? If someone buys a brand new car from an online broker only to later find out the car was thoroughly used with 10,000 miles and had been extensively repaired after a previous accident, the cops would have grounds to charge criminal fraud. Shouldn’t the matchmaking firm be able to consult the government’s sex offender list and add the appropriate accolades to the profile of Mr. “Loves Children” or Miss “ I make my own clothes”?

   I also enjoyed the author’s quip: “those who wish that the ‘love that dare not speak its name’ would kindly shut up”. A perfect combination of veiled sarcasm and wry amusement, ala Ann Coulter. Regardless of the victim group; feminist, illegal immigrant, homosexual, atheist, whatever – the pattern is always the same: I was oppressed, I struggled to overcome, I eventually triumphed. Gays are born that way according to the popular refrain, they struggle to find their place in a heterosexual society and finally they gloriously affirm their true sexuality. How many times have you heard those lyrics? And, doesn’t it get wearisome, sort of like hearing “Louie, Louie” for the 2,000th time in a row? You want to say: “yes, yes, we all know how wonderful you are, now please shut up about it.”

   Atheists have struggled also, battled with superstition, either imposed by their parents or by the greater society. They have overcome the blinders of religion and emerged into the light of rationality, free from enslavement to a non-scientific faith in the supernatural. Are we seeing a pattern here yet? We know the members of each victim group want attention, need attention and must be allowed to tell of their struggle and their triumph. But, we do get weary of hearing it and consulting the “Isn’t-this-boring? Scale”, it begins to rate somewhere between “Green Acres” reruns on every channel and watching the dryer in the laundromat so you know when its time to add the next quarter.

   And, while we’re confessing our secret thoughts, besides things that go bump in the night, what keeps me awake at 2:00 A. M. is the absurdity of it all. Is there a hierarchy among victim groups based on the difficulty of their particular struggle and will we ever see true equality of suffering? Think of all the unfairness that still remains. For example, a gay person can become bishop of the Episcopal Church but an avowed atheist can’t. Will we ever see an atheist pope or an openly agnostic Sister Mary Katherine Elizabeth? Is that fair to the non-religious – should that be tolerated?

   And an atheist can tell everyone in his Army Ranger platoon he knows God isn’t real, but a gay soldier can’t tell Sergeant Rock he admires his buttocks. Don’t ask, don’t tell – is it right the gay is singled out but not the atheist? Obviously, we haven’t reached true equality yet – a mighty struggle yet remains.

   I watched a television commercial the other night showing a young, very attractive heterosexual couple discussing (in a subtly indirect manner) the virtues of KY lubricating jelly during sexual intercourse. I wasn’t offended by the content, after all, they have a right to advertise their product. But, this is the San Francisco metro area; therefore, why couldn’t it be two very attractive young men in bed promoting the product? Is that fair and can we in good conscience deny the sponsor access to a target audience? Is it right to exclude obvious homosexuals from television commercials so as not offend our sensibilities? Is it hypocritical for self-righteous heterosexuals to claim sexual preference is strictly a personal matter but then change the channel should the subject be unveiled within a commercial? If the couple were atheist but still heterosexual, where does that fall along the spectrum within the eternal struggle for equality?

   I don’t know the answers to these weighty questions, and I suspect no one else does either. But, I do know we should be punished for not knowing the answers – so please tell us again about your personal struggle to overcome and we all promise to openly admire you once more.

   Comment by Pat Skurka | May 17, 2008

4. Pat Skurka:

   “I don’t know the answers to these weighty questions, and I suspect no one else does either.”

   I think law Professor Lino Graglia has at least part of the answer: The provisions of the Constitution “do not create a general requirement of equality. The law does not and cannot treat all persons – young and old, weak and strong, rich and poor, male and female, and so on – as equal in all regards. The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, … blacks, women, and 18-year-olds have the right to vote, while aliens and felons do not, not because of any principle or requirement of equality (or ‘equal protection’), but because they were given the right by the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, respectively. …There is no requirement of equality other than the tautology that all people must be treated in accordance with their legal rights.” – “Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts”, Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.

   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200101/ai_n8934944

   Once we abandon the idea that the government should ensure equal outcomes in life, many of these knotty problems will solve themselves.

   Comment by sedonaman | May 17, 2008

5. Equality is a myth of the left. When the Founding Fathers spoke of equality in was in the limited frame of the procedure a defendent would receive when brought into court.

   Of course we know that's not always the case as applied. The rich, powerful or notable can get a better deal than others, but not always; whereas in other parts of the world special treatment for some is SOP.

   Equality for the socialist/communist is equality of outcome. Thus they handle inherent unequal qualities by applying different standards, rules and measures. In short they lie to satisfy their myth and thus violate what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

   The left are hypocrites of the first order. The entire left's structure is based on lies and ultimately intimidation. And that is what you are seeing here!

   The left says you have a right to free speech… as long it agrees with our agenda. If not, you will be silenced!

   As I have previously mentioned in this site, removing God leaves a void that is fill by government. Government becomes God in effect, and it is the left's plan to become the government.

   For the left to succeed they must first destroy societies values. To their credit, they have been doing a good job of that!

   Comment by NHGrouch | May 17, 2008

6. [...] The Love That Dare Not Speak His Name Intellectual Conservative [...]

   Pingback by Bookworm Room » If you’ve got the time to read… | May 20, 2008

7. First of all we are equal in the eyes of our Creator–this of course goes against the atheistic proclivities of so many on the Left so as to interpret "equality" in a different fashion. Those who have talents I do not possess are greater than I in that specific area, we are not equal. Yes, our intrinsic value as human beings (again, before our Creator) is the same, but our capabilites may not be.
   Unfortunately, we deal with identity politics, victimization and the Oprahfication of society which makes each group or perceived group a victim who has to tell their woes to the world in order to gain acceptance from the larger society. In regard to the activist gay community. Yes, they are bigger earners than the population at large. I do feel that discrimination against gays in many (not all—their is a thing called bashing) areas is self-inflicted. Unlike blacks or any racial minority, being homosexual is not a biological characteristic (at least outwardly)–it's a behavior. If not genital, then cultural participation in a sub-culture (dress, speech, mannerism etc). Yes, would the love that dares not speak its name please stifle. We love you as God's children, but you're getting a little too high maintenence for our taste.

   Comment by Brooklyn Dave | May 21, 2008

8. Raymond,

   Your opening remark reads: “She wasn’t expressing her faith as part of her duties or in any official capacity, and so she shouldn’t be disciplined or suffer any official consequences.”

   Are you saying, then, if she ‘had been’ expressing her faith as part of her duties or in an official capacity she ‘should’ be disciplined? Did you bothering reading what Fabrizio wrote about “… returning G*d to the public square”, or are you under the singular delusion it is okay to sometimes suppress speech so long as it is religious-speech and other things the left simply doesn’t care to hear? Obviously, you do think it is okay given the speaker is a public servant. Why should the fact she’s a government employee have any bearing on her religious and speech rights? Aren’t government employees also citizens, or are they stripped of citizenship at the door? Just when did we cross that line and how did we ever allow the left to push us across it.

   Comment by Bob Stapler | May 21, 2008

9. Bob Stapler:

   “Why should the fact she’s a government employee have any bearing on her religious and speech rights? Aren’t government employees also citizens, or are they stripped of citizenship at the door?”

   One is tempted to think that way. Being a former government manager, I can shed some light on this. Government employees don’t have the same unlimited free speech rights that others have. They have to be careful that their religious opinions cannot be imputed to the government. First, there is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Government employees run afoul of this when their speech can lead a reasonable person to conclude that the government is endorsing a particular religion. While an employee can express a religious viewpoint, he must make clear that it is his opinion alone and not lead others to think his employer (in this case, a public university) endorses his it. Unfortunately, institutions have taken a somewhat broad view of what constitutes “speech” while taking a rather narrow view of what constitutes “religion.” Thus, Debbie’s flouting her gyrating pudenda while “Doing Dallas” is “speech”, but a secular ideology is not a “religion.” This is apparently why universities can get away with “endorsing” secular ideologies and forcing them on students and faculty. It is also why looney professors like Ward Churchill and the 9/11 conspiracy advocates can talk nonsense to their students and impute their ideas to their schools, all under the rubric of academic freedom. After all, there might be a grain of truth in their ideas that dare not go overlooked lest the salvation of all mankind be lost forever.

   Second, there is the Free Exercise Clause which means people may practice whatever religion they choose without excessive government interference. This clause is conveniently overlooked when public universities hostile to Christian ideas persecute Christian faculty and student attempts to live by the Gospel.

   And that in a nutshell is why she lost her job. If she were to sue, she should win if she didn’t lend her employer’s name to her opinion.

   Meanwhile, I never cease to be amazed at how coarse the law grinds for hedonists and how fine it grinds for the religious.

   Comment by sedonaman | May 21, 2008

10. Mr. Stapler: Yes, the government – which is to say, people who work for the government – isn't allowed to do some things that private groups and individuals can – in their official capacity. Off duty, it's a different story. It's not just religion – even politicians aren't allowed to do or say some political things in their official capacity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling#House_Judiciary_committee_hearing

    I wasn't even specifying that she was a government employee. The university could be a private institution, for all I know – if so, then a policy against faith (or her faith in particular) would be fine, but even then, 'off-duty' conduct or speech shouldn't impact her in an official capacity unless it actually – and negatively – impacts the performance of her job.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 22, 2008

11. Raymond and Sedona Man,

    Yes, I know this goes on. The question was meant to be rhetorical.

    Raymond, just because something has become the ‘rule’ does not make it particularly right or in our best interest. The example you gave amounts to political jockeying between parties to determine who rules – the guy in the Oval office or his political enemies. An executive forced to work through people not of his choosing has an uphill battle getting things done. Gooding is, at most, guilty of overzealously pursuing her party's legitimate objectives. The rest of the Wikipedia article amounts to tittle-tattle and spin to make her (and Bush, Gonzales, &co) more sinister than she is.

    Until the last half of the 20th century, the guy in office always replaced the political appointees of his predecessor with his own. This changing of the guard has some negative aspects, but also so some positive; not least of which is each political season gave us a clean sweep of rascals. Sometime in the late 1960s the then dominant party (Democrats) realized it could better maintain itself in power if it could prevent this normal 'churn'. The halls of power, at that time, were swarming with newly frocked Democrats, liberals, and assorted socialists. To accomplish this, the Democrats sold us the notion political appointees are entitled to the same job protection as civil-service employees and that replacing them is somehow corrupt. They also sold us the false notion it would attract a better class of scoundrels if they knew they had job security (we see how well that worked out!). Jefferson, Adams and others felt the public was best served when those closest to the top of the political food-chain are regularly replaced. It doesn’t guarantee the replacements are any better, but they can certainly be no worse, and are not an entrenched interest. When we vote one party out of power, that should mean its baggage and power-preserving structure go with them. Political appointees are fair game for rotation. So, the question should be: why are we playing along with this protection-racket? – not why have we made Gooding guilty of cronyism in what is a legitimate political circumstance.

    Sedona-Man, government employees most certainly do have the same political and G*d given rights as other citizens. If you are being denied those rights, that is faulty interpretation and a willingness to bow down to usurpation. Raymond is correct Ms. Dixon is not a government employee, but she is being subjected to some of the same right-denying legalisms because her university happens to receive federal grants. Regardless whether direct or indirect government employee, she has a G*d given right to her religious opinions and a Constitutionally protected right to voice those opinions. She may not have a right as an employee to act on those opinions, but that is hardly the same thing. She has a right to say what she thinks, even to the extent she disagrees with a policy she is forced to carry out; and has, furthermore, a right to express that as a political objective for a change in policy.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | May 22, 2008

12. Mr. Stapler – Oddly enough, your statements kind of lead in an opposite direction to your conclusion. "An executive forced to work through people not of his choosing has an uphill battle getting things done." If "Political appointees are fair game for rotation", then private ones would be even more so. Whether private or public, if she "disagrees with a policy she is forced to carry out" then moving or eliminating her would be prudent, no?

    Either job performance is the main criteria – in which case what she says isn't important, it's how she carries out her job – or else political and religious considerations can be applied. (Personally, I think job performance rather than ideology should be the main criteria.)

    I just have trouble seeing how you can object to the suspension of Ms. Dixon while condoning Ms. Goodling's firings.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 22, 2008

13. For everyone’s information:

    “We are The University of Toledo, a student-centered, public metropolitan research university with 20,000 students … The University of Toledo is one of 13 state universities in Ohio. We were established in 1872 and became a member of the state university system in 1967.”

    http://www.utoledo.edu/campus/about/index.html

    IMHO, that makes the professor a public employee.

    Comment by sedonaman | May 22, 2008

14. No, Raymond. I was merely answering your straw-dog, not setting up one of my own. You do keep trying to conflate apples with oranges. Ms Dixon was not singled out as a private employee. She was suspended as a public employee under rules having little bearing on private sector firings because those are constrained by laws rather than enabled by a law. Dixon was not fired because her statements affected her job performance. She was suspended because her public statements (made outside of work) were deemed politically-incorrect, and her employers (the University and state of Ohio) saw fit to silencer her for it. She was not being critical of her employer’s. In fact, it is not completely clear what it was she said that so offends them. She makes no mention of university policies, activities, practices, other than to defend UT against a charge it’s been slow updating benefits. From reading UT President Jacobs’ letter, my sense is he didn’t even bothered to read what she wrote, and fired her on a presumption of guilt. It appears to me she stayed well within civil service and university policies as regards public statements (regardless of Constitutionality) other than that she did not check with Jacobs first. Must all public statements be vetted through UT’s President? Somehow, I doubt that because he wouldn’t have time for it and, besides, that’s what he’s got administrators like Dixon for (university administrators commonly make press releases without checking). All she really did was refute some widely held perceptions of gays she knows (or feels) to be untrue.

    The policy applied to her is not applied equally to hundreds of thousands of other public employees who make private statements on a wide array of politically sensitive and potentially embarrassing issues; simply because those issues are deemed okay to discuss. Therefore, this does not boil down to her ‘right to speak out’; it boils down to ‘which things she is “permitted” to discuss’ and when, and whether her penultimate paragraph tied her article to policy. Jacobs’ case against Dixon hangs entirely on that last point, and that’s awfully thin. I am inclined to think, however, this Jacobs over-reacting because it was getting notice and, therefore, played the heavy-handed tyro.

    Our government, universities, and even private corporations encourage certain kinds of activism (e.g., diversity, environmentalism, charity, &c), but discourage opposition. Yes, private corporations are entirely within their rights to proscribe activism done on company time or using company materials, but cannot proscribe what we do on our own time and using our own resources. At least in particular instances, we know government employees do have protected speech. For example, whistle-blowing is a form of free-speech now protected and encouraged by federal law. If ratting-out crooks-in-government has been protected as speech, and a further basis for it is safeguarding the ‘public trust’, is it not also (or more) in our interest our servants report policies they know or feel to be wrong? We know very little of what goes on in the back rooms of government and universities simply because no one keeps track. The people charged with carrying out policies are often the only ones who do know, and if we can’t count on them to air policies sufficiently odious they are uncomfortable carrying them out (because they’ve been muzzled under a guise of ‘undue influence’), then we have a sure-fired formula for protecting both rats and their policies.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | May 23, 2008

15. [...] The Love That Dare Not Speak His Name Intellectual Conservative [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » The wonderful Watchers | May 26, 2008

16. Mr. Stapler – sounds like we are in violent agreement here with regard to Ms. Dixon. I also said "she shouldn't be disciplined or suffer any official consequences".

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 27, 2008

17. No, Raymond. You are forgiving her something you consider an infraction too piddling to punish. I see an abuse of power never should have been allowed to pass, ought to be struck down as a rights violation and, therefore, no right of punishment. You forgive because you don't think her comments damnable, but would have her punished had she said something inflammatory. You still support her employer's right to muzzle her, whereas I say they never had any right to muzzle her in the first place. This is not state secrets she giving out, it's not even whistleblowing, its just her opinion concerning a social phenomenon affecting all of us and on which we all have every right to an opinion.

    Once we start singling out classes of people to deprive of their rights without giving sufficient cause applied to narrowly defined and legitimate objects (e.g., employees handling secret or proprietary information), then there is no safeguard sufficient to protect the rights of the rest of us. Unfortunately, we may already have crossed that line. Ditto for outlawing classes of speech we find objectionable. Arbitrarily assigning government agencies and private employers a power to police speech unconnected with legitimate objects and too broadly defined is just such an abuse. I'm sorry, but shielding homosexuals and their radical agenda from public scrutiny and public criticism is insufficient reason for abbrogating anyone's right to speak out.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | May 27, 2008

18. Mr. Stapler – I think Ms. Dixon's wrong, of course – but that doesn't mean that I think the University has a 'right of punishment'. Since she wasn't speaking on behalf of the University, but rather for herself on her own time – as you yourself just said – she didn't do anything the University can or should punish her for. That's only what I've been saying.

    Now, you are apparently claiming that an employer can't 'muzzle' her – that is to say, place restrictions on her behavior – while she is 'on-duty', working for them. I find this to be a fascinating position to take on a conservative website. If she doesn't like the policies of her employer, should she not follow the employer's procedures for instigating changes, or seek other employment? Do you think that these employers are doing something wrong: http://undergroundunbeliever.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-exciting-newsabout-ad.html

    Would they have the right to fire someone for advocating atheism at work? At home?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 28, 2008

19. Raymond,

    You might wish to note the masthead says conservative AND libertarian politics. That's not necessarily an either or proposition. I am conservative because I am opposed to rash and destructive behaviors regardless of good intentions. Ideologically, however, I am libertarian first and foremost. Combined, that means I believe passionately in the principles on which our country was founded, but, pragmatically, I realize principles can be overworked to a point they are destroyed. There is an optimum point in the development of every movement at which you've squeezed about as much gain as you're going to get from it. That is the point at which you should stop pushing change because everything is downhill from there. Downhill the cart tends to get away from you, so that is the time to stop pushing and start braking. It is time to consolidate gains and make sure they are impervious to further meddling. We passed the libertarian optimum some time back. Trouble is we stopped, but a whole bunch of other folks have only just gotten warmed up and they want their innings too. So you wind up becoming the party-pooper no one listens to; accused of being anti- the very thing you passionately championed (freedom) by those who don’t wish to hear and refuse to believe you are not the enemy. Neo-cons and libertarians are mostly people who decided we passed the liberal-optimum, and it's high time we rein the cart in before it’s ruined. Beyond that, we are no more rigid on substance than anyone else.

    One thing your Underground buddy got totally wrong is the likely Christian reaction. Christians are notorious for rolling over and playing dead. This might have been a likely reaction 300-years ago, but not today. Furthermore, wondering aloud why a majority is denied a greater voice than a minority (however crudely stated) is hardly the same thing as denying the minority its legal rights. The guy at K&SF stepped over the line with that “shut-up” crack, but it was just an opinion; not a rights violation. But, then, you knew that – right?

    I think you've answered your own question. I don't know what you actually believe conservatives think (or are trying to prove about us), but clearly you imagine we start from an entirely different branch of humanity. The difference really isn't that great and comes down to conservatives trust more and have greater faith in established libertarian principles, while liberals are those as yet unsatisfied. That translates into wanting security against WMDs but not against bad odors emanating from the next apartment, government action to prevent cholera but not stubbed toes, and opportunities without the one-size-fits-all straight-jacket.

    To answer your specific question about the two adds. I find them obnoxious as you did, but I also find them amusing and I am saddened we have become so politically correct we can’t indulge a little obnoxious sniping without getting our shorts in a bind. I remember a time when that kind of talk would have been shrugged off as bad manners by most and sport by some, neither thinking something had to be done to silence it.

    “I disapprove what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

    Comment by Bob Stapler | May 29, 2008

20. Thanks, Mr. Stapler. You left only one question unaddressed: "Would they have the right to fire someone for advocating atheism at work? At home?"

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 29, 2008

21. Actually, I have already answered you twice, but since you insist on hearing it again:

    Dixon did not violate the rights of an individual nor did she disclose information of a secure or sensitive nature (everything she said about her employer is public record); and ought not, therefore, have been dismissed on the basis that she had. Quasi-governmental venues like state schools are less clearly defined, but are no more restrictive than federal guidelines. Her boss never considered what she did was a violation or just something he'd rather she hadn't said, so he abused his power to silence her. Jacob's objection was not that her remarks were false or public, it was they called attention to him and his own flagrant activism and activist policies on an issue in which he should have remained neutral. That makes his threat partisan and a violation of her rights.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | May 30, 2008

22. I can't imagine why my last post didn't make it through the filter, but oh well. Let's try again.

    I wasn't asking about Ms. Dixon – we agree on that. I was asking about Kieffe & Sons. "Would they have the right to fire someone for advocating atheism at work? At home?"

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 31, 2008

23. No, Raymond. You are pressing me to give you a specific answer, not just an answer. There is no failure to read you, I read you loud and clear. It is you who should answer that question: Do you think they have a right to fire people just because they voice an opinion?

    You are the one dodging bullets. I've answered most of your questions while you continue to evade mine (and everyone else's) by asking new ones and pulling the topic in new directions. Dixon did not air her opinions at work, her 'offense' had nothing to do with atheism (besides, when was the last time you heard of anyone, private or public, threatened with job loss for being a loud-mouthed atheist?), and Gooding and K&SF are irrelevancies.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | May 31, 2008

24. Mr. Stapler – You're the one who claimed that people couldn't be 'muzzled' at work (comment 17). I'm just trying to figure out how far that right extends. Apparently not far enough to protect U.S. prosecutors, but, well…

    Besides, I thought that posing other questions was standard policy here – after all, I asked about the actual topic of the article over here</a and suddenly I was being asked about pedophilia.

    (As to being threatened with job loss… it wasn't that long ago: http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of_atheism_firing/ )

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | June 2, 2008

25. You are, once again, conflating cases in an attempt at trapping others into contradictions. That is not what I said. I said they had no right to muzzle her ‘outside of work' [implied] because that is the context of her ‘crime’. But of course you knew that from reading the links provided, as I did. I also stipulated “… without giving sufficient cause applied to narrowly defined and legitimate objects”. The only way it intersected with her job was when she defended her employer against a criticism. There was no ‘cause’ for suspending her because she violated no legitimate condition of employment against airing personal opinions; other than a possibly unwritten taboo against discussing anything even remotely embarrassing to the university. That is a condition so broad as to be meaningless.

    As for posing questions other than asked, you are as free to pose them as anyone here. Neither of us has a right of censorship over the other, and both of us are guests of IC. This is but another of your red-herrings because no one has even remotely suggested you haven’t a right to pose as many questions as you like. My complaint with you is that you never answer any of the perfectly reasonable questions asked of you, instead pounding away with tangential questions meant to alter the terms of discussion. Therefore, I feel justified in refusing to answer yours in the same measure and manner you refuse mine and everyone else’s. Nor have I any objection to exploring these ‘corollaries’ of yours, but let’s be honest that we are then discussing altered and not original cases. I have been open and honest answering your questions, but, until I get some reciprocity, will limit my answers. You are an interesting adversary and I enjoy crossing swords with you, but I am no fool to be played.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | June 2, 2008

26. Mr. Ingles,

    You are being unfair to Mr. Stapler. I read his post #17 and he makes references to "the" muzzling, which was muzzling for comments made away from work.

    What is it that made you to believe he was introducing an argument about on-the-job censoring?

    Now, with respect to your post #18, I think it is appropriate to address the issue of pedophilia, particularly homosexual pedophilia, and even more particularly homosexual, aetheist pedophilia, as it relates to this discussion.

    Comment by nick adams | June 2, 2008

27. Mr. Adams, Mr. Stapler – Since I stated, quite clearly, how I understood comment #17 right there in comment #18… if I misapprehended it, the time to correct it was in comment #19.

    I've already said (in comment #10) – being libertarian-ish as I am – private employers do have a right to have whatever policies they like regarding at-work behavior. I'll go further here, and state that (private) employer policies that affect off-duty behavior are (or should be) legal, though generally such policies are pretty stupid. Job performance should be all that employers care about, but that doesn't mean that employers should be legally prevented from caring about other things. For example, I think Kieffe and Sons should be free to fire someone for being an atheist… and I think others should be free to express their contempt for such a decision.

    Government employers are subject to greater restrictions, as I also said in comment #10.

    Now that I've answered your question twice, once before you asked it, can you answer mine, Mr. Stapler?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | June 3, 2008

28. Raymond,

    Regarding muzzling of non-work related speech, you say “Since I stated, quite clearly, how I understood comment #17 right there in comment #18 … if I misapprehended it, the time to correct it was in comment #19.”

    Am I, therefore, to blame for not correcting your misreading of me? Oh, well, let’s let that one go. I hope, at least, we can now agree what people say outside of work can only be censored to the degree it violates a clearly stated policy protecting an employer’s legitimate and well-defined interests; not what social policies and convictions we can publicly discuss outside of work. In Dixon’s case, that might include things like not mentioning particular students or coworkers by name, mischaracterizing individuals with whom she comes in contact at work, revealing as yet to be announced policies, or attacking her employer’s policies as immoral or unlawful. Dixon did none of these and nothing remotely like them. However, even if she had, some burden of proof and due process is, surely, in order.

    There is a more recent article posted here (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/05/29/reading-as-racial-harassment/) discussing a similar case in which a worker is charged with racial harassment for the crime of reading a book dealing with the KKK in proximity to a co-worker who brought the harassment charge against him. Though it isn’t specifically stated, he would have to be a Purdue employee for Purdue to process the complaint. He has been threatened by Purdue’s Affirmative Action Officer with discharge because he has, so far, refused to comply with what he sees as a violation of his rights. He is also a student at Purdue and, thus, under a double threat.

    Dixon is not an isolated case; it’s a growing and chilling trend. Speech is under broad attack; most notably by those historically passionate defenders of speech and learning – academia. The press, the most profound symbol and vehicle for speech, is also suppressing speech whenever it is deemed the ‘wrong kind’ of speech. These lemmings don’t just limit themselves to obvious political ‘enemies’ (i.e., conservatives), they have so far ‘lost it’ they are even attacking their own; as shown by both Dixon and Sampson. In fact, they seem to have a particular abhorrence of liberal non-conformists (the trick being which strain of liberalism you aren’t currently violating). Of course, those they attack are instantly re-classified as bigots, racists, and (invariably) ‘right-wing fascists’ and thrown off the liberal -reservation. Some residual ‘traditional value’ can always be found with which to make the charge stick and provide cover. In Dixon’s case, it was her religion, in Sampson’s his race. But, let’s not quibble; the gods of correctness have spoken so they must be guilty.

    I will agree with you about "off-duty" activities, but only to the extent they are a) well-defined, b) cover information the employer has a right to protect, and c) do not violate a higher right or obligation of an employee to protect others or himself (e.g., if you know your boss is embezzling client funds, do you keep silent or blow the whistle?). Beyond that your employer has no right to prevent you from voicing your own legitimate concerns about where your country may be heading or what to do about it. Your boss's opinion may differ from yours, but that gives him (it) no right to silence yours. That's what Dixon's boss did and why he was wrong.

    You say you are libertarian; so do I. We are both, then, concerned with defending speech as all good libertarians are obliged to do. Where we differ has to do with where exactly our right comes into conflict with some other right or interest. Remember corporations only have interests, not rights. As a libertarian, I err on the side of individual-rights over the interests of corporations, institutions and, most especially, governments. If something must be made to give, lets not make it on the side of rights. If interests need protecting (and they do), then some better formula must be found than sacrificing liberty to them.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | June 7, 2008

29. Mr. Stapler – We are indeed in violent agreement about Ms. Dixon, then. And I haven't defended – indeed, I've condemned – the censorious policies common in academia and elsewhere today.

    I think you may want to consider carefully how your proposed policies would shake out, though, in practice. Protecting speech is, indeed, crucially important. One part of the first amendment is traditionally understood as the right to 'freedom of association', however.

    That right to freedom of association is what the Boy Scouts rest on when defending their policy of excluding gays and atheists, for example – not only in membership but in employment. I think they do fully possess that right, and can decide who they want to allow in their organization. (I think that they thereby lose their entitlement to certain government benefits, but that's their choice.)

    How does the BSA's policy match your model? Are they as wrong as Ms. Dixon's boss?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | June 10, 2008

30. Mr. Ingles:

    "I think that they thereby lose their entitlement to certain government benefits, …"

    Why do you think that? There are plenty of tax-exempt organizations that engage in partisan politics. Obama's church, the Trinity Baptist Church, is a recent example. After all, fair is fair.

    Comment by sedonaman | June 10, 2008

31. sedonaman – I'm just as unhappy with Trinity Baptist as I am with First Baptist Church of Springdale, World Harvest Church of Columbus, and Fairfield Christian Church of Lancaster. Fair is fair, as you say.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | June 10, 2008

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.