Reader comments · US: Diversity officer wanted to give voters the chance to decide on equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Diversity officer wanted to give voters the chance to decide on equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Can’t understand why a diversity officer would want equality be subjected to a public vote.

    Equality should always be a matter of principle.

  2. as I said elsewhere, and will repeat here:

    this only AMPLIFIES how unsuited this woman is for the job.

    if she truly believes that equality should be “put to a vote by the majority” then she has absolutely no business working in any field remotely related to “diversity”.

    if this is her excuse, then the university should fire her.

  3. In America if they put voting the slave free in 1860 they would still be slaves today. Even though American has laws to protect all Americans today they still do not give their people equal rights and Civil Rights and freedoms. Americans will vote to stop marriage just like if they would have voted to keep slavery in 1860 if they had been allowed to vote. Voting is mob rule and when it comes to freedom the mob will vote to stop it.

  4. Almost choked when I read that BOTH sides of the issue called for her to be reinstated based on Freedom of Speech!! WTF!!! Sure, she can freely speak all she wants & lobby against same sex marriage all she wants. None of that means she should keep her job!! DIVERSITY IS ABOUT INCLUSION, NOT EXCLUSION!!! What part of this do she & others NOT understand?!!! The only change the University should make is to TERMINATE HER IMMEDIATELY, w/o any further compensation!! Neither her long-standing past at Gallaudet nor any paths she may have blazed should impact this current situation. The mere fact that she still thinks her actions are justified means she no longer – if ever – qualifies to be the chief Diversity Officer of any institution that is serious about Inclusion of All!!!

    1. In the USA engaging ones mouth and thinking are necessarily a connected process. Then when it becomes apparent what they have said is pretty daft they over used freedom of speech as an excuse to try avoid taking responsibility or an a lazy way of explaining their actions.

      1. opps got distracted by the phone – edited, the above should have read:

        In the USA, engaging ones mouth and thinking are not necessarily a connected process. Then when it becomes apparent what has been said is pretty daft, they over use freedom of speech as an excuse to try avoid taking responsibility, or as a lazy way of explaining their actions.

  5. Wim from Holland 16 Oct 2012, 8:57am

    They all say “not being anti-gay” and thereupon do the most terrible things against us.

  6. This just goes to show even more how unsuited she is to the post.

    She has every right to a freedom of speech but if it directly conflicts with the role she has chosen to take on then she should really think about expressing it.

    There was no public vote on interracial marriage in the 60’s because only 20% of the population supported it, but at least the supreme court had the courage to rule it unconstitutional, pity they can’t see the same applies to same sex marriage.

    The woman is showing that common sense and academic learning do not always go together.

    1. I wish she’d exercised her right to remain silent instead.

  7. And yet she has not stated what her own personal opinion is. I for one would be interested to know!

    I agree with Mikey above too though. How can you believe in equality and yet expect it to be voted on by the public. You either believe in it or you don’t!

    1. I bet she won’t be stating her own opinion and making up some excuse about why not.

  8. Presumably Dr McCaskill thinks the rights of all other minorities should be up for a vote too? No? Thought not…

    It always seems to be OUR rights that are OK to discuss, not anyone else’s. I’d like to hear this lady explain why she thinks that’s OK.

  9. Bobbleobble 16 Oct 2012, 10:07am

    In signing the petition she made it clear what her position is on gay people. She will be fully aware that no state has yet voted to uphold marriage for us(although I’m very hopeful that at least one will next month). But as others have said, a diversity officer who thinks minority rights are an acceptable issue for voting on is in the wrong job.

  10. Gallaudet University should be applauded for taking the time to make the right decision. So far she has not been disciplined. She has not been dismissed. She has been placed on a temporary suspension while her employers investigate and try to determine whether her actions were inappropriate and decide how they will address them if they were. To have people then calling for the sacking of her boss over this just shows how emotional and irrational they are. I personally hope that another position can be found for her at the University; a role outside of either student welfar or diversity and inclusion.

  11. ...Paddyswurds 16 Oct 2012, 11:06am

    This bigoted homophobic woman should be asked if it would have been right to ask the voters of Alabama whether or not Rosa Parks had a right to sit at the front of the bus…..

  12. In case anyone is unaware, it’s even worse than it seems. This “diversity officer” who believes that a vulnerable minority’s civil rights should be a matter of majority rule is AFRICAN-AMERICAN and deaf.

    I can’t imagine she feels that racial civil rights should have been determined by popular vote. If it were, then African-Americans in my home state of Mississippi would still be unable to vote and would be still living under Jim Crow laws.

    She signed this petition at church. Just more evidence that religion is dangerous and gets intelligent, educated people to say and do stupid, ignorant, harmful things.

    1. “She signed this petition at church”

      Oh dear, that doesn’t give me much confidence in her neutrality. I knew the other things you mentioned, but I didn’t know that. Thank you for posting it. I was feeling bad kind of pre-judging her when she’s still being investigated, but it gets more suspicious the more I hear.

  13. “It is “inappropriate” for a chief diversity officer to participate in such an initiative, which aims to challenge Maryland’s same-sex marriage law through a public referendum.”

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.