October 3, 2008

Illinois Says Ban on Political Activity Could Apply to Students

In response to an Illinois law prohibiting state employees from engaging in political activity, a group of students and faculty members at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign held a campus rally on Thursday in support of the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, the Chicago Tribune reported this morning.

In addition to a ban on faculty members’ wearing campaign buttons or T-shirts, the governor’s Office of Executive Inspector General told the Tribune that the law may forbid students to participate in political rallies. “Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property,” said Gilbert Jimenez, deputy inspector general.

The controversy began last week, when the American Association of University Professors issued statements calling for the withdrawal of a set of guidelines on political activity that the university had sent by e-mail to all of its employees.

University officials have defended their actions, saying that they simply wanted to make employees aware of the state law and had no intention of enforcing it on the campus.

“The purpose was to say, ‘Keep these provisions in mind, exercise common sense, and everything will be fine,’” a university spokesman, Tom Hardy, told the Tribune.

The university has said the five-year-old law is intended to prevent state workers from campaigning on state time or with state resources. —Caitlin Moran

Comments

1. I’ve always been amazed that it is ok for a movie star with no political acuity to back a candidate, but the most educated of society have their hands tied!

   — mlm    Oct 3, 03:04 PM    #

2. Glad to see the Chronicle covering this. We certainly hope the Higher Ed community supports us: this issue is important for all of us who work on university campuses.

   — Dan Colson    Oct 3, 03:24 PM    #

3. If the purpose of this law is to prevent campaigning, then it seems that the law needs to be rewritten to better define its boundaries. Wearing a button or displaying a bumper sticker is free speech, not “campaigning”. It would seem that the Illinois legislature or its minions who wrote the regulations, left room for ambiguity and then some risk-averse attorney interpreted the law in the most restrictive manner possible.

   — Lee C    Oct 3, 03:42 PM    #

4. Welcome to the University, please leave your rights with the guard at the desk, you can pick them up on your way out.

   — JRS    Oct 3, 04:08 PM    #

5. Without the “boneheads,” Oliver you deserve an Amen. Wearing a candidate’s button is campaigning or “advertising” a candidate or a cause. For many the lines may be blurred because we have become accustomed to wearing advertisements on our hats, chest, rears and feet. Many public universities have rules similar to those at Illinois. My campus got its emails last week.

   — The Jayhawk    Oct 3, 04:22 PM    #

6. The Deputy Inspector General’s statement is flat-out nonsense—from which one can only conclude that it is now possible to graduate from law school without having taken a single course in constitutional law. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again—notably in _Hague v. Committee
   for Industrial Organization_ (1939) and Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) that the government may not (i) designate a “public forum,” such as the public spaces of state-owned universities, as places from which political speech may be prohibited; and (ii) discipline state employees for speaking on matters of “public interest.” These are not First Amendment arcana; they are settled law. The faculty and students should ignore Mr Jiminez’ comically misinformed pronunciamento and go about their business of engaging in the democratic process as normal. If the University of Illinois—or any other state actor—should be so foolish as to attempt to enforce these flagrantly illegal regulations, they should not expect to be handled gently by the courts.

   — Gustave    Oct 3, 04:22 PM    #

7. This is absurd, and of course the law is unconstitutional. Students in particular would be the victims of discrimination if they can wear buttons on private campuses, but not public ones. What utter nonsense.

   — Bruce Rockwood    Oct 3, 04:23 PM    #

8. Sorry, state employees should not be campaigning at work. This is no different than rules that forbid congressmen from using their official offices for campaign activities.

   http://rightwingprofessor.blogspot.com/

   — rightwingprofessor    Oct 3, 04:28 PM    #

9. U of I has a doublespeak problem – “University officials have defended their actions, saying that they simply wanted to make employees aware of the state law and had no intention of enforcing it on the campus. The purpose was to say, ‘Keep these provisions in mind, exercise common sense, and everything will be fine,’” – why say it if they don’t intend to enforce it? There are scores of state laws already on the books governing state employee conduct. Should every one of them be repeated in a memo with a caveat to use “common sense”?

   One of things that makes our country great is that reasonable people have the right to speak their point of view and disagree.

   Remember the 60s?

   I’m voting for McCain, but I’ll defend Obama supporters’ right to speak freely and make their point of view known.

   — Any Adults Left in Champaign?    Oct 3, 04:45 PM    #

10. For obvious reasons individual faculty members should have the integrity not to advertise their political affiliations or beliefs in the presence of students whose work they grade.
    The Illinois rules with respect to faculty merely codify professional ethics.

    — Byron Smyrd    Oct 3, 04:55 PM    #

11. Read the text people: this isn’t about employees’ actions while at work, this is about employees’ action on campus but off the clock— like the students who live in dorms, work out in the gym, eat in the cafeterias and use the library. No buttons or t-shirts allowed.

    — Leslie    Oct 3, 06:15 PM    #

12. What should we do about t-shirts or ball caps or other forms of apparel that “campaign” for a brand/corporation (especially one that has not given money to the university)? Or, worse, apparel that names another school, one not in Illinois even? I’d put a stop to that, too, wouldn’t you?

    — Cubs fan    Oct 3, 07:57 PM    #

13. The law should be applied to faculty, students, administrators and others who would like to publicize their political will. Why only democrats are allowed to exhibit Obama and his party? Where is Republican ads on campus? Democrats are using students to get Obama into office. However, students should be engaged in their studies and tax payers are putting the bill for their education. Political advertisements have no place in publicly funded institutions.

    — kvc    Oct 3, 09:10 PM    #

14. I am in favor of people being able to be honest and open about their political interests on campus. What’s the First Amendment for? I think if professors are honest about their beliefs, but also give students an opportunity to honestly disagree without that meaning they lose points in their grade, I think that is a good thing.

    I would hate to have to pretend that the wider world does not exist on a college campus, and that it can’t be an object of study — and differing opinions.

    Note that people who are usually adversaries in the Senate and House respect the other side — and when they feel the country actually needs it, such as this past week, they can work together to pass important legislation.

    — Lisa Henkel    Oct 3, 09:53 PM    #

15. It appears to be similar to the law prohibiting members of the serving military and retired regular commissioned officers from demonstrating political partisanship.Is that not ht Hatch Act? And the professors will often be the first to state that is a good law. Maybe what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

    — JBJones    Oct 4, 10:26 AM    #

16. I’ve been a professor for 30 years, and I never thought the Hatch Act was a good idea!

    Moreover, I think the state of Illinois is unconstitutionally attacking free speech.

    — John    Oct 5, 01:52 PM    #

17. John is clearly right, though the chances are against a case coming before the Supreme Court. But what’s the good of the U of Illinois ‘making employees aware’ of a law which it isn’t going to enforce?

    — Paul    Oct 6, 05:59 AM    #

18. As a library director and educator I feel it is my job to promote intelligent and informed discourse, without taking sides. In the Slippery Rock University library we have provided display space for the College Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians to offer literature; and I have agreed to sponsor the Libertarian Party student group. My personal views on the election are well known to my close friends and associates, but I don’t broadcast my position unsolicited. Were I a classroom teacher my objective would be to stimulate appropriate discussion of the election and to find ways to introduce a range of opinions into the discourse. I would hope to accomplish this educational mission without imposing my own viewpoint on anybody. Were I to take sides in any teaching or learning situation, I think I would compromise my privileged position.

    — Philip J Tramdack    Oct 6, 07:59 AM    #

19. The Hatch Act was specifically written to shut employees of the US Post Office out of the political process. (Military disengagement is an artifact of custom.) Court decisions upholding the act have been narrowly applied—to postal employees. The state of Illinois has zero chance of seeing this law upheld on challenge as it applies to their employees and less than a zero chance if it is extended to students.
    And by the way, the Democrats are not “using” students to elect Obama. College Democrats, like College Republicans—like college independents—are self-serving.

    — BertW    Oct 6, 08:54 AM    #

20. Thank you #7 Gustave for saying it all. This is nothing more nor less than an attempt by a university administration to intimidate employees and students. It is the MOST reprehensible form of incursion on free speech in a democracy, designed to discourage exercise of political equality and participation in the process.

    If “the five-year-old law is intended to prevent state workers from campaigning on state time or with state resources,” clearly wearing a button or carrying a sign does not fall within the statute, which is certainly unconstitutional anyway.

    What business does a state university have supporting an unconstitutional law?

    There is a teaching moment here, so let’s seize it.

    — Mervyn Emrys    Oct 6, 09:47 AM    #

21. It’s funny to hear so many commenting who know little to nothing about the situation. As for the person who called others “boneheads” and said they were so for wanting to do this on state time, the email also said employees can’t attend a rally at the University ON THEIR OFF-HOURS! So thy name is Pot. As for the University saying they nevr intended to enforce it, that certainly wasn’t stated before this blew up and you didn’t get that from the tone of the email.

    — Steve    Oct 6, 09:48 AM    #

22. JB Jones,

    I think I agree. As a retired Army officer, I can tell you that it is entirely inappropriate for military members to actively and overtly participate in partisan politics. In this country we have civilian control of the military. In fact, some of my contemporaries have publicly stated that they don’t even vote in national elections since they do not want to be put in the position of working directly for someone they voted against.

    Maybe for that reason I would have no problem whatsoever if my college told me I was prohibited from indicating support for any particular candidate while on the job. I voluntarilly do that now. The students are very well aware that we have control of their grades, and though we may be able to convince ourselves that our classroom discussions are fair and balanced, as Fox News would say, I guarantee that not all students will feel that way.

    — FB    Oct 6, 09:52 AM    #

23. A button I wear while I am on a public campus is not “on state property.” It is on my person, a place protected and secure from government intrusion, according to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    — darrell in dallas    Oct 6, 09:54 AM    #

24. In the classroom itself, faculty are indubitably at work, doing the instructional tasks, for which they are receiving salaries and benefits to impart course content. A neutral rule, forbidding political buttons “advertising” the faculty member’s partisan support, is both constitutional and an eminently consistent with academic freedom itself. Faculty who presume to “bring their politics” into the classroom abuse their positions

    — wm. van alstyne    Oct 6, 09:55 AM    #

25. On a practical note, whenever a professor espouses a particular view about politics, religion, or some other controversial topic, it can become an excuse for the student with the bad grade to complain, “I only failed because the prof disagreed with my views.” In my courses, I prefer to ask provocative questions and let the students express their views without my input, unless I specifically state that I am playing “devil’s advocate” to promote class discussion.

    — MKS    Oct 6, 11:28 AM    #

26. The purpose of the law was to prohibit state employees from using state time, etc., for political action. I do not even want postage and envelopes paid for from my tax dollar for political purposes.

    On the other hand, the UIUC is public space. As a professor, I demand the same rights as any other US citizen to go to a rally, use my personal time and resources, and anything outside my official position for any legal activity I like.

    I suspect in some circles, wearing Illini garb at last Saturday’s Michigan game would have been considered a political statement! Seems to me that the right to free speech protects one’s ability to wear any advertising (political or otherwise), assuming the garb fits within an institution’s dress code.

    — UI alumnus    Oct 6, 02:22 PM    #

27. I would like for Oliver (bonehead) to explain to me why it is OK to have a bumper sticker on my car as I drive in to a University lot, but not on my shirt when I stroll across the University green to class. By his reasoning, I should remove them from both. His kind of ill thought out opinion is representative of what has lead to the abrogation of civil liberties by the current administration.

    — CW    Oct 6, 02:56 PM    #

Previous: Canadian Oversight of Foreign Students Is Lax, Government Review Finds
Next: NIH Tinkers With Its Peer-Review Process