The new Blacklist

November 16th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

John Fund at National Review writes:

Angela McCaskill was the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. She has now worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, and in January 2011 she was named its chief diversity officer. Last year, she helped open a resource center for sexual minorities on campus. But she has now been placed on leave because of pressure from some students and faculty. Her job is on the line.

McCaskill’s sin? She was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition demanding a referendum on a law recognizing gay marriage, which was signed by Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, in March. The referendum will be on the ballot next month, and the vote is expected to be close.

McCaskill’s signature became public when the Washington Blade posted a database online “outing” all those who had signed the petition. Even though her signature indicated only that she wanted the decision on gay marriage to be made by the people and not by the legislature and the governor, her critics declared that it demonstrated “bias.”

Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, announced that he was putting McCaskill on paid leave because “some feel it is inappropriate for an individual serving as chief diversity officer” to have signed such a petition. “I will use the extended time while she is on administrative leave to determine the appropriate next steps,” said Hurwitz, “taking into consideration the duties of this position at the university.” Just last year, Hurwitz had praised McCaskill as “a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes.” But she is apparently not allowed to have private political views

That’s pretty appalling. Her saying this is a matter that should be put to a referendum does not impact her job at all.

One should debate those with opposing views – not try to get them closed down or sacked.

Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after it was revealed that he had donated $1,500 to “Yes on 8.” The festival’s organizer put out a statement saying, “Our organization does not police the personal, religious or political choices of any employee, member or filmmaker.” Behind the scenes, however, many of the festival’s board members pressured Mr. Raddon to resign. “From now on, no one in entertainment will feel safe making a donation as measly as $100 to a conservative defense-of-marriage campaign,” mourned Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center.

Nor is the modern-day blacklist confined to the entertainment industry. Marjorie Christoffersen, manager of the famous Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote, resigned after El Coyote was subjected to a month of boycotts and demonstrations because she had contributed $100 to the campaign against gay marriage. Christoffersen, who had been with El Coyote for 26 years, insisted her stance had nothing to do with prejudice against gays, but rather was rooted in her Mormon faith. That didn’t impress the blacklisters. Fellow employees at El Coyote vouched for her kindness to gay employees, including personally paying for the mother of an employee who had died of AIDS to fly to Los Angeles to attend his funeral. That didn’t matter either. And neither did the fact that El Coyote sent $10,000 to gay groups to “make up” for Ms. Christoffersen’s contribution. The boycott continued, and the slowdown in business forced Ms. Christoffersen to leave.

It’s like boycotting the Mad Butcher because he said some nice things about John Key. Targeting people, and the business they work for, just because they made a donation to a cause you don’t approve of is not healthy.

Tags:

18 Responses to “The new Blacklist”

  1. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    *** “some feel it is inappropriate for an individual serving as chief diversity officer”***

    It’s slightly ironic that someone who has probably benefited greatly from the Orwellian* system that creates a “chief diversity officer” is now being punished by the thought police in that system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (6,690 comments) says:

    “Progressive” causes and their exponents are genuinely oppressive .Typical leftists. Free speech for me but not for thee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Angela McCaskill’s treatment seems wrong.

    But I would totally avoid a restaurant that I knew to be campaigning against gay marriage rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (2,933 comments) says:

    Joe McCarthy will be laughing from his grave.
    J Edgar would also probably be amused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    Being gay is a religion, they can’t prove it, they have the same fertility rates as the general population and their ‘bits and pieces’ are in good working order to do what they are designed to do:Procreate.

    The “I’m gay” screech, “gay marriage” and the ‘gay march’ through the public institutions and the news media is fanaticism.

    It is demanded of the government to stay out of bedroom antics, but ‘bedroom antics’ are now at the center of government policy.

    How ironic! How pathetic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,216 comments) says:

    Didn’t you call for a boycott of all books written by Ian Wishart based on his writing the Macsyna King book?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

    Both party’s ignore their own corruption of freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    Some would say they’re only getting what they’ve always asked for.

    Orwellian attempts at speech and thought control have been about for decades and if it was going to be stopped it should have been stopped right at the start. The bottom line is that it is mainly just another means for the left to advance their political agenda. The real tragedy is the so called right have always been right behind it.

    Here’s another example of this disgusting but unfortunately widespread practice-

    Fox 19 anchor back on the air after suspension for calling Rachel Maddow an ‘angry young man’ on Facebook

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/fox-anchor-suspended-calling-rachel-maddow-angry-young-man-article-1.1201800

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mark1 (78 comments) says:

    “Targeting people, and the business they work for, just because they made a donation to a cause you don’t approve of is not healthy.” Which cause did Wishart make a donation to Graeme?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MT_Tinman (2,790 comments) says:

    RRM (5,762) Says:
    November 16th, 2012 at 11:10 am
    Angela McCaskill’s treatment seems wrong.

    But I would totally avoid a restaurant that I knew to be campaigning against gay marriage rights.

    Why for christs sake? why?

    Surely you go to a restaurant because it serves good food, is clean and offers good service.

    What has someone’s political/racial/sexual orientation views got to do with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    You don’t have to go overseas for examples of this kind of thing. We’ve had at least one New Zealander fired from his job for taking a position on the gay marriage debate (He criticised the principal for using a school newsletter to take a position on gay marriage and supported students expressing support for marriage equality by wearing coloured wristbands).
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10835530

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    This subject is starting to become very much like the climate argument – ie: there is more propaganda in the arguement than anything else.

    Why is it that the gay community cant accept that some people just dont like them?. And the more they try to force the situation the more they will raise the level of conflict. Its just like the argument about abortion, about religious holidays, about royalty etc, etc. The fact is that some people like the situation just as it is, others want to change it.

    There no logic to many of the arguements – its all about “Belief”. And thats pretty much religious.

    So the pro-gay lot need to understand that there are a lot of people who simply believe that its wrong. And nothing is going to change that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. DJP6-25 (1,229 comments) says:

    Seeing Socialists behave true to form isn’t unusual.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Yoza (1,344 comments) says:

    Richard29 (268) Says: “You don’t have to go overseas for examples of this kind of thing. We’ve had at least one New Zealander fired from his job for taking a position on the gay marriage debate…”

    How dare you turn up at Kiwiblog and attempt to warp the minds of our iron youth with your scurrilous versions of history complete with forged links. Go back to North Korea you stinking communist!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. OneTrack (1,954 comments) says:

    Progressives, don’t you just love them. Supposedly all for “diversity” until its a diversity that isn’t the “approved” version. Then its off to the gulag with you.

    They don’t seem to go on about democracy and free speech as much as they used to. I guess they finally realised it wasnt a good look because they were the ones generally suppressing speech and coming up with reasons why true democracy needed “adjustments” to achieve the desired result.

    Scary days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Arguably the most pernicious arrogant hypocritical and corrupted word in the lexicon: ‘Inappropriate’.

    Whenever I see that word used, I automatically know some self-serving weasel is going to bully harass and victimise with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    Here’s a heartening case otherwise. In the UK, a Housing Manchester manager made some ‘phobe comments outside working hours, for which he was demoted by his employer. Fortunately, his employment tribunal appeal was successful. Moreover, the bloke in question was actually *supported* by Peter Tatchell, the outspoken UK LGBT rights campaigner. Discriminatory workplace conduct should be covered by anti-discrimination laws, but not instances of adverse comment that occur outside working hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    And need I also remind anyone about Northland’s Pompallier Catholic College and Nigel Studdart, who was sacked for expressing his right to freedom of conscience and speech and supporting marriage equality? It cuts both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.