America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
I expect this will be my last post on this subject, because I believe we all need to move on, but as much as I was disgusted by the blog in the first place, I do have to congratulate you Mr. Ryan for your willingness to recognize a mistake. I cannot imagine how you it must feel to be in your position, regardless of how you got there, and for that much, I do have sympathy for you. While I don´t think the Civic´s decision was necessarily out of line, I recognize that in any case it worked an incredible hardship on your family. I think you will get much farther toward your professed goal of getting your job back if you stay positive and make attempts to mend fences (regardless of where you think fault lies). Such attempts may ultimately fail, but then you can walk away knowing you did all you could do for your part. In my opinion, you are unlikely to get your job back at the Civic for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that your behavior has contributed to backing Yvonne and the board into a corner (no one can allow themselves to be quite so publicly blackmailed). BUT, you may be able to successfully find employment with a similar organization if they see you to be reasonable and interested in creative solutions rather than litigation. Prior to removing that blog, I would say (and did say) that only a fool would hire you since they would be letting themselves in for exactly the same treatment (and few people relish the thought of starring in their own smear blog). Now... well, you´re gaining some respect. You´re a persuasive guy and obviously talented... figure out how to use that to do something else - maybe even something better. I have no idea what your belief system is, but I have always found that life has a way of moving us out of places we shouldn´t be so we grow into the places we belong.
Having clicked on your blog link, Mr. Ryan, I must add another response. Personnel issues related to an employee´s sexual activity can hardly be grouped in the same category as genocide, mass slaughter, torture, oppression, and all the other horrible things that happen to people who have truly suffered under tyranny. Using the word flippantly is distasteful. It also makes one question whether James Ryan has a tendency to exaggerate. Also, despite the fact that you´re obviously trying to garner sympathy for being personally attacked based on decisions you were entitled to make as you chose - you are doing the EXACT SAME THING to Yvonne Johnson. You´ve even created a blog about it. Hypocrisy at its finest, don´t you think? Protest her decision, fine - you´re entitled. But the fact that you´re attacking her personally and attempting to ruin her reputation (with the explicitly stated goal of making her unhireable to future employers) is juvenile, and it robs you of any credibility you might have had. (For the record, any wise employer will take one look at this and never hire you.) She may have hurt you through a decision she made as a part of her job (which you are perfectly entitled to be incensed about if you choose). You, however, are voluntarily and publicly trying to humiliate her just for spite while attempting to claim the high ground. The high ground is in the other direction.
Mr. Ryan, I apologize if I represented incorrect information in my comment. I have no information other than the article the Inlander published (which is what I assumed we were all responding to) which said exactly this: "Specifically, they solicit other couples for the purpose of consensual husband- and wife-swapping."I´m not sure how that´s not soliciting sex, but if that is not what´s meant to be understood, I would recommend requesting a clarification from the Inlander, since that was certainly my impression. And I would think pointing out that I did NOT know whether you used the theatre´s domain would be the opposite of disseminating false information since I specifically stated that I did not know whether it was true. Also, I wish to make clear that I am not attempting to attack you or your decisions on any grounds at all. I´m simply saying the theatre´s decision isn´t a surprise. Many employers have policies that absolutely infringe on an employee´s private life. I´m not a proponent of that (in other words, they are not "my rules" that govern your private lives as you say above). For example, some employers (including government entities) don´t allow their employees to express any kind of political statement in support of a particular party - including making donations or being a registered member. This is surely true for the Federal government. Some employers have rules about receiving personal gifts from friends that also happen to be clients. Many professional groups such as attorneys and physicians have a myriad of professional rules they must follow that absolutely infringe on their personal lives (sex being only one of the things that are regulated for these professionals). It´s just not so strange that the theatre would enforce preferences about how they choose to be perceived. Whether the world should be that way is another question I´m not attempting to address.
Regardless of how the issue was handled, it is really surprising that people are taken aback by Mr. Ryan´s termination. Generally speaking, most employers prefer that employees do not conduct personal business while representing themselves as agents of their employers because of the ultimate fear that employees will do exactly what happened here - present personal opinions or engage in activity that opens the employer up to liability. (We´re all familiar with the ubiquitous "the opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect..." disclaimers. Would they be everywhere if liability weren´t a real danger? Claims of sexual harassment being one of the more obvious dangers.) Mr. Ryan solicited sex from an anonymous person after associating himself with the Civic Theatre. It is unclear whether he used his employer´s email domain to do it, which would be even more flagrantly inappropriate. That shows incredibly poor judgment, and is absolutely a terminable offense in most places of employment. The fact that it´s even being disputed is bizarre. Having read and drafted numerous policy statements for employee handbooks over the years, this is a pretty standard expectation. The behavior of the anonymous person is underhanded and pathetic, but it doesn´t change the fact that, regardless of his intention, Mr. Ryan displayed his inability to be a trustworthy representative of his employer. His termination is not a commentary on his lifestyle - it is a commentary on his inability to be a benefit to the theatre, which was his job. This was clearly a business decision. No one would be surprised if the same thing happened at a bank, a university, or in a government position - and that is exactly what would happen.
Website powered by Foundation