The letter 'D 'is for Discrimination but not Diversity

The letter 'D' has been brought to you by Kokonut Pundit. Next, I'll show you how to count to 10 to help you maintain your cool. Here's an article called "The 'Diversity' Police Strike Again" which is a very good read.The money shot is on the 2nd page:

But there is not a single mention of gay or lesbian issues on the university’s web page entitled, “About the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.” Instead, the Mission Statement declares, “The mission of the Office for Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet University is to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed. The Office for Diversity and Inclusion will achieve its mission by collaborating with units on campus to intentionally design a comprehensive, university-wide approach to diversity; facilitate equity, access, social justice and inclusion; and, empower students, faculty, and staff to build a diverse and inclusive campus community. Through the cultivation of diversity, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion will lead efforts to institutionalize diversity as a fundamental transformative force that fosters professional growth and academic excellence.”

Can someone fulfill this role without believing that marriage should be radically redefined? Is it possible for the Chief Diversity Officer “to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed” without believing that a man should be able to marry a man and a woman marry a woman?

It noted that "there is not a single mention of gay or lesbian issues on the university's web page" but about promoting and ensuring that "diverse members" thrive and succeed in a rich academic environment.  But the question was whether a Chief Diversity Officer can fulfill that role without believing that marriage should be radically redefined? Certainly so. Even Planet Queer noted students they interviewed on the Gallaudet University campus who thinks so.

 “Dr. McCaskill is well liked by students. ‘She’s been a great ally to the LGBT community and supported many of the LGBTQA Resource Center’s programs,’ said one student, who asked to remain anonymous. ‘I’m heart broken about this.’” So, you can be a friend of the LGBT community without believing that marriage should be redefined.

The term "diversity and inclusion" has always meant the welcoming of diverse viewpoints and ideologies and peoples. But Gallaudet University is at a cross road with their "Office for Diversity and Inclusion" on whether to get co-opted by the term which is doublespeak to mean the opposite of what true diversity and inclusion is to mean in the name of political incorrectness.

This reminds me of the very same doublespeak when it came to the new term "deafhood" which was classically displayed by the CAD organization to mean something else. They levied a requirement in their old 2005 CAD bylaw in order to join their organization if you happen to be a deaf or hard of hearing person.

The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

That term was used to discriminate and profile deaf and hard of hearing people as a political correctness litmus test. This "diversity and inclusion" term is being co-opted to mean something else as well. Making stuff up as they go along in the name of political correctness rather than simply respecting people for who they are. We see people obsessing about what they are as part of their ideological litmus test that comes attached with an ideological term. If we can do away with that things would go a lot smoother around here. Otherwise this whole process is tantamount to having the thought police think you've committed some sort of crime if you don't accept the "deafhood" notion thinking you're against culturally deaf people or if you don't agree with the new doublespeak of "diversity and inclusion" mean you're against gays. Hardly. Both examples are steeped in political correctness as way to bully people into submission to think and act the same way. That's not diversity but rather discrimination by those who are against true inclusion of those who have differing opinions instead of out respect the differing opinions. That is exactly what the "Marylanders for Marriage Equality" group has done by showing respect towards Dr. Angela McCaskill stating she has the right to her own opinion regarding the referendum petition she signed and asked Gallaudet University to reinstate her position as Chief Diversity Officer.  That's true inclusion and diversity right there. Gallaudet University has not shown that. 

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.