In the Huffington Post piece he wrote:
President Hurwitz and the university administration should be commended for respecting their students' feelings and processes. Keep in mind as well that at no point has Gallaudet said it did not want Dr. McCaskill back; it just wants to respect the community's process.By making a very public announcement to the community and essentially to the nation about putting Dr. McCaskill on paid leave was tantamount to firing her. Though she wasn't fired and still on paid leave yet this is the essential equivalent of putting a scarlet letter on her forehead branded as a person who could no longer be trusted. This was a process that immediately destroyed her character and reputation in a negative way for signing a ballot initiative petition (referendum). She made no anti-gay remarks whatsoever. Signing the referendum is not the equivalent that she's "anti-gay" but rather she supports the right of people to vote on a ballot rather than leave it to a handful of people in the legislature. Yet people continue to look the other way. Her name dredged up and sought for a public flogging if she didn't comply by issuing an apology for participating in a democracy. Diversity isn't about meeting and attaining some ideological purity test. And that is exactly what Gallaudet is trying to do. Diversity is also about including support for those with minority, religious, or political sentiments. There is no wanting her back. How would they want her back? Her reputation, relationship, and character already distinctly tarnished or irreparably ruined. Gallaudet's action does not indicate that they want her back but would only do so if it turns out to be a cost effective exercise because it's cheaper to compensate her financially and allow her to keep her position and title than to go through an expensive, public relation nightmare lawsuit.
That was Gallaudet's mistake.