To be completely fair, it was a public university, i.e., the government.
But his stance was fair - he agreed to call the student by any name they wished to be called. He just wouldn’t agree to use pronouns (which aren’t necessary if you’re using a proper name).
The student was being an obnoxious twit.
Hobby Lobby established the same precedent, and it is a privately held family business.
I don’t believe we’ll be able to hide behind the corporate shield on this one…
I’m trying to understand the intent of this thread. Do we have an extra $400,000 for what exactly? None of the criteria for the case applies at DMS. No one is getting permanent reprimanded at their job for DMS related items. No one is fearing to lose their job and potentially career for DMS related items.
It’s an interesting thought debate between freedom of speech vs personal identity from the matters leading up to the case, however that isn’t what the case is actually centered around.
The Professor attempted to compromise with a student that presented as male but preferred female pronouns by trying not to use pronouns at all and only call them by their last name. The University accepted this, then changed their mind. The goal was constantly moved. Once formal reprimand was placed in file the Union rep was laughed at during the meeting.
So help me understand, why just drop a link to a summary of the case and create a thread that seemingly indicates you assume DMS will be in the same situation and awarded damages in the amount of $400,000?
My concern is that under the proposed rules, the CoC committee, without an explicit requirement for board approval, is permitted to notify unspecified third parties that someone is an alleged asshole. This introduces huge liability if someone sues for defamation or tortious interference and DMS doesn’t have courtroom-quality evidence. It’s an unnecessary risk with absolutely zero upside for DMS.
Ok… and that motion has other threads to discuss it. At this point it can’t be changed, it can only be voted on it. Vote on it in whatever way you see fit.
Do I agree with showing people respect. Absolutely. That’s how I was raised. I use “sir” and “ma’am”. Have I gotten a lot of grief over it over the years? Absolutely. When I spent a year in Phoenix people got highly confrontational regarding it. Some have asked me not to, and I do my best to remember that. Occasionally I slip up. Most of the times I catch myself and apologize, others they correct me. Most who know me know it’s from a place of respect rather than trying to make them feel uncomfortable.
Could someone sue DMS over the actions of the COC, yes. Same as they could if the matter was handled by the board. Which is effectively handling the same complaints today. The motion expands conduct into new codified areas with language that, to me, needs work to safeguard against future misuse.
At the end of the day… just be excellent to one another.
The difference is that board members are fiduciaries and must act in the best interest of DMS. Not so the unelected CoC members, who are free to take action based on whims, personal animosity and uneducated interpretations of the law.
Being elected to the Board doesn’t render one immune to these foibles.
I didn’t just pull the pin and toss this grenade, others did; and we all happen to be standing in the same big tent!
This CoC Team proposal is a political firestorm which is far from settled. But, we have brought this Woke political mess inside DMS, while cases are still flying all over the country.
I shall go on record here and now, I’m voting NO on this proposal!
That’s what this particular thread felt like, to me, by just posting the link with no context or expressing any opinion.
These are polarizing issues. Some are adamantly against, while the other side have individuals sometimes sees it a form of trauma if it isn’t followed.
Vote no as you indicated, others are free to vote no for whatever reason they choose. Just remember that voting no doesn’t absolve anyone from treating everyone else with respect. If you don’t agree with something or someone then avoid them. Don’t be disrespectful behind their back.
There are folks at DMS I’m not fond of. I don’t bad mouth them, I simply avoid them.
I’m assuming this message is in jest, but if misgendering a trans person with she/her is disrespectful, how do you “respectfully” misgender someone you label as transphobic?
NOBODY can pass the Woke purity test!
I was called a “D!CK” during Meet the Candidates; twice, by a Candidate!
Nobody is advocating for misgendering anyone. Actually this post is the first time I’ve seen it suggested that this would be okay.
This debate has little to do with misgendering or any other offensive behavior.
By not using misogynistic slurs, that’s all I mean. Since most people actively misgendering others like to pretend they’re not being disrespectful, I can play that too.
Where is this misgendering epidemic? At DMS?
No one can pass any test if different criteria are used at different times to different degrees by different people.
Case in point: you obviously failed their “d!ck” test at that point in time. To them that’s what you are. To others, not so much and they agreed with you.
Do I think it was respectful that they called you that? No. But at the end of the day, a Board member is just a member. They pay their dues just like you and I. They have just been willing to step up and try to guide DMS in a direction they think is best for the organization. Many complaints are thrown out about elected officials, our Board and other officials. But not many are willing to slap that target on their back and run.
For the most part, I personally appreciate everything our Board and previous Boards have done. They aren’t perfect. They don’t get paid at all, let alone enough to put up with what they go through. But they were willing to stand up and help the best way they thought they could.
I think most of us agree that the DMS Board is a very demanding job. When faced with a political football like this, doubly so.
During Meet the Candidates, there was no Board present, only Candidates, and an elephant in the room…
Which really doesn’t help either side of the discussion, in my opinion.
I may use pronouns that are contrary to that person’s preferred pronouns. I know, my intent is not disrespectful. I wouldn’t actively do it. If I use he/him pronouns and they ask me directly to use she/her pronouns, I’m not going to respond “Yes sir.” But, if they tell me once and it’s been weeks/months since we’ve talked and I use he/him next time I see them, it’s me forgetting not me trying to insult.
I just ask they be patient with me and willing to discuss it.
Stirring the pot.
I agree with @apparently_weird here.
Personally, I would be fully in favor of banning people who insisted on not using the preferred pronouns of a trans person. I do not think it is unfair at all. Trans people should not have to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe just because some asshole doesn’t want to slightly adjust their speech in a very specific context or interaction to accomodate them. I consider intentional misgendering to be a form of harrassment.
I am not interested in supporting a space that doesn’t want to support its members.