Op-Ed: Dean Dana inhibits dialogue with pro-tolerance speech

What you’ve said is EXACTLY what the “minority” of campus voters on this issue have been voicing since the incendiary remarks by this closed-minded, emotional campus representative. I’m shocked that UMO didn’t just remain neutral on an issue that as you observed, is deeply divisive and clearly implicates crucial constitutional protections–straight from the First Amendment, no less! The only way UMO can get out of this without legal jeopardy (lawsuits), and potential loss of revenue (either via students or state funds) is to immediately distance themselves—which means denouncing Robert Dana–saying he didn’t have the authority to act as the agent for the university. Then, the flag has to come down AND, for the length of time the rainbow flag flies, the university HAS to agree to fly other flags for ESTABLISHED constitutionally protected groups–or they are treating them “disparately”—a further violation of law.

I agree that UMaine should make a statement saying that Dean Dana’s comments were inappropriate, and I certainly agree that, as a public university, Dana’s comments as a university official come close to (and possibly do) violating the first amendment.

But I do not agree that the flag must come down. As long as every student group has access to the flag pole and and can raise their flag (for example, if a Christian group wanted to fly the Christian flag, or the College Republicans/Democrats wanted to fly an elephant/donkey flag) then there is no problem allowing the Wild Stein to fly their flag. The problem I have is when the university is not only supportive of a student group and their viewpoint, but actively suppresses the ideas of those who disagree.

There is an unfortunate perception in the office of student affairs that in order to provide a safe haven for students, all expression that could be viewed as offensive or threatening should be removed. Personally, I think that it is more important to allow people to be offensive and threatening and then let those ideas survive or die based on a public dialog – not through speech codes or diversity programing. I think that this is the principle that underlies the first amendment, and in the long run will result in stronger students and better ideas.

After more thought – I don’t think that Dean Dana’s speech in itself necessarily violates the first amendment, although it certainly goes against the underlying principles of free expression.

That’s right, it is a matter of morality, not hatred, discrimination or civil rights. We aren’t bigots, it’s just that who you are is an affront to God and I don’t my children to know you exist. But I don’t hate you or anything, I love you, I just don’t think your family is as good as mine or your children deserve the same protections as mine, or that your loving partnership is as sanctified as mine.

We are free to say whatever we want, and part of that discussion is being able to say when you think something is wrong. If Christian faith is being used as a basis for argument, then that basis can only expect to be criticized, the same as any other basis of thought put up for debate. I believe the other side can and should speak as much as they desire, as long as I have the same ability to criticize their arguments, and on the flip side they the ability to criticize mine.

Lynn, to clarify – nowhere in my article did I say that either side should be free from criticism – I was actually saying exactly the opposite. If the vote had come out the other way, and Dean Dana gave a similar speech about students who voted No on 1, the substance of the article would remain the same. The issue is the university suppressing a viewpoint – the content of the viewpoint is largely irrelevant.

I am a current student at the University of Maine glad to see University Alumni continuing to contribute to their community. Dean Dana’s remarks as chronicled in the Maine Campus November 5th showed true leadership. He is doing his job very well. This issue of discrimination through rights to marriage is very simple. I hope Dr. Dana continues to show students that now is always a good time to do the right thing. Once again Mr. Hunter, thank you for sharing your thoughts in a productive manner.

Dana’s remarks are not violative of the First Amendment. It is the tenor of, and the explicit message of, this university representative–that OTHERS at the university shouldn’t speak in accordance with their conscience and religious faith–that indicates the university doesn’t respect the first amendment rights of ALL its students. His emotionality alienated constitutionally protects classes, as he condemned them simply by virtue of their vote (protected activity) in disagreement with him! In fact, he holds ANYONE who disagrees with him in “contempt” and uses disparaging and unfounded allegations when addressing them. This is not “leadership.” Rather, it is unconstrained ideology running amuck under the cloak of a state university’s authority. Ungoverned indiscretion in that position is intolerable.

Matt: “Personally, I think that it is more important to allow people to be offensive and threatening and then let those ideas survive or die based on a public dialog – not through speech codes or diversity programing. I think that this is the principle that underlies the first amendment, and in the long run will result in stronger students and better ideas.”

Matt, you possess a great deal of wisdom. There is hope for your generation. “LET THOSE IDEAS SURVIVE OR DIE BASED ON A PUBLIC DIALOG.”

Matt,

Your point that Dean Dana has suppressed public dialog is weak. In no way does Dana’s articulation of his opinion of the matter restrict one who had voted Yes on 1 from voicing a contrary opinion.

The morality of this matter aside, I am not certain that we would agree that government should restrict all things considered to be morally reprehensible. While it is obvious that certain moral matters require legal restriction, such as theft, murder, etc., pervasive government intervention on people’s private lives would amount to the death of civil liberty in America. If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is wrong I would suggest that it falls under the category of something that is simply not government’s business to restrict. That said, I myself do not find it to be morally reprehensible.

Tim, the point was not that Dean Dana’s opinion suppressed opposing viewpoints, but that him voicing it as the University’s opinion did. Also, Matt didn’t make any claims about this issue being moral or not, this was more about Dean Dana improperly using his authority.

I would say that supporters of same-sex marriage view this as a moral issue as well. Matters of civil rights and equal protection are value-laden, so I would think most supporters consider it a moral imperative to extend protections to same-sex couples.

As far as opponents of same-sex marriage viewing this as solely a matter of morality–not one of discrimination–I would say that, to define “traditional marriage” as the only morally acceptable form of marriage is to disparage same-sex marriage as immoral (you essentially said as much when you said society should be careful not endorse something that is immoral).

Immoral or not, same-sex marriage would provide legal rights, so it’s impossible to divorce the “morality” of opposing it from the reality of also discriminating against a group of people.

Tim, the point was not that Dean Dana expressing his opinion was suppressing the opposition, but that expressing it as the University’s opinion was. Matt never made any claims, pro or con, about gay marriage. He simply illustrated why the issue is complicated.

Derek, I think the quote, “A civilized society must be careful not to endorse something that is morally wrong,” was used illustratively. I think he was pointing out one side of the argument, not making the argument.

David,

Thanks for the input.

The opinion article was either about Dean Dana’s supposed inhibition of public dialogue via his comments or that his comments indicated a change in University policy. I’ll reiterate the logical conclusion regarding the former: his remarks, themselves, in no way inhibited dialog. With regards to the latter: the concluding line regarding ‘official university policy’ is dubious at best and obvious hyperbole at worst. There are no anti-Yes on 1 policies that have been enacted by the University to suppress Yes on 1 voters. Thus, we would agree that both the capacity of Dana’s opinion to repress dialog or the claim that University policy has suppressed Yes on 1 voters are fallacious premises. Therefore, the argument is unsound.

The address, examined in the context of the gathering on the mall, would reveal that there were more inflammatory remarks made prior to the Dean’s speech regarding the Yes on 1 crowd. Dana’s remarks about not tolerating intolerance and the University being no place for hate are more accurately viewed in the context of said remarks as moderate.

You seem to have been confused about my point regarding where sexuality falls with regards to morality. The point of the controversy around same-sex marriage was that there is some sort of moral problem with the institution. Matt discretely acknowledged this was what was being considered when he stated: “…society must be careful not to endorse something that is morally wrong…”. My point was that even if one were to assume for the sake of argument, that same sex marriage was morally reprehensible, it is none of anyone’s business to infringe upon the rights of the gay community.

A gay marriage does not effect straight marriage.

Dr. Dana needs to resign. He is a scourge, a blight on what could be a great school. What’s worse, he’s one of the homosexual elite that seeks nothing more than a forward push of the sickening homosexual force that wants to tear this country down.

I urge students to speak out against this cretin.

Dave,

You should probably stake out your position more carefully before you call for the Dean’s resignation. Dr. Dana was expressing his opinion and rebuking hate and intolerance on campus. This is no way suppressed anyone’s rights.

What’s more I’d say your being hasty by referring to ‘homosexual elites’ and all that. An examination by a rational person of the state of political affairs in this country will reveal that there is no conspiracy of the GLBT community to destroy the moral fabric of this society. I would urge you not to give in to conspiracy models of explanation, as any explanation of a state of affairs in the world is fruitless if either far fetched or miraculous.

With all due respect, this is not Nero’s court and Dean Dana is not Petronius.

Hi Tim,

I understand where you’re coming from, but I would encourage you to re-read the last few lines of Dr. Dana’s speech and think of what he said not in terms of the same-sex marriage issue, but of any other political issue.

Suppose Dr Dana or President Kennedy said that people who opposed the war in Iraq were unpatriotic, or that people who supported a public health care option were marxists, and that “there was no room here” at UMaine for unpatriotic marxists, and furthermore that “the university is committed” to not tolerating them.

Of course they would have a right to hold those opinions and express them – however to state those views as a representative of the university administration, and to frame it as something to which “the university is committed,” represents that personal opinion as the university’s opinion and, when taken in context, has suppressive effect – especially when the opposing view is an extreme minority. And I think that is inappropriate, regardless of whether the underlying issue is same-sex marriage or health care.

Of course I was not arguing that UMaine has a formal program to eradicate the yes on 1 view – in that case I would have argued that Dr. Dana and UMaine were violating the first amendment (and in such a case they almost certainly would be), and not just that Dr. Dana acted inappropriately. There is huge difference between the two.

I have no problem with the more inflammatory remarks by UMaine students – actually I think that it is great and should be allowed. The issue isn’t just the content of the remarks, it is who is saying them, the context in which they are said, and the effect that has on the open dialog on campus.

Exactly – I agree that both sides view this as a moral issue, and the relationship between the law and morality is a complex issue that humanity has been arguing for thousands of years. The whole point of my article is that the University of Maine should be encouraging discussion of these issues rather than inhibiting it.

Tear this country down? What precisely are you talking about in reference to the very public agendas of the pro-gay marriage groups? Is there any kind of clause in there I’m not seeing referring to a megalomanic pursuit of world domination? Forcing our children to marry the same sex? Down with the breeders?

There is no reason to infer that the LGBT community is anything but a group of people looking to obtain and preserve civil rights and protections for their families.