Gallaudet U. diversity officer suspended for signing marriage petition

by Walter Olson on October 11, 2012

Get ready for the next round in the who’s-persecuting-whom culture wars, following Chick-Fil-A and Burns-vs.-Ayanbadejo. I’ve got a write-up at Maryland for All Families reacting to initial reports by Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed and Annie Linskey at the Baltimore Sun; David Bernstein also comments. Regarding the unique status of Gallaudet, the national university for the deaf, a commenter at NRO offers the following:

Gallaudet cannot sell or transfer any of its real property without Congressional approval.

All Gallaudet diplomas are signed by the President of the United States.

Three members of Congress are statutorily required to sit on the school’s Board of Trustees.

Gallaudet is required to submit an annual report on its operations to the Department of Education and has purchasing authority through the General Services Administration.

Gallaudet receives a direct, annual Congressional appropriation, rather than mere federal student loan funds, and that direct appropriation accounts for the overwhelming majority of the school’s income.

More: Ken at Popehat; Huffington Post D.C.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Zampolit Angela McCaskill, Report For Reeducation | Popehat
10.11.12 at 11:00 am
Gallaudet suspends diversity officer for signing No on 6 petition | Maryland for All Families
10.11.12 at 12:32 pm

{ 5 comments }

1 Richard Nieporent 10.11.12 at 9:21 am

Yet very few of these same figures raised their voices when Del. Emmett Burns abused his position as a public official by trying to silence pro-gay-marriage Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo.

Walter, you seem to be unable to think rationally when it comes to this issue. Either it is right or wrong to retaliate against someone for signing a ballot initiative. Whether or not someone on the other side of the issue did not protest to your satisfaction an inappropriate action on the part of the delegate has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that what the President of Gallaudet did was totally wrong. You are also strangely weak in your admonition of the actions of the President of Gallaudet. It is not as if she was going around campaigning for the ballot initiate. If one cannot sign a ballot initiative without being retaliated against then we have indeed crossed a line where we no longer have freedom to vote our conscience.

2 Walter Olson 10.11.12 at 9:47 am

I’m puzzled by your reading of my piece as insufficiently condemnatory of Hurwitz, the university president. I thought I made it clear enough that his action could not be justified by the reasons he had cited, and I added enough context about the status of Gallaudet to refute the likeliest argument in his defense (which would be that the institution is private and should be free to make its own decisions).

You seem to think it unfair of me to point out that a certain portion of the commentariat picks up on these cases in a purely instrumental way, ginning up publicity for cases where “they” persecute “us,” while studiously ignoring cases where “we” persecute “them.” In spotlighting cases from both sides — as with the Chick-Fil-A episode, where I devoted a series of posts to defending the executives’ right to say things with which I disagree — I hope to advance agreement on some principles that transcend the hatreds of the endless Culture War.

3 mojo 10.11.12 at 11:09 am

Oooh, a heresy trial!

4 Richard Nieporent 10.11.12 at 11:53 am

You seem to think it unfair of me to point out that a certain portion of the commentariat picks up on these cases in a purely instrumental way, ginning up publicity for cases where “they” persecute “us,” while studiously ignoring cases where “we” persecute “them.”

No I don’t think it is unfair of you to point out what you perceive as hypocrisy on the part of people who oppose gay marriage. In fact, I agree that hypocrisy should be called out. My point is that the alleged hypocrisy of people on one side of an issue should not in any way excuse the actions of people on the other side of an issue. It always bothers me when the response to some incorrect action on the part of a group you agree with is that the other side previously acted the same way. When you mention it in the context of inappropriate action on the part of a proponent of gay marriage it appears that you are in someway excusing what they did by indicating that the other side also acts that way so it is no big deal.

5 Ben Calvin 10.11.12 at 1:15 pm

Or in other owrds; Two wrongs don’t make one right.”

Comments on this entry are closed.