Teaching Colleges a Lesson

When a pro-life student group at MTSU got hit with a fee other students groups have not been required to pay, the Alliance Defense Fund stepped in, and the University retreated. Perhaps that will send a message to other universities in Tennessee: Don’t discriminate against conservatives.

College campuses can be a cesspool of political correctness and intolerance for those students and student groups that don’t conform to liberal ideology. When one state college recently tried to impose a unique burden on a conservative student group, they found out someone is watching.

Recently a student group at Middle Tennessee State University, Pro-Life Collegians, applied to present a pro-life message on campus through Justice for All’s pro-life exhibits. Officials at MTSU approved the Pro-Life Collegians’ application, but with a precondition that it had to pay for security for the event. Even though no written policy validates such charges, which aren’t required for other student group events, the university insisted that Pro-Life Collegians pay for security for its event.

Pro-Life Collegians knew that they should not be treated differently from other campus student groups that sponsor events and called on the Alliance Defense Fund’s Center for Academic Freedom (ADF) to help them challenge the university’s discriminatory approval of their application.

ADF wrote the university to tell them that the fee was unconstitutional because such a vague and unwritten standard empowered the university to enforce or waive the fee requirement based upon their approval or disapproval of a student group’s message. The letter also stated that allowing the uncapped fee gave MTSU officials unlimited authority to silence and charge any disfavored group as they see fit, in violation of the free-speech rights of students protected by the First Amendment. Essentially, according to ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Joe Martins, who wrote the letter, pro-life student groups were being penalized and discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.” And the message in ADF’s letter was clear: “We’ll sue if necessary.”

Fortunately, the university changed its mind and gave deference to the group’s First Amendment right by retracting the fee.

So, while the University’s arbitrary application of a security fee requirement could have “chilled” the rights of student groups on campus because of the burden a fee would impose on presenting their group’s views, let’s hope the intervention by ADF on behalf of conservatives on this campus will “chill” a little of the political correctness and intolerance toward conservatives that is probably taking place on other college campuses and classrooms in Tennessee. There may just be someone watching who is big enough and willing to take them on.

Ben Nelson ‘Politics’ Not Welcome in Tennessee

It is a good thing to try to put a stop to politicians “selling” their vote for something they otherwise wouldn’t support in exchange for a benefit for their constituents that sticks it to everyone. That some don’t think so shows how far American politics has sunk.

America got a close-up look at the ugly underbelly of Washington politics when U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), in exchange for his vote, got his state exempted from the unfunded Medicaid mandate under the federal health care bill. Getting a monetary break for his state suddenly made a bad bill “good.” America was rightly outraged by this act of “political bribery.” Well, something more than Norris Dam is getting ready to be named for a Nebraska Senator, and maybe it will keep Washington politics out of Tennessee.

Last week state Sens. Dewayne Bunch ((R-Cleveland) and Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) and Reps. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Glen Casada (R-College Grove) filed Senate Bill 3160 and House Bill 3123 to protect the taxpayers of Tennessee from the kind of “political bribery” we all witnessed when some of our nation’s U.S. Senators “sold” their votes on national health care for deals that benefit their constituents while sticking it to the wallets of all other taxpayers.

This bill is intended to make sure this kind of horse-trading for the benefit of some taxpayers at the expense others doesn’t make its way into Tennessee. (I’m not saying it has happened in Tennessee, but there has never been any reason to pursue suspicions either.) The bill deals with basically two different scenarios. The bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor for an official to vote for a bill in exchange for future employment. It would also make it a crime for a legislator to vote for a bill only if that legislator receives for only for his or her district a fiscal or budgetary benefit that citizens of all other districts in the state would not get but would have to pay for through their taxes.

Bribery by Any Other Name

The essence of bribery is offering some reward or favor for the purpose of perverting the judgment of an elected official. In the past, we only thought of bribery in terms of some favor or reward going to the elected official personally, but it doesn’t matter whether it is an individual’s money that perverts an official’s judgment or that of taxpayers. The bottom line is that the legislator’s better judgment has been altered by a financial consideration that is not in the best interest of the whole body politic.

The filing of the bill has been news around the country (though not so much so in our own state, which is part of why FACT exists—to tell you things others think unimportant). When the Omaha World Herald found out about the bill last Friday, they called Rep. Dunn, and he echoed the same sentiment,

Sen. Nelson, even though he realized this could ruin the finances of states, he went ahead and voted for it as long as he protected his state. So he voted for what he knew was bad policy, just because he got favoritism.

Other Senators, of course, did similar things, but fortunately for them they didn’t receive the same notoriety because their vote was not the deciding one.

If the Average Guy Gets It, Why Can’t Everyone Else?

Partly because Sen. Nelson’s conduct isn’t that unusual, some of the politicos across the country laughed at the idea. One was Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia, who said, “We don’t have enough prison space in the country to house all the congressmen and state legislators who would have to be incarcerated. Obviously it’s ridiculous. You don’t criminalize politics.”

Actually, liberals and clueless politicians, for example those like Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, don’t understand that a lot of average Americans do think politics itself has become “criminal,” particularly in Washington, where Republicans in 12 years “earmarked” us to the edge of oblivion and Democrats in the last two years shoved us over the edge. If it takes more politicians going to jail to get our governmental policies decided on the merits, then there may just be a growing population ready to say, “Then spend some money to build more prisons … and make sure they serve TEA with every meal.”

That some would see this bill as ridiculous shows just how jaded and out of touch some of those in politics have become. Some can’t even recognize that Justice has had her blindfold off for a long time now and has been wearing dark-shaded glasses with a brimmed hat pulled down over her head. Some have been in the “dark” for so long they don’t know what “light” looks like.

But some do. The average guy does. And I’m sure that’s who these sponsors are counting on to make a statement in Tennessee, one that I hope will be heard around the country. In fact, Rep. Dunn got this e-mail last Friday from a man in Nebraska who read the article in his state’s newspaper:

As a Nebraskan, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for naming your wonderful ethics bill after Senator Ben Nelson. I have been troubled by this individual ever since he steered millions of our tax dollars over to a company his son worked for and chose not to reveal the family connection.

I can tell you that Ben Nelson does not represent the wonderful people of Nebraska who possess some of the finest ethics in the country. As a result of his shameless vote in the Senate, Nelson is now despised in this state.

Please keep up the good work, Mr. Dunn. You, sir, are a great American.

I concur. Thank you, Jack Johnson, Dewayne Bunch, Bill Dunn and Glen Casada, for being willing to take the scorn from those who have come to accept “politics as usual.”

The Times, They Are A-Changin’

While some legislators seem so aligned with the Tennessee Education Association that they never seem to question the Association’s position, the Senate Education Committee is giving a regular voice to other teachers for the first time in history.

Last week we reported on how some legislators seem to walk lockstep with certain special interests, but state Senate Republicans are bringing some much-needed change to a key committee.

As we mentioned, the Tennessee Education Association has held a firm grip on the Tennessee General Assembly over the years. But they are not and have not been the only organization in Tennessee representing teachers. The Professional Educators of Tennessee (PET) has been around a number of years, but because it is conservative in its views, it has never been “invited to the table,” so to speak.

In fact, it has even been a bit harder than necessary for PET even to let teachers know of its existence. No doubt, to help the TEA maintain its firm grip in the state, years ago a state law was enacted that only allows the contracting teachers union to have access to teachers’ mailboxes at school. So, PET doesn’t have the ability to communicate with teachers through the cost-effective means of putting a notice in a teacher’s mailbox at school. No, they have to come up with the names of teachers and, generally speaking, have to use regular mail that is expensive compared to free.

Finally, Both Sides Getting Equal Time

But since Sen. Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville) took over the chair of the Senate Education Committee, PET may have become more the “go to” organization, at least to the extent possible. For perhaps the first time in memory, PET has actually testified in Senate Education Committee meetings. During the just completed special session on education, PET got equal time with the TEA to state its position on the various issues affecting education and teachers.

It’s about time that PET is given a voice, and perhaps its higher profile will make more teachers, not aligned with the TEA’s politics, aware of an alternative. And the state and its citizens will be better served if we hear what are often two different views on education issues from a teacher’s perspective.

The People v. Senate Education Committee

Far too often the entrenched political machinery of the Tennessee Education Association teachers’ union is given more clout and more voice by some legislators than is given to the parents with children in the worst schools.

The Scott Brown election saw the people of Massachusetts speak loud and clear when it came to not allowing the entrenched political machinery in their state speak for them. Perhaps Washington politicians will “hear” and give more regard to the people who elect them. But it seems that message didn’t trickle down to everyone in Tennessee state government last week.

In Massachusetts, the Democrats have dominated the political landscape for years. They have no Republican members in their delegation to the U.S. House. They have had no Republican U.S. Senator since 1972. Yet that part of the political machinery in Massachusetts that had been “in charge” for so long could not “control” the people this time.

Another part of the political machinery had been the unions. They came out strongly for Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, but there sure were a lot of pictures of rank and file union members in union T-shirts campaigning for her opponent, Scott Brown.

The message of Scott Brown that seemed to resonate with the people was, “This is not Ted Kennedy’s seat; it is your (the people’s) seat.” And for at least this one election, the people took their seat back from what we might say were the entrenched political players in their state.

Tennessee’s Own Problem with Entrenched Unions

One political player in Tennessee that has been entrenched for almost forever is the Tennessee Education Association (TEA). From their position of power they have even gotten the Legislature to make specific reference to their specific union in state law, ignoring the fact that there is another teacher representative organization in Tennessee. In fact, the Legislature has given the Tennessee Education Association some legal advantages over an alternative teacher organization that helps make sure that other organization can’t grow as easily.

In view of this, at least some on the Hill believe that the Tennessee Education Association would be better named the Tennessee Teachers Association, as it sometimes seems more interested in protecting the current educational system for the benefit of teachers than it is about improving education itself.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Teachers are certainly entitled to have an organization looking out for their professional interests just like any other group that wants to have their interests looked out for in the state.

And you can’t really fault the TEA for the clout they have in Nashville. They only have the clout that legislators give them. But here’s the thing: Legislators only have the clout we let them have. Last week saw a visible demonstration of people vs. the “system.”

Thanks, but No Thanks

It began when newly seated Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Shelby County) sponsored a bill to start an “opportunity scholarship program” for students in the 10 worst performing schools in Memphis. Memphis has the most number of low performing schools of any school system in Tennessee. And most of those schools are in urban areas and serve low income families who cannot afford private schools or housing in more “upscale” neighborhoods that might have a better school. The bill would have allowed students in those schools who are from lower income families to take the money the state is sending to Memphis to educate that student and use it to attend another private or public school.

Sen. Kelsey’s bill was heard on Wednesday by the Senate Education Committee, and I was asked to speak on its behalf. As I spoke to the committee about the merits of giving a measure of educational freedom and opportunity to parents who, because of their economic situation, had children trapped in one of the 10 worst schools in the city, I could see and feel a sense of “dead on arrival.”

Now, the bill was not dead because there were some things that needed to be fixed or needed to be clarified. No, it was dead because a majority of the committee members present simply was not interested in getting answers to TEA’s objections or fixing their concerns or offering amendments to clarify any ambiguities. In fact, Sen. Kelsey offered an amendment to reduce the number of students who would be eligible to just those in the three worst schools. Even that amendment couldn’t garner a majority of the votes. Ultimately, by a begrudging one-vote majority, the Senate Education Committee approved an amendment allowing the parents of students at the one worst school to have some choice in their child’s education. And as amended down to just one school, the bill was sent to the Senate Finance Committee for further consideration.

Committee members were given information about studies by the Friedman Foundation showing that not one of the 17 empirical studies done on such programs in other states had found that those programs had hurt public education. In fact, they were told that 16 studies showed the programs had a positive impact on public education, and one study found that the program had no effect on public education. Yet there was no interest among those who did not vote for the bill in learning more about the issues or exploring how the proposed program might work.

In fact, in opposing the bill, one Senator said that her children had gotten a good education through the public schools in Memphis, as if her experience meant that parents with students stuck in the worst schools would have the same happy outcome. The fact is those students are not having the same happy outcome—that’s why they are the worst schools. Unless my logic is wrong, “worst schools” doesn’t equal “best schools.” The existence of one or more good schools in a school system doesn’t mean all the schools in the system are good or that children in the worst schools shouldn’t be given the same opportunity as other students to go to a good school. But that kind of logic too often prevails when citizens don’t know what is going on and can’t challenge it.

More Clout Given to Teachers Than to Parents?

My point is that far too often the entrenched political machinery of the Tennessee Education Association is given more clout and more voice by some legislators than is given to the parents with children in the worst schools. But the union has a PAC which gives money to and makes endorsements of legislators, while the parents of children in these schools … well, I doubt they even knew that some legislators, including ones from Memphis, were deciding for them that their children didn’t deserve a better chance for an education.

But maybe some day, like in Massachusetts, enough parents will get the information they need to let their voice be heard over the powers that be and will say “Enough … you represent us, ‘the people.’ ”

Aftershocks from the Supreme Court Earthquake

The Supreme Court’s ruling that Congress’ prohibition against corporate contributions violates the free speech rights of those corporations may mean that the chains the IRS has placed on the First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion rights of pastors and churches may have been broken as well.

The political earthquake in Massachusetts with the election of Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate on January 19 was not the only political earthquake that took place last week. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court’s earthquake may have set free some political captives that no one is much talking about.

On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the campaign finance laws prohibiting corporations from making political contributions was an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech rights of corporations. Most everyone thought of the ruling in terms of huge corporations being able to make contributions and to buy elections. Others thought of it in terms of the “little guy” having his financial contribution being so dwarfed by corporate contributions that their contributions would become meaningless. But there may be another significant “aftershock” from the judicial earthquake that upset the campaign finance law apple cart.

A major issue among conservative evangelicals over the years has been the IRS’s never-challenged rule that prohibits pastors from saying what they want from their pulpits about political candidates. And, of course, many churches, also bound by those rules, are also corporations.

So the question is this: If the government cannot suppress political speech in terms of contributions by corporations, can it suppress the political speech of pastors and churches who, unlike corporations, also have a First Amendment freedom to practice their religion? And what about this: Can churches now make political contributions if they want to? Would not their “dual” constitutional rights—to free speech and to freedom of religion—not also give them even more of a right to make contributions than “big tobacco,” insurance companies and financial institutions?

For years, groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State have sent letters to pastors reminding them of the IRS’s rule limiting their ability to talk about candidates and threatening to report them to the IRS if they violated the rule. It’s been a huge stick that liberals have used to discourage pastors from informing their congregations about what is happening in politics and what their representatives are doing, thereby providing one fewer source of information to their people when they go to cast a vote.

Now, there are some pastors and churches that wouldn’t talk about a political issue or a candidate if they were paid to do so. For them, this ruling won’t make any difference. But to those who would if they were not concerned about protecting the tax status of their church, this political earthquake may be like the one that set free Paul and Barnabas when they were in chains.

Perhaps the chains the IRS has put around our nation’s pulpits have been broken.