Gnarly Situation - Could You or Someone You Know Be Next?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Libertas_cordis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Libertas_cordis

Guest

UNIVERSITY REBUKES EMPLOYEE FOR E-MAIL DECRYING LESBIANISM By Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES​

A state university in New Jersey has reprimanded a student-employee for describing homosexuality as a “perversion” in a private e-mail that he sent a female professor, after she sent him an unsolicited announcement about a university event that promoted lesbian relationships.
Code: 
But Jihad Daniel, 63, who works for William Paterson University repairing computer hardware and takes graduate-level courses part time, said he was only expressing his Muslim religious beliefs when he responded to professor Arlene Holpp Scala, head of the university's women's studies department.

Mr. Daniel wants a letter of reprimand from the university's president removed from his permanent employee file. The letter says he violated state discrimination and harassment regulations for using the term "perversion."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit group based in Philadelphia that is assisting Mr. Daniel in his fight with the university, calls the action taken against him "absurd" and an infringement of his free-speech rights.

"William Paterson University is knowingly disregarding the U.S. Constitution. No one here was 'harassed' or 'threatened,' as defined by the law. The university simply strongly disliked a student's point of view," said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy.

Mr. Daniel received an e-mail from Miss Scala on March 7 advertising an upcoming viewing and discussion of the film "Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House." The e-mail referred to the film as a "lesbian relationship story."

Mr. Daniel replied to the professor the next day asking that he not be sent "any mail about 'Connie and Sally'... and 'Adam and Steve.'*"

"These are perversions," Mr. Daniel wrote. "The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the creator of the heavens and the universe is never mentioned."

On March 8, Miss Scala forwarded Mr. Daniel's e-mail to the university's Office of Employment Equity and Diversity.

"Mr. Daniel's message to me sounds threatening and in violation of our university nondiscrimination policy. I don't want to feel threatened at my place of work when I send out announcements about events that address lesbian issues," she said in an e-mail message.

University President Arnold Speert sent Mr. Daniel a letter on June 15, informing him that the investigation into Miss Scala's complaint was complete. It was a letter of reprimand in which Mr. Speert said "perversion
– is clearly a derogatory or demeaning term." As a result, he said, Mr. Daniel was guilty of violating state discrimination and harassment regulations.
Code: 
Mr. Daniel then contacted FIRE for assistance and appealed Mr. Speert's decision on First Amendment grounds.

FIRE also is outraged by a letter that it received this month from the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, which upheld Mr. Daniel's reprimand, saying that "speech which violates a non-discrimination policy is not protected by the First Amendment."

Deputy Attorney General Cheryl Clarke said Mr. Speert's letter of reprimand was appropriate.

Peter Aseltine, spokesman for Attorney General Peter Harvey, said Miss Clarke was "acting as a representative of the university."

"The attorney general has not taken a position" in this case, he added.

FIRE officials said they will continue with their appeals and would not rule out a lawsuit.

University spokesman Stuart Goldstein refused to comment on the case. "We don't discuss personnel matters," he said.
 
IMHO If the origional e-mail was sent to the mans home e-mail then it is within his right to have sent a personal e-mail back with his views.

If it was sent as a general message in the school, (I think this is wrong also) the return e-mail should have been sent directly to the e-mail manager or the president of the school. I would have protested the use of public money for promoting the film.
 
Give me a break. Don’t people have common sense any more? He’s not allowed to express his opinion because Miss Professor is going to whine?! Grow up, Prof!

He could just turn it around and say that his religious views were being violated if this professor and the school want to carry their claim of harassment that far. Turn the tables right back on them. :mad:
 
40.png
Karin:
He tried that, if I am correct…and it did not work.
[thefire.org/index.php/article/6119.html](http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6119.html)
Click to expand...
I didn’t think that it would. Problem is, the powers-that-be don’t want to apply the same logic to the Professor’s claim. :mad: It’s a double standard.
 
Momofone:
I didn’t think that it would. Problem is, the powers-that-be don’t want to apply the same logic to the Professor’s claim. :mad: It’s a double standard.
Click to expand...
How is it a double standard? The proffesor was not stating her views she was inviting **everyone **to a film.
 
40.png
Karin:
How is it a double standard? The proffesor was not stating her views she was inviting **everyone **to a film.
Click to expand...
She is claiming that she felt threatened, which is a gross exaggeration. Claiming that his religious views were being violated is also a gross exaggeration(which is why I suggested it—to show the absurdity), but she is having her claim validated. He is a religious man and believes that homosexuality is wrong, therefore his claim is out the window.
If a person has some sort of religious views and has the nerve to express them, s/he is automatically convicted of harassment, or being intolerant, or being judgemental.
 
Momofone:
She is claiming that she felt threatened, which is a gross exaggeration. Claiming that his religious views were being violated is also a gross exaggeration(which is why I suggested it—to show the absurdity), but she is having her claim validated. He is a religious man and believes that homosexuality is wrong, therefore his claim is out the window.
If a person has some sort of religious views and has the nerve to express them, s/he is automatically convicted of harassment, or being intolerant, or being judgemental.
Click to expand...
Then the issue should be the harrasment laws & discrimination policy need to be changed…as they read now she had a valid claim.
 
heterosexuals can get along well with people of the same gender. but homosexuals are heterophobic.
 
Maybe Mr. Daniel felt that the Prof was attempting to seduce him? Lets see, males and males, females and females, no - that doesn’t work out, its supposed to be males and females. Yeah, thats right! So, he said no thanks privately, personally, and offered his explanation and she “felt threatened” and he gets officially reprimanded by the university? Lets see, offer and rejection - hmmmm, he used the word “perversion” to describe the behaviour in the film and that was the “threat”? No, thats not right - I can’t accept that definition. I looked up the word in Webster’s Dictionary and it says, “per-ver-sion” n. 1. Distortion; falsification. 2. Psychology. Sexual maladjustment inducing unnatural practices."

Okay, here is the definition for “in-duce v.: To persuade; prevail upon; incite.” Well, thats about how I figured it. Do they have a dictionary at the university?

OH! no wonder, its New Jersey! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_13_3.gif
 
All he had to do was say that he wasn’t interested in seeing the film and to take him off the list of people she was sending these types of emails to. He didn’t have to give a reason.

I can see why she was offended. If someone told me that what I believed in and held to be true and supported was actually a perversion, then I’d be a little upset, too (and Protestants do this to Catholics all the time).

If it was on the school’s computer, and he knew the school policies, then he should’ve just deleted the email and left it at that. Whether we like it or not, our workplaces have rules and we have to live with them, despite our own personal views.

Scout :tiphat:
 
40.png
Scout:
All he had to do was say that he wasn’t interested in seeing the film and to take him off the list of people she was sending these types of emails to. He didn’t have to give a reason.

I can see why she was offended. If someone told me that what I believed in and held to be true and supported was actually a perversion, then I’d be a little upset, too (and Protestants do this to Catholics all the time).

If it was on the school’s computer, and he knew the school policies, then he should’ve just deleted the email and left it at that. Whether we like it or not, our workplaces have rules and we have to live with them, despite our own personal views.

Scout :tiphat:
Click to expand...
IMO you hit it right on here with your comments! :clapping:
 
40.png
Scout:
All he had to do was say that he wasn’t interested in seeing the film and to take him off the list of people she was sending these types of emails to. He didn’t have to give a reason.
Scout :tiphat:
Click to expand...
…or simply could have said attending such an event would conflict with his religious convictions–without detailing the “perversion” aspect. That would have clearly set the stage for assuring he would not be included in such future invitations.
 
True, but calling a particular behavior “perversion” does not equal threatening someone. The professor didn’t like what he said, so she whined that she “felt threatened”.
 
Momofone:
True, but calling a particular behavior “perversion” does not equal threatening someone. The professor didn’t like what he said, so she whined that she “felt threatened”.
Click to expand...
He did not call anything what it is not. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically grave behavior.

Difference is that the professor has a larger lobbying group in support of what can only be described as deviant behavior, and she want to convince innocent college kids to participate in this behavior. How can a Catholic support this?
 
40.png
gilliam:
He did not call anything what it is not. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically grave behavior.

Difference is that the professor has a larger lobbying group in support of what can only be described as deviant behavior, and she want to convince innocent college kids to participate in this behavior. How can a Catholic support this?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, we cannot argue the Catechism with the University because the University doesn’t adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It would be like argueing proof of God to an atheist and using the Bible to do it. The atheist would find the source useless.

If the guy was on his own time, in his own house and on his own computer it would be one thing. I can totally understand why she felt threatened by the word “perversion”. Protestants tell me that belief in the Real Presence of Christ is a “perversion” of the Gospel, and yes, I feel angered and threatened by that.

All he had to do was say he wasn’t interested. He didn’t have to go into details about it. It sounds to me like he was just trying to start trouble or make someone else upset-and it looks like it worked.

Scout :tiphat:
 
I’m not sure I would have been brave enough to do what he did. I don’t think he was trying to start trouble or upset anyone - he was courageously stating his beliefs, and it probably came out in a ‘gut’ way (I get that all the time when I read emails in my place of work, but like I said, sometimes I just let them go by because i don’t want to start something). It’s hard in today’s world to stand out and call things as they are, and we’re going to have to get better at it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top