Professors who have used class time to advocate, or even discuss, Proposition 30 are now being discouraged from mentioning the issue in class.
Prop. 30 would increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers as well as sales taxes by a quarter of a cent temporarily. The new revenues would fund programs in the state budget, primarily those for higher education.
Without Prop. 30, the Cal State University would face a $250 million trigger cut in state funding.
Because of the effect this would have on the entire CSU population, campaign speeches have been integrated into some classroom lectures as November approaches.
CSU Spokesman Erik Fallis said that the CSU public affairs team has realized the advocacy role that university faculty have taken on may be a concern.
“We are making it clear to faculty and other CSU employees that when using state resources and in official function, our campaigning activity should be limited to information,” he said.
Fallis said the CSU Chancellor’s Office is simply reminding faculty to use class time properly.
“We have a duty to inform our students,” Fallis said. “There’s just a need to be careful as state employees.”
During an August meeting with faculty, California Faculty Association President Lilian Taiz provided CSULB professors with informational fliers about Prop. 30. She held similar meetings at many CSU campuses.
At the meetings, CFA members were also provided with “Nov. Election Commitment Surveys.” Through these surveys, the faculty association asked its members to publicly support Prop. 30 in classrooms.
Cal State Long Beach professor of communication studies, Kevin Johnson, said he feels strongly about the discretion of faculty concerning political issues.
“I feel that it’s improper to advocate any stance,” Johnson said. “I don’t think that it is our job … we are here to educate.”
Bobby Wilson, a freshman pre-communications major, says he feels that professors should be able to use class time as they wish.
“In a way, professors are entitled to talk about whatever as along as it pertains to the subject of the class,” he said.
Nicolaus Coleman, sophomore bio-physiology major, has a professor who discussed Prop. 30 in class, stressing that passing it will benefit students of California.
“I think that if it’s a distraction from class then it’s not justified, but it was a political science class, so the teacher was able to tie the debate into the subject matter,” Coleman said.
Political science professor Charles Noble said the non-biased discussion of politics should be allowed during class time, provided that it pertains to the subject matter of the class. He said that he plans on discussing the propositions in his future lectures, even though he has not yet mentioned them.
Noble said that because his class focuses on politics, he feels that censoring discussion of Prop. 30 in his class would be absurd, as it directly affects his students.
“I think that we are supposed to explain what is going on in the political world,” Noble said. “It’s not our job to tell students how to vote, but we should be able to talk about the pros and cons.”
While professors are discouraged from campaigning for Prop. 30, student associations from the CSU system are planning to take action before the polls open.
Miles J. Nevin, executive director of California State Student Association, said the CSSA has been communicating with each Associated Students, Inc. throughout the CSU, which are considering a variety of campaigning strategies to promote the passage of Prop. 30. Strategies include ‘dorm blitzes’ and promotion in bustling areas on campuses.
“Our main goal is to educate students on when the election is and what it means,” Nevin said.
The CSSA is zealous about motivating and mobilizing young voters to positively impact their educational experience and, unlike professors, is permitted to do so, according to Nevin.
“We have not been communicating with faculty,” Nevin said. “The CSSA has the legal authority to do the advocating.”