Timothy L Pagaard
|
On 27 September 2008 I was informed by my dean that authorities of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District had challenged my right to post in the outside window of my office, B-173 at Cuyamaca College, a small sticker featuring the name of Barack Obama. The nastiness escalated immediately: The next day the chancellery distributed districtwide a letter threatening murderous fines and draconian prison time for anyone violating this policy. Perhaps you were a partisan of Mr McCain, or perhaps you supported Mr Barr or Mr Nader. Even so, I'm sure you'll join me in deploring the infringement of my constitutional freedoms and yours.
Quite the massive statement, huh?
In 2004 I was advised by Assistant Dean of Student Affairs Sharon Barrett and Division Dean Madelaine Wolfe that any postings outside my office (in particular one expressing my admiration for Mr Obama!) were to be governed by universal conventions of academic freedom--that is, fully permitted, protected, and even encouraged.
Academic freedom is the essence of a real institution of higher learning. My small sticker obviously expresses my opinion alone, not an institutional endorsement. (I've posted a disclaimer in the window, three times the size of the Obama sticker, that makes this explicitly clear: See photo at right.) The window and outside bulletin board of an academic office are universally regarded as a forum for expressing the ideas of the scholar within. I defy you to show me any college or university campus between here and Singapore that doesn't honor this long-held convention--unless we want to include institutions in places such as Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, and North Korea. Thus I would consider myself craven not to resist with all my power any effort to suppress my freedom, just as I would defend with like vehemence the rights of anyone posting allegiance to another candidate or to views of any kind that are opposed to mine.
 |
As for the letter of the law, the educational code, I haven't used any "district funds, services, supplies, or equipment" (OK, perhaps eleven or so inches of Scotch tape--for which I stand guilty as charged). The sticker doesn't "urg[e] a vote" for or against anything or anybody. By posting it I'm expressing my personal admiration for one of the people running for office. The sticker contains no verb, just a name. Another sticker in the same window expresses similar admiration for author Flannery O'Connor. Please don't vote for her. She's been dead since 1964.
But even if I did advocate for voting for my favorite candidate, that's still nothing more nor less than my opinion, protected by the First Amendment and by every convention of academic freedom in what's left of the "free world."
To narrowly enforce the code in the spurious manner now proposed would be to reduce the colleges of our district to something they emphatically are not--or to something I still cherish hope they haven't yet become--shriveled institutions which denigrate the spirit of academic inquiry and expression. To do so would be a tragedy of the first order.
I've called upon our faculty for support: The academic senates of both colleges are already addressing the question and have negotiated something of a cease-fire with the chancellery. I've called upon United Faculty, the union currently representing district teachers, and the UF attorney has weighed in on my side; see below. And I've called upon the press: I'm working with Leonel Sanchez of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Miriam Raftery of East County Magazine, and David Rolland of CityBeat. But more important, I call upon the district chancellery's sense of justice and our shared love for our colleges--to help me prevent this tragedy from taking place.
Some time between 6pm Thursday, 30 October (the last time I was on campus that week) and that Saturday afternoon, someone entered my office by stealth and removed the Obama sticker from inside my window. This is of course a very small thing, a few cents-worth of paper, and no damage was done to district property. But in that it is a constitutional violation, a violation of centuries-old traditions of academic freedom, and a violation of my privacy, it is of huge consequence.
I wasn't on campus the next day, Friday, but Communication Arts Chair Mary Graham reports that a howling mob accosted her regarding my little sticker. "They were HOT!" she remembers. There is no evidence connecting this incident with the vandalism, but suffice it to say that within twenty-four hours of the fracas the burglary had been committed. College President Cristina Chiriboga confirms that this group challenged my academic freedom with her Friday.
Public Safety has submitted a report of the crimes (case number 080436) and I am prepared to press criminal charges, as they are is indeed felonies. After a thorough investigation, Officer Frank Laveaga photographed both the window and the inside of my office, documenting the details of the crimes. As there are no signs of forced entry, no further damage to my office, this was clearly an inside job.On legal advice, I've requested that the district provide a list of all employees with key access to my office.
I've discussed the crimes with Dr Tracie Herd, the dean on duty that Saturday evening, and with President Chiriboga, both of whom assure me that the agreement still stands as made by the chancellor, Vice Chancellor Dana Quittner, and Cuyamaca and Grossmont Academic Senate Presidents Mike Wangler and Chris Hill--viz., that regressive board academic-freedom policy is to be renegotiated with the academic senates, and pending resolution will not be enforced. Neither Dr Herd nor Dr Chiriboga know of any administrative intention to violate that agreement.
But that the burglary and vandalism were an inside job troubles me. It must be made vividly clear to all that these crimes constitute a profound violation of academic freedom at my college, of the First Amendment, and of every civilized standard of decency. This is equally true whether they were committed by a benighted district employee, student, or community member.
My students are adults. Call me idealistic, but I therefore give them credit for being mature enough to exercise critical thinking. I emphatically encourage them to express their views in the classroom, especially when they disagree with mine--whether on political subjects or within my primary disciplines, rhetoric and literary criticism. This engagement of ideas is the essence of higher education, and without it there is no higher education. My students are adults, and that makes all the difference: To deprive them of real debate about real issues would be to stunt their education fatally.
Ask anyone who has come through my classrooms: I especially cherish those who disagree with me--on any subject--when they can articulate sound arguments. And I expend substantial energy teaching them to argue critically. Why, earlier in this term in my British lit course, an openly Republican student delivered an outstanding presentation on Thomas More's Utopia, one he knew was at odds with my own reading. The ensuing discussion was to die for, and everyone came away enriched, me most of all. This is the intellectual exchange that is the raison d'être of our institution.
If free expression of ideas, any ideas, were to be quashed in our colleges, we might as well close the doors and go home. How else would our students ever learn to think? What could they get from us that they couldn't get from Google? I'll value Cuyamaca College and Grossmont only so long as real freedom of expression exists.
They value a conflict-free environment above all else. It saddens me that some would willingly sacrifice their own freedom and abrogate the freedom of others in the interest of superficial calm. But far worse, if shutting down political dialogue might bring peace, it would be the peace of the tomb. It would mean a fatal reduction of what the college is. Never to encounter any ideas other than ones which are thoroughly sanitized--no, anesthetized--is never to have to think. Never to think is never to be educated.
I've always maintained that at least half of our job as teachers is to model educated behavior in a wide array of contexts, most course-related but some larger. Sure, students learn facts and skills from us, but they also learn what it looks like to be an educated person. They hear what it sounds like. I post my candidate sticker, along with material on other subjects, some related to my discipline, some not, so the folks can see what it looks like and hear what it sounds like to be so engaged.
The classroom experience I offer is painstakingly crafted to this end, although weighted predominantly, of course, in the direction of course content. Both inside and outside the classroom, to pretend that I have no opinions, academic or political, to conceal my engagement on any subject or to suppress students' engagement, would be first dishonest, but more important, it would deprive my students of what is perhaps the kernel of their education. They learn right away from me that their opinions are respected and valued. They learn strategies for developing and expressing their opinions in civil, intelligent discourse. And one of the ways they learn to do so is by engaging me doing the same.
Yes, I value my academic freedom and my First Amendment rights, and as you've seen, I'm willing to fight for them. Why? Not because I indulge self-expression for its own sake. Really, why should anybody care what I think? But no, because I value my students' right to expect from me a real education.
This is the section cited in the letter:
§ 7054. (a) No school district
or community college district funds,
services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of
urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate,
including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the
governing board of the district.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the
public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information
to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other
ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met:
(1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the
Constitution or laws of this state.
(2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial
presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an
informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
(c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year
or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both,
or imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three
years.
But the district ignores these even more relevant sections:
§ 7052. Restrictions on political activities: Except as otherwise provided in this article, or as necessary to meet requirements of federal law as it pertains to a particular employee or employees, no restriction shall be placed on the political activities of any officer or employee of a local agency.
§ 7058. Requirements for use of forum under control of governing board of district: Nothing in this article shall prohibit the use of a forum under the control of the governing board of a school district or community college district if the forum is made available to all sides on an equitable basis.
The Ed Code prohibits the use of “district funds, services, supplies, or equipment.” The posting of a sticker in the window of an employee’s office does not constitute use of district funds, services, supplies or equipment.
Unlike the K-12 cases in which the courts were concerned that students would mistakenly attribute an individual teacher’s political position to that of the school district, such concerns are not present in the academic environment on college campuses. It should be clear from the posting of a sticker in the window of an individual employee’s office that whatever message is being expressed is that of the individual and not that of the District.
In the event the district attempts to take any action against our members for exercising their free speech rights, United Faculty will vigorously defend our members in any such action.
"Because freedom can't defend itself." To paraphrase Martin Niemöller, "First they came for the Obama supporters...."
Read the letter the ACLU sent to the district. As you can see, the letter is exceedingly mild, not threatening legal action but merely pointing out the patent unconstitutionality of the policy. It is crucial that you understand what the ACLU is about: determining and defending constitutionality. They don't simply look at the letter of the law (ed code or board policy) to determine whether a particular action is in compliance with it--although they do that too. They question whether the code or policy is constitutional in the first place.
It is not permissible to display a sign or sticker supporting or opposing a political candidate or ballot proposition on the outside of a District building, or on the inside of a window that is visible from the outside of the building where it is visible to passersby. Such a sign utilizes District facilities (the building) and it is not normally readily apparent that the opinion expressed is that of one individual, rather than an endorsement by the College or the District.
The ACLU's legal opinion: "No member of the student body or the public would reasonably believe that a candidate sticker posted in a faculty office window is an endorsement by the district of the named candidate. The district policy is accordingly an unconstitutional regulation of the personal political expression of faculty members."
Most of all it clarifies that dire changes need to be made to district policies and to the district's exotic interpretation of the ed code. That is, such changes must be made if academic freedom is to be assured at our colleges. Remember: Outside windows and bulletin boards of college and university faculty offices are universally regarded as free-speech zones, from here to Singapore, universally regarded as forums for free expression by the scholars within, not as institutional endorsements.
At least not in America or anywhere else in the democratic world. In North Korea, maybe. If scattered members of our community mistakenly think otherwise, surely the solution is to educate them, not to suppress freedom of thought. Likewise, if some poor soul in the community were a racial supremacist, say, objecting to the hiring of African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Arab-Americans, or even Danish-Americans like me, the duty of the college would be to confront that person's ignorance, to correct it, not to institute racist policies.
Yes, the district chancellery articulates the present policy accurately. But no, that policy must change! It must! I hope passionately that the Grossmont and Cuyamaca academic senates will exercise their influence in bringing about this drastically needed change. I count on United Faculty and the ACLU for support. But again, most of all I count upon the chancellery to recognize the justice of my position, to honor centuries-old academic traditions, and to do what is manifestly best for our colleges, for advancing their status as institutions of higher learning, not for undermining it.
