Open vs Closed Societies

President Hurwitz made it clear on the danger of practicing exclusion in his his February 19, 2013 State of the University address "Open the Gates Wide: Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet" speech.

Hurwitz warned against the destruction that exclusion can bring. "The wider the gates of acceptance open, the more room there is for all. Sadly, the community that excludes shrinks and dies," he said. He encouraged members of the audience to expand their circle of friends and colleagues to include those whose background is different from their own, and to embrace them "in the common cause of advancing our community and humanity."

It's the same warning that Deafhood? No Thanks Facebook group have told people for years, even before when the group became established, that it's better to accept people for who they are rather than to exclude them just because they do not pass your ideological purity test or don't believe in open thought or diversity. 

Symbolically, in American Sign Language, the sign for diversity is to reach out, while the sign for inclusion is to draw in. "All of us at Gallaudet ... must reach out and must draw in," he said. As members of a university community-traditionally a haven for open thought and respect for differing opinions-people who live, study, and work at Gallaudet don't need to be convinced of the benefits of diversity and inclusion, said Hurwitz. However, he acknowledged unresolved conflicts between groups on campus.

Those "unresolved conflicts" would be the whole McCaskill/Gallaudet/Hurwtiz/Bienvenu snafu and the seemingly racist hate letter aimed at McCaskill by a "former friendly colleague" at Gallaudet University.

Will Gallaudet University ever become a recognized university known for its inclusion, diversity, and open thought? An institution with the goal of being diverse in its language and communication approaches without resorting to gutter politics and political correctness? Only time will tell.

Mystery Colleague at Gallaudet Univ uses the "N" word in Hate Letter

Mystery Colleague at Gallaudet Univ uses the "N" word in Hate Letter. Yeah. You heard it right. An overly immature if not wholly unprofessional letter was directed at Dr. Angela McCaskill who was recently re-instated as Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University.  The source of the letter was found in Facebook under The Intersection: Deaf/People of Color Forum which is a closed group (private). The letter was procured from that Facebook group in an excellent blog piece called Diversity: Holding the Chief Diversity Officer and office accountable – epilogue written by Kojo Amissah (note: the offending words have been partially redacted in my blog).

Dear Angela, 

 I am a colleague of yours at the University and it was with great dismay that I heard the news that the University has reinstated to you to your position. The University is a chicken-shit organization for re-instating you, Angela. Your signing the petition against gay marriage shows that you are a bigoted, religious freak, out of touch with the majority of citizens in your state and in the country. 

 In fact, your signing the petition shows that you are just a stupid, ignorant nig*** b itch. There, Angela – how do you like being called names? You are a nig*** bitch. I said it again. By signing the petition showing that you are against marriage for a gay person such as myself you show your ignorance and stupidity. I frankly don’t care if it is your religious faith – your religious faith has NO business in politics. 

You are not wanted here at the University, Angela – you should pack your bags and leave – why don’t you get a job working for some right-wing, anti-gay organization – you’d be much, much more comfortable in such a position. You performance here at the University, frankly, wasn’t that great anyway. Stupid nig*** – see, again, how does it feel? It hurts, doesn’t it? I hopes it hurts you as much as your position has hurt me. 

When you see me smiling at you on campus you won’t know it was me who wrote the letter. But I’ll be there, watching you, you hypocrite. 

Signed, 

A former friendly colleague

I don't know the situation behind this letter or how the letter arrived, or whether there's any truth that the letter did in fact come from one of the teachers or professors at Gallaudet University since this "mystery colleague" signed the letter as "A former friendly colleague."  Let's assume this letter did come from one of the staff members at Gallaudet University.

First off.

Whoever wrote this letter is a coward, possibly a racist, possibly against diversity, and certainly a person full of hate against Dr. McCaskill, That much is obvious. This "mystery colleague" is not the sole arbitrator deciding who is not worthy to stay at Gallaudet University. It's the tried and tired "agree with me or else" political correctness attitude just because somebody doesn't fit your own ideological purity test. It's people like "former friendly colleague" who gives Gallaudet University a bad name.  A person who refuses to allow true diversity on campus. A person who twist the words of Dr. McCaskill. A letter that is perhaps just as bad as instigating a witch hunt against her in the name of political correctness. And yet this "former friendly colleague" forgot the fact that even those in the gay community supported Dr. McCaskill.  She has not used hate words against people in that manner like "former friendly college" either directly or indirectly.  There is no justification to write that letter in that manner.

And now you have this "mystery colleague" walking somewhere in the midst of the Gallaudet University campus. Each student will now sit down in class and wonder, "Is this the teacher who wrote that racist letter."  Or perhaps a staff member will be thinking in the back of his or head while speaking to another staff member, "Could this be the letter writer?"  A ghost walking amongst them.

Maybe teachers and professors at Gallaudet University ought to stand up and identify themselves and condemn that hate letter written.

McCaskill speaks

From ABC7 News:

“I’m here back at the university and thrilled to be back here,” she says. “I know there are many challenges ahead for me and I look forward to working with the faculty, staff and students here as we move forward to make Gallaudet a more inclusive university and the area of higher education that shows respect for different points of view.”

But it's strange that university officials would not comment further on why they decided to reinstate McCaskill's position as Chief Diversity Officer saying that it was a personnel matter. Personnel matter? Like president Hurwitz turning it into a circus show by making it public for all to see about their own personnel, Dr. Angela McCaskill?

Dr. Angela McCaskill is correct that Gallaudet University needs to learn to be a more inclusive university that shows respect for different points of view.

Hurwitz Caves...McCaskill reinstated

Yesterday Washington Post reported that Dr. Angela McCaskill was given her job back as Chief Diversity Officer.

Her reinstatement was announced Monday in an e-mail to students, staff and faculty from university President T. Alan Hurwitz. “I personally look forward to working with Dr. McCaskill,” he said.

Hurwitz’s announcement said that many members of the school community had reached out to him in a “clearly heartfelt manner.” Recent weeks were “a period of reflection for all of us,” he said.

He also praised the “overall maturity” shown in the community’s willingness to consider the “differing views others may hold.”

It's no surprise that president Hurwitz backed down on proceeding on the removal of Dr. McCaskill after realizing Gallaudet University had no legal case against Dr. Angela McCaskill for removing her as Chief Diversity Officer. The moment she hired a lawyer in October last year and 5 days later president Hurwitz backpedaled furiously the comment he made earlier about the suspension truly showed which direction the case would go. It's no surprise that Dr. McCaskill retained her original position and title. Gallaudet University/Hurwitz had no case at all to begin with to act upon the faux pas suspension. Dr. Bienvenu had no case to go through this witch hunt in the effort to get her fired. In the end, Dr. McCaskill was most likely well compensated with Gallaudet University settling this out of court on what could've been a potentially expensive lawsuit. That's my guess. And something that Gallaudet University wouldn't have been able to financially afford the lawsuit and all of the continuing negativity - a potential PR nightmare for Gallaudet University. Firing her would've been the worse course of action. President Hurwitz and Gallaudet University's lawyers realized this. Glad this has been resolved before the start of school.

There may have been some "overall maturity" shown in the community but there were enough of them who were quite vicious and very immature rather than to agree to disagree on differing views with respect and aplomb.  We know who they are. Full of hate rather than full of introspection and respect of the situation. Witch hunts do not belong in the age of learning and enlightenment.

Classes will resume on January 22, 2013 with Dr. McCaskill back at work doing what she does best at her job. May the students and staff show their warm welcome for Dr. McCaskill's return.  Time to move past this awful saga and snafu.

See previous blogs on the McCaskill/Gallaudet University snafu.

When gays support McCaskill

Here's a guy who is gay makes a point about the importance of not stifling a healthy debate and makes a note about the whole marriage thing by referring to the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu.

As actively engaged citizens, we are supposed to be involved in healthy, productive debates about this topic from one end of the Free State to the other in advance of casting our ballots. But for some reason, decent folks with legitimate viewpoints frequently choose to remain silent. Why? 

We've seen pundits like the Washington Post's Richard Cohen saying, "The opponents [of same sex marriage] have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice," (June 28, 2011). Is a statement like this intended to invite robust debate, or shut it down?

Who can forget the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco last summer, vowing to exile beyond their city limits any person or business (i.e., Chick-Fil-A) questioning the notion of same-sex marriage? Seems more like tyranny than collegial dialogue.

When the Washington Blade published the names and addresses of everyone who signed the same-sex marriage petition which led to Question 6's inclusion on the Maryland ballot, this incited multiple instances of personal harassment. It led to people being confronted by strangers in their driveways. It went so far as to jeopardize the employment of Gallaudet University's Chief Diversity Officer, Angela McCaskill. These types of incidents are meant to intimidate those who hold a differing view from expressing their views. Yet these folks had only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation.

People who don't have a prejudiced, homophobic bone in their bodies are afraid to make known the fact that they're not prepared to jump on board with same-sex marriage. The too-clever proponents of the new law have conflated the issue of ending prejudice against gays with the notion of same-sex marriage. They are unrelated.

Doug Mainwaring is right. Dr. Angela McCaskill only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation. Equally true is that the stifling of true dialogue through fear and intimidation will not go anywhere. The very act of turning this into a personal agenda for the ulterior purpose to make sure McCaskill gets fired is nothing more than a personal harassment case. In short, the hallmark of a bully. Yet the irony plays itself out here when president Hurwitz requested that Gallaudet University establish an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students back in 2011 stating (see page 2):

We are currently developing an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students. A brief video, “It Gets Better,” was made by Gallaudet students and is available at http://youtu.be/WoaYsF_OzXU."

It gets better? I beg to differ. Who would've thunk that a faculty member would actually try and bully another faculty member into submission in the hope of getting that member fired? 

McCaskill's petition...what does it look like?

Here it is. Go here and see exactly what the petition looks like that Dr. Angela McCaskill signed. Reading it says that this recent bill (now law) on allowing same sex marriage (Civil Marriage Protection Act) should be voted on by the people of Maryland rather than allow the Maryland legislature to craft the bill and pass it and for the governor to sign it to make it a law. There is nothing anti-gay about it but a support to let democracy take place. It is suggesting that democracy ought to be the route to let the registered voters of Maryland to either approve or reject this (the then) proposed bill (Civil Marriage Protection Act) at the next general election. If it passes, then it goes through the proper legislative channels to be voted on, passed and eventually becomes a law. If the voters reject the bill, they have in place an alternative language to define natural marriage.

Seeing the petition in its full form makes Gallaudet University's appearance of "neutrality" even worse seeing that prejudice and acts of discrimination and bullying are more likely when they put Dr. McCaskill on administrative leave thus violating her civil rights and her first Amendment Right. Whoever began this witch hunt had nothing more than the desire to see Dr. McCaskill go. And if it came from one of the staff or professors at Gallaudet University then that person probably had issues with McCaskill herself in the beginning otherwise a witch hunt against her wouldn't have happened.  Maybe it's this person who started the witch hunt ought to be fired for conduct unbecoming?

Hat tip: "Candy"

McCaskill's Fired!

He finally did it! Fired Dr. Angela McCaskill as Chief Diversity Officer of Gallaudet University after working for 23 years at the university. And her lawyers have just informed Gallaudet University that they intend to sue the university in a civil and criminal lawsuit for voter intimidation and mental harm seeking $200 million dollars in damages, and charges of criminal violation against the president of Gallaudet University and several administrators involved in the decision to fire her by using the D.C Code of illegally interfering her right to sign a referendum. Her lawyers say "It's about principle, not about money. People should not fear retaliation at place of employment for signing a petition, a referendum, or even a recall petition. This was a witch hunt and Gallaudet University followed that path."

Of course, McCaskill hasn't been fired. Never happened. Yet. Just a scenario I painted.

Now, should that scenario happen  then doing so would probably become a very expensive proposition for the university.  An expensive lawsuit could hurt their bottom line, perhaps their future as a college and a very possible reality that president Hurwitz could go to jail for firing McCaskill but that's a fuzzy line to that possibility. There is a Washington D.C. law that prevents an employer from firing an employee for signing a petition, for example, that an employer doesn't like as way to bully employees into submission.

Under the D.C. Code, it is a criminal violation for “[a]ny person who … by threats or intimidation, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with, the right of any qualified registered elector to sign or not to sign any initiative, referendum, or recall petition.” The sentence for violating the provision can be up to a $10,000 fine and a year in prison.
…Because a Maryland law — and not a D.C. law — is at issue in the referendum, however, the D.C. Code’s criminal provision is not directly implicated. But, it could indirectly apply to McCaskill’s suspension through a civil lawsuit in which she seeks money or reinstatement.

Remember, folks. McCaskill signed a petition to allow a referendum for Maryland residents an alternative option to vote against the state's Civil Marriage Protection Act . She is absolutely entitled to sign a petition for a referendum. She didn't write an op-ed piece to the editor demanding that gay couples should not be allowed to marry. She did not carry signs on street corners demanding that natural marriage ought to be the rule of law. And so on. She exercised her civil rights to sign for a referendum. But, boy, somebody sure had plenty of time on their hands and a serious axe to grind in the effort to find McCaskill's name through 110,000 other names and addresses which was probably based on a tip received and decided to go hunting.

I'm sure president Hurwitz and Gallaudet University's administrators are taking their time with their lawyers if firing her would be such a smart move or not. Would it be worth it?  A safe bet?

Family Research Council has already set up a petition drive to help re-instate Dr. Angela McCaskill. So far there has been 16,654 responses on joining the petition drive. Will it work?

Meh. We'll see. More drama down the road I suppose.