I’m sure we’re going to be hearing about this “scandal” for the next two years (at least). Romney supporters had the audacity to discuss his campaign with other Mormons!!!!! Doesn’t he know that Mormons are not allowed to vote and organize for candidates? It’s been that way at least since Missouri in the 1830s.
As for reaching out to other religions besides the Mormons, what do the writers of this ridiculous article think he has been doing with evangelicals and Catholic leaders for the last decade? So, it’s OK for him to talk to other religious leaders for support, but it’s not OK for him to talk to Mormons?
UPDATE: The Deseret News provides crucial information denying the meat of the Globe story here.
The National Journal further debunks the Globe here as does the Article VI blog here.
To sum up: the only thing wrong that took place here was an e-mail sent to about 150 BYU alumni, a mistake that has already been corrected and apologized for. This Globe story shows tremendous political bias, has gaping factual errors and incomplete reporting and is insulting to members of the Church and the Romney campaign.
FURTHER UPDATE: Read the SL Tribune story here. The story has new information on the latest Boston Globe revelation.
Also, read this Newsbusters article on the Globe’s bias.
The issue is not whether Romney is doing anything improper in reaching out to fellow Mormons. It is whether overzealous apostles and BYU deans are putting the Church’s tax exemption at risk by using their offices and official e-mail accounts for campaign-related purposes. They may not have crossed the line yet, but they need to be very careful.
meanwhile, John Kerry and other Democratic candidates can campaign and gain endorsements from many, many churches without putting those churches tax exemption at risk.
Harry Reid could do this and very few people would blink an eye. But have a Republican do it, and well – it’s awful, awful, awful.
The big difference, Mr. Wolfe, is that the LDS Church appears to the rest of the country to be the Republican Party at prayer.
What do the writers of this ridiculous article think he has been doing with evangelicals and Catholic leaders for the last decade?
Look, I’m a centrist, and I’d probably consider voting for Romney, but, there’s a big difference between meeting with religious leaders and asking religious leaders to help organize and shore up your base. I don’t think Romney has asked Notre Dame’s business school to exert influence on it’s alumni society to encourage them to vote Romney in ’08.
There are churches in the south that went all political during Bush’s last run who lost their tax exemption for much less.
meanwhile, John Kerry and other Democratic candidates can campaign and gain endorsements from many, many churches without putting those churches tax exemption at risk.
Uhhh, last I checked if any church endorses any candidate, telling their constituents to vote for him, they basically lose their endorsement. Mind listing a few of those churches who endorsed John Kerry?
they basically lose their endorsement
That should say: “they basically lose their exemption.”
But have a Republican do it, and well – it’s awful, awful, awful.
Again, Romney is doing nothing improper by asking for help. That is a candidate’s job. It is the Church’s job to say “no”.
Romney as a candidate is doing nothing wrong by asking for help, but it could be argued that Romney as a mormon should know better than to ask the church for political help.
Kerry campaigned in many, many black churches. In fact, it’s a given that Democratic candidates campaign in and get endorsements from black churches – yet those churches don’t lose tax exempt status.
here are some sources (i could give more, but this seems to be a good sample):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22205-2004Oct10.html
John F. Kerry used a Baptist pulpit Sunday to speak of eternal life and denounce President Bush . . . The Massachusetts Democrat, who has battled apathy about his presidential candidacy in the black community, prayed, tapped along to rollicking gospel tunes and held up a pocket Bible in a church where he was repeatedly called “the next president” and even “president.”
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041020-121529-5976r.htm
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry has spent part of the past three Sundays [campaigning] at predominantly black churches in Florida and Ohio. . . Now Mr. Kerry is following the path that Mr. Gore and President Clinton paved to black church altars in the final days of their campaigns.
Yet the people who complained about Bush’s use of churches and Romney’s potential use of churches seemed to have no problems with Kerry’s use of them. Some of these churches did get investigated by the IRS, however there was almost no mainstream media noise about it. The articles quoted above were rather positive in their focus on Kerry.
In some cases, liberal churches and religous leaders even bought full page ads in major newspapers to endorse Kerry. Yet whenever conservatives tried to do the same for Bush, there was lots of noise and complaining.
Is there any case law on this? Taxing a church, even one that endorses candidates, seems like a constitutional violation to me. If there is no case law, churches should feel free to ignore such laws.
Steve EM,
I’m not up for looking through case law, but there shouldn’t be any constitutional problem taxing churches. They’re already taxed on any business income they earn, which doesn’t violate the constitution. Their exemption is the result of the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3); absent that provision, they are fully taxable.
Ivan,
You give articles from 2004; the IRS has done significant investigations of (at least some) churches with respect to campaigning in 2004. I don’t know if any have lost their exemption yet, and I know there’s been a huge outcry, but the IRS has wasning language on their site: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Ivan,
Also, I don’t know if there’s been any mainstream media coverage, but there’s been a ton in the tax press (for example, Tax Notes).
samdb –
My claim isn’t that the IRS hasn’t investigated these churches (it has – I even said so – does anyone read my comments or do they just skim the first parts?).
My complaint is that those who usually condemn Bush and Romney for using churches or for churches endorsing Republicans don’t even bat an eye when it happens with Democrats.
Ivan,
I admit to skimming. That said, I read a good portion of your post, and (under my understanding) it is not correct. The complaint about the recent rash of church investigations is that the IRS has been targeting churches that opposed Bush, or supported his opponents. I don’t know if that’s true. The IRS claims that there is no partisanship in determining who they went after. But, nonetheless, the coverage I have read (again, in the tax press, not in left- or right-leaning publications) suggests that the IRS has been targeting, rather than not batting an eye at, churches advocating Democrats.
(In addition, for all of you who run non-religious non-profits: there have been (significant) noises made about going after the NAACP for supporting candidates. So it’s not just religions–the IRS is pushing at all 501(c)(3) organizations.)
Btw, I think LL makes a good point that the Church should draw the line very carefully on how it handles the Romney campaign and any other campaign. I believe it has done so. We get announcements every political season that we don’t endorse official candidates. Meanwhile, there are evangelical preachers and liberal churches where pastors specifically endorse candidates from the pulpit. This will never happen at an LDS church. However, it is against the first amendment to try to prevent individual members from organizing themselves as they see fit. So, there is a balance that has to be made between individual members’ organization and church involvement and endorsement. It seems to me the church is acting appropriately so far.
samdb:
I’m not sure how a good portion of my post is not correct. The tax press is a rather specilaized segment of the media. I was talking about CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc. I was also focusing more on commentators on blogs, actually, since many of those now complaining about the right wing religous endorsements probably never complained about left-wing ones. So you seem to be focusing on the periphary of my post, not the main argument.
But it might be my flawed and incomplete perceptions, since I don’t devote my every free moment to reading about the issue. Mostly, I used to articles to respond to the challange to prove that some churches had endorsed Kerry (some commentators expressed disbelief on that point).
Thank goodness for journalists who are willing to raise these questions in a country that at least nominally supports the Constitution! Just imagine if John F. Kennedy had held campaign “discussion” meetings with Vatican officials just prior to announcing his candidacy—it would have been seen as sure evidence that (as many worried) a Kennedy presidency would be directed by the Papacy. In our own day, some have expressed concern that a Romney presidency would answer to the First Presidency of the LDS church—and what does he do to calm those fears? Why, he starts holding meetings between his campaign staff and apostles! LOL!
Frankly, it amuses me that so many LDS are excited at the prospect of an LDS president, rather than about any particular candidate. It smacks of high school pep rallies. Absent foolish stunts like the above “discussion meetings,” nobody should care whether a candidate is LDS, Episcopalian, Hindu, or Pagan.
Actually, I think it would be kind of cool to have a Hindu President. 🙂
Ack! What do you mean the church “doesn’t endorse political candidates”?? Did you read the Boston Globe article? Elder Holland met with top aides to discuss strategies to reach out to members of the LDS Church. I’ve never heard of the LDS Church meeting with campaign strategists for non-Mormon candidates to create a nationwide network of supporters.
How the meetings with Mitt Romney’s political operatives and sending emails to potential supporters on behalf of BYU are _not_ endorsements strains the definition of “endorsement”.
I agree. If the Globe article is accurate, I’d say this is definately in the realm of “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate,” which is prohibited. Just reading a neutrality statement in the meetings doesn’t change that. The church had better be careful.
Of course, I think the church leaders and BYU professors are still free to advocate as individuals, so there is still a lot of opportunity for mobilizing the Mormons while carefully avoiding any overt implication of official endorsement. (Am I wrong about this? I’m not a lawyer.)
In reading the article more carefully, I’m glad to see that the BYU deans admit they were wrong and have apparently stopped using official BYU networks to help Romney, and that the BYU legal counsel shut them down righ away. This publicity will probalby make it less likely that church officials will overstep their bounds in the future, which is a good thing. So hopefully this won’t become a bigger issue.
Ivan,
Okay, sorry–I didn’t understand what you were responding to.
There’s been a lot of press, even outside my niche interests, in (I believe) All Saint’s Church (again, I think in LA) being investigated for anti-Bush statements. Outside of that, I don’t know what MSM and bloggers have been talking about.
I agree that some people who would never complain about churches supporting Bush/Romney would never complain about churches supporting Kerry/Clinton. I think the opposite is true, too, though, and that both positions are seriously flawed.
I’m not pleased that Mitt Romney’s people were so cavalier as to risk the Church’s and BYU’s image like this. I’m not seriously concerned about the whole tax exempt status, but this is a major setback to LDS Church’s image gains and was totally unnecessary.
Look. All Romney’s campaing has to do is start the grass roots Republican organzing in various states that any serious candidate would do, and the Mormon Republicans will come out of the woodwork. There are much cleaner ways to tap into the BYU business grads networks and it wouldn’t require much more effort and wouldn’t have the potential for blowback that this does.
His media relations and campaign strategy people have to know that his relationship with the Church is going to be under intense scrutiny. What happened here? I work on a college campus. How careful we have to be with political issues/campaigns is drilled into us.
I’m not saying that there still wouldn’t be all sorts of exaggerated stories about Romney and the church leaders or that there wouldn’t be stories about Romney tying into a secret or not-so-secret network if his campaign did what I suggest above. But there are stories that will confirm things for the people who already aren’t going to vote for you and then there are stories that will seriously concern those who might consider it. The key is to continute to make grounds among non-Mormon cultural conservatives *and* grab a good chunk of the more middle-of-the-road-culturally conservatives. The jackals and the haters are going to do what they do — there’s no doubt about that. The key is to not hand them enough to work with that this issue becomes part of the CCW (conservative’s conventional wisdom).
Well, as Ed notes, let’s hope this makes everybody more cautious.
#11, there is case law that taxing churches violates the free exercise clause. Businesses owned by a church are a different matter, but the idea is to tax memeber’s contributions is a power to destroy religion and is therefore unconstitutional. I’m guessing the courts would rule that to take away that protection on an IRS technically of candidate endorsement, would also be unconstitutional.
One possible way the Church (or more particularly BYU) could largely avoid this problem is to offer any and all candidates the same privilege. Shouldn’t say Hillary Clinton have the same opportunity to connect with her BYU supporters? And to make an argument that she promotes the true interests of Mormonism as well or better than anyone else?
Admin note: two comments by Rusty and two responses, one by Ivan Wolfe and one by myself, were deleted. I would remind all people who post here to keep comments on-topic and avoid personal attacks. Thank you.
I’d be kind of ticked if I got an email message like the one quoted in the article from my dean — and I’d definitely think my department was openly supporting a specific candidate. A few weeks ago I got the following email from my department:
They’ve been sending out dozens of these things in a week, and I’m sure, getting lots of objections to the political bias in some of the messages. The department also puts this in front of many of the messages, just to be sure we get that the department isn’t endorsing Sherrod Brown or Mike DeWine or whoever it is:
The following is in the language of a recently received internship notice.
And I still know people who are so annoyed by the occasional offer from the Sierra Club or the state’s Republican Caucus that they’ve blocked all emails from a professor in our department, and the staff member in charge of academic advising, as spam. And these are job offers!
I don’t know enough about what else went on to comment directly on the Church or Romney’s campaign, but BYU’s direct involvement seems completely improper to me. I’m glad they were shut down. I’d hope the campaign would have the sense not to do that sort of thing, whether at BYU or anywhere else. And that’s without counting the reaction from all the stupid anti-Mormon conspiracy nuts, and people who really think we’re a cult. The last thing anyone needs is people thinking there’s a secret network of Mormons ready to take over the government.
The law does not require that non-profit organizations be completely untainted by politically relevant issues, it simply requires that such organizations not endorse particular candidates nor make a practice of taking positions on pending legislation (e.g. lobbying).
For example, the Heritage Foundation maintains its status as a 501(c)(3) organization by following those rules, and it is far more engaged on general political and economic issues than the Church generally is, and as a notably prominent conservative influence to boot.
There is no rule that requires such an organization to be philosophically neutral – it must simply generally avoid the rough and tumble of explicit political advocacy of bills and candidates. In any case, the idea that one can separate any meaningful organization completely from the political world is not particularly realistic.
Mormon Bloggernaclites must be the most self-flaggelating group in the world. Does nobody else here wonder what the scandal is and what the agenda of the Globe is? Let’s review. The Boston Globe assigns at least two people to this story. Somebody must have leaked the fact that a Romney representative would be meeting with the Church, because the Globe reporter was there in SLC to observe him enter and come out. Does nobody wonder what the agenda was of the leaker? Is nobody else here aware of the Globe’s lengthy campaign to embarrass Romney because the newspaper (owned by the NY Times) doesn’t like Republicans? So, one and perhaps two meetings took place. According to the Church, they were short, harmless meetings. Even according to the Globe’s account, the Church was being careful to make sure that everything took place according to policies of political neutrality. The vehicle of campaign for Romney through BYU alumni was briefly used, and then everybody realized it wasn’t a good idea, and it was immediately stopped. I mean, keep this situation in perspective!
This is very, very, very different than what regularly happened in 2004, which involved ministers/pastors/priests on both sides telling parisheners that they were not good Christians if they didn’t vote for X candidate. Nothing like that happened here, and in fact the Church is very aware it can’t do anything like that.
Of course, the Boston Globe has an axe to grind with Romney. That doesn’t change that there should have been more awareness about the pr repercussions of this activity.
Yes the Church was careful. Yes there was just a couple of brief lapses. And yes it immediately stopped.
That still doesn’t change that a) a delegation* from Romney’s campaign met with an apostle and b) a BYU dean sent out an e-mail to alumni advocating for the campaign.
I’m sorry, but those are rookie pr mistakes. To be sure, they could happen anywhere (and probably do happen but don’t get as much press coverage because it’s not Romney/BYU/the LDS Church).
That said — looking at the Globe’s “Reaching out to Mormons” graphic, I see nothing wrong with Sept. 27 and Oct. 16 events.
* If the meeting needed to happened, it would have been better if it hadn’t been all 3 of the folks with such close ties to the campaign. It should have just been one person — perferably Romney himself. Such a meeting actually could have helped (although again — some media would still spin it negatively) if they both came out of the meeting and said “We met to reaffirm the Church’s position of neutrality and to outline what the appropriate boundaries of campaigning among church members are.”
Of course the “leaker” has an agenda, Geoff, but that has no bearing on the conduct itself. Whatever I may think of the individuals involved (I’m personally acquainted with Elder Holland, for example, and think he’s a *wonderful* human being), the conduct itself was at best unwise.
That Romney would seek such a venue for political aid says a good deal about him, IMO. I felt the same way when Orrin Hatch attempted a presidential run, and was passing out campaign literature inside LDS meetinghouses after he gave “firesides” therein. Both appear willing to use their ecclesiastical connections for personal political gain, even if it happens to raise eyebrows about the church’s conduct. I would think that someone with your strong loyalties would be more concerned about how Romney’s campaign leaders were willing to try to “use” the church.
I’m with Geoff B on this. The story lacks legs as they say, akin to Reid’s land dealings with a suspect mobster.
People have been expressing the opinion of “what’s the big deal?” I agree. I don’t think it’s a big deal.
That’s not the point.
Mormons are still seen as clannish and secretive. Also, people don’t know much about us. This leads to suspicion among the general public.
This will hurt Romney and he needs to back-off. The story has a lot more “legs” than people here are giving credit for.
Except that these individuals weren’t becoming involved as individuals. They were becoming involved AS officials at a church-funded university. They were using their titles and official emails.
Someone stepped way far over the line of propriety when “Hill and Albrecht signed the message with their official BYU titles, sent the e-mail from a BYU e-mail address, and began the message ‘Dear Marriott School Friend.’ ” They also apparently used BYU mailing lists for political purposes.
It isn’t just that BYU is more open to scrutiny than other universities. These are fairly common ethical standards. I work for a state university far from Utah, and if I tried using my title and email address that way, I would be in deep gunk, probably terminated.
I’ve decided NOT to donate to BYU this fall and send a letter telling them why, but I will probably make a donation to my college specifically, which was not the school of management.
I may end up voting for Romney, but this is not an acceptable tactic.
Naismith, you need to consider the fact that there are legal gray areas involved here. You also need to consider the fact that BYU immediately stopped sending out the e-mails once they were told it was inappropriate. Do what you want regarding BYU — I never went there, so I have no dog in that fight. But I think, once again, that many people are rushing to judgement without a sense of proportionality.
By the way, I’m wondering if all of the people concerned about BYU “endorsing Romney” were as concerned about the open and official campaigning that goes on in all universities during election time. Professors openly tell hundreds of students how to vote, and in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie. I don’t know if this happens at BYU, but I can guarantee it happens everywhere else.
I don’t think this story has legs. The Church has essentially questioned the accuracy of this story:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-24209,00.html
I honestly don’t see any gray area whatsoever.
My last few employers have been the federal government and two universities in different states. At none of those employers would I be allowed to do what was done at BYU. Conflict of interest is an ongoing concern. We have to fill out annual reports, and take leave on any given day we are engaging in partisan politics.
Are you really going to claim that the dean of one of the top-ranked management schools in the nation, a program which is renowned for its teaching of business ethics, knows less about academic standards of conflict of interest than I do? I think not.
I never had this happen to me at the three other institutions I attended.
And how would a professor be able to know how the student had voted? It’s not like assigning them to attend a play, where they have to bring in the ticket stub.
Honestly, Geoff, it’s so easy to disprove your point if you insist on using all-inclusive terminology. Even an anecdote disproves your claim. “Everywhere else”? You would have had a much stronger case if you said “many other places.”
I’m with William. Not smart. Not smart at all.
The President of the United States takes an oath.
LDS church members who receive their endowment also take an oath in the temple.
As they may conflict with each other, which one would a President Romney consider to be most important?
Phouchg:
I can’t see any circumstance when either of those oaths would conflict with the other… Mormons are pretty pro-constitution. Sorry, try again.
Looks like Mitt Romney agrees with Geoff B.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/20/romney_defends_mormon_strategy/
I liked this:
Milton Cerny, a retired lawyer who formerly oversaw tax-exempt groups for the IRS, had a different take, saying the actions of the church and BYU did not appear to violate federal law, because Romney is not officially running for president.
“You don’t have an announced candidate,” said Cerny, who lives in Virginia. “These are committees being formed to see whether the individual could be a viable candidate or not.”
In Daytona Beach yesterday, Romney, speaking to about 50 Republicans outside a GOP campaign office, cracked a joke about the Massachusetts media.
“There are two factions of reporters where I come from in Massachusetts,” he said. “We have the Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists — and we have the liberals.”
The audience erupted in laughter and applause.
Naismith, #40, you’re right, I should have used a qualifier like “almost all.” In the meantime, commenters have still not answered the question: why is it wrong for BYU to send out one e-mail and it’s OK for “almost all” other universities to have professors, administrators, etc. openly campaign for leftist causes and leftist candidates and intimidate students into joining their leftist causes? If you don’t recognize that this takes place, please visit a few web sites and browse around for a while. There are so many cases there are too many to list in this post:
http://thefire.org/
http://www.campus-watch.org/
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/
Geoff,
#37,
I’m curious about examples, because I went to Simmons College for my graduate degree (Simmons College in Boston is about as liberal as you can get), during the 2004 election and not once did any professor discuss politics nor who to vote for.
I studied International Politics at BYU as my undergraduate and not once did any professor there discuss with us how to vote, and I took my classes there between 1998 and 2001.
I’m not necessarily troubled by professors telling students how to vote, but I am troubled by your accusation that “in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie.” Do you have any evidence of this?
Geoff,
#46,
I looked briefly at the websites you listed. I could not find a single thing about professors telling their students how to vote, or that their grades would be reflected in how they voted. All I saw was the bemoaning from conservatives that professors tend to be liberal. But, see, ’tis true, the more educated and knowledgable you are, the more liberal you are. 😉
So go out and get your education folks. 🙂
I went to BYU. No professor ever told me how to vote. Sure, we could sorta guess what his/her political views were by the end of semester. But that’s quite different.
I grew up on a very, very liberal campus, with very, very active political movements. 99.99% of them were grass roots efforts by the students themselves. Never once did a professor tell students how to vote, and not once did a professor hang a students grade on how they voted.
You might want to consider the sources you read: the National Review isn’t the most… unbiased place on the planet to read about politics. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren’t really journalists, they more specialize in demagoguery. The NY Times might have a liberal slant, but the National Review and Faux News don’t have any slant: they’re straight-up political screeds.
I’ve never had a professor tell me how to vote in the sense of “you need to vote for Kerry.”
Instead, I just had professors call George Bush a “son of a B**ch” and a “B*st*rd” in class many times. I had professors openly state we “really need to get rid of that guy and I don’t care how” and also openly criticize students (such as myself) for daring to opine conservative views (One professor even said something like “how can you believe such clearly wrong things?” without even debating the actual merits of my statement).
Nope, they never told us how to vote. They just let us know how smart people like us should vote if we actually wanted careers in academia (mostly, i just keep my mouth shut about politics and let the professors rant. At this point, I’m writing my dissertation so I don’t have to listen to it as much anymore).
If conservatives had done such things, it would be called a “chilling effect” or an “atmosphere of intolerance” but when far left liberals do it, it’s just the facts, apparently.
A Nonny Mouse:
National Review never claims to be a straight up news source. It claims openly to be conservative. Take shots at Fox news if you want (I will agree they are more right wing than CNN or NYTimes, though that doesn’t mean much) – but your shot at National Review shows you know next to nothing about the conservative movement.
Ivan,
Eh, I’ve heard it and was never bothered. One thing I did hear at Simmons that bothered me was derogatory comments about Mormons.
National Review never claims to be a straight up news source.
Correct, and you exactly misunderstood my point: Geoff used it as if it were a straight up news source. He quoted it as a place where we could find reports of Professors telling students how to vote and staking their grades on it. I’m sorry, but if I read such reports in the National Review or in the Village Voice or any other highly politicized magazine, I wouldn’t consider them believable, but instead alaramist and paranoid.
Look, it’s not that I don’t understand the conservative movement, it’s that I think the old alarmist battle cries of the Republicans that always think the academic intelligensia are out to get them are just as stupid as the Democrat’s conspiracy theory’s about big business being out to control the world.
Is George Bush an idiot and a very bad poster-child for modern convservatism? Definitely. Should churches or university professors consider it ethical to support him openly in their official capacities? Definitely not. Was Kerry an idiot who doesn’t really represent most modern democrats? Certainly. Should churches and uninversity professors support him in their official capacities? Certainly not.
But, it’s pointless and a foolhearty waste of energy to rant and rave about how if the “other side” said it, it wouldn’t be taken in such a negative light, regardless if you’re left-leaning or right-leaning. Rather than accomplishing anything worthwhile in our nation’s public political discourse, it just serves the cyclical and unhealthy notion of “us vs. them” instead of “us and them need to work together to make our nation a better place, because it surely sucks pretty bad in some pretty important ways right now.”
But did a professor ever base your grade on who you voted for, and if so, how did they know? That’s the only part of Geoff’s comment that sounds like something he made up out of thin air. I’m sure everyone has had professors that are very liberal, many even calling Bush names (oh no!). But give you a grade based on who you voted for? Sounds like the boogyman, liberal, professor that wants us all to abort our babies and force us to marry homosexuals.
A Nonny Mouse:
I did not misunderstand you, and Geoff never claimed it was a straight up news source. By claiming National Review was a “screed” you showed your ignorance (not to mention it’s a logical fallacy on your part – attacking the messanger rather than the message – you never actually deal with the issue at hand).
NR doen’t try to hide behind claims of objectivity the way CNN and NYT and Fox do. But despite all that, that does not render any of the stories they report on invalid or inaccurate. But you write it all off as “screeds” you show a lack of knowledge and desire to be fully informed.
Dan –
of course it didn’t bother you. Your other comments indicate you are rather liberal. I find it rather funny when liberals claim not to be bothered by rampant, rabid liberalism in the classroom, and therefore conservatives should stop being so thin-skinned.
jjohnsen –
Well, there are certian paper topics (such as exploring why Marxims is a horrid economic system, or discussing how conservative rhetoric more effectively reflects reality) that would get automaticly failing grades. Instead, we are meant to write papers on how conservative religous rhetoric is decitful and merely a cover for more insidous power politics, or why (this was a paper topic in one of my classes) it’s clear George Bush hates black people.
And it’s a bit more than calling Bush names. But I’m guessing you’d be fine with professors who used the same term to describe Clinton or Kerry or Gore, since it’s apparently okay to do so with Bush.
The mocking tone evidenced by many commentators here also shows what is wrong with the academy: The left is correct, and conservative views are so obviously wrong many seem to feel they have to hold their nose while dealing with them.
How many of y’all actually followed Geoff’s links and spent several hours browsing, and then came back and posted intelligent, reasoned responses that dealt with the issues at hand?
Not a one. All we got were anecdotes about since the academy shares their left leaning views, they see no problems, or else personal, mocking attacks.
This is of course, what I deal with every day. Bring up a conservative idea in class and find yourself the object of contempt. No attempt is made to discuss the issue 0- but personal attacks become rather common, and cuss words whenever Bush comes up.
Of course, had y’all been in a class where the professor goes off on a half hour rant about all the evils of the modern Democratic party, I doubt y’all would be so cavalier about it.
Ivan,
You misunderstand me. I meant that I was not bothered when I’ve had conservative (yes, gasp!) professors deride liberals.
NR doen’t try to hide behind claims of objectivity the way CNN and NYT and Fox do. But despite all that, that does not render any of the stories they report on invalid or inaccurate.
You’re right, bias itself doesn’t render their stories inaccurate or invalid. It’s the use of that bias to justify exaggeration and hyperbole that renders the stories inaccurate and invalid. It’s the same thing Maureen Dowd does anytime she writes a paean supporting the left or a jeremiad against Bush.
It means that by virtue of the context itself, it’s accuracy and truthfulness is suspect. That’s not attacking the messenger, that’s basic critical thinking.
You can’t tell me you wouldn’t question anything Maureen Dowd says in an Op/Ed piece or the “facts” of a story in the Village Voice. I know I certainly would.
Well said, Ivan.
But I will point out that I needed to do a better job backing up the claims I made in #37 and #46. I have read of so many cases recently that it will take me a while to find even a selection of them because it will involve some digging on the web that I don’t have time to do right now.
A personal story: I went to Stanford, and took many political science and history courses. In my political science courses, we were regularly told that all intelligent people were Democrats or to the left of Democrats (exactly as Dan states in #48). All discussions were based on trying to convince moderate or conservative students to admit they were wrong. Anybody who quoted the Hoover Institution (which is on campus) was hooted down. Professors regularly participated in lefitst demonstrations and encouraged their students to do so. They talked about the demonstrations in class and made fun of conservatives who didn’t hold their viewpoints. There was a tremendous chilling effect on moderates and conservatives because their views were “stupid” and therefore grades were affected by ideology. Professors encouraged students to attend speeches by Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy but discouraged attending any talks by Republicans (they were stupid). I was a liberal then primarily because I didn’t want to be seen as unintelligent.
I have talked to dozens of people who had similar experiences at college campuses, everywhere from the Ivy League to Berkeley to UCLA to Cal Tech, MIT and large university campuses like U of Florida, U of Miami, FIU and on and on.
But, it’s pointless and a foolhearty waste of energy to rant and rave about how if the “other side” said it, it wouldn’t be taken in such a negative light, regardless if you’re left-leaning or right-leaning. Rather than accomplishing anything worthwhile in our nation’s public political discourse, it just serves the cyclical and unhealthy notion of “us vs. them” instead of “us and them need to work together to make our nation a better place, because it surely sucks pretty bad in some pretty important ways right now.”
Y’know – I just re-read that and realized how eminently reasonable it sounded to me. So, I’m going to try and be better about my “us vs. them” rhetoric.
Y’know – I just re-read that and realized how eminently reasonable it sounded to me. So, I’m going to try and be better about my “us vs. them” rhetoric.
Well, good, then. My job here is done 🙂
On the subject of how conservatives are oppressed on liberal campuses, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with the following:
Young Republicans
Now Flourishing
At Liberal Berkeley
Campus Protest Taunts PETA
With Hot-Dog Giveaway;
An Anti-Antiwar Rally
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116130960571998544.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one
(The link will probably only work today-10/20)
LL, there’s a nice gem in the story you linked:
“Being a Republican at a liberal college isn’t easy. Andrea Rasmussen, 22, an integrative biology and anthropology major who is a vice president of the club, says some fellow students once threatened to shoot her for her conservative beliefs. Mr. Prendergast, who also works as a local restaurant waiter, says some of his friends have been spat on and called fascists.”
People interested in the real environment at liberal Cal-Berkeley may want to read some articles at the California Patriot.
Here is one sample but I encourage you to peruse the archives of the Patriot:
http://www.calpatriot.org/magazine/issue/2006/10/5/free-speech-dead-at-cal
But did they give you a grade based on who you voted for, yes or no? Or was this rhetoric on your side to show how evil and close-minded liberal professors are? And Ivan, I went to college in Utah, you’re crazy if you think I’ve never heard a professor complain about liberals, especially Clinton.
But still no example yet of a professor telling a student that the way they vote will be one of the ways they will be graded…..I’m still waiting for that.
JJohnsen/Dan, obviously there is no way for a professor to know how you voted. But there clearly is pressure to have you conform to leftist thought. If you do not, you are “stupid.” Papers and exams that put forward conservative ideas are certain to receive lower grades than those that put forward liberal arguments because conservative ideas are “stupid.”
What I wrote in #37 was, “in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie.” If you are arguing conservative ideas and have conservative sympathies, there is no reason for a professor to know how you actually voted — he already know where your sympathies lie, and, yes, it will affect your grade in many cases.
Obviously, I am talking about liberal arts classes. This would not apply to most science and math courses.
I will spend some time over the weekend on the web looking up some examples I remember in the last few years. No time right now. Tune back in on Monday (Dan, you’ll have to keep on waiting until then).
jjohnsen –
I don’t think I’m stupid, but you seem to be wilfully misreading me. I’m asking: You seem to think professors using cuss words to describe Bush in half hour long rants isn’t that big of a deal (you even mocked me for complaining about it). So, I want to know: Were you totally cool with those professors in Utah who mocked Clinton?
If the answer is yes, than at the very least you are consistent, though you aren’t very cordial.
In the meantime, Dan and JJohnsen, will you address my question in #48, namely:
“why is it wrong for BYU to send out one e-mail and it’s OK for “almost all” other universities to have professors, administrators, etc. openly campaign for leftist causes and leftist candidates and intimidate students into joining their leftist causes?” Take at look at the link from UC Berkeley for one example. I will provide some more by Monday.
Geoff, you haven’t seen me comment on the Romney/BYU thing because I don’t it’s a big deal other than it might look bad for Romney and the Church. Having the press attack him over it seems like they’re looking for dirt that probably isn’t there.
I’ve quickly learned that all these Romney posts you’ve been putting up soon turn into liberals are satan/Bush is satan fight and chose not to get involved in this one. The only thing that brought me out of lurking was your seemingly hysterical comment that professors graded you based on how you vote. Now that you’ve gone back and toned that statement done, the conversation is over as far as I’m concerned.
Ivan, I was very moderate in my political thoughts at the time I was in those classes, all it really made me think was they were being rediculous. Somehow at that young age I didn’t feel like they were picking on me because they spoke so negatively of a President though. It never once made me think they were going to lower a grade if I handed in a paper expressing my problems with Reagans policies, or how much I like some of Clintons.
This reminds me of BYU were I learned how Utah/Idaho Mormons will eat their young when upset. Sad.
Geoff,
There we go again. I am glad to see that you have toned down the accusations that professors grade students based on how they vote, but jeez, “are certain to receive lower grades?” I again need examples, Geoff. Did you really have that bad of an experience at Stanford? Did they actually mark your papers lower when you wrote something from a conservative perspective? I wonder why you’ve gone so far in your view about “liberal” professors….
I’ll wait patiently. 🙂
Now on to your question (#48)
First off, I personally don’t care if BYU sends out those emails. I don’t care if Stanford does either. Now, what if I wanted to run against Romney as a Democrat (I actually couldn’t since I’m an immigrant, but that’s another topic), would the church and BYU support me as a candidate? Or is the church’s “neutral” policy not really neutral?
Secondly, your wording suggests that it is individual people (professors, administrators, etc.) who openly campaign for “leftist causes” etc. Is that not different than an official BYU letter (therefore endorsed by the university rather than individuals)? Does Stanford as a university endorse a particular candidate, or is it individuals (who rightly or wrongly use their positions within the university as soapboxes) who are out campaigning for “leftist causes?” I really don’t care if a private university chooses to endorse a candidate or a cause or a party; that’s the beauty of private institutions. BYU though, is run by the church, and the church, if endorsing a candidate, can lose out on its tax exempt status. Is it not better for BYU to follow the example of Stanford and let individual professors, administrators, etc. endorse “rightist causes” instead of the University?
JJohnsen, thanks for the clarification.
Dan, your #72 shows exactly how these things get exaggerated. You wrote:
“an official BYU letter (therefore endorsed by the university rather than individuals).”
Let’s go back to the original story:
“Eight days later, Stirling, Spencer Zwick, a top political aide to Romney, and the governor’s brother, Scott Romney, held a dinner at a private Salt Lake City club for other prominent Mormons, where they discussed the effort further. Among those invited were Steve Albrecht, associate dean of the BYU business school, the Marriott School of Management.
On Oct. 9, Albrecht and Ned Hill, the business school dean, sent an e-mail to 50 Management Society members and 100 members of the school’s National Advisory Council asking them to join them in supporting Romney’s potential bid for the presidency. Hill and Albrecht signed the message with their official BYU titles, sent the e-mail from a BYU e-mail address, and began the message “Dear Marriott School Friend.”
This is not the entire university but intead just the business school. This is not an endorsement but a request for support, and it was aimed specifically at a relatively small amount of people and was private.
I think everybody can agree that what the two did was wrong, and they stopped immediately — even before the muckraking story came out.
This is a very different thing than an entire university “endorsing” a candidate.
Keep in mind that many universities, I would argue the vast majority in the United States, regularly endorse and promote a primarily leftist viewpoint and do not stop or pull back even when it is pointed out that what they did was wrong.
So, to answer your question at the end of #72, BYU has already agreed to the path you are suggesting because they have agreed to stop the e-mails. You’re concerned about an issue that has already been settled, whereas I am concerned about an issue — the open and unrepentant official promotion of leftist ideology on college campuses — that continues, probably indefinitely. I will provide links to back this up on Monday.
Probably should post the offical church response to this. http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-24209,00.html
Geoff,
I really haven’t kept up on this, so can you show me an example of a private university endorsing a candidate. When a mean a private university, I mean the university as a whole, and not individuals within the organization.
As to the BYU thing, my apologies, I only looked at your question (#48). I haven’t looked at the real incident, so thank you for clarifying that it wasn’t BYU itself that sent out that email.
Addrax, thanks for reminding us of that. Guy posted it in #38.
It appears that the Globe story is even weaker than original reported. Please see this from the Deseret News:
Oops.
First, as I stated before, I *do* think it is wrong for professors and administrators to openly campaign for candidates in their official capacity. I think it is wrong for them to (and this is what the BYU folks did) use their official titles, use university mailing lists, use university email or letterhead. And I would think it wrong whether the candidate in question was Hilary Clinton or Mitt Romney.
This isn’t a matter of conservative or liberal, it’s about ethics.
And it should be noted that many universities have policies against that sort of thing as well. Just as examples…
The Ohio State University
http://legal.osu.edu/politicalactivity.php
Arizona State University
http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/chap2.html
And those don’t include the universities that I worked at and attended, which had similar policies. I thought it was pretty standard, although of course private universities can do what they want.
I don’t doubt that some faculty still abuse the bully pulpit of the classroom, but if they do, students have a right to complain. And the consequences are such that I can’t imagine faculty without tenure doing that.
This blogger had me laughing out loud:
http://nutmeggersformitt.blogspot.com/2006/10/romney-camp-caught-with-mormons-scoop.html
He says a lot on a single sentence:
OK, Dan, it’s not even Monday yet, and you get your results (this is in response to #65 and #66 and others):
Please see the following survey in which 29 percent of students asked said they have to agreed with a professors’s (primarily liberal) politics to get a good grade:
http://www.goacta.org/press/Press%20Releases/11-30-04PR.htm
Here are the key graphs:
Washington, DC (November 30, 2004) — 49% of the students at the top 50 colleges and universities say professors frequently inject political comments into their courses, even if they have nothing to do with the subject. Almost one-third—29%—feel they have to agree with the professor’s political views to get a good grade.
A survey commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni reveals the politicization of the classroom and the intellectual intolerance of faculty.
According to the survey:
* 48% report campus presentations on political issues that “seem totally one-sided.â€
* 46% say professors “use the classroom to present their personal political views.â€
* 42% of students fault reading assignments for presenting only one side of a controversial issue.
The survey also indicates that political comments are consistently partisan. The survey, which was conducted just before and after the American presidential election, found that 68% of the students reported negative remarks in class about Pres. George Bush while 62% said professors praised Sen. John Kerry.
“Students pay hefty tuition to get an education, not to hear some professors’ pet political views,†said Anne Neal, president of ACTA. “When politics is relevant, multiple perspectives should be presented. The classroom should be a place where students are free to explore different points of view. They should not feel they will be penalized if they think for themselves.â€
The ACTA survey was conducted in late October and early November by the Center for Survey Research & Analysis at the University of Connecticut at the 50 colleges and universities top-ranked by U.S. News & World Report. List attached.
The survey shows that college and university faculty are biased: 74% of students said professors made positive remarks about liberals while 47% reported negative comments about conservatives. A substantial majority—83 %—said that student evaluations administered by the college did not ask about a professor’s political biases.
The survey comes in the wake of a number of studies that have shown that party registrations of college professors are overwhelmingly one-sided. Last week, the Princeton, NJ-based National Association of Scholars released a study showing that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at some top-50 schools is as high as 9 to 1.
SO, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT I WROTE IN #37 IS COMPLETELY CORRECT: “Professors openly tell hundreds of students how to vote, and in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie.” ACCORDING TO THIS SURVEY, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS AT MANY, MANY UNIVERSITIES.
This link has a pretty good summary of many of the recent events on many campuses that involve liberal bias, the endorsement of liberal thought as the official policy of universities, the suppression of conservative ideas and speakers and supports many of the other points I have made in this thread. So, once again, here’s the summary: the dean of the Marriott school and an assistant dean sent out e-mails to 150 people. They were chastized and stopped immediately. Meanwhile, we have hundreds if not thousands of campuses in the United States where professors promote liberal ideology, endorse liberal candidates in class, 29 percent of students say their grades depend on agreeing with the professors, and professors and sometimes administrators even join in and lead anti-conservative demonstrations. There is no sense of proportionality on this issue. Does anybody doubt that if Romney is the candidate in 2008, there will be hundreds if not thousands of campuses where professors will continually insult him, degrade him and endorse his Democratic opponent?
Here’s the link (please scroll to the bottom for sources):
http://www.intellectualtakeout.com/aboutus/content.asp?id=19
Some teachers do flunk conservative students:
Most of the liberal teachers respect my son for his knowledge and logical thoughts
Well, that changed this year. A new “super” liberal English teacher has been indoctrinating and not educating – always calling President Bush names, claiming the war in Iraq was illegal and Bush should be put in jail. My son for the most part has stood up to this tyrant, as this teacher claimed he “welcomes” healthy debate.
The first sign of trouble came after my son stood up to his “liberal claims” and promptly received an “F” on a paper in which the teacher wrote in red “sloppy Republican” at the top of the paper. (I have a copy of this paper if you would like to see it.)
Re #82–Geoff, I actually read the full report of the survey, which is found at
http://www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/IntellectualDiversityFinal.pdf
I don’t think your conclusions are backed up by the survey findings.
First, you seem to think these results are generalizable to “many” (and you had previously stated ‘all but BYU’) universities, and they are surely not. The sampled institutions were the top 25 National Universities and top 25 Liberal Arts Colleges as ranked by US News that year. These are elite schools, hardly typical of universities around the country. Their ranks are highly tilted toward the private and Northeast.
Second, I question the representativeness of the sample, since the most popular major among survey respondents was political science, comprising 11% of the respondents. Since the report failed to provide any methodological details on response rate, we don’t know if this was because more polisci folks responded since they found it interesting, or what. But the study failed to include even a single percentage point worth of journalism, nursing or agriculture majors, and only 1% education. Is that typical of college majors? Not at the school where I work. And yes, one would expect political stuff to come up in polisci classes, so many of the “positive toward liberal” or “pro-Bush” comments may have been entirely appropriate in context.
But more importantly, the study was designed to gauge the climate on campus, not quantify reports of problems. It asked whether things ever happened, NOT whether it happened to the particular respondent. So if one teacher is offensive in class, and a student writes a letter to the editor or files a public complaint, then every survey respondent on that campus reports that it happened, even though it may only have been one teacher on one day in one class.
Additionally, you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that when there is bias observed, that it is the evil liberals causing the bias. In fact, the data do not support that. The wording is neutral about direction when it comes to things like, “students feel they have to agree with the professor’s political or social views.” We don’t know which direction those views take. Given that 46% of the students consider themselves Liberal, and another 5% Radical Left, it may well be that their feelings of bias are generated by Conservative professors.
Also, there are many items on the survey that were not included in the press release, which do not support your assertion that this is so widespread.
Q14 On my campus, some courses present social and political issues in an unfair and one-sided manner. Only 6% strongly agreed, 23% somewhat agree.
Q13 On my campus, some professors are intolerant of certain political and social viewpoints. Only 5% strongly agreed, 16% somewhat agreed.
So in general, these data do not back up your assertions.
Naismith, I’m glad you read the entire report. Unfortunately, your analysis is not really relevant to the bigger question, which was: why does the media care so much by one e-mail to 150 alumni, which has been apologized for, and does not care about the pervasive bias on other campuses. This thread is primarily about Romney and how the Boston Globe handled this situation. The Marriott School primarily compares itself to the schools mentioned in the survey, so those results are relevant. If you do not believe liberal bias is pervasive at colleges and universities, and do not believe it creates a chilling effect on students and conservative faculty, despite the evidence from the survey and the other link I provided in #83, and, further, if you do not believe that BYU is being treated differently than other campuses, then, well, we are just living in different worlds. All the best to you.
Geoff,
Thank you for providing that survey. I’m glad to see you’ve got some evidence of your accusations, however, like Naismith, I see many problems with your statement:
No, the survey did NOT show that “professors openly tell hundreds of students “how” to vote, and in some cases their grades depend on how they voted.” What the survey showed was that professors did speak as a majority against Bush in classes, some of which had nothing to do with politics. I would like to see a survey of the breakdown by class, but I doubt one can be provided. You have not proved that professors “openly told students how to vote” by this survey. All this survey provided was a reflection of how students “felt” and what professors “said,” none of which amounted to professors telling students “how” to vote. Moreover, you have not passed the burden of proof that professors indeed “graded” students based on their political leanings. All the survey provided was what students “felt” with no actual proof that one student here, or ten students there had lower grades specifically because of their political leanings. There is a difference in how one feels (the intimidation factor) and hard evidence of actual malfeasance (lower grades based on political leanings). You have not proven that. Thus your statement is factually incorrect, and you’ve jumped the gun, because you too “feel” like professors grade students based on their political leanings, while having no evidence of the actual crimes.
No doubt. Just like all the rather crude and lame comments I heard from professors who lambasted Clinton back in the 90s. It is nothing new. You’re just bothered that you are in the minority at the moment. I wonder….I just wonder….how it will be like when you are in the majority. Will you be bothered when most professors lambast liberal political leaders?
Your evidence of bias at universities does not prove that the media is inconsistent in its drive to “out” Romney over, say, Obama. In fact, the survey has nothing to do at all with whether or not universities should be endorsing candidates. Now if you had examples of Hilary Clinton using a university to get people to support her, and the media was silent about it, well, then your case will be valid. Otherwise, you don’t have much to go on right now, Geoff.
The discussion about professor bias is interesting but ultimately irrelevent. The issue is that two Marriot School deans clearly violated election law. Whether other schools do the same thing, or worse things, does not change that unsavory fact. Geoff or someone else will probably find a point to quibble wether the violation was actually clear, as I have asserted. But even if it isn’t a clear violation, the fact that they have done something that is even the “appearance of evil” is a mistake. They should know better. The good thing is that they were called on it pretty quickly and forced to admit that it was wrong.
The Romney campaign, however, has been less forthright. Romney, rather than categorically denying any church involvment in his campaign has essentially defended it, making statements to the effect of “well, why wouldn’t I campaign among mormons?” While it is perfectly reasonable for him to campaign among mormons, it is politically stupid to say that at this time and not disavow coordination with the church or BYU. It allows McCain supporters (BTW it is McCain supporters, not liberals, who want to smear Romney at this point. Liberals would love for Romney to divide the republicans.) to keep the story alive, pointing out that Romney hasn’t denied that he wants to use the church and its subsidiaries (BYU MS and its Alumni) for political gain.
Another mistake is for the church to link to a right-wing (even if not extremely right-wing) blog on its website. While the article VI blog post provides a good substantive critique of the globe article, the overall tone is sarcastic, anti-McCain, and most importantly of all, pro-Romney (not to mention the anti-islamic ads on the side-bar, which could be another problem for the church to link to). This kind of undermines the church’s statement affirming its neutrality. Some bozo working in the IT division of the public relations department really screwed that one up. Oh well, I guess the good news is that nobody reads the church website so the damage will be somewhat limited.