Following the decision by Gallaudet University President T. Alan Hurwitz to suspend Angela McCaskill, the school’s chief diversity officer, fierce advocates have sprung up on both sides of the issue. The swirling debate has mixed the issues and clouded the controversy, making it difficult to discern which subject is being argued at which juncture.
Hurwitz placed McCaskill, an employee for more than 20 years, on paid administrative leave Oct. 10 for joining more than 200,000 Maryland residents who signed a petition calling for a voter referendum on same-sex marriage law.
Those on both sides of the issue have taken Hurwitz to task. They have protested at Gallaudet and called for her immediate reinstatement. One group, the Family Research Council, started a petition in McCaskill’s defense, accusing Hurwitz of “engaging in voter intimidation” and urging him to “fully respect the rights of employees to participate in the democratic process.”
It read, in part: “A person should no more be punished for signing a petition than they should be for voting. A citizen’s right to participate in our democratic process is at the core of our system of representative self-government.”
Howard Gardner, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said university administrators should note the distinction between private votes and public advocacy, particularly on divisive political issues. He would make exceptions in instances where staffers have special expertise to offer, though that doesn’t extend to the case in question.
“It should be part of the hiring agreement that the administrator refrain from advocacy, or at least clear it ahead of time with the board of trustees. … I realize there has been a shift away from ‘disinterestedness’ in recent years, even for employees of state universities. I think that this is risky,” Gardner said.
The issue, primarily, is one of McCaskill’s ability to separate her personal political beliefs from her role as a diversity officer whose job it is to promote diversity—even in sexual orientation. In many eyes, calling for a referendum is tantamount to calling for the law’s repeal, which is incongruous with McCaskill’s job description.
