White clarifies ethics rules

Local civil rights groups and employee unions continue to react to University President B. Joseph White's mass e-mail issued to University students and faculty members Monday.

The e-mail modified the University's interpretation of the State Official and Employers Ethics Act, and was issued in response to the controversy that has been brewing on campus since the "Ethics Matters" newsletter was sent from the University Ethics Office on Sept. 18. White's e-mail clarified what would be deemed acceptable political expression.

He specifically addressed three issues, stating that employees can attend partisan rallies when not on University time, may wear partisan buttons or T-shirts when not in the workplace or on University time, and they may display partisan bumper stickers on their cars.

University spokesperson Tom Hardy said these three issues were the ones that generated the most opposition.

These were also the three topics addressed in the letter from the American Civil Liberties Union to White on Thursday.

ACLU spokesperson Ed Yohnka said that the purpose of the letter was to make White aware that certain aspects of the University interpretation were too general and infringed on First Amendment rights.

"The president decided the 'Ethics Matters' newsletter had parts that were overly broad as it applied to everyday life," Hardy said.

The e-mail from White clarified confusion for those three issues.

However, some groups are still concerned that the restatement of the University's interpretation is not adequate.

"It's an initial first step, but it's not really clear if the University policy trumps state law," said Michael Simeone, spokesperson for the Graduate Employees' Organization. "I think a good next step would be for President White and other University leaders across the state to work this into state legislation."

The topic was also discussed at the Urbana-Champaign Senate meeting Monday afternoon after the mass e-mail was sent out to faculty and students. Faculty members in the senate felt the University interpretation still needed further definition.

"The University needs to think more clearly about what speech is and come to a better understanding of our tradition of free speech," said Susan Davis, a Communication professor.

The letter from the ACLU to White asked for a response by the end of the business day Monday.

"In general we are pleased that the president put out the e-mail," Yohnka said. "Our concern is really that First Amendment rights were protected and we're really pleased that the University has looked at that."

Hardy said White and his staff intend to work with state officials to see what can be done to define aspects of the law that might lack clarity.

Since the State Ethics Act came into effect in 2003, there has been no legal action that would set a precedent, Hardy said.

"In a sense we're in uncharted waters," Hardy said.

He said during the first hours in which the e-mail was sent out, the president's office received a large amount of positive feedback.

"Of course there's a reason to be pleased the president issued this kind of statement," Simeone said. "But we'd like to see protection in state law so there's not any confusion."