Quick Takes: Probe in Miss., Safety Bill Altered, Indicted Official Had Prior Conviction, New Grades at Harvard Law, Communication Profs Condemn Illinois, Title IX Settlement, UCLA’s New Prime, From Princeton to DeVry, State College Leader Retires

Florida State’s Policy Is Not Bad

Actually, if you read that link to Florida State’s policy, it’s bad, but much better than the U of Illinois. FSU says allows political bumper stickers are allowed on private vehicles, but not university-owned ones. It says political buttons are “not advised when performing official University functions” but doesn’t prohibit them. FSU expressly allows symbolic political expression in offices (although it has a bizarre provision about “provided they do not create a hostile work environment, or otherwise impair or disrupt University operations"). It gives most students freedom, although it wrongly restricts student groups associated with academic programs. It bans political rallies on campus, which is both wrong and unconstitutional. But FSU does a far better job than the U of Illinois’ idiotic policy.

John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 8:25 am EDT on September 29, 2008

Harvard Law School Grade Policy Misguided

I’m probably the only person to react this way, but I think dropping letter grades for law students is a mistake. The notion that competitively awarded grades harm the “learning environment” strikes me as a weak attempt to justify lowering expectations for students (and thereby lowering academic standards.) Far better, in my opinion, to grade on the curve and give, eg., 15% As, 25% Bs, etc., so that students will know how they meaure up relative to other students. (Of course, if most students receive A-range grades, as seems to be the case for Harvard undergraduates, then the whole concept of grades becomes meaningless.)

Jim, at 8:55 am EDT on September 29, 2008

U of Illinois Rules May Not be Political

The bizarre rules on political activity at the University of Illinois are quite possibly a product of anti-intellectualism from the state ethics office. The same became famous last year over an ethics test required of all state employees, to be completed over an internal internet system. Employees, including adjunct faculty, were required to take up to an unstated amount of time to complete the test; otherwise they were defined by the office as cheating.

My experience with the test was illustrative of the mindless and suspicious bureaucracy involved. I was on the campus computer and found through some glitch that my completed test would not register. Concerned, I went directly to the personnel office and retook the test there, under the watchful eyes of the staff on their public computer. Naturally, I didn’t take the time to reread all of the material supposedly new to the test taker before answering the questions anew. I exited with a certificate in hand from the personnel office, guaranteeing my ethics for the following year. Weeks later I (and hundreds of others) were notified that our certificates were being revoked, and unless we reported to our local personnel office immediately, our employment would be suspended. The notification stated that because we had cheated by not spending enough time on the test, additional training in ethics would be required. Of course, the personnel people laughed at the whole thing, and I was not required to do any additional training, only to sign a paper that I understood the implications of all this (and apparently admitting my serious lack of ethics up until then). At other campuses this attitude (we employees were all unethical because we failed to respond exactly as the ethics office expected) brought about refusals to sign the paper and threats of legal action from the faculty union. It was all eventually settled without the ethics office ever admitting any shortcoming in their actions.

Last year I was asked by some students to become the faculty advisor to the Young Republicans on campus, and I agreed. However, the students found an advisor more supportive of their political values, and I never took that “political appointment.” My question would be, how can a state employee be advisor to a political group under the announced rules of the ethics office? Does that imply that the group could not engage in any political activity on campus, or the advisor would have to recluse him/herself from any actions of the group? The ramifications boggle the mind, but apparently not the minds of the state ethics officers.

After the ethics test disaster I wished for the ethics office to forget the test and devote their attentions to something else. Now I see how wrong I was. Be careful what you wish for!

Keith Johnson, at 9:15 am EDT on September 29, 2008

Ethics Tests — what a joke

How much money is being wasted on this endeavor, a State Ethics Bureau? Well over a million, I would guess. This system requires state employees to sit through 30 minutes of mindless examples of self-obvious, ethical questions. Has anyone considered how much time, state-wide is also being wasted. Let’s face it, ethical people already know what is wrong and unethical ones will find ways around the system to avoid being caught. This system serves to intimidate the innocent while the real crooks are laughing. How naive, how sad, how wasteful.

MicroMan, at 12:05 pm EDT on September 29, 2008

U of I

Diogenes, I thought U of I was a liberal leaning institution, in a liberal state. How do campus conservatives have all this power?

If I am mistaken about UI, please correct me.

Jerry in LA, at 10:20 am EDT on September 30, 2008