«

Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance…

at Gallaudet University suspend the school’s chief diversity officer after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.

The University is to be an environment of intellectual diversity about how fantastic gay sex is and anybody who questions that, even in private, will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Any questions?  Then shut up.  If we want your opinion we’ll give it to you.

  • http://hezekiahgarrett.wordpress.com Hezekiah Garrett

    Let us be crystal clear, they don’t even have any evidence she opposes ‘gay marriage’, merely that she supports allowing the voters of Maryland to decide the issue.

    This was where we planned to send my niece for University. Is there another comparable deaf school? Of course, since she now has an implant it isn’t necessary though. My sister thinks catholics are crazy enough. This is going to just be the final nail for her, for now at least.

    • Arnold

      I don’t understand your reference to your sister’s view of Catholics. What has that to do with this story about Gallaudet?

      • Ted Seeber

        Go read his blog, and what most Cherokee in his area of the country are, and you’ll *completely* understand.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Conforming to diversity. That seems about right. It’s not just at the university level. It’s also at the public school level.

  • MarylandBill

    Apparently the intellectual freedom that Universities claim to value so dearly only applies if you agree with them.

    This is nothing less than a witch hunt of the worst sort. First the Washington Blade publishes its enemies list, excuse me, I mean the list of people who signed the petition, and then a faculty member essentially appears to have scanned the list to see if they recognized anyone.

    Obviously the message here is that in the future you better be prepared to loose your job if you do something so silly as exercise your rights as a citizen to sign a petition that someone doesn’t like.

  • thomas tucker

    This lady should sue the university and take this issue to court. It is her right to state her political beliefs.

    • Dave Pawlak

      It is now highly likely that the university will happily drag it out in court, and be willing to defy any rulings which are not to its liking, up to and including SCOTUS. Unfortunately, it is coming to that…

  • thomas tucker

    ANd, btw, I will be happy to contribute to her legal fund. There are pro-libery legal funds that may take her case pro bono.

  • Tim Jones

    Gallaudet is a deaf school – THE deaf school – and there is a great deal of similarity and sympathy between Deafie culture (I am not making that up) and Gay culture, especially in the liberal hothouses of academe. There is nurtured in each group a bitter, militant pride in their condition, and loathing condescension toward the very suggestion of accommodating any concept of “normality” in that regard… “Are you implying there may be something WRONG with ME?!?! Deafness is *better* than hearing. Homosexuality is *better* than the mere dull rutting of Breeders. We are a higher and more enlightened culture!”

    Certainly not all, or even most, deaf people or gay people think this way, but plenty enough. Radical deafies have even said that treating deafness in children (by means of cochlear implants, surgery or even hearing aids) amounts to child abuse. They believe that learning to lip read or to speak is a capitulation to the hearing world and a betrayal of deaf culture.

    • thomas tucker

      That ranks up there with the some of the craziest notions I’ve ever heard. No pun intended.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Having personal experience with Gallaudet, I can vouch for the truthfulness herein.

      • http://decentfilms.com SDG

        “Having personal experience with Gallaudet, I can vouch for the truthfulness herein.”

        I also can confirm Tim J’s comments on the basis of personal experience with Gallaudet (albeit not mine, but Suz’s).

    • http://hezekiahgarrett.wordpress.com Hezekiah Garrett

      It isn’t as crazy as it seems to hearing people. The deaf really do have a subculture that other handicapped people do not. Their lack of hearing has forced them to find a new way to communicate the joy of life, and ha sled to an organic development of an outlook that is not comprehensible without at least a knowledge of one of the sign languages. They have a particular humour, and a particular pathos.

      My sister is admant that my neice will be “hard-of-hearing” not “deaf”, but she is VERY sympathetic to the deaf. Deaf, within this subculture, are those disparaged above as deafies. hard of hearing are those who see it their condition as the hearing do.

      I once took your perspective until God blessed our family with a little deaf girl. It has broadened my understanding of my own humanity, this deaf subculture, even if I think it goes way too far at times.

  • http://hezekiahgarrett.wordpress.com Hezekiah Garrett

    Sorry, Arnold, it has been me and fellow catholics who have effusively praised this school to her. She is very cautious with that little one, and we got a decent exposure as children ourselves to ‘whore of babylon rhetoric’. My sister doesnt do abstract arguments. Catholics brought GU to her attention, praised it to high heaven, and this is gonna cause problems. I just know my sister is all.

    Sorry, I should have been much more clear.

  • Ted Seeber

    This must be some strange use of the word “Diversity” of which I have not previously been aware.

    • Blog Goliard

      It’s represents precisely what “diversity” has always meant (when it’s not being used to defend racial preferences, that is).

      I found Peter Wood’s book (http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Invention-Concept-Peter-Wood/dp/1594030421/) to be an excellent tour of the Oaklandesque (i.e., there is no “there” there) city of Diversity.

      • Ted Seeber

        What a neat chance to code my reply in ANSI Standard C:

        (Date>2002)!=Always.

        A bit of Vulcan Philosophy is quite appropriate here: IDIC

        • Blog Goliard

          By “always” I mean “since ‘diversity’ first became a buzzword in academia”.

          And yes, from those very beginnings up until now, “diversity” has only ever been a rhetorical device used to defend racial preferences and impose ideological orthodoxy along neo-Marxist race/class/gender/sexuality lines.

          • Ted Seeber

            I’ve been hearing about diversity a LOT longer than just the last 10 years though, what’s up with that?

        • ivan_the_mad

          I notice you’re missing … A SEMICOLON. Good job, Ted, you broke the universe.

          • Ted Seeber

            Damn, too many years in VB, you’re right.

  • John P

    I think voting against gay marriage is discriminatory. It is a discrimination by those who believe they “serve God.” It is, however, a discrimination in a voting booth and a private discrimination between her and her creator. And as someone has pointed out, she hasn’t voted against gay marriage she has signed a petition allowing it to be voted on.

    What she has signed unfortunately is very public and not private in any measure. I do not sign a petition against gay marriage if I’m a “chief diversity officer.” Her position requires the appearance of tolerance even if she is intolerant. I do understand why her superiors are reviewing her action. For me, however, signing a petition is not enough of a public discriminatory act to fire her.

    However, I find her severely hypocritical if she continues to serve as “chief diversity officer.” A woman or man of the highest honor would admit it was a mistake. If it wasn’t a mistake and she truly is against gay marriage, she is as intolerant as Right-wing America, and, dare I say, Right-wing Catholics. She becomes ineffective as a “chief diversity officer.” She should resign. She should resign and get a job selling propaganda to the “right” as a victim of the “Gay Legion of Visigoths for Tolerance.”

    • Ben

      Ok then. Why even put the phrase “dare I say” in your comment? Was ridiculous enough without it.

    • Alma Peregrina

      Yes, Right-Wing Catholics are “intolerant”. So they should not be tolerated when they speak out their belief in gay “marriage”. Diversity only applies to gays, not religious people. So she should resign, she is not suited to be “diversity officer”.

      Gay culture, on the other hand, can be completely obnoxious to christians. So, gay culture is diversity friendly. She should be suited for “diversity officer”, of course, if she submitted to everything that gay culture says. Even their christians caricatures and insults in Gay Pride Parades. That’s diversity for you.

      Yeah, let her resign from “diversity officer”. And then abolish the whole office. As a catholic, diversity has allways been about being intolerant to what I believe. It’s hypocritical.

      • Blog Goliard

        You’ve got the picture. Respecting “diversity” has never and will never mean showing any respect or consideration to the likes of you and me, because we are not “suppliers of diversity”.

    • Mark Shea

      Enjoy your time inside the Epistemic Closure Bubble of Progressive Self-Righteousness.

    • Ted Seeber

      “I think voting against gay marriage is discriminatory.”

      Do you also find voting against polygamy to be discriminatory? Or rape? Because in Catholic terms, these three are equal.

    • Thomas R

      Voting on anything I suppose could be discriminatory. In that by voting you are usually showing a bias in favor of one idea or interest or party over another. Possibly a diversity officer should be forbidden to vote, or just choose not to vote. But I imagine that’s not what you mean.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “I think voting against gay marriage is discriminatory.” Of course it is, what’s your point? The government discriminates legally all the time. Look up levels of scrutiny.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “Discrimination.”

    Heh.

    Once when I was young and foolish, some African-American youngsters entered the store in which I was working and told me that they had accidentally locked themselves out of their car, and asked for a wire coat hanger with which to break into their car. Completely apart from their color, the young men did impress me as a bit dodgy, not quite making eye contact, acting nervous and surreptitious, not quite on the up-and-up, as the British say.

    However, I was a recent graduate, a Sociology major from a University where I had been inculcated in the doctrines of diversity and paradigms and oppression and discrimination. So as not to be “discriminatory”, I located a coat hanger for the gents and off they went into the night.

    When it was time to lock up the store and go home, I heard a howl of anguish from the rear loading dock of the store. It sounded like my co-worker, the stockroom guy. A friend. And an African-American. I ran back to him. His car, parked in the rear of the store, near the loading dock, in a comparatively secluded, not well-lit area, had been broken into; his radio stolen. Tossed on the ground not far from the car was the coat hanger I had handed to the young men a couple of hours earlier.

    It hit me: Like an idiot, not wanting to be “discriminatory” I had assisted two young African-American men to break into the car of a friend of mine, who also happened to be an African-American.

    Dolt! Imbecile! I spent the rest of the evening calling myself every name in the book.

    I knew those fellows were not to be trusted. And like a moron, I overrode my own instincts and facilitated their commission of a crime.

    That cured me of the impulse ever, ever, EH-VER to ignore genuine considerations of character or principle and to concern myself with being “non-discriminatory.” I said to myself, “Honey babe, from now on, you go with your gut! And you do what’s right!”

    Allowing “not wanting to discriminate” to override one’s principles is a recipe for disaster . . . and a recipe for seriously offending God and neighbor.

    • S. Murphy

      Damn. Hard-earned wisdom. And they prolly thought it was *your* car, and they’d really put one over…

  • Kirt Higdon

    I guess I’m still wondering why intolerant gays are labelled Visigoths rather than brownshirts. For all their faults, the Visigoths were never to my knowledge linked historically to homosexuality. The brownshirts emphatically were.

    • http://bigpulpit.com/ Tito Edwards

      I’m pretty sure Mark was referring to their fierce nature rather than their crotch-orientation.

      I’m descended from Visigoths, so that’s how I understand Mark’s post, although I know almost nothing about Visigoths except that they were Catholics (some Arians) that were overrun by the Muslims in the 8th century.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X