Search News


Browse Archives

News

Beware the Button Police

September 24, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Sporting an Obama or McCain button? Driving a car with one of the campaigns' bumper stickers? You might need to be careful on University of Illinois campuses.

The university system's ethics office sent a notice to all employees, including faculty members, telling them that they could not wear political buttons on campus or feature bumper stickers on cars parked in campus lots unless the messages on those buttons and stickers were strictly nonpartisan. In addition, professors were told that they could not attend political rallies on campuses if those rallies express support for a candidate or political party.

Faculty leaders were stunned by the directives. Some wrote to the ethics office to ask if the message was intended to apply to professors; they were told that it was. At Illinois campuses, as elsewhere, many professors do demonstrate their political convictions on buttons, bumper stickers and the like.

Cary Nelson, a professor at the Urbana-Champaign campus and national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he believes he is now violating campus policy when he drives to work because he has a bumper sticker that proclaims: "MY SAMOYED IS A DEMOCRAT."

Mike Lillich, a spokesman for the university system, said that President Joseph White was asked about the ethics memo this week and that he understands why faculty members are concerned. "The campus traditions of free speech are very different from the DMV," said Lillich.

White told professors that he thinks "this is resolvable," and that they should use "common sense." But for now, Lillich said of the policy sent to all employees, "officially, it does apply."

Nelson and other professors are circulating a draft statement outlining their objections to the ethics rules. "Although these rules are not at present being enforced, the AAUP deplores their chilling effect on speech, their interference with the educational process, and their implicit castigation of normal practice during political campaigns," the draft says.

It adds: "The Ethics Office has failed to recognize and accurately define both the special context of a university and the role of its faculty members. Campus education requires that faculty and students have comparable freedom of expression on political subjects. This applies not only to obvious contexts like courses on politics and public policy in a variety of departments but also to the less formal settings in which faculty and students interact.... As the rules stand, students can exercise their constitutional rights and attend rallies and wear buttons advocating candidates, but faculty cannot.... [S]tudents might attend campus rallies and later analyze them in a classroom. Are faculty members to have no experience of the rallies themselves? Finally, it is inappropriate to suggest that faculty members function as employees whenever they are on campus. Faculty often move back and forth between employee responsibilities and personal acts within the same time frame."

Debate over the appropriate limits for political activity on campus is nothing new, of course. Most controversies involve actions that could be viewed as aligning an institution with a candidate. For instance, this week, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst called off a chaplain's efforts to recruit students to work for the Obama campaign and to get credit for the experience. But while such disputes come up every election year, they tend not to involve the bumper stickers on professors' cars or the buttons on their lapels.

The American Council on Education publishes guidance each election season on the latest legal standards about political activity and higher education. For instance, the council recommends that colleges not engage in activities such as endorsing candidates, placing signs on behalf of candidates on university property, or reimbursing university employees for contributions to specific candidates. Such actions could imply an endorsement by the institution, the guidance notes. With regard to activity by individual faculty members and administrators, the council said that it was important to avoid actions that "would be perceived as support or endorsement by the institution."

Ada Meloy, general counsel at the American Council on Education, said that the guidelines published by the ACE focus on Internal Revenue Service requirements for tax-exempt organizations. While she saw nothing there that would limit a professor's right to wear a button or attend a rally, she said that Illinois statutes may impose more limits.

The norm for regulation of faculty members is to bar the use of institutional or public funds or facilities on behalf of candidates, she said. One possibility, she said, may be that Illinois is especially sensitive to these issues because Obama is one of its senators.

Lillich, the system spokesman, said he knew of no controversies over inappropriate political activity that might have prompted the rules.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Beware the Button Police

  • Election ban
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Professor of mathematics at DePaul University on September 24, 2008 at 6:45am EDT
  • These rules are awful. While it might be preferable for professors not to make their electoral opinions known in their classes, there is no justification for banning professors from participating in non-class activities.

    If a candidate gives a speech on campus, can anyone seriously believe that professors should not have the right to attend?

    Campuses need more discussion not less. This ruling is truly awful.

  • CONSULTATION
  • Posted by Cary Nelson , President at AAUP on September 24, 2008 at 7:05am EDT
  • A college or university would do well to consult its faculty senate and local AAUP chapter before issuing a policy statement that infringes on academic freedom, something that did not happen at Illinois. The national AAUP also stands ready to assist in evaluating policy documents on request. Once the Illinois statement was distributed to thousands of faculty and staff, a public response was necessary.

    Cary Nelson AAUP President

  • ever hear of the First Amendment?
  • Posted by Chris Sterling , professor on September 24, 2008 at 7:05am EDT
  • This ruling seems an outright intrusion into people's individual rights to express opinion. Illinois may be a state university--and a good one (I speak as a Big-10 alum, though not from that campus)--but this kind of thinking reminds me of over-zealous high school officials. Surely people--faculty, staff, students--have every right to put a bumper sticker on their personal vehicle (I can understand such a rule for state-owned cars)--or to wear a political button (though they seem to be disappearing in this digital age). I hope this is appealed and overturned. What a terrible example to set at a time we need transparency from our institutions of higher learning.

  • A Sickening Attack on Free Speech
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on September 24, 2008 at 7:35am EDT
  • This grotesque interpretation of the ethics rules is both unconstitutional and a clear violation of academic freedom. Everyone should condemn this idea and the repression of free speech on campus. Not only does this affect all staff and faculty (which would be bad enough), but it also affects many students who also work as employees.

    Not only must this policy be immediately reversed, but those ultimately responsible for creating it should be fired or resign in disgrace. People opposed to intellectual freedom who blatantly violate the rights of others have no place in the administration at a university. This is one of the worst examples of political repression and censorship at a public college that I've ever seen. I'd be happy to come speak at UIUC, UIC, or UIS on a panel and debate the administrators responsible for this.

  • illusion
  • Posted by c on September 24, 2008 at 7:35am EDT
  • The illusion that college campuses are somehow democratic enclaves filled with enlightened leaders clearing the path for our youth to become great thinkers and participants in a our society is a joke. Colleges are nothing but small corporations run by small minded people desperately trying to protect their funding from both private and public sectors. Trying to please their corporate owners. They don't want anyone causing a ruckus that might draw attention to an opinion not expressly approved by the Central "Ethics" Committee. What a corruption of the ideals outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I hope there are Illinois professors willing to take on this form of thought control and show their students what Freedom of Speech actually means. Ideally, I would hope it would be the students themselves who would take action to rally and support their professors in this infringement of civil rights.

  • Not Me!
  • Posted by Diogenes on September 24, 2008 at 7:45am EDT
  • I did not spend an extra nine years in school to surrender my Constitutional rights! When the most educated among us are muzzled by Horowitz's minions, the fascists win! Time for the faculty of this school to call their lawyers, work to rule only, cal a union meeting, and... disobey! The Constitution trumps petty right wing administrators serving the Cheney administration any day. The right wing may despise the Constitution, but it looks like the "evil, leftist, socialist professor" may prove to be its defense! It's a bad policy. I dare them to enforce it!

  • Buttons
  • Posted by Robert , PhD Student on September 24, 2008 at 8:10am EDT
  • I chuckled a little bit when I saw a McCain button accompanying the tease of the article on IHE's home page. Does anyone think that McCain buttons caused this fracas, or was it the vast majority of college faculty who support Obama?

    Professors should use good judgment in openly supporting candidates. Bumper stickers are fine, but try to keep the office and classroom free of political propaganda. For some people, seeing a professor walking in wearing a button of the opposite party is as good as wearing a Confederate flag pin.

    Just think of your reaction if someone walked into class with a McCain or Obama button.

  • Political speech on campus
  • Posted by feudi pandola on September 24, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • I seldom agree with anything that Cary Nelson has to say, but he is right on target on this issue. C'mon Illini! Campaign buttons are now banned? Bumper stickers are illegal on campus? I suggest a massive response by every single person associated with the University of Illinois. Buttons and bumper stickers for all..regardless of their politics!

  • Posted by TBD on September 24, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • I'm always amazed at "ethics" organizations that try to tell professionals what ethics they'll have. Ethics must be self-generated by professionals. Most of these "ethics" are to protect organizations.

  • Thought police first, annihilation follows
  • Posted by ESL Professor on September 24, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • I'm old now and have no need to mince words. For almost 42 years, I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language to U.S. immigrants from all over the world. In 1967, when I started, the national police shut down the universities in Venezuela (I believe the issue was oil...). I tutored those with enough money to flee the country. The survivors of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, the Vietnamese Boat People, refugees from Columbia, Bosnia, Turkey-- just to name a few--have come to this country to escape oppression in their homelands. And what is happening? Freedom is disappearing day by day.
    Watch Michael Moore's new Slacker film (available free--and you can order one for free for your college or university library) and get mad. The consequences of oppression are the end of life itself, not just academic freedom. It just makes me sick, physically and emotionally. Please register to vote if you have not done so. Please get an absentee ballot if you are living away from your home. And don't just wear a button or put a bumper sticker on your car. Vote the idiots/fascists out of office while we still have the opportunity (assuming that not all of the voting machines have been rigged). May peace and common sense prevail.

  • University of Illinois
  • Posted by Eileen at Indiana University on September 24, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • This has got to be some kind of a joke!

  • Not Smarter Than a 5th Grader
  • Posted by Jonathon Sanders , Professor on September 24, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • It's not April 1, but this sure reads like an April Fool's joke.

    Isn't this the same University of Illinois that employs William Ayers, the terrorist-turned-educator?

    Isn't this the same University of Illinois whose Board of Trustees voted to remove Chief Illiniwek as its mascot because it offended people?

    I think University of Illinois should get a do-over for a 5th grade civics class.

  • Reaction to an Obama/McCain button
  • Posted by JP Craig on September 24, 2008 at 9:05am EDT
  • What sort of reaction would I have to a student with an Obama or McCain button? I certainly wouldn't collapse into a puddle of bejibberties. I probably wouldn't even notice. To my mind, that's far superior to a belt with beer caps clipped on it or some tee-shirt with a "clever" joke about *giggle* SEX.

    Seriously, why is this such a problem? Students and faculty should be able to wear a campaign button or a flag. And neither is like a Confederate flag, unless McCain or Obama have some slave-holding secrets.

  • U. Illinois and the Gulag
  • Posted by fecalito on September 24, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • Perhaps this policy would be comprehensible if dictated by Putin for the Siberian Technical College - Gulag Campus. All, from the custodial staff to the body that governs reaccreditation for the University of Illinois, should reject this outrageous authoritarian muzzle.

    Ongoing attempts in the current election cycle to block the functioning of the free press are already nauseating. Extending such a mentality onto our campuses is simply unacceptable and must be rejected in the most vehement manner possible. We will not kneel!

  • officially, it does apply
  • Posted by justaguy on September 24, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • [President] White told professors that he thinks “this is resolvable,” and that they should use “common sense.” But for now, [university spokesman] Lillich said of the policy sent to all employees, “officially, it does apply.”

    We live in a litigious society. This policy and its "enforcement" are proof.

  • Elitist profs
  • Posted by douard on September 24, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • While I am as incensed as Cary Nelson and those to have commented on the appalling infringement of employee rights to freedom of speech at U. of I. (my alma mater), I am nearly as appalled by the claim that universities and their faculty are somehow "special." Would the faculty be so enraged if the policy only applied to the non-academic staff? Probably not. I work in a state institution that has a similar policy, I've just discovered, that may also apply even to buttons. Would the academics who are so upset about the policy in their institutions consider my right to freedom of expression less protected than theirs? Probably so. I think this is an example of an attitude that feeds the belief by those who work for a living that academics are oblivious to the way the rest of the world lives.

  • Yoda for president
  • Posted by George Gollin , Professor of Physics at University of Illinois on September 24, 2008 at 9:27am EDT
  • "...faculty members... could not wear political buttons on campus..."

    OK, sure, that's cool. The buttons are attached to the professors and it's best to keep the student-professor interaction relatively unencumbered with political baggage.

    But not being allowed to listen to speakers at an on-campus rally? Not even if it's just to see if one of the candidates really looks like a famous comedienne? Imagine how silly it would be to have the campus perimeter lined with binocular-equipped professors, all looking in.

    Bumper stickers are attached to car bumpers, not professors. That's why we call them "bumper stickers" and not "professor stickers." I do not think students will see a "Yoda for president" decoration on a car in a parking lot and think "oh, that's a 'professor sticker' and I am afraid my professor will fail me unless I vote for Yoda!"

  • Posted by Marla Crook , Women no longer have the vote at U of I on September 24, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • If the University of Illinois Ethics Office had it's choice, this would be the next logical step.

  • Huh?
  • Posted by GBrown on September 24, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • As a political science student in the 1970's the faculty didn't hesitate to let us know precisely where they stood on issues or candidacies, and I for one similarly didn't hesitate to express different views. So long as students aren't penalized for holding differing views I don't see what the problem is with faculty saying (or displaying) exactly what they think. Open discourse in the face of disagreement is how our political system works, when it works, and certainly must be protected in political science classrooms.

    Re this policy, I agree with John Wilson (above). It's time to reassert some of the constitutional values all the wars and security measures of this decade are supposedly protecting. Or are we simply aspiring to be the New China?

  • office doors
  • Posted by rightwingprofessor on September 24, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • Faculty should be allowed bumper stickers. However I don't believe faculty should be allowed to wear campaign pins to class, or to have bumper stickers or the like on their office doors. Students are a captive audience in your classroom, and your office often functions as an extension of the classroom. Faculty have no right to force students to hear their opinions on subjects unrelated to the course material. Since no students are ever forced to look at your car, or even no which car is yours, I can't see the objection to bumper stickers on actual bumpers.

    http://rightwingprofessor.blogspot.com/

  • Not about academic freedom, all about expressive freedom
  • Posted by David on September 24, 2008 at 10:01am EDT
  • Cary Nelson and AAUPers - This has little to do with our academic freedom in the classroom, so don't complicate this issue and make it about something it's not. It doesn't help our cause to defend academic freedom with these kinds of arguments.

    Hoever, this has everything to do with every faculty and staff members personal expressive freedoms on campus. No one leaves those rights at the campus gates. There is a time and place for expressing those opinions, and while it may not always be apropriate in the classroom, I think my car, my office (even my on-campus one!), and the button or shirt I might even choose to wear help create an atmosphere of open discussion and debate across campus that are essential to our institutions.

    Hands off, Univ. of Illinois! A memo encouraging respect and even discretion during a heated political season is one thing, possibly a good idea, but a ban on expression is entirely unacceptable.

  • Posted by Anthony on September 24, 2008 at 10:02am EDT
  • What is a "SAMOYED"?

  • Nelson is Wrong - Not an Academic Freedom Issue
  • Posted by Jim on September 24, 2008 at 10:02am EDT
  • I agree with most of the postings and certainly think the U of I rule is silly, but I disagree with Cary Nelson's take on the issue. The right to have bumper stickers, etc., has nothing to do with academic freedom. Academic freedom is not blanket permission for faculty members to do and say what they please, whenever they please. Its purpose, rather, is to permit them to teach their classes and conduct their research without interference -- what Stanley Fish calls a “task-specific and task-limited” auuthorization. There are many reasons why U of I's policy is misguided, but academic freedom concerns is not one of them.

  • Doesn't the Law Trump This Recommendation?
  • Posted by Observer on September 24, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • "The American Council on Education ... recommends that colleges not engage in ... reimbursing university employees for contributions to specific candidates."

    Doesn't election law already prohibit employers from doing this? At least on the federal level I believe it does.

    Regarding professorial conduct, I personally think wearing a candidate's button to a class that the professor is leading is a bit too much "in your face" treatment of the captive audience. Common decency should inform the professor here.

  • On the other hand...
  • Posted by GBrown on September 24, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • What I think we can all agree to take issue with is using state or Federal resources to promote one's partisan political views. Is that what you're doing, rightwingprofessor?

  • Chill? I am frozen at the thought
  • Posted by Connie on September 24, 2008 at 10:16am EDT
  • My most inspiring experience at the University of Oklahoma was a professor who loudly proclaimed her political affiliation by wearing a "Vote for McGovern" button. In that age, it was inspiring and invigorating to see her passion and her stand. That is what higher ed is all about, at least I thought it was...

  • admininstrators on politics
  • Posted by acstaff at UW Madison on September 24, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • Here is the University of Wisconsin policy.
    At least we are allowed to have bumper stickers on our cars (I pay in excess of $800 a year for parking. They are being too generous! :-)
    ******
    Guidance on Political Campaign Activities at UW System Institutions
    Last updated 9/2/2008
    This document provides general guidelines for employees and students
    of the UW System who wish to engage in an important but strictly
    regulated activity: political campaign involvement. This document is
    not intended as a source of definitive legal advice on the specific
    situations discussed below, nor is it a comprehensive legal manual
    that addresses all political campaign activity.
    In addition to the general guidance below, certain university
    employees holding highly visible positions, or those who serve in a
    liaison capacity with state and federal legislators, should be aware
    of the ethical and practical consequences of political campaign
    involvement as well as the basic legal issues, such as the application
    of state and federal lobbying rules to the activities of state
    university employees.
    If you have a specific question regarding political campaign issues,
    please consult your campus legal counsel or the UW System Office of
    the General Counsel for further guidance.
    What follows is a list of frequently asked questions concerning
    political campaign activity at UW System Institutions.

    I. Guidance for UW Employees
    1. What is political campaign activity?
    Political campaign activity includes not only solicitation of campaign
    contributions, service in furtherance of candidates, political parties
    and political action committees, and advocating a particular position
    on a referendum, but also promoting action on issues which have become
    highly identified as dividing issues between the candidates. Further,
    comments regarding the specific actions, positions, or records of a
    particular candidate may be perceived as support or endorsement by the
    institution of a particular candidate or political party.
    There are other "political" activities that might not fall within the
    scope of political campaign activities as discussed in this guidance.
    For example, advocating for governmental action or legislative change,
    at a local, state or federal level, may be political although not
    related to a political campaign. While this guidance does not cover
    those activities in detail, because of restrictions on state lobbying
    and personal use of state resources, individual employees should not
    use state work time or state resources to engage in political
    activities unless expressly designated with this responsibility on
    behalf of the institution.

    2. As a university employee, are there restrictions on my political
    campaign activity?
    Yes. As a university employee, your political campaign activities are
    restricted by Regent policy and state law in three significant ways:
    (1) You may not engage in political campaign activities during your
    work time; (2) You may not use state resources to engage in political
    campaign activities at any time; and (3) You may not solicit
    contributions or services for a political purpose from other
    university employees while they are engaged in their official duties.
    State resources include resources such as
    o institutional letterhead and logos
    o office space and other facilities
    o office supplies
    o photocopiers
    o telephones or facsimile machines
    o electronic resources including email, websites, on-line discussion
    boards, cell phones, or other similar resources.
    As a private citizen, you are free to engage in political activities
    on your own time and with your own resources.

    3. As a university employee, may I run for state office?
    Yes, but this may affect your employment. Wisconsin law provides that
    no elective state official may hold any position or be retained in any
    capacity with any other state agency when the official is paid for his
    or her service with that agency. Wis. Stat. § 16.417(2)(b). A state
    university is a "state agency," and therefore an individual elected to
    state office may not hold a paid position in the University of
    Wisconsin System.
    While the law does not preclude university employees from running for
    office, if elected, you may not hold a paid position at the university
    while serving in an elective state office.
    Regent Policy Document 20-6 provides that, if you wish to be a
    candidate in a primary election, you must first consult with the
    appropriate department chair, as well as the dean or director, to
    determine whether your campaign activity will impair performance of
    your university duties. If it is determined that the activity will
    produce some adverse effect, then a reduced-time appointment or a
    leave of absence would be appropriate for the duration of the
    campaign.
    If you are a candidate in a general election, upon consultation with
    the appropriate department chair and dean or director, a reduced-time
    appointment or leave of absence should be arranged.
    You may also run for local office. However, your university
    appointment may be subject to change, depending on the particular
    office you are seeking.
    Service as an elected official on off-hour demand activities (e.g.,
    school boards, city councils, county boards, or local, state or
    national commissions) would not normally require a reduced appointment
    or leave of absence but may require the use of vacation/personal
    holiday time to cover any activities during the workday.
    If you separate from the classified service to fill an elective
    position, state law requires your employer to retain your right of
    reinstatement for 5 years following termination from classified
    service, or one year after termination from the elective position,
    whichever is longer.
    For more specific advice relating to classified employees, see
    OSER-0053-MRS State Employee Political Activity (Classified Civil
    Service) and Wis. Stat. § 230.40.

    4. As a university employee, may I host a political fundraiser
    off-campus (at my home, for example)?
    Yes. This is permissible if you do so on your own time and do not use
    state resources in connection with this event. In addition, you may
    not promote the fundraiser or engage in fundraising activities on
    state time, or in state office buildings. (See, Wis. Stat. § 11.36.)

    5. As a university employee, may I use a university conference
    facility or meeting room for political campaign activities?
    No. You may not use your university position to secure an on-campus
    conference or meeting room for the purpose of political campaign
    activities. However, an organization you are affiliated with may rent
    campus facilities consistent with the rules that apply to facilities
    rental by any other private organization. Note that state law
    strictly prohibits the use of state facilities for political
    fundraising. (See also, Section II.1 below.)

    6. As a university employee, may I make contributions to a political
    campaign or collect signatures for a candidate?
    Yes, but only outside of work hours and university facilities. All
    UW System employees, including legislative liaisons and other
    employees who attempt to influence legislation, may contribute to and
    participate in political campaigns at any time during the election
    cycle. Pursuant to state campaign finance laws, however, campaign
    contributions and services for a political purpose (such as collecting
    signatures for nomination papers) cannot be solicited or collected on
    state time or in state office buildings. (See, Wis. Stat. § 11.36.)
    On a related topic, you may in some cases be required to identify
    yourself and your employer when you make campaign contributions, which
    then becomes a matter of public record. (See section 11.06(1)(a, b),
    Wis. Stats. and ElBd 1.46(1,2) Wis. Adm. Code)

    7. May I permit an organization to list my name and employment title
    as a supporter in its political campaign literature—for example, in a
    letter to a newspaper, a brochure or a fundraiser invitation?
    Yes. Care should be taken, however, about using your official title to
    promote one candidate over another. Whenever possible, you should seek
    to clarify that the use of your name indicates neither support nor
    endorsement by the university of a particular candidate, and that you
    are acting solely in your role as a private citizen.
    On a related topic, you may in some cases be required to identify
    yourself and your employer when you make campaign contributions, which
    then becomes a matter of public record. (See, Wis. Stat. §
    11.06(1)(a,b) and EIBd 1.46(1,2), Wis. Admin. Code.)
    8
    . May I support a candidate by wearing political identification or
    buttons on campus? May I demonstrate my support for a candidate in my
    office or classroom by displaying stickers, slogans or signs in those
    places?
    It is a violation of state law for university employees to engage in
    political campaign activities while at work. Consistent with this
    principle, the State Office of Employment Relations advises that state
    employees are prohibited from "the wearing of a political
    identification while on duty where it could impair the effectiveness
    of the state agencies' operation." (See OSER-0053-MRS State Employee
    Political Activity (Classified Civil Service)) Accordingly,
    university employees should carefully consider the impact of wearing
    such political identifications while on duty.
    Similar concerns are implicated in the workplace display of partisan
    political signs. Further, Wis. Admin. Code § UWS 18.06(17), provides
    that no person may erect, post or attach any signs, posters, pictures
    or any similar item in or on a university building, except as
    authorized under institutional policies. (See, Section II.5 below for
    guidance on the posting of political signs in residence hall rooms.)
    The display of bumper stickers on privately-owned vehicles parked in
    university parking facilities, however, does not raise concerns about
    improper or illegal political campaign activities.

    II. Guidance for UW Students and Recognized Student Groups

    1. As a university student or university-recognized student group, may
    I organize a political event to be hosted on my campus?
    Yes. Political events may be sponsored by either recognized or
    independent student organizations under certain circumstances. In
    fact, institutions and student groups are particularly encouraged to
    arrange non-partisan events such as campus tours for legislators and
    candidates, as well as to sponsor forums in which political figures or
    candidates may debate one another.
    Student groups wishing to organize such events should contact the
    appropriate facilities administrator to ensure compliance with UW
    System policies on use of university facilities (Wis. Admin. Code §
    UWS 21.03) and applicable institutional policies.
    Please note, however, that state law strictly prohibits the use of
    state-owned buildings for political fundraising. In addition, student
    organizations that have federal tax-exempt status may be subject to
    additional restrictions on political activity.
    2. Can student groups utilize segregated fees or university resources
    to contribute to a political campaign?
    No. In accordance with UW System Financial and Administrative Policies
    (F50) and consistent with campaign finance law, student groups may not
    use segregated fees to make direct gifts, contributions, or donations
    to political campaigns or candidates.
    3. May segregated fees be used to fund the printing of posters,
    political advertisements, or t-shirts indicating our group's support
    of a candidate or political party?
    As discussed above, student organizations may not use segregated fees
    in a manner which would constitute making a direct gift, contribution,
    or donation to a particular candidate or political party. Accordingly,
    if the funding of these materials constitutes a gift, contribution or
    donation to a candidate or party, it would not be permitted. Student
    organizations may, however, use segregated fees to support their own
    expressive activities and views on public policy issues and other
    interests.
    Questions about appropriate uses of segregated fees should be referred
    to campus student affairs officers and/or legal counsel.
    4. Can student organizations urge students to vote? What about voting
    for a particular party, or for a particular candidate?
    Yes. Student organizations are encouraged to help educate and inform
    students about upcoming elections, including urging students to
    exercise their right to vote. Student organizations are also free to
    express their views about the parties and candidates, and to urge
    voting for particular parties or candidates, and--as noted above--to
    sponsor events for candidates so long as they comply with rules
    governing the use of university facilities.
    5. As a university student, may I display a partisan political sign in
    my residence hall room?
    Yes. So long as you comply with university and residence hall policies
    governing the posting of signs in dormitory rooms, and any other
    applicable time, place, and manner restrictions, such activity would
    be permissible. (See, Wis. Admin. Code § 18.06(17).)
    III. Political Activity on Campus

    1. What types of educational events may the campus engage in to
    encourage voter education and participation?
    The campus may host non-partisan events to encourage voter education
    and participation, such as candidate forums and voter registration
    efforts. These activities must be non-partisan for the sole purpose of
    voter education. If candidates are invited on campus, all legally
    qualified candidates must be invited and given an equal opportunity to
    speak and participate. Permissible activities include speeches,
    question and answer sessions, debates, or similar activities. A
    statement should be given that the university does not endorse nor
    oppose any of the candidates. The UW System policy on the use of
    university facilities (Wis. Admin. Code § UWS 21) and relevant
    institutional policies apply. Please note that state law strictly
    prohibits the use of state-owned buildings for political fundraising.
    Electronic resources may also be used for non-partisan voter education
    purposes. For example, a university web page with current election
    information may include a link to candidates' web sites if the web
    page includes all legally qualified candidates and excludes any
    commentary in support or against a candidate, express or implied.
    Again, a statement should be given that the university does not
    endorse nor oppose any of the candidates. If discussion space is
    provided, the university should include a disclaimer that the opinions
    expressed on the discussion board do not represent those of the
    university. Websites used for voter education purposes should be
    regularly monitored to ensure that they are not modified for the
    purposes of advocating for a particular candidate or political party.
    2. Is it important that institutions sponsor political events that
    offer opportunities to all candidates seeking election to the same
    political office?
    Yes. A balanced approach is expected. For example, all campaigns of
    candidates seeking election to the same political office should be
    offered the same or a similar opportunity to participate in a
    university-sponsored event. However, if, when offered the opportunity,
    one or more candidates decline, it is still appropriate to host the
    event for those who have accepted the invitation.
    It should be noted, however, that the same principle does not
    necessarily apply to candidates who speak to a class at the invitation
    of an instructor. For example, a professor who invites a Republican
    legislator to speak to a class on the history of the Republican Party
    is not obligated to invite the legislator's Democratic opponent. The
    invitation, however, should relate to the course material and should
    not be for the purpose of advancing one political candidate over
    another.
    3. May individuals or candidates distribute campaign literature on campus?
    Yes. Campaigning is permitted in public areas at UW institutions,
    subject to institutional policies concerning the time, place and
    manner for conducting such activities. Similarly, distribution of
    political literature and campaigning may be conducted in residence
    halls, subject to institutional policies governing the time, place and
    manner for engaging in such activities.
    4. Do candidates and political organizations have access to mailing
    lists of faculty, students and staff?
    Yes, to the extent that this information is available to the public.
    Some campuses provide this information in their staff and student
    directories that are available for purchase to the public. Other
    campuses may supply employee and student mailing lists upon request,
    with a fee charged at the time of request in order to cover the costs
    of generating the lists.
    University employees and students who choose not to have this
    information disclosed are annually offered the opportunity to have
    their names and home addresses withheld from these mailing lists.
    5. Are institutions required to charge candidates who attend campus
    receptions? What about legislators who are currently in office?
    The general rule for those currently holding office states that
    university-sponsored functions are a benefit to the UW System, and not
    to a particular legislator or party. In these cases, there should be
    no charge to state legislators or officials. However, care should be
    taken to comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements (see
    generally, Wis. Stats. §§19.45(3m) and 19.56), including restrictions
    on the use of federal funds for lobbying purposes and limits on the
    circumstances in which legislators and state officials may receive
    hospitality such as food or athletic tickets in connection with events
    or parties hosted by a campus.

  • bumper stickers
  • Posted by John Farley , Professor at UNLV on September 24, 2008 at 10:40am EDT
  • One of my students has a McCain bumper sticker on his computer, which other students can see during the lecture. His right to express himself are in danger! Fortunately I teach in Nevada, not Illinois.

    First they came after the professors, then the students....

  • Posted by Ryan on September 24, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • Just how is the an academic freedom issue? I agree, this is an absolutely appalling violation of free speech, but academic freedom, that's quite a stretch. I think some of you out there just use academic freedom as an excuse when something offends you.

  • Posted by Felix Krull on September 24, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • Interesting, indeed. No longer are colleges and universities reflective of our society, but now must comport to what Big Daddy dictates. Mendacity, I say...

    Colleagues, we had better graft a spine soon. State universities allow prayer on campus, but not political expression?

  • Not Academic Freedom, but Freedom, period
  • Posted by Mountaineer on September 24, 2008 at 10:51am EDT
  • This rule is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. A state university cannot legally prohibit any speech that is permitted in the town square, and bumper stickers and buttons are surely protected speech. And for Robert, George, rightwingprofessor, etc. who worry about the poor students being subjected to campaign button on a professor, you’re joking right? I teach chemistry, and I grade my students on how they perform in chemistry. Whether their political opinions agree with mine is irrelevant, and they aren’t going to give a damn what button I might wear, or what cartoons I’ve got posted on my office door. It’s not an issue of “academic freedom”, it’s an issue of my freedom as an American, period.

  • Posted by Melchior at Open discourse off-campus only (?) on September 24, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • "Open discourse in the face of disagreement is how our political system works, when it works, and certainly must be protected..."

    Agreed. It's also how our academic system generally works ('critical thinking', anyone?) and needs as much protection these days.

    For Anthony: As for what's a samoyed, try a google search (or just see this one):

    http://cherishpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/samoyed.jpg

  • Button Police and Common Sense
  • Posted by Cheap Seats on September 24, 2008 at 11:15am EDT
  • I can't resist the opportunity to point out the obvious. Perhaps the last organization to be trusted to apply common sense (which is, I recognize, a tricky and not always reliable category) would be the University of Illinois, which came up with the rule banning buttons and bumper stickers.
    I mean, really, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on September 24, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • Okay I can understand the buttons and campaigning. But bumper stickers? Unless they are parking inside the classrooms, that's more than just a bit much! Call the censorship police!

  • Furthermore....
  • Posted by kgotthardt on September 24, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • ...if the college is that concerned about rallies and who attends them, well then duh....don't hold them on campus.

    Better yet, hold a debate between the candidates. More educational and balanced that way.

  • Posted by Benjamin on September 24, 2008 at 11:37am EDT
  • To echo others in this thread, I think this is clearly an opportune moment for solidarity between faculty and staff. The rules infringe upon a reasonable mode of expression that every CITIZEN ought to feel free to avail themselves of--indeed, a mode of expression that would seem to be of some importance to the survival of one of our national ideals: a functional public sphere founded on civil discourse and rational debate. I don't expect agreement on this point from those who think the corporate space is exempt from the claims of the public sphere. But those who would profess otherwise--i.e., many professors--really ought to step up to the plate. Taking refuge in the purlieu of "academic freedom" basically ties the enjoyment of such a fundamental liberty to one's functional performance: as in the argument that professors may need to attend political rallies in order to do their jobs (teaching and research). The idea that needs defending, however, is that there exist certain liberties we have as citizens--and certain responsibilities--that TRANSCEND what we do "on the job," and with regard to which our employers ought not to be allowed to get in the way. And in principle, the university exists to foster such liberties and responsibilities. "Academic freedom," properly considered, is but the distillate of those things--not a separate category. In other words, if they continue to allow the university to become a corporate space in every other respect, how long can professors expect to enjoy a privileged enclave of free thought and motives nobler than the bottom line?

  • Posted by joe , you are idiots on September 24, 2008 at 12:30pm EDT
  • This is not a restriction on free speach. They are employees and as such the school can tell them what they are allowed to say. Most jobs will restrict what you can say if you don't like it quit.

    Why would a student assume that having a different political view would not bias the teacher against them?

  • and to think, this is a blue state...
  • Posted by DS on September 24, 2008 at 12:30pm EDT
  • This edict shows the University caving in to the angry white men of the Republican party, who assume that a) all college professors are radical left-wing 60's leftovers from the SDS, and b) students lack the conviction of their own beliefs and that their minds are putty in these professors' hands.

    But it also applies to staff? It's hard for me to believe that any partisan on either side buys the logic implied that students will be unduly influenced by the bumper sticker of a clerk in Accounts Payable.

    Guess with my "Sarah Palin IS the Bridge to Nowhere" bumper sticker, I'm glad I don't work at Illinois.

  • stupid is as stupid does
  • Posted by bradley bleck , instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 24, 2008 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I agree with those who think is is, at best, ill conceived. I also agree that this has next to nothing to do with academic freedom. Since I teach composition and literature, my discipline doesn't really expect that I campaign for one candidate or the other, though, as Stanley Fish would point out, we can have a go at what candidates and parties are saying and how they are saying it and how they are using rhetoric to advance their agenda. That's within the purview of what I do. I try not to advocate for one candidate or another, but sometimes I do.

    Anyway, I can buttons as something one would be better off not wearing to class. While it could both stifle and encourage conversation on a topic, it wouldn't be a topic I generally teach. No problems there. While our office doors are pretty much whatever we want to make of them with cartoons, posters, comments or whatever, because we are a state institution, we cannot have campaign materials posted. For me, that's no big deal. I don't need to show my allegiance among my colleagues to candidate X or Y. If they know me, they can pretty much figure out how I'm going to vote. If they visit my house, they can see my campaign signs there.

    But a bumper sticker ban is all but asinine, or as I heard recently stated by David Brooks (not about this, but about some of the campaign ads being shown), "stupid on stilts." My car has but one bumper sticker, and it's not about a candidate, but about my feelings regarding the war. Do we ban all the "support our troops" bumper stickers along with the "when Clinton lied nobody died" bumper stickers? I have specialized plates, one car advocating share the road with bicyclists and the other car with spay and neuter your pets type of message. Can we advocate with our license plates but not our bumpers? Or must we all have value neutral licenses on our cars as well? Seems the silly season has spread beyond the confines of the fall campaigns.

  • bumper sticker
  • Posted by chicagoteacher on September 24, 2008 at 12:55pm EDT
  • I have an Obama bumper sticker and:
    1) I passed the IL ethics test (but I had to redo it because I passed it too quickly) and there was nothing about bumper stickers
    2) I have to pay $120 to park on campus each year. I think that buys me the right to have a bumper sticker.
    3) Some of us, e.g., social workers, educators, are required by our professions to teach our students to advocate for their future clients and students. That means we make judgments about candidates based on their voting records vis a vis education and social programs. Teaching is never neutral.

  • Freedom and Professionalism
  • Posted by cts on September 24, 2008 at 12:55pm EDT
  • My two cents:
    I concur with those who point out that this has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with reasonable employer constraints on free political expression. I don't think we professors should be wearing campaign buttons around campus - certainly not in our classrooms - and I think cartoons, banners, etc. are best kept inside one's office.
    I don't know if students are paranoid or not; I just think it's a matter of professionalism and courtesy to others.

    The Illinois 'ethics' regulations are, however, utterly absurd. As many have pointed out, the ban on bumper stickers is beyond comprehension - and probably could get them sued. That faculty and staff cannot attend political events held on campus is insane, especially when we remind ourselves that faculty and staff probably organize these events for the community's benefit!

    As a real ethicist, I'm deeply embarassed. I don't know who these clowns are, but they know nothing of ethics [or law].

  • campaign buttons on professors
  • Posted by puzzled patriot on September 24, 2008 at 1:10pm EDT
  • It is wrong for professors to endorse political candidates in the classroom, and it is wrong for them to use state resources in activities in support of a candidate. But I fail to understand the argument that wearing a campaign button on campus, including in one's own office, should be banned because it might offend a student who supports a different candidate. Our students are adult voters, not elementary school children. They are certainly free to wear political buttons of their own choosing. Demonstrating one's personal political engagement via the time-honored traditions of campaign buttons and bumper stickers celebrates our shared commitment to democracy, free speech, and the peaceful and civil exchange of ideas. It is a form of patriotism to participate in these activities. Why ever would I want to "protect" a student from them?

  • Some silly, some not
  • Posted by Paul Diehl , Professor at University of Illinois on September 24, 2008 at 1:10pm EDT
  • There are clearly some silly (bumper stickers, pins, unenforceable, and illegal elements of this directive, but largely missing from the story is that the prohibited activites involve the use of university property,time, and
    resources - not general prohibitions. Attending a campaign rally on campus is inappropriate if you are on company time, unless there are pedagogical purpose involving classes.

    I have a number of objections to the execution of the policy, but before anyone gets carried away with outrage, let's consider the bigger abuses this is designed to prevent, especially in light of the ones I see on ocassion on this campus (use of email to solicit candidate support, distribution of campaign materials in the classroom).

  • Absurd, but probably enforceable
  • Posted by Laurie on September 24, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • At another state institution where I worked both as a faculty member and administrator, it was drilled into our heads that a) state employees were prohibited from espousing opinions on state and federal policy; and b) that faculty members were state employees(it's true!). So, it may be necessary for Illinois to have some sort of statement on this...but an ethics policy???

    {Why are we so upset that this ridiculous policy applies to faculty members and not upset that it applies to any employee? (OK, I'll get off that soapbox for now...) }

    This issue seems to be in the realm of distinguishing between personal views expressed for personal reasons and a person's views expressed on behalf of an institution. That's a hard line to draw: is it OK if I park my car with its "Wag more, Bark Less Obama '08" bumper sticker across the street from campus but not on university property (as I could do easily where I work)? Illinois might have to draw the line, but let's hope that reasonable minds prevail and use occasions where policy bumps up against personal freedom to talk about the issue publicly and not as an opportunity to punish. It would be a shame to waste such a wonderful teaching moment.

  • Posted by Kate Clancy , Asst. Prof. of Anthropology at University of Illinois on September 24, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • While I'm not sure that this is *currently* a violation of academic freedom, this demand from the president of the U of I runs the risk of becoming one. Besides, it is already a violation of freedom of expression, which is worse.

    I have been involved in politics and been an academic at the same time for a while now. I am perfectly capable, as a functioning adult, of separating out my scholarship and my political views. That is, I never have and never will penalize a student or colleague because their views are different from mine. I have found it useful to express political views in the presence of students or colleagues because of the interactions and conversations that ensue. A button is a conversation-starter, in my experience, not a conversation-stifler.

    It is for this reason that I am especially confused to find that the administration on my campus, rather than trusting my mind and the minds of my students and colleagues, would like to force me to stop expressing my views in the form of buttons and bumper stickers. And, what could possibly be the rationale for holding a political rally on campus but prohibiting faculty (or any staff) from attending? How does this safeguard the U of I image or protect it from liability if the rally is already here? And finally, why does my presence at a rally mean that I endorse that candidate or speaker?

    I am also unclear what constitutes a political bumper sticker: I have a "Darwin Loves You" sticker and an "Organize!" sticker in my office, and my daughter's baby carrier has an Obama button (and sometimes she appears on campus, in the carrier with the button!). I have a bulletin board in my office full of buttons from my time as a grad union organizer.

    I also have several feminist pins and LGBT-friendly pins in my office with the intention of creating a safe atmosphere for my students. Given different parties' stances and records on women's rights and LGBT rights perhaps these are political buttons endorsing a party? President White, if you'd like to come on down and take a look, I'll let you try to decide which buttons are appropriate and which are not, though I make no promises to remove any.

  • Posted by Ray Kimball on September 24, 2008 at 2:20pm EDT
  • Truly bizarre. This means that members of the active duty military have more ability to participate in partisan activities than the faculty at this university. (Check this link if you don't believe me: http://fvap.gov/resources/media/doddirective134410.pdf. Bumper stickers are specifically listed as OK.)

  • Illegal activity
  • Posted by dundermifflin on September 24, 2008 at 2:55pm EDT
  • I can see it now....button parties in the basements of professors homes...bumper stickers pasted to the inside of the car doors...students informing on professors for wearing elephant (or donkey) neckties in class...ethics committee members searching professors outside their offices for contraband voting cards.

    What absolute absurd crap. Perhaps the ethics committee needs to be monitered by the 'maintaining perspective committee" or the "get a life" committee.

    In the interest of equal time I think each class should have a basket filled with Obama and McCain pins so that students may each grab one on the way in to the classroom.

    Question: if a professor chose to wear both an Obama and a McCain pin...would that be beyond the pale? Are Nader pins unethical...or just offensive?

  • Freedom of Speech? Really?
  • Posted by Joseph Bourke , Government Employee on September 24, 2008 at 2:55pm EDT
  • Question: Are UI professors considered government employees? If so, are other government employees in the state of Illinois subject to the same restrictions?

    Douard, I think your last sentence is very interesting: "I think this is an example of an attitude that feeds the belief by those who work for a living that academics are oblivious to the way the rest of the world lives."

    I was hoping to see a few direct comments to the questions you posed, but I failed to see any (sorry if I missed them).

    But to take your question a step further...just what is the opinion of the commentors here to the same restrictions for government employees? In my state, we have these restrictions, and MANY more, for ALL government employees. It is state law, and it is strictly enforced. That includes placing a campaign sign in your front yard or ANY public form of support for/against a candidate. Any offense can be cause for dismissal.

    I would be interested to see if the commentors here find our state law as offensive as the UI ethics ruling. Or it somehow 'different' because universities are different.

  • Redundancy of Law and Principle
  • Posted by Wossamotta U. on September 24, 2008 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Academic freedom does cover the rights of faculty to speech as private citizens. This is an issue of academic freedom, especially as the mean faculty work hours per week approaches 60. If you ask people to spend that much time on work, you've got to be flexible about where and when they fit in their private activities. My advice to the Illinois faculty--go to the rallies and be super loud. When confronted, calmly explain that you have attended as a private citizen.

    Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is most certainly, primarily, a constitutional issue. The law covers staff as well as faculty, and it's a heck of a lot more binding than the Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Let the AAUP, faculty groups, etc. do their best to handle things locally. Keep that lawyer handy, though. As TR said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

  • My Alma Mater?
  • Posted by Thomas Lawrence Long , Associate Professor at University of Connecticut on September 24, 2008 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Sad to see my alma mater having come to this latest addition to the "silly season" of American politics. A couple of observations:

    1) It's not an academic freedom issue since it does not prevent scholars from researching political topics or from discussing topics germane to their disciplines.

    2) State employees (U of Illinois faculty) typically do have some constraints on their workplace expression.

    3) Although I'm willing to discuss my political views with students, I avoid doing so unless germane to the topic of the course.

    4) Can't have bumper stickers?!? What idiot administrator thought that one up? Smells like a Prime Directive from the board of trustees or from Springfield.

    5) A frank discussion between administrators and the UI Faculty Senate in order to develop some consensus on this issue might have been far more productive. But that would have required taking the trouble to take shared governance seriously.

    O tempora, o mores!

  • Button Police Conundrum
  • Posted by Gail Beterbide , Humorist at CSU Chico on September 24, 2008 at 4:30pm EDT
  • So, if I were U of I faculty, I would don a Goldwater pin, put a McGovern bumper sticker on my car, have a Perot placard in my office, display a Dewey slogan on my office door and spearhead rallies for Pat Paulsen.

  • Power
  • Posted by Tim Lacy on September 24, 2008 at 5:25pm EDT
  • Considering how states are less and less inclined to actually provide significant funding to their flagship institutions, perhaps the real question here is this: Just how much a "state employee" is a U of I faculty or staff member?

    Of course this question doesn't address the prudential issues (i.e. morale) behind whether to allow or not allow blatant displays for political allegiances. - TL

  • this is crap
  • Posted by web2008 , not faculty at UIUC on September 24, 2008 at 5:25pm EDT
  • I am not a professor and I don't agree with this obvious attempt by our governor and his minions to shut up free speech. What has Obama done to tick of Blago? lol

    Seriously. Bumper stickers? Please. We have bumper stickers for everything under the sun from our kids schools (Centennial, Central and Urbana) who all play each other during football, basketball, baseball and softball seasons. So now should we not have our kid's stickers and license plates covers on our cars because it's not neutral?

    As a person who does have a sticker on my vehicle, I'm not going to pull that off everyday I may drive into campus. If the students don't have to take it off I shouldn't either.

    As for the buttons, I do agree. If you are standing behind a podium and teaching or behind a desk working, you shouldn't have a political button or even a button supporting your favorite team because there will always be someone who's not supporting that person or team.

    Not being able to attend an educational forum of ideas on the opinions of the different candidates on MY OWN TIME is ridiculous! It's my time and because I work here, I am NOT here 24/7. This will be the only place they will come and speak anyway. I can't see them going to the local Civic Center or Country Club to speak. They will come where more people are bound to gather and that will be campus. If it's MY OWN TIME, I should be allowed to attend no matter what the subject matter (political or otherwise). As long as it's not on UNIVERSITY TIME then it shouldn't be a problem.

    What's next. I can't attend the church I attend because it will offend someone here at the U of I. PLLLEEEAASSEEE.

    The government giveth and the government taketh away.

  • Posted by K.T. on September 24, 2008 at 5:25pm EDT
  • I give it a week before there is some serious backtracking by the administration.

  • Posted by We all answer to someone. on September 24, 2008 at 5:25pm EDT
  • Sounds like UI is complying with a state directive with the expectation of litigation to clarify the special status of higher education.

  • University of Illinois ban on political speech by professors
  • Posted by Charles Jones , Professor, Emeritus on September 24, 2008 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Upon reading this story, my reaction is ashame for being a graduate of a university that would seek to limit political speech by professors or anyone else. 'Inside Higher Ed' did not explain what complaints, if any, that compelled the ethics office to act. I cannot imagine the nature of a complaint that would justify acting in such an anti-democratic way by abridging a fundamental right of academic freedom. In the absence of a rationale for this action, the university appears to have been captured by ignoramuses. The ethics office action is consistent with that of lawyers and managers who are ignorant of, or simply disdain, academia's core values.

  • Respectfully disagree
  • Posted by Megan , Librarian on September 24, 2008 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I have read a lot of the comments on here, and I have to say I respectfully disagree. I worked as a public librarian, and my husband works as an academic librarian. We are both being paid with tax dollars. If you want to be real technical about it, our real bosses are the citizens of the city/state. I was not only a reference librarian, but a teen librarian as well. I was always careful to keep my political views out of the room. The teens respected me and would read books I told them about, watch shows I mentioned and even come to speakers I thought would be good, all on their free time. People who asked me questions thought I was more knowledgeable on certain topics than they were. I cannot tell you how many times I had to carefully explain to someone why I could not give them medical or legal advice.

    If I wore a political button on my shirt (which was not allowed, and I think shouldn't be) there are two problems.
    1. Whether or not I believe I am thinking individual who cannot be swayed by such things, obviously there are people who are. Why else create lawn signs and buttons and bumper stickers then to woo the people who want to be a part of the winning side. It's a psychological thing and I am well aware of that as a college educated person who was a political science major. Once I put on a political button, I am part of a political ad. “Look at me, you trust me with the secrets of your current medical situation and your marital troubles. I'm smart and I'd vote for Obama!” Although wearing a button is my right as a private citizen, and I would never suggest otherwise, wearing one when I am a public servant causes the second problem
    2. I am being paid with tax dollars while I am at work. If I don a political button, I am a walking advertisement for a political party/candidate. And now this walking advertisement is being paid to be in a public place with tax dollars, likely against the wishes of the tax payers. (When I worked at a public library, it was in a very wealthy very conservative area. They would not have appreciated paying for an Obama ad at their library.)

    Our library even refused to put up yellow ribbons to support the troops when asked, a decision which earned us much ire in the eyes of the community. We cannot take a political stance because we are supposed to be nonpolitical.

    As to the bumper sticker thing, well banning bumper stickers is ridiculous. At most institutions the parking is public, anyone could park there. There is no way of associating someone's car with the institution unless you stalked it to find out who drove it. And most people would not go that far to make a case. You might as well say people couldn't buy foreign cars, because that would indicate you don't support the U.S.

    And finally, to the professor who believes their students are intelligent enough not to be swayed by their open political beliefs and they don't think it does any harm, I have this to say:
    I remember strongly several students who decided that God no longer exists merely because of a class a professor taught in college. Religion is much more ingrained than a political bent. I believe most professors know just how much influence they have over the young minds of college students. Almost no one can truly discuss politics without interjecting their own beliefs. Professors are savvy, intelligent speakers who have for the most part a captive audience. I believe it is a responsible professor who does not disclose their political beliefs to their impressionable students. This is likely why there was a contest going around in my major while I was attending college. We all were trying to figure out what political bent our Political Science professors were. They happened to be the hardest to read.

  • button, button who's got the button
  • Posted by Steve Finner , Senior Consultant at United Professions AFT Vermont on September 24, 2008 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Sometimes checking with a knowledgeable attorney in advance could be helpful. Public employees, which Univ of Illinois faculty are, enjoy pretty wide ranging first amendment rights (much more so than private sector employees), as mot law school professors would attest. This regulation is "DOA" and would not receive support from a traffic court magistrate.

  • Button Police
  • Posted by Nancy Gardner , Lecturer at CSULB on September 24, 2008 at 6:00pm EDT
  • While the intention may be admirable, political issues are very much a part of our teaching and world. Students should be taught to participate and learn to question. We can only do this effectively as faculty if we set an example. Not allowing faculty to attend political rally's on campus is not just an infringement on our individual rights, but sets a poor example for our students.

  • Selective censorship?
  • Posted by Steve Forleo on September 24, 2008 at 8:20pm EDT
  • I agree this issue is much ado...but the chilling effect is why the edict was even considered. I know plenty of colleagues who wear the Roman cross, not to mention having the magnetic fish adorning their trunk,
    so can we really limit political expression, while allowing overt religious statements?

  • my point of view
  • Posted by malclave , Nobody Special on September 24, 2008 at 8:20pm EDT
  • I haven't been involved in higher education since I left college over twenty years ago.

    As a disclaimer, I am a registered Republican, and (based on reading various blogs and talking with people in college) I do believe that there is a moderate-to-heavy bias towards the Democratic party on campuses today.

    My take on this... professors should NOT be allowed to promote their own political beliefs to students while lecturing, during office hours, or at other times while officially engaged in the student-teacher role. Discussion of political issues in general, of course, is fine, depending on the course. I never really did care what my Physics professor thought about the roles of the political parties in influencing economic policy.

    So, take that button off when you're teaching. If your laptop has a political bumper sticker on it, either cover it up when you're on university time, or leave it locked in your office desk. Especially if it's a public university.

    Other than that, you have the same rights to political speech as anyone else.

  • Button Police
  • Posted by Bill Strutz , Retired staff at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on September 24, 2008 at 8:20pm EDT
  • People are always reluctant to show their politics at work, because even if it is "legal", one has to worry about whether one's supervisor or department head, or someone at the next higher level, will disapprove. Wearing a political button is always an act of courage -- more courage than most people have.

    As a retiree at UIUC, I am not subject to the new policy. I put on a bright red shirt that says "IMPEACH" and an Obama/Biden button, and stood in front of the building that houses the Chancellor's offices, from 4:35 until 5:10.

    Meanwhile my car "covered" the back door, parked in a University space and armed with its bumper stickers. No one got out of that building without seeing a button or bumper sticker.

    Ironically, the IMPEACH shirt is okay under guidelines, as would be a large number of other potentially-obnoxious shirts. But a button for a mainstream political candidate is verboten.

    If you tell some people that they mustn't express themselves, they will reply: "YES I CAN"

  • banned bumper stickers
  • Posted by chiefan on September 25, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • First of all, I don't understand the few posters who have blamed this on a right-wing conspiracy. The ban pertains to all politics and all political parties. That said, this affects staff too of which I am one. AS someone noted, this is the same university that employs William Ayers (in Chicago) and banned Chief Illiniwek. Since I have both a McCain/Palin bumper sticker and Chief Illinwek sticker in my back window, in the liberal atmosphere of a college campus, I may be in real trouble. However, they're both staying right where they are.

  • Favoitism
  • Posted by a patriot , Associate professor on September 25, 2008 at 9:51am EDT
  • Ok I agree with the need for freedom of speech and the first amendment. Just a question for Higher Ed - why is McCain's picutre of his button smaller than Obama's? That can imply to many that you are partisan?
    Featuring & size of the displays are important.

  • Speech is all we have left
  • Posted by jeff on September 25, 2008 at 11:26am EDT
  • When you lose your freedom to speak and express yourself, you lose the ability to communicate. Do not let anyone take that away from you. Unless you are breaking the law, wearing a t-shirt, sporting a decal on your car or talking to folks on the sreet, freedom of speech must be upheld - and to hear that a university is trying to stifle free speech is disturbing.

  • AAUP statement not strong enough
  • Posted by QuakerProf on September 25, 2008 at 3:20pm EDT
  • The AAUP's statement on this matter (on their web site) is not strong enough, and it yields the premise that state employees are somehow different from other free citizens. These rules infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, basic Constitutional rights that are granted to all citizens, period.

    It is irrelevant that U. of Illinois faculty are paid by tax dollars, etc. Citizens have basic rights, regardless of employer. If you disagree with this principle, you don't disagree with the faculty in question- you disagree with the Constitution.

    The AAUP statement further muddles the issue by arguing that faculty should have these rights because students do, or because they are needed in order to be effective in the classroom. These points are irrelevant to the core issue at hand.

    This situation reminds me very much of the several incidents of Quaker professors being fired in California for refusing to sign loyalty oaths that require willingness to bear arms. Freedom of religion and the no religious test clause (both Constitutional) both make this a clear infringement of basic American rights, and yet there were university officials and the usual crowd on this web site supporting the action.

    It amazes me that some Americans are so ready to dismiss fundamental freedoms granted by the Constitution simply because they don't like the results in a specific case. Shame on them.

  • But That Was Yesteryear
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on September 26, 2008 at 10:20am EDT
  • This article reports a higher education decision/action that is sooo bizarre I felt compelled to share it with a couple of my ancient mathematician friends. The first replied ...

    “My first teaching job was in the Madison County Public High School (scene of ‘The Bridges of Madison County’). Soon into the school year our faculty was informed that we were required to sign a loyalty oath -- loyalty to the United States. As I recall, every male teacher was a World War II veteran. There was a lot of grumbling and grouching. As a timid newcomer, I simply followed the lead of the other teachers and signed the oath.

    Joe McCarthy was very happy.

    Jack”

    My other friend responded ...

    “What idiot ever imagined that higher education is in any way related to the interaction of real people with each other. Next semester my teaching attire will be medical scrubs, and I will deliver all of my lectures on line using YouTube. My office is already being remodeled in the style of a confessional so I can interact with students and answer questions in a completely impersonal and strictly neutral manner.

    By the way, I think we should still be required to sign a loyalty oath. And those faculty who refuse should be shipped off to Gitmo ... immediately!

    America, love it or leave it!

    John”

  • Posted by Anthony Dadd , Academic Staff at University of Illinois on September 26, 2008 at 10:50am EDT
  • Readers and responders should realize this isn't just about professors in classrooms, it impacts every single employee of the university, from hourly students to the thousands of classified staff and academic professionals that work at our state universities. It's a severe and chilling assault on our constitutional freedoms, and demands immediate action. Though I don't generally advertise my political opinions anywhere, least of all at work, I for one will be wearing any button I can get my hands on until the laughable (and corrupt) state "ethics" people retract this ridiculous policy.

  • Politics
  • Posted by Jerry on September 26, 2008 at 2:20pm EDT
  • I still wish someone on here would answer the simple question: 'Are these rules wrong because it is being applied in a academic setting? Or, would this be wrong in any workplace (non-academic)?

    I don't work for a university, so these political restrictions are nothing unusual. I would even say they are welcome by many. (ok, the bumper sticker thing is silly).

    I guess we just live in different worlds.

  • free speech
  • Posted by Michael Verderame , Grad Student/Instructor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on September 26, 2008 at 3:20pm EDT
  • I am one of the graduate employees silenced by this policy, and I agree with Cary Nelson's comments about this important academic freedom issue. There are a couple of additional points pertaining specifically to graduate employees (who were also issued this email) I would like to make:

    1. Some of us actually live on university property; this policy functionally bans such students from exercising rights (such as wearing a T-shirt) in their own homes.

    2. In our capacity as students, we all are assessed fees, and some graduate employees at UIUC pay tuition as well. This helps to pay for our use of university resources and the maintenance of university resources (such as the email accounts that we can't send political mail from) and property (such as the Quad on which we can't attend rallies).
    U of I administration's vague assurances of "common sense" and not policing issues like bumper stickers and T-shirts are not enough. Such vagueness leaves the door open to disparate treatment and uncertainty, and contains an implicit threat that will have a chilling effect on our speech. We deserve clear, explicit policies that respect our rights as citizens, students, and educators.

  • laughable yet sad
  • Posted by Keith , tuition paying parent at uic on September 27, 2008 at 2:40pm EDT
  • As a new freshman in the summer of '06 my oldest child and all incoming freshman at the University of Illinois @ Chicago had "required reading" of "Dreams of My Father" by B.H.O. No wonder it sold so many copies!! No conservative authors wrote anything that year I guess.

  • Posted by Ann Marie on September 28, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • Yikes.
    A "common sense" read of this policy smacks of censorship and infringement of my first amendment rights.
    Wait, am I allowed to say this?
    Should I be worried?

    Ann Marie

  • Free speech
  • Posted by Mike Ryan , Dr. on September 29, 2008 at 7:10pm EDT
  • The curtailment of free speech by an academic institution is especially reprehensible. Although it is doubtless that the university has a leg to stand on legally, academcians should not have to defend themselves from such a retro policy. Who is the president of the university that would allow such a policy?!!

  • An embarrassment
  • Posted by Robert Swieringa , Assit. Professor at GVSU; and UIUC grad on September 29, 2008 at 7:50pm EDT
  • This is stunning and deporable! As a multiple-degree graduate of UIUC, I find this a reprehensible embarrassment for all who are currently and formerly affiliated with this institution. It is incredulous that this came from the "Ethics" office, to boot. While such a policy stands, I cannot, in good conscious, recommend UIUC to my communication undergrad students for graduate work.

  • Button up the buttons, don't ban them.
  • Posted by Mary Ellen Waithe , Professor at Cleveland State University on October 1, 2008 at 2:35pm EDT
  • While it is ridiculous that universities think they have the right to ban professors from the expression of political views while on campus, it is also somewhat ridiculous for professors to take advantage of their bully pulpit and attempt to influence their students' political views.

    I teach philosophy, including ethics. I believe that my responsibility is to teach my students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. So I never wear political buttons to class, but my car, which is parked on campus, spouts support of my candidate. In a large urban campus students are unlikely ever to see me in my car and therefore to know my views. However, for years I taught bioethics courses for my university at off-campus clinics and hospitals where my students regularly parked near me. For that entire decade I refrained from having the license plates I wanted. Why? Because it was part of my job to teach my physician and nurse students how to think about topics like abortion not what to think about it. I finally have the plates I want: 4CH01CE.

    When a professor expresses a political position, it can have a chilling effect on students' perceptions of their freedom to hold conflicting views. So, button up the buttons, but don't ban them.

  • The Ethics Police
  • Posted by Irwin Gray on October 2, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Let us suppose, for a moment, that something small was happening at the university--such as a local bank holding university funds weakening itself by making fake mortgage loans, or the university involving itself in hedge or other funds that aided and abetted housing loan scandals. It is quite possible that the ethics office might have been so involved with these details, they would not have had the time to start worrying about who is wearing what button. But, thank heaven, the little concerns do not fall within the realm of ethics, so the office can turn its attention to enforcing button and bumper sticker rules. We anxiously await the arrival on campus of the button and bumper sticker police. They can even adopt the regalia and methodology of the morals police in other countries--thus saving money on the development of tactics. For on-campus actions, they can be equipped with stout rods for beating the legs of the button wearers as they strip the offending items from their clothing. We can also equip them with special scrapers and, perhaps, tough crowbars so they can not only remove the bumper stickers, but they can put several deep dents in the bumpers to prove they had been on the job. Ah, yes! Ethics police can do a lot of good in their jobs. Too bad, they define their jobs as they do.

  • Loss of civil rights
  • Posted by Bonnie Cramond , Professor on October 2, 2008 at 2:35pm EDT
  • This seems like another attack on our civil rights, the erosion of which was accelerated with the imposition of the Patriot Act. As a professor, I would never include political propaganda in my course materials or on course websites, however, I reserve the right to express myself as I wish on my car, clothing, etc. We don't give up the right to free speech when we sign on to teach. Maybe some people will be bemoaning in a few years, "When they came for the professors, I did not speak up because I was not a professor..."

  • Figures
  • Posted by Darter on October 3, 2008 at 7:25am EDT
  • Why doesn't it surprise me (or anyone, really) that the liberal IHE's across this country are all Obama supporters, and that the page here coyly has that campaign button larger than the McCain button? Faculty across this nation live in a world unto themselves and try to brainwash the studetns under cover of "investigation and analysis" which is liberal speak for "convince them that socialism and marxism are the only 'fair' ways to govern," even though every government under this radical ideology has failed to prosper. Keep faculty walled within their campuses, we don't want them freed.

  • my alma mater
  • Posted by wm schaaf , self-employed on October 6, 2008 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I graduated from UI in l968. Way too large, way too much
    the factory of HAL the computer, and Big Brother the Big
    Eye. U of I often asks me for $$ for the school, but besides
    the piece of paper, they have not done much by me.. and
    with this idiocy, they can be sure they get nothing from me.

    Big Institution.. small fearful minds.. control freaks...
    Can't control it, can't control human nature, can't control
    the universe. How ab out trying to sit quiet and con-troll
    the troll within.. try being a born again Buddhist.xb.

  • U_N_B_E_L_I_E_V_E_A_B_L_E_!
  • Posted by Jim Nawara (U of I alumnus) , Professor at Wayne State University on October 6, 2008 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Intolerant, repressive, and most importantly unconstitutional! Shame on my alma mater.

  • I've Got Something for You To Do
  • Posted by Patti at NSU of Louisiana on October 8, 2008 at 5:10pm EDT
  • You've got to be kidding me that a university feels this type of hovering will be good for the behavior they are trying to squash out! No critical thinking there at U of I- It would thoroughly irrate both students and faculty at my university if such control was being forced around about politics, especially now when this race is so hot!!! This can be a great learning experience in many ways. What fools. What state are they from?

  • U of I President White's memo
  • Posted by U of I guy on October 9, 2008 at 4:15pm EDT
  • For what it's worth -- President Joseph White's comment on the button flap...

    October 6, 2008

    To: Members of the University Community

    From: B. Joseph White

    Re: A Message Concerning University Employees and the Illinois State Ethics Act

    I write to you today with a simple message:

    We, the leadership of the University of Illinois, will preserve, protect and defend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every member of our University community, including, of course, freedom of speech and assembly. We will also preserve, protect and defend academic freedom, which is a core value of every great academic institution.

    Why am I communicating this assurance?

    Because the University Ethics Office, which reports to me, recently disseminated through its newsletter a briefing on the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act that was enacted in 2003.

    The newsletter is not a University policy statement. The purpose of the briefing was to familiarize us as state employees with the prohibited political activities section of the Ethics Act.

    Much of the briefing is simply informative about the state law. For example, it is not proper to use University resources to conduct political activity, nor is it proper to conduct certain political activities, such as soliciting contributions for a party or candidate, while on University time.

    However, some of the newsletter’s content raised concerns among members of our community. The briefing cited certain political activities as prohibited that conflict, or appear to conflict, with fundamental freedoms. One involves wearing a pin or T-shirt in support of a political party or candidate. Another involves attending a rally on University property.

    Are such practices really prohibited by the Ethics Act? To date, the courts have given little if any guidance on the proper interpretation of the Ethics Act.

    I have heard from many people about this matter. One of the most thoughtful suggested, and I agree, that University employees should be advised that they may engage in the following kinds of activities while on University property:
    • Attend partisan political rallies, provided that the employees are not on duty
    • Wear partisan political buttons, provided that employees at that time are neither on duty nor in the workplace of the University (many parts of campus are not workplaces)
    • Display partisan bumper stickers on their vehicles

    Going forward, I remain concerned about possible conflicts between the Ethics Act and interpretations of its meaning and constitutionally protected freedoms and academic freedom.

    Accordingly, the Ethics Office, other members of my staff and I will work with state officials to ensure that interpretations of the Ethics Act do not restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights of state employees and, in the case of higher education and this University, academic freedom.

  • Buttons on campus
  • Posted by Rebecca Anderson on October 11, 2008 at 5:50pm EDT
  • There is a differemce between a professor expressing and imposing their views on a subject. When a professor expresses their political views by sporting a candidates campaign button or slogan, it could cause the students to feel imposed upon to agree with the professors view instead of becoming the critical thinkers it is the professors job to make them.
    Rebecca Anderson

  • Industrial and Labor Relations
  • Posted by Martin Morand , emeritus professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania on October 14, 2008 at 11:20am EDT
  • I find it unfortunate - indeed sad -- that part of the argument against the silly rule is a claim for exemption from it for PROFESSORS. As if "the lesser breed without the law: were not entitled to the protections of the US Constitution.