A tale of two editorials
Monday, Apr 4, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a Tribune editorial on free speech issues at college campuses…
There is a lot to be said for making people aware of the ways in which their words and deeds can do harm. No one wants to go back to the days when casual expressions of racial prejudice were common, or when women were mocked for taking places that should have gone to men, or when some professors made passes at students.
But it’s important not to go so far in protecting undergraduates that they lose the spontaneous and open interactions they need to understand the world and the society in which they live. An education that spares students from unwanted challenges to their thinking is not much of an education.
Luckily, there’s pushback against this trend. University of California regents issued a report deploring anti-Semitism but rejected demands to include all forms of anti-Zionism in the condemnation. When students at Emory University protested messages in support of Donald Trump chalked on campus sidewalks as an attempt to intimidate minority groups, the school president heard them out but took no action.
A female undergraduate at Harvard wrote an article that assailed the prevailing atmosphere there, recalling a class in which one student said “she would be unable to sit across from a student who declared that he was strongly against abortion” and a discussion in which she was rebuked for citing a Bible verse because it violated a “safe space.”
* The basic counter-argument to the Tribune is that since individual students pay mandatory tuition and student fees, then each individual student can dicate what their own personal free association rights are. That counter-argument is completely ludicrous, of course. One person’s “safe space violation” is another person’s right to say what’s on his or her mind in a public place. Plus, there are things like student elections which settle these matters. I’m with the Trib on this one.
Our job as a society is not to pamper folks who incessantly worry about “triggers.” People who demand that society ensures their lives remain pristine and completely unencumbered by challenges and contradictions cannot possibly be catered to because it would never, ever end.
* Now, let’s move on to another Tribune editorial…
On Tuesday, the eight surviving justices of the U.S. Supreme Court supercharged an already white-hot issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. With their 4-4 split but no opinion or other explanation, the justices in effect gave a big but perhaps temporary win to public employees unions. The implications for personal freedom, though, are unfortunate.
At issue in the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was whether it’s unconstitutional for public-sector unions to charge “agency fees” — essentially dues — to nonmembers whom they represent but who don’t want to support union activities. […]
The problem with the unions’ position is that it starts and stops with that argument against workers they denigrate as “free riders.” The unions are a lot less eager to talk about workers’ rights to free speech and free association. With Scalia still on the bench, the court might well have undone a 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and said the employees’ First Amendment rights are paramount. The court set the table for that new direction when it ruled in a 2014 Illinois case that home caregivers shouldn’t be forced to join a union. That opinion said that “except in perhaps the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
In a meeting with the Tribune Editorial Board before the court heard her case, lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs, a third-grade teacher now in her 28th year as an educator, offered a compelling rationale: “The unions call me a free rider. But the benefits they negotiate for me are not worth the moral costs. The defined benefit program and the expense to my community and my nation, and using my money to protect teachers who are ineffective and sometimes abusive in class — this is a liberty issue for me.”
The last time I checked, there are no laws mandating kids attend specific universities nor that people take jobs at unionized public schools.
If college kids don’t like what’s going on, they can organize, they can run for student office, or they can transfer to another school or even drop out. The same goes for teachers who don’t want to contribute their fair share dues.
I seriously doubt that the Tribune would advocate allowing college students to stop paying tuition and fees any time they disagree with something that happened on campus. The same goes for unions. You get a benefit, you pay. Simple.
- Joe M - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:33 am:
As someone on this list pointed out a few months ago, “I want my tax money back that was spent on the Vietnam War, as collecting and spending that money violated my free speech.”
Good luck in that.
- Sir Reel - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:37 am:
As usual Rich, you Ct through the noise and offer a thoughtful observation.
No one is being forced to go to a public university or work in a public school. No one is being forced to work at a public school. Those aggrieved can work to change their grievances.
Chill out.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:37 am:
I agree with the unions here but I also wonder just how easy is it to find a teaching position in IL that is not part of a union? And how many freshmen starting teacher education programs even know anything about unions and the pros and cons of being represented by one?
- Sir Reel - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:38 am:
Oops
Forgot to proof
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:44 am:
People get so worked up about the safe space and trigger discussions. Look, those are meant to bring victims of abuse and sufferers of PTSD out of the darkness. Is it so much to ask that people not be jerks? I don’t think so. Do people go too far? Sure. And guess what, we hear about those excesses every day in a constant deluge of “anti-PC” media. To me, the system is working just fine. A new concept is introduced: “Let’s try not to be jerks.” Some people take it too far: “that chalk word made me cry.” And they’re roundly mocked and rejected. We move on. And to the critique about students wanting to dictate their individual experience at these campuses, it’s just bouncing from one extreme to the other. Yes, students should do a better job of thinking through some of these complaints. But administrators and college leadership should take into account the astronomical prices these kids are paying to go to school. They, of course, should have some say in how that money is spent, or who is brought in to be a representative of that money. Just find a happy medium. I see no problem with a high level administrator meeting with students to hear their concerns and then do nothing. Isn’t that how the exchange of ideas works?
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:44 am:
–On Tuesday, the eight surviving justices of the U.S. Supreme Court…
LOL, what a bizarre turn of phrase.
Although the Constitution is silent on qualifications for the Supreme Court, presumably not being among the living is a deal-breaker.
There are currently eight members of the Supreme Court. I guess it’s good that they’re all “surviving.”
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:48 am:
“The unions call me a free rider. But the benefits they negotiate for me are not worth the moral costs. The defined benefit program and the expense to my community and my nation, and using my money to protect teachers who are ineffective and sometimes abusive in class — this is a liberty issue for me.”
Now that it appears that Friedrichs, she should do the morally consistent thing and quit her unionized teaching job and get a job teaching somewhere without a union, so she doesn’t violate her beliefs and moral code.
The Friedrichs case was a big defeat for the anti-union forces and for Rauner (for the time being). This was the big case they were supposed to win.
I wonder if Scalia would have flip-flopped from his previous views of fair share fees. Though he said something like, all public sector work is political, he implied that there is no total freedom of speech in the public sector, giving an example of a boss who turns an employee away after the employee asks for raises too many times.
We may not ever find out, but I wonder if Scalia was troubled and conflicted about his vote in this case.
- AC - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:53 am:
There are plenty of opportunities for merit comp jobs in state employment, and there are plenty of non union teaching jobs. I wish I had the option to be a “fair share” equivalent customer of my monopoly utilities. Comcast regularly spends their customers money opposing municipal broadband, and I oppose that political speech, but have no option to opt out of paying for that political speech. Land use requirements and local municipalities practically require all new development to be done in homeowners association areas, and those homeowners associations regularly contribute to CAI, a pro HOA lobbying organization. No one in an HOA has the option to be “fair share” and opt out of the political portion of their dues. It seems to me that folks in Union shops have a lot more freedom when it comes to their dues being used for political speech than practically any other area of society.
- Magic carpet ride - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 12:16 pm:
Is the impasse creating a greater interest in unions? I think so.
- Wayne Bibliotech - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 12:17 pm:
Absolutely agree. College students look to the “administration” to take care of their emotional needs and conflicts. That’s not what an education is for; it is what friends and family are for. And it won’t prepare you for life.
- A Modest Proposal - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 12:19 pm:
“The same goes for teachers who don’t want to contribute their fair share dues.
The same goes for unions. You get a benefit, you pay. Simple.”
Except it isn’t simple.
If I want to be a public servant - then I have to pay dues. That means the government (my employer) is forcing me to pay to support political that I believe could be detrimental to both me and the public.
Forcing the union to provide me a service for free is wrong, but so is forcing that (dis)service onto me.
- 32nd Ward Roscoe Village - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 12:27 pm:
“Our job as a society is not to pamper folks who incessantly worry about “triggers.” People who demand that society ensures their lives remain pristine and completely unencumbered by challenges and contradictions cannot possibly be catered to because it would never, ever end.”
When I went out in to the work world in 1990, I had only ever worked in a family business and had gone to undergrad at the same university where a parent was a professor. Because people had always been nice to me in those places, I naively assumed people would always be nice to me everywhere. The jerks at my first job were a rude awakening, but I didn’t yearn for a safe space or spin out of control; I learned from the experience and moved on to a different job where I am happier. I also know how to deal with the people who are not exactly like me, but it takes all kinds to make this world go round, and different viewpoints make for an interesting dialogue and constant learning experience. I am a better person for it!
- Brutus - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 12:40 pm:
I agree with Rich on both points, and on the inconsistency in the Tribune position, which privileges individual rights over the community in one case (”fair share”) and goes with the collective on the other (speech codes).
Re “fair share”: I don’t think it’s fair to ask teachers who don’t like their unions to get work elsewhere. But it is fair to ask them to respect democratic decisions. Unions are run on a democratic basis. At least in my experience (at higher ed), there are never very many people wanting to take on union leadership positions, which involve a lot of work for no extra compensation. So if you want to try to change your union’s stance on local issues, you can. It’s no doubt harder to change the position of AFSCME or the NEA or AFT or what have you, but the national ‘parent’ unions don’t control local decisions–like whether to accept the latest administrative offer at an individual school district or university. Ultimately, at both levels, the union’s speech is determined by majority rule.
In Illinois, moreover, college faculty don’t have to be unionized: it’s decided on a campus by campus basis. So if you don’t want a union on your campus, push for an election to decertify it. Then no one has to pay dues–though you are also at the mercy of your administration. In either event, majority rule again.
So is fair share legit? Yes: you pay for a benefit, and you have as much power over the union’s speech and policies as anyone else.
- Honeybear - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 12:41 pm:
Bottom line is that public sector unions are the last line of defense for the regulations that keep us safe, government programs that help citizens, and so many other functions of government. Without public sector unions corporations who wholly own both sides of the political spectrum can monetize and privatize all government function to the private sector. I would say ONLY public sector unions stand in the way of this goal. That is what Friedricks was about, the very dismantling of the concept of “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. Their goal is none other than Rule by the corporate elite. It seems frightfully easy to find patsies to go along with this.
- Way Way Down Here - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:08 pm:
I have a young friend who is in graduate school. He is VERY opinionated. But he has thought through his positions. He has researched it, and while we may not always agree, we have a wonderful time over a couple of beers. Sometimes we even change each other’s minds. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
- Joe M - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:26 pm:
==If I want to be a public servant - then I have to pay dues. That means the government (my employer) is forcing me to pay to support political that I believe could be detrimental to both me and the public.==
A flaw in your argument is that in the U.S. in most political doings, majority rules. If the majority of members of the Congress (or the General Assembly) want something, then we all get it, regardless of our own feelings on the matter. In the workplace, if the majority of employees want to be unionized, then all employees in that situation are unionized, or at least must pay fair share dues.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
I missed that life lesson where someone told me I should never have to do anything that I don’t like or agree with. A lot of people have adopted a “Fairness” Doctrine I think. It’s not fair that they have to do something they don’t like or disagree with. And, because it’s not fair, they should have a right not to do it.
- Tone - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:11 pm:
So stealing is legal. Cool.
- A Modest Proposal - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 8:16 pm:
‘’In the workplace, if the majority of employees want to be unionized, then all employees in that situation are unionized, or at least must pay fair share dues.'’
And something is inherently wrong with that system… which was my argument… which means its not really a flaw…
- NoGifts - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:48 am:
There is no right to go through life without being offended. You should be offended often. If you are not, you are not meeting enough different kinds of people.