Crystal Dixon fired
Reports are slowly coming out that the University of Toledo fired Crystal Dixon.
Dixon had written a column this week calling homosexuality a choice and saying that she takes umbrage with the comparison of being black and being gay. She also said she did not consider gay rights as civil rights.
It was not a simple case of free speech. Dixon was an associate vice president of Human Resources at the university.
She was responsible for insuring equity and diversity at the university. Because of such, there was some concern with whether or not she could do her job adequately.
Also, as a staff member at the University, she was not entitled to the same academic freedoms that professors are.
Let me say a couple of things that will probably be lost in the flurry to exploit this situation.
As a gay black man, I was offended by yet again a heterosexual African-American speaking against their lgbt brothers and sisters. I was also offended by her very bad use of statistics and her relying on bad sources such as PFOX.
I also feel that the University had an obligation to investigate whether or not Dixon could do her job fairly in light of her comments.
And as of right now, I agree with the decision to let her go.
But I hate it when this sort of thing happens.
I wish there was some sort of compromise.
But to those who will spin this case as one of "an attack on free speech," how would you feel if her comments had been against Christians, or Muslims, or any other groups; people whose interests she was hired to look after while they are students at the university.
Ms. Dixon has a right to free speech, but that doesn't trump her responsibility to the students, whether or not they are gay. Their well-being takes precedent over everything.
She is not the victim here.
Happy Confederate Memorial Day!!!!
I kid you not.
Today is Confederate Memorial Day in South Carolina.
Confederate Memorial Day was the result of a legislative compromise in which the state agreed to recognize today as a state holiday if Martin Luther King Jr. Day was also recognized as a state holiday.
Such is life way down south in Dixie.
Now as a black man, I'm a little conflicted.
But as a state employee, to hell with it.
A day off is a day off.
Apparently our opposition has their ecumenical knickers in a twist over the online search site Wikipedia. The following is according to that bastion of Christian fairness, One News Now:
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is facing harsh criticism over the posting of sexually explicit photos and images, including that of homosexuals.
Officials with Wikipedia say they permit the smut because they have a policy against censoring anything -- but that is not true, according to Bob Peters of Morality in Media. He says Wikipedia does not post child porn on the site, and they also censor personal attacks or anything potentially libelous.
And even our lovely friend Matt Barber weighs in on the pseudo-controversy:
“Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Pornopedia. Providing clinical images that may assist people in research is one thing, but many of the images and videos featured by Wikipedia are gratuitous and obscene. They’re entirely unnecessary and amount to hardcore pornography, plain and simple.
Of course neither Barber nor One News Now go into detail concerning such images. In Barber's case it just adds to the notion that he thinks hyperbole substitutes as truth. The title of his piece is Wikipedia peddles porn to kids.
I thought if you make charges of that nature, you must show proof. I guess it doesn't count if you are a "fine, upstanding conservative Christian."
In One News Now's case, the lack of proof regarding the charges against Wikipedia is a fact duly noted by some of the commentators on the site. The entire issue seems to be bringing all the interesting comments out:
"As I read these comments I hear anger, bitterness, condemnation and all manner of emotions EXCEPT love. WWJD? He loves every one of us and hope this love would win us over to his way (True Christianity.)"
"Well I haven't seen the wind but I can tell you its there. Just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean its not there. Go looking, bet you 'll find it....Also stopping children from looking at pornography is not a bad thing really its not.... Nothing wrong with keeping a youngsters mind out of the gutter..Nothing wrong with a conservative outlook on life either, if you don't like it don't become a conservative...;)"
"I don't think anyone trying to "highjack" this site can make Christians look bad. You so-called Christians are doing such an excellent job by yourselves." (that one is by me. I feel so famous!)
"It’s pretty obvious that unbelievers are commenting here. I pity them because they are blind to their own ignorance, and will ultimately stand in judgment, with no hope of mercy. They think they can say whatever they want without consequence… Big mistake! "Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the LORD is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed." 1 Samuel 2:3"
"I've used Wikipedia many, many times and have never encountered pornography. There are photos of human anatomy, but it would be quite sad if some people considered that to be pornographic."
"Whether it is legal or not, each and every man and woman has the right and knowledge to know if they want to venture down those paths or not. Just because I am selling something legal, like horse crap, that doesn't mean that you have to stop and buy it. If each person would just ask that little phrase......WWJD. That stands for What Would Jesus Do. The Mormon religion has one that is older then that. CTR. Which stands for Choose the Right."
"Obvioiusly the good people at AFA and OneNewsNow are NOT going to give detail so everyone else can pollute their minds and spread this around. It simply requires common sense to know this if one is geared to decency at all! It's also common sense to know your source. If you read this site then you know whether it's reliable or not."
"So I typed in the word "porn" on wikipedia's website and at the bottom of the page that came up was a "Silent 'stag' film" In which the woman becomes topless. So, yes it is there. But again I think any normal filter would catch this and this story is fruitless."
"Yes, the fools wage their war against their creator and His instructions for living the best life. The only intelligent comment posted, was the one that warns that the "comments are partially hijacked." Impostors, pretenders, liars, defenders of what God says He hates. Sad to see how self-deceived and defiled people can become, to call right wrong, and wrong right."
"Well, i just went their and it has a link to a smut video clip. That is enough. Porn is Porn and it will not detract, it will attract. People who have seen porn tend to want more and the potent material will just add to the addiction!"
""ATTENTION IF YOU ARE READING THESE COMMENTS! Please know that these comments have partially been hijacked by people wanting to make Christians look bad and defend their point of view. Its common for activist to jump on a good Christian site like Onenewsnow and make it look as if there are all kids of people that disagree with the Bible and present ultra liberal views. I have managed message boards and blogs for a long time and this is common.""
"I've never seen porn on Wikipedia. Regardless, porn is not illegal so the Justice Department is not going to do anything about it. Besides, anyone who was looking for porn on the internet would have millions of sites on which to find it easily before searching through Wikipedia. This article is nonsense."
"I have never seen "porn" on Wiki only anatomy pictures. They certainly do have links to pornographic material in the pornography articles. Wiki is for everybody, if you do not like it then get a filter because they only way you are going to see naked pictures on wiki is in an article that will have some sort of words that will block the article."
"I've heard these allegations before, but have never seen any evidence."
"Where is the proof? I use Wikipedia for a lot of research, I have thus far never found anything offensive on the website. What gives? Did they refuse to say anything nice about the AFA on their site?"
"Is it actual porn, or is it human anatomy? Or have some people completely confused the two?"
"Here's something that could stop children from accessing the site: Parenting. Start being responsible for raising your children so the rest of us don't have to."
"You can write another article and tell us what articles contain porn? I'm very interested in finding out what porn is on Wikipedia."