Josh Swiller on the McCaskill/Gallaudet Snafu

Josh Swiller wrote a good piece in the Huffington Post about the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu. Not that I would necessarily agree on everything he wrote there are some points I do not quite agree on. If you don't know who Josh Swiller, he wrote a book called "The Unheard: A Memoir of Deafness and Africa."  The guy who like many others before him who attended Gallaudet University while as a student faced discrimination by his own class peers just because he could speak.

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.

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"