The efforts of the Wesleyan Democrats and the Wesleyan College Republicans to hold an on-campus forum for three senatorial candidates has been thwarted by the University’s IRS campaign intervention regulations. In response, student political organizers are criticizing the University’s policy, noting more lenient regulations at other universities.
The 2006 regulations prohibit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations like the University from participating in any political campaign in support of or in opposition to any candidate for elected office.
The University’s interpretation of the regulations was described in a Sept. 26 campus-wide e-mail, extending the IRS regulations to student organizations and individual departments. In order to maintain political neutrality, the University’s policy mandates that all those seeking office no matter their party affiliation must be afforded an equal amount of speaking time during an on-campus event.
“A student organization choosing to bring a candidate to campus must take responsibility to assure that all other candidates [for the same office] are given opportunities to speak for the same amount of time in similar venues,” the e-mail read.
A change in the University’s policy interpretation does not appear likely. The policy was interpreted after communication with the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the IRS, according to Director of Student Activities and Leadership Development Timothy Shiner.
“The IRS, in particular, takes a strict position regarding the need to invite all candidates to a public forum or a debate,” Shiner wrote in an e-mail. “It is difficult to say how other schools interpret the IRS guidelines on the basis of events about which we have read. We simply don’t know how the events were developed.”
Last month, the WesDems and the College Republicans attempted to stage a forum for Democrat Ned Lamont, Independent Joe Lieberman, and Republican Alan Schlesinger. However, according to President of the College Democrats of Connecticut Matthew Lesser ’08, the candidates have refused to consider invitations until the University’s political speech policy interpretation is changed.
“In theory, being all-inclusive of minor candidates is great—everybody likes democracy and nobody likes the two-party system,” Lesser said. “But in reality what’s happening is that every politician we talk to is now refusing to appear at Wesleyan unless the policy is changed.”
According to Lesser, the WesDems and the College Republicans decided not to hold the forum after their respective candidates backed out. Repeated attempts for comment from the College Republicans were unanswered.
“These candidates are not willing to talk in the same venue as someone like the Connecticut Concerned Citizens candidate, who does not even have a serious campaign,” Lesser said. “Every candidate should have the right to speak on campus but not at the same time and in the same place.”
Meanwhile, other nearby tax-exempt universities such as Middlesex Community College hosted political speeches this fall. Lamont spoke at Middlesex on Sept. 30.
In a 2006 statement titled “Academic Freedom and Outside Speakers,” Yale Law School professor Robert C. Post and University of Richmond law professor Mary L. Heen explained the reasoning behind their universities’ political speech policy.
“If invitations to outside speakers are extended within the context of teaching, they should be consistent with the obligations of professionalism,” the statement said. “They should not be subject to an additional standard of balance that does not reflect professional standards.”
Post and Heen’s statement also explained that universities should review political speeches on an invitation-by-invitation basis, not on the basis of balance.
“The spectrum of extracurricular activities sponsored by a college or university should be evaluated on the basis of its educational justifiability, rather than on the basis of a mechanical standard of balance that does not reflect educational objectives,” the statement said. “Campus groups should not be prevented from pursuing the very interests that they have been created to explore.”
According to Lesser, the above interpretation has been adopted by many universities throughout the United States because it gives them more realistic guidelines for hosting political speakers.
WesDems President Betti Packman ’07 said that WesDems has faced issues in the past related to political campaign intervention, including hosting political speakers and raising funds for political organizations. However, there are other ways for campus political groups to bring candidates to the University audience, Packman said.
“There are still ways to allow Wes students to hear such speakers—for instance, in previous years, Representative Rosa DeLauro has made arrangements to speak to students on Main Street,” she said.
WesDems will make other efforts to participate during the election season.
“The WesDems plan on bringing speakers such as professors to talk about the election in a general sense, as opposed to supporting any particular candidate or party,” Packman said. “We also will be involved in various other election-related activities, ranging from voter registration, to driving people to the polls on Election Day, to helping Wes students volunteer on campaigns of interest to them.”
Lesser will continue trying to adjust University’s policy interpretation, as he thinks the current interpretation harmfully affects a school known for its political and social activism.
“I don’t think Wesleyan realizes that the new policy has the effect of throwing all political candidates off the stage,” he said.
Leave a Reply