How an Anti-Gay Remark Could Be a Potent Election Issue in Michigan

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has found himself in a queer, Constitutional conundrum after it was revealed that one of his staffers, Andrew Shirvell, has been targeting the University of Michigan's gay student body president, Chris Armstrong.

The story began to unfold last week, when media picked up that Shirvell, an assistant attorney general, spends his free time writing virulently anti-gay blog posts about Armstrong, whom Shirvell refers to as a "viciously militant homosexual activist."

The "public servant" also warned parents of University of Michigan students that Armstrong "the University’s first openly 'gay' student body president ... is actively recruiting your sons and daughters to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.'" Naturally these comments pose a problem for Shirvell's boss, Cox.

After initially attempting to avoid the virtual brouhaha, Cox, who has championed against cyber-bullying, eventually told the press he had "chastised" Shirvell. Later, as public outcry grew, Cox attempted to neuter the story by citing the Constitution. “All state employees have a right to free speech outside working hours,” the Republican Cox said of Shirvell's online remarks. “But Mr. Shirvell’s immaturity and lack of judgment outside the office are clear.”

Sure, Cox makes a valid point, but his comment definitely deserves some scrutiny. And other Michigan politicians, especially the Gubernatorial and Attorney General nominees, should get involved.

Cox truly doesn't have much stake in the Shirvell scandal. He's reached his term limit as Attorney General, and failed in his bid to be the GOP's gubernatorial nominee -- that honor went to Rick Snyder. So, in the end, there's no political need for Cox to wade further into the matter, but that doesn't mean his comments on the matter aren't relevant. Cox in fact raises a much larger question: though Shirvell is indeed protected by the Constitution, and he has every right to act like a bigoted fool while off the clock, how far should we go in holding public servants accountable for their politically questionable actions?

Let's flip the script for a second: let's pretend Shirvell wasn't homophobic. Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that he's the black head of a state bureau and makes a comment about not helping a constituent because of that person's race. The public would go mad, as they did when right wing blogger Andrew Breitbart made up a similar narrative about Shirley Sherrod, who ended up being forced out of her post, few questions asked. [She was later offered another position within her department, but refused.]

In my hypothetical, based-on-Sherrod story, the public servant was immediately, though privately, reprimanded, even though her alleged comments would have been Constitutionally protected, although certainly in poor judgment.

Cox has no intention of further disciplining Shirvell. That doesn't mean, however, that Shirvell should be let off the hook. Perhaps his actions can be turned into a litmus test for the rest of Michigan's political hopefuls.

The public should ask their officials and candidates, particularly Snyder and his Democratic rival, Virg Bernero, as well as Attorney General hopefuls, Democrat David Leyton and Republican Bill Schuette, how they would respond if one of their staffers were caught in a Shirvell-esque situation.

There's no easy answer, of course: a public servant cannot and should not trample Constitutional rights, but at the same time they really shouldn't -- but sometimes do -- let bigotry run rampant.

Though no definite conclusions will be reached, at least politicians and the public will be forced to discuss the delicate balance between our nation's founding document and its ever-evolving political reality.

Photo credit: Code Pink Alert's Flickr