“Here is your assignment, class: Vote for who I tell you to.”
I saw this story and decided it was too obvious to write about. A community college math professor distributes to her class a pledge to vote for Obama and the Democratic slate, and demands that the students sign it—come on! Is anyone going to defend that as ethical? Then a reader sent me several links to the item (thanks, Michael), and after reading them, I was moved to reconsider.
The professor, Sharon Sweet, was put on unpaid leave pending an investigation; I can’t fault Brevard Community College (in Florida) for not firing her yet. What troubles me is the college’s statements that her conduct is just a breach of policy. BCC Spokesman John Glisch told the press that “The college takes this policy [prohibiting employees from soliciting support for a political candidate during working hours or on college property] extremely seriously. It is very important that all of our faculty and staff act in that manner at work and while they’re on campus.” So college provosts are reminding employees about the policy.
Let’s be clear. Associate Professor Sweet’s conduct was an abuse of power and position, an insult to the autonomy of the students and an attempt to take away their rights as citizens, disrespectful to them and the values of the nation, and an attempt to circumvent election laws and to subvert democracy. It was also, quite possibly, illegal. If a college needs to have a policy to stop teachers from behaving like that, it is hiring the wrong kinds of teachers—individuals whose ethics are those of totalitarian states, and whose respect for individual rights are nil. This was an ethical breach of major proportions, not a policy misunderstanding. No teacher should require a policy to tell her that this conduct is indefensible and wrong.
If Sweet did what has been reported, she must be fired, whether the policy was sufficiently clear or not. And any teacher who needs a policy to ring her ethics alarms when she is considering dictating how students must exercise their guaranteed rights as American citizens should not be hired in the first place.
____________________________________
Pointer: Michael
Source: Florida Today
Graphic: Wikipedia
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I found it on a forum for faculty. Several faculty on the site commented that the incident should be ignored and not taken seriously because only “conservative” news sites had commented on it. I thought that made it worthy of note considering the sites that mentioned that the professor continually made partisan remarks and that this was a MATH class!
ABC has reported the story, so I am not sure that is a valid reason for dismissing it; besides if the professor endorsed Romney, that would make it OK?
I missed the original source but see this statement on several news sites.
Florida’s election laws forbids any “employee of the state” from using “his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or nomination of officer or influencing another person’s vote or affecting the result thereof.”
Regardless of the legalities of it I have to wonder how this educator could arrive at the point that she thought this would be acceptable, I would have a hard time believing that this was just a single incident of unethical behavior, it is just too much of a leap. How many other classes and students has she poisoned prior to this incident? I know this attitude is rampant throughout higher learning institutions but it begs the question of where is the line really is being drawn, how bold are these professors getting? If one is willing to do this, are they willing to fail a student because of opposing political views? Are they willing to change facts and history to suit their beliefs? Sure it is happening but how prevalent is it? I just see this incident as one more indicator of how broken and politicized our society is getting. Beyond the reaction to individual instances such as these I think the overall effect is breaking societies trust in these institutions, hopefully that will enough of a catalyst for them to change.
It has been this way for a long time. I don’t think it has gotten any worse, and I think it is probably better than it was in the 90’s, but it still is not a good situation. It puts education in a bad light to the public, it causes the public to diminish the importance they give to education (its all just indoctrination anyway), it drives talented people away from education, and it gives politicians the excuses they need to try to control what is taught and how it is taught in colleges across the country.
This type of indoctrination is prevalent, but people just ignore it or excuse it, much like they excuse academic “irregularities” involving scholarship athletes. This type of blind spot is not limited to academia. I did a quick search for “black churches Obama” and I got a long list of articles about how black churches are trying to find ways to get their congregations to vote for Obama despite his views on homosexuality,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/black-church-leaders-try-to-inspire-congregants-to-vote-for-obama/2012/09/03/136b2da0-f3f0-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html?wprss=rss_national
and trying to decide who they will endorse to their congregations
http://www.christianpost.com/news/black-christians-see-no-clear-options-between-obama-romney-81766/
I was under the impression that it is still against nonprofit rules for churches to endorse political candidates. That is what every church I have ever gone to has stated, but black churches do so regularly and even state so in the media. When a white pastor tries to do the same thing, they are investigated
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5198068&page=1#.UFiule16420
Sadly, Michael it isnt just the churches with pedominately black congregations. I can find many churches on tv and in my own neighborhood who do the same for Republicans. If it is indoctrination, God save us all. Mr. Romney tries to woo the evagelicals. How is that different?
I’m not sure why it is that churches have traditional immunity on this score, but they do, probably because churches were centers of political activity and ministers were telling their flock how to think long before anyone ever heard of 501(C)3 non-profits. It’s pretty well imbedded in American society, and I see nothing sinister about it. Churches can mess with government, but government dast not mess with churches. And that’s, as Uncle Walter used to say, the way it is.
If that’s what was desired, the laws should have been written as such. They weren’t.
What laws are you referring to?
That tax exempt entities cannot endorse candidates… you know, what you referenced. Also see Michael’s comment below.
Churches have more rights to communicate about voter issues than people tend to think. They’re not supposed to campaign for/endorse candidates, but there’s a fine line; it’s perfectly acceptable to distribute voter guides, etc. Most churches, in my experience, don’t want to put themselves at risk and avoid getting too close to that line.
When the federal government decided not to allow slavery to even be discussed, the cause was picked up by the churches, who led the abolitionist charge. It’s hard to overstate the importance of churches and the Great Awakenings to the abolitionist and women’s rights movements.
perfectly acceptable to distribute voter guides, etc.
If the voter guides endorse candidates, then no, that’s not allowed by the letter or spirit of the law.
When the federal government decided not to allow slavery to even be discussed, the cause was picked up by the churches, who led the abolitionist charge.
While other churches fought back tooth an nail. Religion gets no credit in abolition, just communities.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of churches and the Great Awakenings to the abolitionist and women’s rights movements.
You already have for abolition, and you’re dead wrong on women’s rights. The early leaders of the women’s rights movement tended to be atheists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
I can see your point to some extent but I don’t lump churches in with the schools as they may be tax exempt but they are not taxpayer funded. The case can be made for indoctrination in churches but the point of going to school is to get an education not indoctrination, although some people seem to think they are one in the same.
It’s an even sillier comparison than that. If churches were state-funded by taxpayer money to fulfill a purpose antithetical to indoctrination, and if leaving or disagreeing with a sermon impacted your future grades and career, and if attending church and giving there was not voluntary but required in order to receive said services, then it could be a valid comparison.
Hey, I agree with you for once.
I’m not saying that is how I think it should be (I think churches should be allowed to criticize and comment on government and society) but I am saying that is how it is. Although churches can comment on issues (even if they are on the ballot) they are not allowed to endorse candidates. If you look at the last link above, you see that it is not allowed.
However, due to selective enforcement, what is ACTUALLY allowed varies greatly. For a quick guide on what is allowed, here is a link
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=1723955&ct=3713289
and the IRS guidelines and consequences
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-07-18-irs-churches_x.htm?csp=34
As you can see, we have an instance where there are a lot of people flouting this regulation and some get caught and punished. If it is unfair, the restriction needs to be lifted, but until it is, we have a situation where only certain people are allowed political speech and others will be punished by the government for it (which is what I think is wrong). It also puts any candidate who speaks at the invitation of a church in an ethically questionable situation. Any church that extends such an invitation to a candidate is required to extend the same invitation to that candidate’s opponents. Since we know this (a) won’t happen or (b) those candidates are likely to face a hostile audience against the spirit of the law it means that the candidate is knowingly violating at least the spirit of these IRS and campaign regulations.
The obvious answer is to get rid of this regulation that President Johnson instituted to hinder his opponents, but until it does, it is the law (although a tax law).
I think you just made a case for getting rid of special rules for religion. Of course, this should include tax exemption. Go you!
That is why every ministry I have ever started personally has not been a 501c; then the government can’t tell me what I can or can’t say from the pulpit. I advise my supporters that their gifts will not be tax deductible and why; most are OK with that.
Do you advise them that you’re a conman as well?
Impressive, I didn’t think you would be able to devise such a logical and meaningful response to that comment.
It is my understanding that tax-exemption is there for the protection of churches from government, not to provide special treatment.
The founders had no doubt seen enough of the government favoring a particular church, in England (and no religon at all, later in France.)
Making sure that all religion could be freely practiced was a nice American middle course to chart, and as taxes are an easy way to subversively pick religious winners/losers, the tax exemptions we currently have are sensibly American.
How would even application of taxes on religious institutions “subversively pick religious winners/losers”? All ideas should be on fair ground.
In reality, the lack of tax picks religion over non religion.
‘even application’ is the key. The point was that uneven application of taxes would be an easy way to pick religious winners and losers. It’s a technique that has been used extensively in other countries.
Uneven application of any rule or law can be used to pick winners and losers based on any category.
Religious organizations should be taxed just like businesses, because that’s what religious organizations are: businesses. Some are nonprofits, some are charities, but we already have all those categories in place. There’s no reason to give special status to religion independent of the actual actions and setup of the religious organizations.
Moreover, by granting tax free status to religious organizations, we already are committing the sin you worry would occur, you just don’t seem to care about the losers here, and you like the winners.
Edit error. The first statement was supposed to be followed with “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any rules or laws.”
tgt,
Religion is treated differently because it was the intent of the founders to give them special protection. Although you can debate as much as you like where that protection should start and end it really is not germane to this topic unless you can clearly demonstrate how it links to what this professor did at this school. Your unprovoked and useless attack against the other poster furthered nothing and only served to demonstrate how biased a view you have on anything relating to religion. You rail against most everything else where you see intolerance unless it is anything related to conservative or religious principles then your intolerance shines right through regardless if it isn’t deserved or even related, it is hypocritical of you. You can scream that churches and religious organization are nothing but businesses and evil all day long but you are not being accurate or fair to the majority of Americans. You don’t have to be a believer to see this; I can see that religion in the United States has been both a great negative and positive influence on our history, why can’t you? These organizations have cared for the poor, the sick and downtrodden throughout our history. Granted their importance in society has diminished as their roll has been taken up by the government but they still provide services beyond just pushing god. They are also responsible for promoting bigotry, violence and divisiveness. Take a step back and look at it objectively, they survive on donations, as their donations go away so do they (reform). It is unfortunate many of these schools don’t face the same problem.
Should have been “conservative or religious principles being attacked”
Religion is treated differently because it was the intent of the founders to give them special protection.
Which is irrelevant to what should be the case.
Although you can debate as much as you like where that protection should start and end it really is not germane to this topic unless you can clearly demonstrate how it links to what this professor did at this school.
I agree. My comments are not germane to the post. What they are germane to are the comments I have been responding to.
Your unprovoked and useless attack against the other poster furthered nothing and only served to demonstrate how biased a view you have on anything relating to religion.
I pointed out where someone was hypocritically claiming high ground. The attack was warranted by the brazen display of unethical action as ethical.
You rail against most everything else where you see intolerance unless it is anything related to conservative or religious principles then your intolerance shines right through regardless if it isn’t deserved or even related, it is hypocritical of you.
There’s nothing hypocritical about my actions. I am against bad logic and bad ideas in all circumstances. We should have tolerance and understanding for things that are, but not for ideas. Is this really a hard concept?
Furthermore, I’m for a number of conservative principles, just not many Conservative ideas. It’s not my fault current Conservative ideas aren’t great.
And then there’s religious principles. I’m for alot of things that are considered religious principles: like all of ethics. What I’m against is taking fiction over reality.
You can scream that churches and religious organization are nothing but businesses and evil all day long but you are not being accurate or fair to the majority of Americans. You don’t have to be a believer to see this; I can see that religion in the United States has been both a great negative and positive influence on our history, why can’t you?
First, what is inaccurate in my statement? What is is unfair to the majority of Americans? It looks like you’re claiming that an organization that has done good and bad can’t be a business, but that’s one giant non sequitur. Second, I have never said that religion has not had some positive influences on history. You’re ranting at a strawman. Third, where am I screaming? This was an evidence filled discussion, not a rant.
These organizations have cared for the poor, the sick and downtrodden throughout our history. Granted their importance in society has diminished as their roll has been taken up by the government but they still provide services beyond just pushing god. They are also responsible for promoting bigotry, violence and divisiveness.
Uh huh. They have a history with mixed results, they are unnecessary, and they are are inherently wrong, and dangerously so (by pushing faith over evidence). Sounds like something that should be attacked to me.
Take a step back and look at it objectively, they survive on donations, as their donations go away so do they (reform). It is unfortunate many of these schools don’t face the same problem.
As long as people believe X, religions will push X, no matter if X is good or bad. Sounds like a business to me. Schools run this way would be even worse than what currently occurs. It’s a race to the bottom. It’s called the lowest common denominator, but it’s really the greatest common factor, which eventually will always be 1. Do you realize that you just suggested that schools should teach whatever a plurality of their proponents want, no matter if it’s true or false?
Should have been “conservative or religious principles being attacked”
This would have made your strawman equivocation even clearer. Ideas don’t deserve protection from criticism. I have never claimed such for any ideas. If you can criticize the golden rule, go for it. Either your criticism will be shown as baseless, or we’ll end up with something better. At least, that’s how rational people deal with criticism.
I knew that would set people off, but it nailed the issue silliness. Ray honestly informs people of things while misinforming them about the core issues.
tgt-Not sure what you’re alleging or what the goal is for the ad hominem attack, but a con depends on the promise of something that is not delivered, and as far as I know, that has not happened.
That’s not an ad hominem, as I didn’t use an insult to suggest any argument of yours was wrong.
Also, religious ministries are cons. They promise truth while spouting lies. Someone who sets up and runs a ministry is absolutely a conman.
I thought part of the definition of a conman is that they’re deliberately lying. By your logic, anyone who advocates an incorrect ideology is a conman, as opposed to being simply wrong.
There’s a fine line there. I think that if someone should know better, but still acts in the way that benefits them, that counts. If you preach that X is true, then you are responsible for the reliability of X. If you claim knowledge, you are suggesting that you have looked into the matter and determined the truth. If you haven’t, then you are committing a con.
Now, if you are just spouting what you think with no attempt to convince people that what you think is accurate, then you’re fine, but that’s not a ministry.
This is a bit of a gray area, and, while I’m always open to evidence that will convince me I’m wrong, this topic is one where I wouldn’t be particularly suprised if someone convinced me differently.
Would you say that someone working at a conservative think-tank is automatically a conman, then? I mean, I doubt you would agree with them on much, but most of them have probably thoroughly studied the issues they talk about.
What issues? What perspective?
Whether I agree with positions is irrelevant. What matters is if they go against known truths. If they do, then yes, they are. Same goes for progressive think tanks and libertarian think tanks.
Here is a somewhat different twist on this theme. Suppose that the professor had distributed a slightly different pledge that she attempted to get her students to sign. A pledge that promised that the student would vote in the general election this fall — nothing more.
How would you analyze this pledge, and would it still run afoul of that state election law?
It’s still an abuse of power and position, just like making them sign pledges to give money to the poor or to volunteer at soup kitchens. I have no opinion on the legal question.
I agree with you on this. However, I posed the same question to my sister and she disagrees. She sees voting as basically a civic obligation, which would mean that such a pledge would basically be something that you, as a citizen, are morally obligated to do anyway. I disagreed. I view voting as a right — but not an obligation.
That sparks another problem with this professor’s pledge (as if it needed any more). If any of her students are non-citizens, she is then coercing them into pledging to break the law. So now we have conspiracy to commit, or perhaps aiding and abetting, voter fraud.
Whether it’s a civic obligation or not is immaterial. It’s a civic obligation to support the needy, but that doesn’t mean math teacher’s should be pushing volunteering and donating money.