Continued...
My email back to our Ombudsman this afternoon...
Thank you again for contacting the lawyers and for calling me to follow-up. You may have already spoken to the lawyers with the following points, but I wouldn’t feel I had done everything I could if I didn’t bring them up:
1. If the lawyers are basing their “free speech” bottom line on federal policy, then yes, they’re right in that current federal policy does not protect employees based on their sexual orientation. The state of Maryland, however, does, and [our] own policy does as well:
Human Relations Code
Effective Date 18, October, 1976; Revised April 6,
1998; approved by President, May 6, 1998
ARTICLE I.
PURPOSE
A. The University affirms its commitments to a policy of eliminating discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, personal appearance, age, national origin, political affiliation, physical or mental disability, or on the basis of the exercise of rights secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This Code is established to prevent or eradicate such discrimination in accordance with due process within the Campus community. In doing so, the Campus recognizes that it must strive actively and creatively to build a community in which opportunity is equalized.
... It is the intent of the Campus to enhance among its students and employees respect by each person for that person's own race, ethnic background, sex, or sexual orientation, as well as appreciation and respect for the race, ethnic background, sex, or sexual orientation of other individuals.
2. Because “sexual orientation” is included in our list of protected classes, how is this situation any different than attacking any other class? Would they allow this professor to send emails to individuals he targeted as Jewish or Muslim and “give information from the other side” that they are in the wrong? That they can and should change? That they will make bad parents? What if he targeted women in the workplace? Or African Americans?
I am interested in if these points were discussed. If you’ve done all you can, I will have to accept that, but I don’t want to think that the lawyers might be taking the easy way out, leaving the LGBT community to again fend for itself as the last acceptable scapegoat. I also wonder if this is going to be taken up as a Personnel issue. I would think that by using his work email address to do his bidding, this professor has violated his official duties and the overall code of conduct.
Thanks again for your help,
Thank you again for contacting the lawyers and for calling me to follow-up. You may have already spoken to the lawyers with the following points, but I wouldn’t feel I had done everything I could if I didn’t bring them up:
1. If the lawyers are basing their “free speech” bottom line on federal policy, then yes, they’re right in that current federal policy does not protect employees based on their sexual orientation. The state of Maryland, however, does, and [our] own policy does as well:
Human Relations Code
Effective Date 18, October, 1976; Revised April 6,
1998; approved by President, May 6, 1998
ARTICLE I.
PURPOSE
A. The University affirms its commitments to a policy of eliminating discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, personal appearance, age, national origin, political affiliation, physical or mental disability, or on the basis of the exercise of rights secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This Code is established to prevent or eradicate such discrimination in accordance with due process within the Campus community. In doing so, the Campus recognizes that it must strive actively and creatively to build a community in which opportunity is equalized.
... It is the intent of the Campus to enhance among its students and employees respect by each person for that person's own race, ethnic background, sex, or sexual orientation, as well as appreciation and respect for the race, ethnic background, sex, or sexual orientation of other individuals.
2. Because “sexual orientation” is included in our list of protected classes, how is this situation any different than attacking any other class? Would they allow this professor to send emails to individuals he targeted as Jewish or Muslim and “give information from the other side” that they are in the wrong? That they can and should change? That they will make bad parents? What if he targeted women in the workplace? Or African Americans?
I am interested in if these points were discussed. If you’ve done all you can, I will have to accept that, but I don’t want to think that the lawyers might be taking the easy way out, leaving the LGBT community to again fend for itself as the last acceptable scapegoat. I also wonder if this is going to be taken up as a Personnel issue. I would think that by using his work email address to do his bidding, this professor has violated his official duties and the overall code of conduct.
Thanks again for your help,