6th Circuit: Diversity Trump's religious freedom

[_Darth J]

This is directly related to the university administration's regulation of acceptable speech and expression of viewpoint as codified for employees and students in its official student speech codes but which extend, through codes applying to the entire campus community, to that entire community, including professors (unless they are politically correct professors, in which case they are released from any such observance); these are rules, regulations, and injunctions setting the limits and constitutions of conduct on that campus.

Codes, in other words. Dixon was quite clearly yet another victim of on-campus intellectual Leninism that always flows in only one direction: from the ensconced, tenured academic Left and controlling administrative authority, against conservatives/libertarians. They would have canned her if she were an administrator, a student, or a janitor.

This statement does not bear even a passing resemblance to the decision of the 6th circuit, the district court, or the allegations Dixon made in her complaint. It's not even wrong.

[_3sheets2thewind]

whats the matter bcspace, not willing to fess up to the pile of festering dung you left here? you created a post full of crap, and when called on you resort to your MO run and hide.....

[_3sheets2thewind]

Bump for bcspace

[_palerobber]

though it appears the only people still on this thread have already read the opinion, here's the court's conclusion, in their own words:

Although Dixon correctly contends that she never explicitly stated that the University diversity policies should not extend to LGBT students and employees, by voicing her belief that members of the LGBT community do not possess an immutable characteristic in the way that she as an African-American woman does, the implication is clear: Dixon does not think LGBT students and employees of the University are entitled to civil-rights protections, even though the University, in part through the Human Resources Department, expressly provides them. In writing her op-ed column, Dixon not only spoke on policy issues, but also spoke on policy issues related directly to her position at the University.

In sum, the Rose presumption applies to Dixon because there is evidence establishing that she was a policymaker who engaged in speech on a policy issue related to her position. The government’s interests thus outweigh Dixon’s interests as a matter of law, and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on this basis. Because the Rose presumption is dispositive, it is unnecessary for us to consider the district court’s Pickering and Garcetti analyses.

interesting case.

i only skimmed the opinion, and also not a lawyer, so maybe someone else can answer this for me:
is it correct to say that none of the court's findings turned on the fact that the university policies at issue dealt with LGBT (as opposed to what cola to put in the vending machines, etc.)? in other words, when the copyrighted WDN article bcspace copied in its entirety without permission opens with, "The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that university diversity policies Trump the First Amendment’s protections of religion and religious expression," they are misstating (lying about) what the court ruled, right? the court did not weigh diversity vs. free speech or anything of that sort, right?

[Guest]

Correct. The World Nut Daily scored an o-fer, which is its usual batting average.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Bcspace violated copyrights
And
Wnd was not truthful.

[_3sheets2thewind]

It is remarkable that Bcspace, who claims to be in a Stake Presidency, has zero respect for the truth or for the copyrights of others.

[_palerobber]

it seems bcspace violates copyright law in the majority of threads he starts. but what most surprises me is that Dr. Shades allows it to go on, considering it could result in legal consequences for MD.

[_moksha]

If only Crystal Dixon and Jeffery Nielsen could get together and hammer out a joint statement on the deleterious effect of censorship on human-rights, we could turn our attention back to ragging on Obama.

[_Dr. Shades]

it seems bcspace violates copyright law in the majority of threads he starts. but what most surprises me is that Dr. Shades allows it to go on, considering it could result in legal consequences for MD.

His saving grace is that he always posts a link to the original source.