Political Intolerance
Phase 1: All Fun And Games
Last week there was a rally at Davis. In fact I think there were several. People may have even gotten arrested. However, they were all overshadowed by something a small group of the Davis College Republicans ("DCR") did.
DCR held an "illegal-immigration" themed game of tag. One side played the INS, and the other played the unlawful immigrants. Team INS had to play with their hands behind their back, and every ten minutes all captured illegal immigrants were granted amnesty and set free.
As far as I'm concerned, this seems to be a completely ligitimate and create way to express the policy viewpoint that the organizers have, ie that the INS is unable to do their job because they have their "hands tied" in various ways and the periodic amnesties make stemming the tide especially hopeless (in their opinion). Its a policy viewpoint and whether or not one agrees with it, its not crazy.
However, liberals on campus just about had a kineption, declaring the event "unaccptable." This, ironically, gave the event more publicity previous to the rallies, more press coverage during the rallies, and a lot more press coverage following the rallies, than the rallies themselves.
Phase 2: An ASUCD Inquisition
Now it just so happened that one Pete Markovich participated with the Republicans in the rally. Markovich, however, is the Chair of the ASUCD Academic Affairs Commission, and in ASUCD, you practice political expression at your own risk. For his participation in the DCR event, Markovich has been called before a Senate closed hearing at today's meeting.
Organizers of the witch-hunt (which appears to be Andrew Peake and Molly Fluet) initially publicly said at last weeks Senate meeting that they were going to attempt to fire Markovich, but are now apparently considering pushing for a censure instead, which would be easier to get (as it wouldn't entail losing a good commission chair). Additionally, the procedures in the bylaws for censure call for a closed session significantly WITHOUT the defendant having the right to an open session that removal allows. Considering that so many people have expressed an interest in coming to this meeting (There is of course an "I Support Pete" facebook group) that the meeting has been moved to Freeborn auditorium the Coffee House (6pm). (as of 12:26pm the day of)
Also in the bylaws for censure are several problems -- such as that the procedure currently only applies to elected officials (ie the P/VP & Senators), not appointed Commission Chairs; AND notification of a defendant that he's being considered for censure must be done two days prior to the meeting -- something that was not done. The Senate will have to suspend the bylaws in order to burn Markovich at the stake in this manner. They have, however, covered their bases by initiating the normal removal procedures against him.
Incidentally, because it occured to them that a public censure was a bit like publicizing a personnel issue, they decided to opt for "rei censure" (as opposed to the other centure in the bylaws, "personae censure"), which focuses on the action rather than the personality of the person. Aside from the fact that I don't think this clears the taboo of publicizing evaluations of personnel's actions, I think they made it up!! -- despite searching the depths of the internets I could not find a single reference to censures being divided into "rei" and "personae."
Furthermore, as the legendary Igor Birman, Esq, notes:
...California Labor Code Section 1101 prohibits employers from controlling, directing, or tending to direct, the political activities of its employees. Labor Code Section 1102 prohibits employers from firing, or threatening to fire, their employees in order to coerce them into following, or refraining from following, any particular course or line of political actions or political activity.
Furthermore, in a 1979 landmark decision, the California Supreme Court held that these code
sections "serve to protect the 'fundamental right of employees in general to engage in political activity without interference from employers.'" Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 24 Cal.3d 458, 487 (1979).
[Senate] actions to interfere with the course of Mr. Markevich’s employment, whether by dismissal, other sanction or even by commencing proceedings to discuss sanctions would be in gross violation of state labor laws, as well as Federal Civil Rights statutes. As such, [these] actions would open ASUCD to state and federal litigation and corresponding penalties. ...
And other than the legal issues, for my part I think those who are pushing to persecute Markovich for his views at best lack a functional ethical-compass.