Cheese and Crackers: Comments
I think the key factor in this decision is that the magnet was on the School's vehicle. Not on the private vehicle of the employee. A school is meant to stay nuetral in such a case, and should not be seen as endorsing a cause be it right or wrong. While I agree that we should show the support for our troops in whichever way we can, the school can not be percieved to represent something it does not officially endorse. As you state the employee has the right to express his personal beliefs and he should keep it just that.
Mike-
Wouldn't an equivalent be you wearing a Kerry for President or Bush for President on your shirt at work?
No.
It would not be similar as the university probably has no "political" message clause in its employee dress code. Even if it did, it would be difficult to promulgate such rules. The Supreme Court pretty forcefully defined "clothing as speech" in a string of Vietnam-era cases like Cohen and O'Brien.
This was a University Vehicle. If the University disallows personal political stickers to be placed on their vehicles, it is an open and shut case.
Another thing...
The blog you quote is full of complete propaganda. The vehicle was 1) University property and not an individual auto and 2) "Yellow Ribbon" magnets WERE NOT banned on private autos.
You can do better.
Did you read the policy statement on Prohibited Political Activities?
Show me where in the rules it prohibets this?
Also, this is not "political speech" as defined by the University, as he is not promoting or opposing the nomination or election of a candidate, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder.
Do you bother to read the links you cite?
The university spokesman specifically said in a quote that the magnets "MAY" be considered political speech. If they are, then there is grounds for removal. Better safe than sorry.
In some places, a complaint is enough.
I would have complained too. I don't like seeing police cars (ie. Buffalo, NY) emblazoned with meaningless $1.99 trinkets.
Talk about "supporting the troops" is cheap drivel - when a huge university like Oregon will turn out less than 30 of its 2006 graduates to lead fellow Americans as military officers.
IRR-
Whether you are a democrat or republican...whether you support the war in Iraq or not...you cannot deny that your troops are deployed across the globe to protect our freedom.
Wanting to support our troops by displaying a yellow ribbon isn't "political". It's simply supporting our freedom. I think the U of O should be ashamed.
I can understand the University deciding that its property should not be used to promote a political idea.
But I cannot understand it limiting this policy to trucks. Are there really no instructors decorating thier offices with items suuporting one view or another on abortion, gay marriage, 'living wage' support or any of the many topics currently under debate in the political arena? Why is this different from posting a view on a truck?
IRR-
Recruits swamp Navy, Air Force
Army and Marines struggle with goals
Points to ponder
OB as far as I am aware, such materials would be against most workplaces regulations. All of the educational instutions I have attended, had explict guidelines for which teachers were to abide to when it came to expressing political views. But this again goes beyond political views, the vehicle is property of the University. Therefore the university can deem what is placed on the vehicle and what is not. It is nowhere near impeeding on anyones liberties it is preserving its own as an educational instution.
Jordan,
What's your point? That the "all volunteer" system is seen by many as an educational/job training/financial lifeline?? Duh.
There is a reason why the USAF and USN are inundated by applicants and the Army and USMC have a dearth of them - they are perceived to be safer. People want the benefits of military service but (understandably) don't want to get killed,maimed or even sent to Iraq for a year.
Again, your point is ?
I wrote an email to President Frohnmayer and he actually responded to me (which i was quite surprised about). And his response did seem to make sense to me:
Thank you for your e-mail. Perhaps this statement from our Vice President for Administration who made this decision will clarify the approach the University of Oregon, as a state agency, is taking.
“Government vehicles in this state have never been allowed to exhibit items of personal _expression. State employees are free to use their personal vehicles for statements of all types on university campuses and elsewhere. This distinction between a state vehicle and a personal vehicle is very important.”
1) The University of Oregon is, despite any delusions otherwise, a creature of the state of Oregon.
2) As such, they are answerable, by political pressure, to the people of
the state, as expressed to and through the legislature.
3) As a citizen and registered voter of the state, I have let my legislators know what I think of this, and I expect that others will do the same... especially the relatives of the (pay attention, IRR) the 1250 ORNG soldiers now under arms in Iraq.
4) The removal of the sticker is much more a political move than the application, and I intend to treat it as such.
In short, the "University" (in reality, the person or persons working for the same who made this decision) did it either because they
are against the war in Iraq and decided to "show solidarity" with the antiwar crew, or they didn't have sense enough to tell the complainer that it was not a prohibited political statement. If the argument is made that the sticker can be prohibited arbitrarily because "it's
their truck" then there had better not be *any* other stickers on any university owned vehicle (including Deadhead ones). If there are, then that argument breaks down, since there is no compelling reason to make a special rule for this one (the "political statement" excuse has been shown to be nonsense).
Jordan: Your link to the recruiting of Navy and Airforce is hilarious and shows your lack of understanding. Points to ponder? Absolutely! No one is joining the services which are doing the fighting. Everyone is joining the yacht club and the aviation club. They still want the college money but do not want to fight. Typical for the young neo-con movement... all talk no walk.
Also, as for free speech. I notice the comments section is removed from the article on the CIA. I wanted to see your response when I said that if your Army MI friend told you anything meaningful about the Army MI operations than he is guilty of devulging secrets and at a minimum should be making little rocks from big rocks at Leavenworth.
Kevin-
That's why I posted it. It's an interesting article. I agree with you. People aren't joining the forces doing the fighting. The AF should just bomb everywhere the terrorists are back to the stone age. Give them a lesson in making glass.
He did not tell me anything meaningful, no. Why don't you look to the Senate Intel Committee for info about divulging secrets.
Yes "bombing more" is the answer. Boy, "shock and awe" worked great until someone had to occupy Iraq.
Bombing will not end radical Islam and it will not quell a growing insurgency.
Reference Vietnam. We dropped more tonnage of ordnance over N. Vietnam than over the entire ETO in WWII. Where did "bombing them into the stone age" get us?
I too was sad to see my comment abut MI removed.
Well, Jordan and I may agree (I say, May..) on one thing. You either go to war or don't go to war. But you do not send kids to their death while you try to save your political ass by not fully prosecuting the war.
Jordan, it is your great President and SecDef (Who "Rocks" right?) who are prosecuting this silly war. They are the ones sending kids needlessly to their death. If you truly believe what you say then you should be calling for their resignation. If you called for their resignation and asked to get someone in who was either going to "Fight or get out" then you and I will be in total agreement.
Now you say that your friend did not tell you anything meaningful yet you used him as THE SOURCE for why you know so much about Army MI Ops.
Be careful of your sources.
IRR and Kevin -
What a surprise to find that fat Mikey Moore has a fan club of veterans. Is that one of you in the black mask with the sign on Malkin's web site?
I can understand why people are so outraged to hear that the University of Oregon has “banned” yellow ribbons.
I’d be outraged, too, if it was true.
Yellow ribbons are not banned from the UO campus.
Any visit to our parking lots will prove otherwise.
However, ribbons or stickers – of any kind – can’t be put on publicly owned vehicles.
The ROTC reports that the military has the same policy for government vehicles that the State of Oregon has for university vehicles: no personal stickers unless the vehicle is your own private property.
Be more careful about your information sources. I challenge you to take down the lead article on your homepage quoting KMC.
And you ought to go back to www.kezi.com to see the story that they did today (Tuesday).
Melody Leslie
University of Oregon
Jordan,
DARE is a police department sponsored program - what an inapt analogy.
This is NOT a 1st amendment issue Jordan. Period. You need help if you think it is.
Yes, it is not a cut and dry first Amendment issue, but I believe it violates the spirit of the Amendment.
Yes, it is against state policy and what they did is technically legal.
I still believe it is WRONG and the policy should be changed.
Violates the spirit of the 1st amend. You have got to be kinding me!
It's a UO vehicle - get over it
What is the status of the fight against the university?
Commenting by HaloScan
