She forgets that if it wasn’t for a gay black man, they wouldn’t have all the positions they’re at today.

But I guess because he was a “radical” and nothing like her and the rest of the assimilationists, he doesn’t deserve being remembered…

I have a real problem with her using her color as an example to support her position. I think it was racist. So, in my opinion, she used her color to attack gays.

The ultra liberal pinheads that run UT are more interested in promoting gays anyway. So, ms dixon, is out in the cold. This is a no win situation. Dixon deserved to be fired, and the UT king pins are shit heads. Go figure.

From a biblical standpoint, since I’m assuming that is the “same book” referenced, the Bible was used to try to justify slavery.

However, *my* position wasn’t that of an administrator in charge of hiring, promoting, and firing people, which Dixon had! She and everyone else in that area must be held to a different and higher standard than the academic departments.

I wonder if Ms. Dixon conveniently forgot that the bigots used the *exact same book* in trying to deny civil rights based on race that she’s twisting to justify *her* bigotry. But that’s what usually happens with those who focus on assimilation, no matter where their background lies: they forget their history.

Next time Ms. Dixon opens her mouth to spew her bilious bigotry, she should read the passages regarding hypocrisy, and worrying about the mote in someone’s eye when there’s a plank in their own.

These groups simply dodge any dialogue and simply try to harrass people out of a job in order to shut them up. I’ll stick by my guns and say it’s bullshit.

If the group in question had a valid point, they wouldn’t resort to sleaze tactics.

The great irony in this is that black groups for years have pulled the same stunt on whites who didn’t kowtow to the P.C machine as the gays are now pulling on her…so in THAT respect they ARE the same.

In the end, any group that has the truth on it’s side won’t need to resort to sleaze tactics that stifle the opposing veiwpoint. Their facts should stand on their own.

Look at history. ANYTIME a group or, government for that matter simply tried to silence the opposition via a threat it usually means that the person has a valid point the group doesent want heard by the rest of us.

Should the consequences been her losing her position? That’s what the courts will have to decide. We all face choices and I believe most of us realize that at times our choices create consequences.

She stood up for her convictions, but it also brought negative publicity upon her employer. It is very true that we don’t have the right to not be offended, and either way the University went with this one they would have faced problems. Keep Dixon in her current position then one group is offended, fire her and another group is offended. Offering her a different position was a compromise that she opted to not take.

Some people might not like what I think or, say…some people just might agree with me.

Does that give one side the right to harrass my employer into firing me?

“Oh look…Joe Doaks corperation has a guy working for them who thinks (fill in the blank)…we demand so and so be fired immediately!”

THAT is bullshit…but happens. It will only stop happening when Doaks corp tells these groups to stick it.

Besides, if these groups have a ligitimate arguements that they’re able to backup, they’d NEVER have to resort to threats in order to shut up the opposing veiwpoint.
99% of people are pretty reasonable but all reason goes out the window after a threat is made toward them.

Instead of the gays who disagreed with Dixon simply going after her job, they probably could have done better by going to her with their side of the story.
They could have gained an ally but, chose to create a bitter enemy instead.
I doubt Dixon would ever listen to one word from them ever after this.

Often, governmental employers let a paper trail build in the hope that a reason for ‘justifiable termination’ will surface.

Think this was the straw that broke the camel’s back ?