Breaking the Small Business Code

Social Media Will Haunt You!

There is a great article at EduGeek Journal on how social media can result in undesired consequences. I want students and families to be aware of the risks and the responsibilities when it comes to using social media!  My recommendation is:

Don't use Social Media if you are not prepared for the consequences!

The blog discusses a story about a student posting a hate screed against a teacher on Facebook. The suspended student encouraged other students to also post hateful speech on her Facebook wall.  The student was suspended for her actions and as expected in America, the student is suing.

The blog is a great summary of positions on both sides of the "free speech" aisle - especially when it involves the education community. The situation raises many, many issues that students, families, schools, colleges and employers are just beginning to experience with social media "publishing".

What I find most illuminating is how NO ONE can agree on what net-based Social Media represents when it comes to "speech".

• Is it private free speech like "talking over a burger" or is it "print publishing" because it can be seen and read virtually forever everywhere?
• Does a private citizen have the right to publish an "opinion" and the opinion of others for public consumption OR is it "hate" speech that needs to be punished? 
• Is it private speech or is it "first amendment" press?
• Is it private speech or public incitement? 
• Is calling for an improper act with Social Media protected speech or opinion or something to be prosecuted?
• Does the "permanent nature", easy accessibility and freedom to forward virtually everywhere impact the free speech of the author if social media is used?

Facebook, MySpace and blogs are the equivalent of publishing private magazines and newspapers. Twitter is a public miniblog unless everything you do is a direct tweet. Even if taken down by the web host, many people print hard copy of sites to prove it once contained the information.And the print copy  is forwarded via the web after being scanned!

Once something has been forwarded, it will have an almost infinite life. How many times have you received the same set of cute puppy or kitten pictures from 3 different sets of friends?  Now imagine that the information is juicy gossip or negative information! As many celebrities have discovered, virtually everything posted to the web is stored somewhere and can be retrieved and passed around the world. 

Regardless of how this case turns out, this case and a growing number of others shows me that there is a BIG danger for students and others who fail to use social media in a positive way.  There are already stories about how social media information was used for denial of admissions to a college, kept someone from getting a job or even got users suspended or fired.

I agree with Matt Crosslin who posted the article that regardless of how the "legal" world spins this, you should ALWAYS be ready to take the responsibility for the action of posting, period.  Pulling out the "First Amendment" every time someone doesn't like the consequences of their postings is a disservice to the Amendment. If you do something "stupid" or hurtful on the web, be prepared for the fallout.

I recommend the simple guideline: "Don't post it if you don't want your grandmother to see it".  I also like what my mother used to say when I spread gossip: "if you can't say something nice, don't day anything at all".

NO Limits on College Political Speech - Part 3

       Per this morning's Inside Higher Education, the University of Illinois President  B. Joseph White sent an eMail affirming the right of employees to wear campaign buttons and attend political rallies on campus.  He said that university policy would not bar attending partisan rallies on campus, wearing political buttons, or having political bumper stickers on cars. 

     HOWEVER, he did say that these activities should not take place while employees are on duty [I bolded the phrase for emphasis].

     Gotta love those "wiggle phrases".  So President White, what constitutes "on duty" for a professor?  When are they "off duty" when at their campus worksplace? Can they wear their buttons when on "company" business off-campus? Is this how will you make sure your TAX-EXEMPT nonpolitical status is protected?

     Per my Blog on October 3, I had no objection to academic freedom of speech within the classroom. BUT I do think that University employees - and by this I mean mostly professors -- should be required to meet the same levels of neutrality WHEN IN THEIR WORKPLACE AND WORKING that I as a private citizen and employer also need to follow! The tax-exempt status of a state operated university should be held to the same standards!

     Having grown up on college campuses I can smell that this is a CYA eMail.  I know there will be little (if any!) attempt to enforce the off-duty requirement.  So professors will continue to do what they have always done  under the banner of  "academic freedom".  The university's nonprofit status is supposedly now protected by the insertion of the "off duty" phrase. 

    If I read about enforcement of the off duty requirement I will apologize.  But until then, I see this as another way professors will be allowed to break the rules that rest of us have to follow setting a bad example for our college students. 

Limits on Political Speech at Colleges - Part 2

 

    Yesterday, October 2,  students and faculty at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign held a rally to show support for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. In addition to showing their support, the goal was to show that the faculty will not follow guidelines issued by the university that bar them from rallies or wearing political buttons on campus. (See the Chicago Tribune for great report on the event).

     Per the article, the university says it isn’t enforcing the guidelines, which it says are required by state law.

     I admit that bothers me more than the predictable reaction of the professors. Why tell your employees about a rule if you aren't planning to enforce it!  That is CYA hypocrisy at its best. If someone complains about the violations the state will point to the rules - "gee guys, not our problem if those independent thinkers at the college don't want to follow the rules".  The university will then say it is "working with the state to clarify their intention".  A perfect dance trying to have it both ways!

    As I predicted in my September 24, 2008 Blog, the professors say that the guidelines unreasonably limit their freedom of expression:

     "They're trying to control our bodies and our voices any time we're on campus. These policies are clearly a violation of our 1st Amendment rights," said Dan Colson, an English graduate student who, along with other students, professors and free-speech experts, has lashed out.  Colson and others argue the University of Illinois was unfairly expanding state law.

     Here is the phrase from Colson that summarizes this and other debates on what laws should we PRIVATE citizens and businesses follow that ACADEMICS should not.  Per Colson:

" . . . that academic freedom meant campus communities should not be held to the same standards as other state employees."

     I appreciate the need for "academic freedom" as the daugher of a retired college dean but no offense guys, I need freedom in my business too!  But I am NOT allowed to say and do things that you are allowed to say and do at your workplace.  I cannot voice or demonstrate my personal feelings on many social and political issues because it is often ILLEGAL. 

     Per the State of Illinois, you have been notified your "workplace" has rules on endorsing candidates that jepoardizes the workplace's tax-free basis.  Yet you have decided you know best and will not follow those policies.  I see your point and I agree and I disagree.

     You have the right of free speech BUT you give up some of that freedom in exchange for a job.  I agree that there needs to be a more flexible standard on campus to allow for frank exchanges in a classroom on topics of concern.  However, I do not see that as being extended to a PERSONAL demonstration of support as in a rally or wearing a button until you leave the workplace.

    This is an important issue that needs to be discussed.  Where is the line between academic speech and unlimited speech exist for a college campus and ITS EMPLOYEES?  Where is that line compared to my freedom of speech in my workplace?

     And even more importantly, should professors be allowed to flout the rules and policies of their employer (the taxpayer in this case since this is a STATE university)?  Should they be allowed to do things you and I cannot simply because of where they work and what they do?  Should "academic freedom" be so broad that they can break the law with impunity compared to you and I?

    Let's chat!  I want everyone's opinion - colleges and private citizens.

Response to the Market Meltdown - A Person POV

    

         In the last 4 hours I have received so many calls and eMails on the meltdown and cries for help from college-bound families that  I have lost count!  So I wanted to put up my two cents worth from my personal point of view as a college funding expert, a grandmother of two, and as a business owner.

                       This is an OPEN LETTER TO ALL POLITICIANS & THE MEDIA

    You work for me.  I vote, I pay taxes, and I love my country.  I want you all to stop and listen to me - the voter - for a change.  I didn't rip off anyone, I don't have a golden parachute and I didn't dump bad home loans on Wall Street.  Yet I and my grandsons are the one who will ultimately pay for your programs, cushy pensions (which are not in the market) and for your blame game politics.

    First, stop all the finger pointing.  I DON'T CARE who created the mess.  Stop bickering, grab a mop and clean it up.

     Geewhiz, I feel like I am listening to a bunch of 5 year olds who think it's more important to blame the other person for playing with matches than stop and fight the fire.  I want to grab both sides by the collar and give them a time out.  WHERE ARE THE GROWN-UPs in all this? Talk to me like I have a brain.  Stop trying to do 10-second platitude filled soundbites.

    And oh by the way Ms Pelosi, don't insult the other guy when you need him to help solve the problem.  Excoriating the current administration and the Republicans as being to blame  (true or not) from the floor of the House and then expecting them to support your bill is NOT good leadership. We need people working together and blame (coming from both sides) is not good team building tactics. 

    Second, EVERYONE stop saying it was the "other guys" and explain exactly WHAT HAPPENED.  Today's captain of the ship may NOT be responsible for the ship sinking if it was badly built and maintained by the previous captains!! Let's have a REAL examination of why it sunk so it DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN!!!!   I'm an engineer and politics have no place in examining a failure if you want to learn from it and keep it from happening again. So . . . 

Shut up about who's to blame and start bailing together  or we all go down together!

    Lastly, vague generalities and blame makes me think my elected officials on both sides don't KNOW what happened or why.   As a responsible citizen, I have done my homework.  I did the research, looked at the graphs and even I can see what happened when.  WHY CAN'T YOU?!!!

How can  I trust whatever plan you have to fix things IF you apparently don't know what you are fixing!!

      I don't want platitudes and slogans -- I want facts and concrete answers that lead to reasonable and clear fixes. I don't want pages and pages of special deals and carve-outs and attached amendments.  I want to be able to CLEARLY see what you are doing, what is supposed to happen and see accountability ON YOUR SHOULDERS TOO!

     And oh by the way, all you "reporters", start REPORTING!!  I don't want you to be a commentator who is parsing it for me into little bite-sized pieces like I was a child.   Don't disguise the news wyhen it is clearly editorial opinion.  WHERE is the neutral research about WHAT happened, the WHY and the mudraking for players on BOTH sides of the aisle?  You are sooooooo transparently biased I can't trust you any more.  I want facts not thinly disguised and sneering interviews.

      I want someone to step up and say we had a good idea in making housing more affordable but it had unforeseen consequences because we measured success wrong.  We had a good idea but making lenders lend when they shouldn't for political reasons backfired.  Our programs encouraged people to cook books and dump risky debt.  I want to hear you say it is not good policy to do the same old junk bills filled with special pork and singling out those who only took advantage of what you created.

   Stop looking for whipping boys ("the rich"), stop pointing fingers ("them"), and start giving me answers.  THEN I MIGHT want to elect/re-elect you to fix the problem no matter what party you're from.  I want leadership NOT politics.  I want answers, not slogans.  I want accountability, not blank checks. I am not allowed to spend more than I make, not allowed to dump my bad debts and not allowed to stay in business by blaming the other guys for my mistakes!

   So get together, stop name calling and get to work on something that I can understand and trust in. Let me know what you did, why you did it and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY if the fix doesn't work.

   That's my two cents . . .   

Free Speech Versus Candidate Endorsement Limits

       A VERY timely and interesting article in the Inside Higher Education daily eMail today about the new University of Illinois policy that bans the wearing of campaign buttons, sporting of bumper stickers, and attendance at campaign rallies ON CAMPUS for employees of the University.  As expected, the outcry from staff and especially professors was quick and loud.

     Without taking sides, I wanted to explain to everyone what the issues were because it is a 4-way conflict between:

1. The right to free political speech,
2. Workplace rules,
3. The college's broad definition of workplace free speech, and
4. The IRS rules that nonprofits cannot directly support political candidates.

    First, we all have the right to support the political party and candidate of our choice under free speech.  On our private property and in the public locations, we can do, wear or say pretty much whatever we want as long as it follows the law.  It is not only allowed, it is encouraged that citizens be legally pro-active in the political process.  So if you want to wear a button or put a poster in your window or a sign on your lawn, it is your right.

     However, political speech can be constrained by the policy of your workplace as long as it is equally applied.  Companies usually restrict things that an employee may find offensive. This is because of all the lawsuits that have been filed regarding hostile or discriminatory work environments.  So most employers practice work site neutrality for virtually everything from religion to politics.  As an employee, you can expect to be asked to remove or cover political buttons or t-shirts.

    What creates a challenge for colleges is they do not think of themselves as a "traditional" workplace.   Colleges consider themselves a unique location where free speech of any kind is considered an essential part of their reason for being.  University staff usually felt their colleges were  "public" areas where workplace rules do not apply.  Students as "customers" are allowed to freely express their beliefs on campus.  So it was natural for professors and staff  to feel they too could participate as if the college were not their workplace!    But this has now run headlong into IRS rules for nonprofits!

     The IRS rules on nonprofits are VERY clear that they are not allowed to be partisan and support a specific political candidate.  This means that university employees including professors cannot show support WHILE THEY ARE BEING EMPLOYEES.  So to protect their tax-free status, the U of Illinois has issued rules on what staff can and cannot have or do while on campus -- their workplace. 

    It will be interesting to see if the professors on the U of Illinois finally understand what it is like out here in work-land where we have to adhere to rules that they have traditionally supported but not been constrained by because of their "special" nature. 

    What do you think of the new policy of U of Illinois?