Follow Up: The University of Illinois Shits on Your Freedom of Speech

I just wanted to update people about the political rally that was organized yesterday in response to the University of Illinois’ “Prohibited Political Actions” memo.  Today, those of us who attended the rally reported ourselves to the University Ethics Office (as per the requirement in the memo).  I also reported myself for contacting my government representatives in May/June of this year as part of an email/phone campaign organized by the ACLU in opposition to the new FISA bill.  There was some local news coverage of the event, including this story in the Daily Illini (i recommend you read the comments too).

I also just sent an email to the local ACLU office apprising them of the situation.  Here it is, in its entirety:

I wanted to make you aware of some recent developments at the University of Illinois.  On September 18th, the University Ethics Office sent out an email regarding “prohibited political action” that was said to apply to all U of I employees.  The list included:

• Preparing for or participating in any rally or event related to a specific political candidate, party, or referendum – this includes preparation and circulation of campaign materials, petitions, or literature

• Soliciting contributions or votes on behalf of a particular political party or candidate

• Assisting at the polls on behalf of any political party, candidate, or organization

• Surveying or conducting an opinion poll related to anticipating an election outcome, or participating in a recount challenge related to an election outcome

• Running for political office

The email specified that this was a list of things that were prohibited “while working, when on University property, while using University resources (e.g., phone, fax, paper, email, etc.), or when acting as a representative of the University.”  The ambiguous language regarding the status of certain employees (particularly graduate teaching and research assistants) seems to indicate that grad students who live on campus are prohibited from these things, and there is definitely some confusion about what constitutes “working” time and “acting as a representative” in the case of graduate and faculty positions.  The email also implied that the school will not be “policing” the campuses for these policy violations, and that individuals should report themselves or others to the University Ethics Office if there is a potential violation.  They further state that any contact with a government official should be reported to the ethics office, with the caveat that political communication made on “personal” time need not be reported.  As a graduate TA, I often work from home (grading papers and communicating with students) and this is done outside of normal campus hours.  As an active ACLU member, I also have contacted government officials from home (such as during the FISA email/phone campaign earlier this year).  There is no clear dividing line between what constitutes “personal” and “work” time for my fellow TAs and faculty.  It can also be argued that, as teachers, we are the “face” of the University even while not officially in the classroom.  Regardless of whether we actively position ourselves as representatives of the University, we have no control over how our students and other individuals perceive us outside of the classroom, which leaves a very large, problematic gray area.

The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) and GEO (Graduate Employees’ Organization) have both issued statements definitively condemning the ethics policy as stated in this email.  I would be more than happy to forward you their published statements as well as a copy of the original email from the Ethics Office.  Along with these statements, several graduate TAs organized a political rally yesterday (Thursday 10/2) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in response to the policy which received some local news coverage.  Many of the faculty and graduate students in attendance (including myself) also took it upon themselves to report their attendance at the rally to the Ethics Office in accordance with the policy.

So far, there has been no response to our actions from the University, but I wanted to make sure your office was aware of the situation.  As stated before, I would be happy to provide you with more information and documentation, and I’m sure that the graduate students who organized the rally yesterday would be more than happy to speak with you further.

Thank you very much for your time, and keep up the good fight!

Sincerely,

Mark S. Barnes, Jr.

The University of Illinois Shits on Your Freedom of Speech

There’s an ongoing debate right now at the University of Illinois regarding university employees’ freedom of speech while on campus.  Recent communication from the University Ethics Office detailed several things that constituted “prohibited political activity.”  These were the listed items:

Preparing for or participating in any rally or event related to a specific political candidate, party, or referendum – this includes preparation and circulation of campaign materials, petitions, or literature

Soliciting contributions or votes on behalf of a particular political party or candidate

Assisting at the polls on behalf of any political party, candidate, or organization

Surveying or conducting an opinion poll related to anticipating an election outcome, or participating in a recount challenge related to an election outcome

Running for political office

The email also stated:

In order to ensure compliance with state and federal lobbying laws, University policy requires employees’ communications with state, federal and locally elected officials be reported to the Office of Governmental Relations.

As an active member of the ACLU, I have participated in email and phone campaigns this summer regarding a couple of different issues (not the least of which was the FISA bill that was passed near the beginning of the summer).  While I wasn’t representing the university in this capacity, the ambiguity of the language in the email from the ethics office causes me to question whether I should be reporting myself for contacting my elected representatives on those occasions.

In protest of these ethics guidelines, a group of university employees will be contacting their state representatives to complain about the ethics policy’s violation of the constitution, then report ourselves.

Via Chicago: A Descriptive Short in Three Acts

For the second Writing with Video assignment, we were asked to come up with a few adjectives and to create a short video that “communicates, interprets, or otherwise represents the meaning of the word[s]” that we chose.

Rather than create a collection of disjointed clips, I decided that I wanted my “Adjective” videos to be tied together by a common theme – in this case, I used footage of my trip to and from Chicago on December 2nd and 3rd of last year. Each of the three “acts” in this film follow the three stages of the trip: embarking, arriving, and returning.

As I edited the clips, I realized that each of them could potentially represent several adjectives, so I made the decision not to directly reveal the words I originally had in mind for each of the three acts in order to allow the audience to form their own conclusions.

As for the sound, I initially intended for the whole piece to be completely silent. I wanted to experiment with letting the video speak for itself, so I didn’t want any speech. Also, the ambient noise in each of the clips wasn’t worth keeping, so I eliminated it. After watching the video a few times with no sound, however, I felt like it needed something to tie the three clips together. I also wanted to add some tension and create a sort of dramatic crescendo and climax, so I composed some music in Garageband for this piece.  The soundtrack has a theme that carries through all of the clips, but I made sure that each act still has its own unique sound.

I guess the only other thing I can tell you is to watch the film and draw your own conclusions.