October 10, 2008

U. of Missouri Says Classroom Photo of Obama Violates Ban on Political Advocacy

A group of students at the University of Missouri at St. Louis is protesting the removal of a photograph of Barack Obama from a classroom poster, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The poster is one of about six created for a “character education” project in an introduction-to-teaching class. The students who included Mr. Obama’s picture said they had intended to highlight the Democratic presidential candidate as an example of a good role model and leader, not to make a political statement.

Missouri officials, however, say displaying the photo violates a campus policy that prohibits using university resources and facilities for political advocacy. “The issue was that it could be perceived as being placed there permanently, so it could be seen as a form of advocacy by the university,” a spokesman, Bob Samples, told the Post-Dispatch. Academic freedom is not at issue, he said, because the policy allows display of the picture during class time.

Rules regarding political advocacy have recently been called into question on other campuses as well. The University of Texas at Austin announced yesterday that it would suspend a policy banning signs from residence-hall windows. The University of Illinois system concluded this week that a state law concerning political activities does not prohibit students and faculty members from donning partisan gear or participating in campaign rallies. —Caitlin Moran

Comments

1. Really, Americans are allowed to participate in campaign rallies? That could threaten our whole democracy!

   — John    Oct 10, 03:48 PM    #

2. I just read that what has happened was that the money people in Asia, Europe and the Mid-East became concerned about our spending habits and the elections. They think that Obama will win and along with the Democrat congress will spend wildly. So they pulled their money back and our spending is all based on borrowing abroad and it froze the money pipe lines. Makes sense why risk your savings if you see the debtor nation about to launch out on dramatic increases in socialist spending. If I had my money in a company with a lot of debt and they get a new ceo who proposes more and more spending including buying each worker a new car and a new home and a pension and health insurance for life…I might quickly decide to pull my money out just to be safe.

   — fred douglas    Oct 10, 03:55 PM    #

3. Probably wouldn’t have been an issue if it had been a picture of McCain or Palin.

   — Dan    Oct 10, 03:56 PM    #

4. Actually, McCain is the one proposing the most socialistic steps and, irrationally, advocating them while simultaneously railing against big government, along with his supermodel sidekick.

   — Bill Miller    Oct 10, 03:59 PM    #

5. I love that comment about the “big spending” Democrats who are scaring foreigners. After 8 years of record deficits under GWB, I’ll bet the foreigners are yearning for a change back to a more responsble “CEO” who will give us surpluses instead of record deficits. Oh yeah, Clinton was a Democrat, wasn’t he?

   — CP    Oct 10, 04:08 PM    #

6. Fred,

   Fear and intimidation, fear and intimadation. I’ve had that shoved down my craw for eight years. Enough! Let’s work together to solve some problems in this country rather than select political figures using divisive issues to manipulate and divide the American people and then feathering the nests of themselves and their buddies.

   It’s as simple as this. United we stand. Divided we fall. A political party that uses divisive issues to win elections is the party that doesn’t have the best interests of the electorate at heart.

   — Linda    Oct 10, 04:22 PM    #

7. #2, some CEOs take home hundres of millions. Could sure buy their employees smart cars, don’t you think?

   — zico    Oct 10, 05:08 PM    #

8. The writer named Fred Douglas who submitted note number 2 herein has placed this identical note on EVERY Chronicle article that allows notes to be submitted whether it has anything to do with what the article is about or not. How very sad that the right wing needs to stoop to repetition to advocate their slurs and non-facts. And poor Mr. Douglas that he cannot even respond to the issue at hand, even in a right wing manner.

   — S    Oct 10, 06:03 PM    #

9. Linda (#6), your quote would be well taken, but Obama has zero history of working constructively with members of other parties, unless you count radical fringe parties like those claimed by Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wright.

   Not to mention the fact that Obama’s supporters are essentially accusing anyone who does not support him of being a racist. Fear and intimidation, fear and intimidation indeed.

   — J. Ward    Oct 10, 06:59 PM    #

10. To J.Ward (#9), the same could be said of McCain supporters who accuse everyone who does not support them as being radical leftwing communist anti-American terrorists.

    Frankly, I’m sick and tired of all the divisive rhetoric. Where have all the intelligent clear-thinking people gone? I hope to find some of them here!

    — emma    Oct 10, 08:48 PM    #

11. Let’s remember what this issue is about: political advocacy, or the appearance of same, at a public university. Yes, it’s appropriate for a university to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisan politicking. The alternative is to let universities spend taxpayer money to influence elections, and that is completely unacceptable, no matter whose candidates are being promoted. I teach in a private institution, and we know better than to suggest that the university promotes a particular party or candidate.

    The AAUP statement on academic freedom specifies that when faculty make extracurricular pronouncements (in letters to the editor, for example, or when running for public office), we are morally obligated to make it clear that we are not speaking for the university. No matter how many of our faculty friends agree with us, we cannot commit “the university” to a political agenda.

    As the faculty sponsor for the campus Republican club, I feel bound by both honor and duty NOT to bring my partisan views into the classroom. I do not wear campaign buttons to class or help to distribute campaign brochures on campus. I’m happy to help my students think through the issues outside of my classroom, but I refuse to proselytize in class.

    The question in St Louis is whether those classroom posters in fact do suggest that the university is supporting Sen. Obama in this election. Think of an analogous situation: public institutions must bend over backward to avoid the slightest implication that they favor God or support Judaeo-Christian ethics; both the courts and the media stand ready to pounce. Would the courts or the university allow classroom display of posters with religious pictures and Bible verses? Sen. Obama is certainly not analogous to God (despite what the major media seem to think), but the issue here is the appearance of advocacy.

    I would also suggest that holding him up as “an example of a good role model and leader” is counterfactual and indicates a lapse in critical thinking. But that’s a story for another day.

    — diogenes    Oct 10, 09:18 PM    #

12. Diogenes, you just don’t get it. Students have the right to voice opinions and that right, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution does not stop at the schoolhouse door. Choosing a role model (candidate or not) met the assignment and does not imply any endorsement by the administration or the University. Do you disallow students to refrain from voicing other controversial opinions in other types of assignments? Good grief, I hope not! If college is not the place for students to learn to think, weigh evidence, formulate an opinion, state it articulately and defend it, then why on earth are we in the professions we’ve chosen? Interesting nothing was done about the Stanford dorm that was decorated in Palin-tology…..

    — Gilda    Oct 10, 10:48 PM    #

13. #9, I didn’t know that Richard Lugar and Chuck Hegel, with whom Obama has worked on a variety of issues, were members of “radical fringe parties.” Thank you so much for enlightening all of us ignorant ideological lefties.

    — John    Oct 11, 12:55 AM    #

14. #13 It’s an unfortunate fact that higher education is inundated with extreme left wing people. They are part of the reason this nation has sank to being ranked number 19 in the world in education. Yet, they just blame it all on high schools and middle schools.
    What is most scary is Obama’s ties to Ayers…you know, the domestic terrorist. Just for this, if Obama were applying for any other federal job that required a security clearance, the documents released by the University of Illinois would not allow him to obtain a security clearance.

    And, some want this guy as our next president. It shows the ignorance of so many and how they form their political opinion. They vote on emotion. Not logic. McCain is, amongst the two, clearly the best man for the job. He actually has honor, never had buddies that blew up buildings in DC, but did defend this nation…something Obama has never done. If Obama wins, his socialist plans will never make it through Congress. The left wing nut cases in academe are, and this article is a perfect example, attempting to indoctrinate students (not all prof’s but many) into their leftist ideological fold.

    It will fail, has failed, but they just can’t get over that their religion of liberalism will not prevail.

    McCain/Palin are, truly, our best hope.

    — Susan    Oct 11, 06:43 AM    #

15. Oh, and for those that think the Democrats are so great at governing, the the current liberal-led
    has the lowest (13%) approval rating which is far lower than President Bush. The 110th Congress and Pelosi will be considered amongst, if not the worst, in history. Don’t think for a moment folks that Obama has the election locked. It’s far from over. People counted Pres. Truman out…..guess what? He won. So will McCain. And the socialist left wingers can cry for the next four years.

    — Susan    Oct 11, 06:54 AM    #

16. Imagine what would have happened if someone had put up a poster of McCain. The faculty — never mind the students — would have burned the place down.

    — Robert    Oct 11, 12:10 PM    #

17. there is nothing wrong with a campaign poster in a classroom—as long as it’s the correct one. It’s Obama, baby!

    — Hillary    Oct 11, 01:02 PM    #

18. Ok susan, your either very scared or a troll. Not convincing either way. Being Democrat is a far cry from being a socialist left-winger. J. Ward is the same. Nothing new to say, just the same old fear mongering that has led most thinking people to see through the rhetoric of the neocons. Emma (#10) this place is full of clear thinking people. It is just inundated by McCain trolls that are very scared and desperate. Should return to normal once the clear victor (Obama) is elected and the interns go back to school or their job at McDonalds.

    — laughing    Oct 11, 02:10 PM    #

19. #18,

    There is a combination of trolls and legitimate people on this site. I’m not a troll. I have strong disagreements with the left wing academics that post here. Yet, it is an ideological difference not a personal one. I say what I do for a reason: There exists many, many, many more far-left idealogues in higher education than any other area of education. You know this is true so don’t even go there but if you want to, then that’s fine. You can insult and hurl invectives at me thinking I’m an “intern” or a minimum wage employee. Fine. Believe what you will. Yet, I am not. I’m a professor that is conservative (oh, and that is not a contradiction in terms)…we exist and there are more of us. Usually, when a liberal is cornered they begin to insult. It’s exactly what Anne Coulter described in her best seller “Godless: The Church of Liberalism…” (another great book that reveals the idiotic views of Democrats is her well written best seller “If Democrats had any Brains, They’d be Republicans.”)

    It describes, I would bet, about 90% or more. Obama has clear ties with domestic terrorism. This cannot be disputed and if it is, then you’re the type of person that would argue the sky is green just for the sake of arguing. McCain/Palin are far, far, from being defeated. You’ll see come election day. But, with ACORN and voter fraud being committed (not by Obama but by his supporters), then it shows what the Dem’s will do to win. You will not. So, since you can’t defame McCain (maybe disagree but he’s a patriot and done more to defend your right to be stupid than you, yourself, ever have), then you go after Gov. Palin.
    OK. Let’s go down that route. Let’s compare her to Sen. Biden. Let the words of each (look them up as they are public record now) and see how completely stupid Biden is of history and even the role of the vice-president. These are his words I’m quoting…not mine and when you add his ignorance to Obama’s past relations with domestic terrorists and, I think I need go no further than that to show he is unfit for the office, never lifted a finger to defend this nation, let Biden’s own words speak for his own ignorance:

    According to one famous writer, “If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week’s vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, “Which newspapers?”)

    These weren’t insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, “Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.”

    It turns out that Katie’s restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times.”

    —He is clearly out of touch.

    Next. Regarding his incorrect view of the role of the vice president…and this comes from such and “experienced” politician, first, #13 read the Constitution..it will not take long and compare them with Biden’s own words…and when you get finished with your shift from McDonalds, then you can respond….if you dare…and note that Biden is totally stupid when it comes to which articles of the US Constitution explains the role of the VP…so, here are his words from the VP debate:

    Biden: “Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that….

    And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

    The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

    One should be careful when throwing around terms such as “most dangerous” and “bizarre.” But Biden is confusing which part of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch (it is Article II, not Article I). More importantly, the notion that the vice president can preside over the Senate only when there is a tie vote is simply wrong. Nor is it true that the only legislative involvement the vice president has is to break tie votes. The vice president is the president of the Senate, where he interprets the rules and can only be overridden by a vote of 60 senators.

    Early vice presidents spent a lot of time in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson even spent his time writing “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice: for the Use of the Senate of the United States.” Modern vice presidents may show up only when they think tie votes will occur, but that is their choice.

    This isn’t rocket science. The Constitution on this point is very straightforward: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

    Instead, it was Palin who got it right. Besides correctly stating that the vice president holds positions in both the executive and legislative branches, she also noted that:

    Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are…”

    Hmmmmm, so we have a VP candidate Biden that is clearly an idiot and a presidential candidate that has not only clear links with domestic terrorists but with anti-american fools such as his former “minister.”

    But, idiots like #13 are not going, nor do they wish to change their opinions. They follow liberalism as a fundamentalist religious follower. These columns are not full of “clear thinking people.” IF it were then, they’d be Republicans.

    I’ll talk to you on Nov. 5, after McCain/Palin win. Then, you’ll be safe to know that you’ll have a president that will protect your right to be stupid.

    McCain/Palin 2008

    — Susan    Oct 11, 04:54 PM    #

20. #13, I’m very sorry that at the end of my previous post I accidentally wrote “#13” when I meant the idiot “#18”.

    My sincerely apologies for the mix up. All of my words were meant for #18.

    And, Mr. #18…..while you’re sitting in your dorm room attempting to both defame McCain and figure out your sexual orientation….

    Since you’re clearly a troll then at least try to be a troll that posts comments that are bases upon logic.

    So, Mr/Ms “Laughing” (whichever you are)…..you not be “laughing” on Nov. 5.

    McCain/Palin 2008

    — Susan    Oct 11, 05:09 PM    #

21. to #18

    To the Obama socialists: When you serve, when you spend time actually doing something other than spewing your filthy, useless, meaningless words and cannot defend them beyond lashing out at Republicans, when did you bleed for the nation that has, as I’ve read another say here, give you the “right to be stupid,” when did you do that? Before you go into some intangible semi-intellectual argument about how serving in the military is not important, let me remind you: It is. So, you can say what you want about Sen. McCain. He has proven what he can uphold. It’s this thing called “freedom.” Now, go ahead and chant your anti-American, anti-military rhetoric and the rest of America will just go on. But, when you are alone and staring at the ceiling at night realizing how meaningless your life has been, you can adorn your office with all the diplomas and books you wish but you Obama folks will realize your dream of “sticking it to the other party” will not come true. When you have served, went through military service and fought for the right to now be stupid, then your words might, just might mean something. Liberals allowed our flag to be burned. Well, you know what, as the old saying goes, “She [our flag..what you never defended] is worn, torn and has been burned but still waves proudly for our freedom.” So, crawl into the election booth and slide your bony fingers over the name “Obama.” Most liberals in academe neither served nor did anything to protect the “freedom of thought” that is so much a part of their liberal religion. You know it in your heart. You can say what you wish here, on this blog, but you know that your importance, if it even exists, disappears once you leave whatever campus you call home. More Republicans have served and defended this nation, again, the one that gives you the right to be an idiot and talk your anti-American propoganda, when did you do anything to protect this nation? But, you’ll create fantasies about what is “wrong” with Sen. McCain. It is so very true that so many liberals find “safe havens” in academe because they 1) can’t do anything productive (at least when it comes those trained in the humanities) off campus and 2) but have never done anything to defend your right to be stupid and spout your filthy propoganda. If you have served, bled, fought for this nation, then I think you have the right to be a silly liberal spouting your propoganda. If not, you’re words are meaningless. As they are, for the most part, anyway. Your “community organizer” is not up to the job. He never served, never suffered, never went through basic training…but does have friends that are bothe anti-American and domestic terrorists. And you liberal idiots have the audacity to even defend this guy? It only highlights your ignorance. So, just keep it up as it makes me laugh when I read your filthy words. You liberals aren’t proud to be Americans. You do everything possible to undermine it. Just look, as was mentioned, the approval rating of our current, Pelosi-led liberal Congress. 13% folks.

    Now, without mentioning the word “Republican,” or “president,” I ask you to defend the rotten job your liberal leaders have done.

    You cannot.

    and it is partly this that will lead McCain and Gov. Palin right into the White House.

    Nov. 5…..countdown. You’ll see your messiah Obama lose. What then for you? How about actually doing something to defend our nation? But, you’re too old if you haven’t served already. So, you are pretty useless other than just spreading your propoganda of liberalism. You’ve lost. I’ll check again on Nov. 5 to see how many of you liberal idiots are shouting “fraud, fraud….voter fraud.” McCain will win because when you breakdown the electoral college (forget these idiotic polls) he doesn’t have to do much to win.

    Take that to the bank.

    Be back on Nov. 5.

    — Patriot    Oct 12, 02:20 AM    #

22. And, just to clarify, election day is Nov. 4 but I cannot wait to read this blog on Nov. 5, which is what I meant by this date. I think it will be strangely silent as the Democrats are crying that their demi-god lost and might actually have to do a days work in the Senate.

    — Patriot    Oct 12, 02:26 AM    #

23. Getting back to the issue at hand, I wonder placing a disclaimer on the Obama poster (something that makes it clear that the poster is in no way intended to endorse any candidate or party) would resolve the issue.

    — SMV    Oct 12, 05:43 PM    #

24. As much as I hate the cliché, this sounds like a “teaching moment” to me. The issue isn’t whether the university is advocating for a candidate, because it is clear that the poster was created in response to an assignment, and holding up a role model is not the same as campaigning. A lot of people will continue to admire Obama, even if (when?) he loses the election.

    The issue is perceptions. Is the concern about the appearance of the university supporting a candidate founded? The people who would know best, and who would benefit most from contemplating that question, are the students. The right to free speech is limited by considerations about time and place—no one has the right to scream “fire” in a movie theater. And as Diogenes (#11) points out, there are times and places when it is inappropriate for faculty to express their political views. But is that consideration relevant to this situation? If so, it would be good for the students to understand why. If not, then well-reasoned civil disobedience would be a good American response. Or the students might offer to resolve the problem in the way SMV suggests (#23).

    — Shar    Oct 13, 12:07 AM    #

Previous: Georgia Proposes Merging Technical Colleges
Next: Higher-Education Groups Want to Watch Over IRS's Questionnaire for Colleges