Quote of the Day

From Bruce R. Hopkins, The Law of Tax Exempt Organizations (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 2003), p.192.

"'The exposition of propositions the correctness of which is readily demonstrable is doubtless educational. As the truth of the view asserted becomes less and less demonstrable, however, 'instruction' or 'education' must, we think, require more than mere assertion and repetition.' (National Alliance v. United States, 710 F.2d 868 (DC Cir. 1983)) ...Thus, the federal tax law does not contain a threshold, generic definition of the term educational, but rests on the concept that subjects spoken or written about must be objectively developed or founded...Inherent in the concept of educational is the principle that an organization is not educational in nature where it zealously propagates particular ideas or doctrines without presentation of them in any reasonably objective or balanced manner. The point is reflected in the income tax regulations that define the term educational, where it is stated 'An organization may be educational even though it advocates a particular position or viewpoint so long as it presents a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. On the other hand, an organization is not educational if its principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion.'"

Has Higher Education Overstepped Section 501(c)(3)?

An editorial in the NY Sun concerning anti-Semitic rants published as putatitive research by professors of leading research universities ("Harvard, Chicago and the Lobby", March 17-19) and an article in today's Sun that says that David Duke has been praising research about the "Jewish lobby" at Harvard indirectly raises a question that has beome increasingly salient. Universities like Harvard and Chicago receive a tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The 501(c)(3) deduction is available to educational institutions but is not available to organizations that engage in political advocacy. Hence, there is a question as to whether Professors Walt's and Mearsheimr's work amounts to propaganda and so crosses the line of using universities' assets for political purposes.

The question of propaganda's inclusion in section 501(c)(3)'s definition of education has not received significant attention from the IRS in recent years, which is unfortunate because universities have been inceasingly distracted from their tax-exempt educational purposes.

In several cases in the early 1980s, such as National Alliance v. United States, the federal courts vacated the IRS's previous requirement of an organization's offering " a full and fair exposition" the facts as too vague, but the IRS has not taken steps to provide clearer guidance as to how much lobbying and ideology in an educational institution are too much. This is unfortunate as universities have increasingly become little more than crackpot advocacy organizations for the extreme left.

Required Student Lobbying and Tax Exempt Status of Universities

I have started reading about the impact of faculty telling students to write letters on behalf of candidates on the tax exempt status of the universities in which the professors teach. As I'm reading through a law book on section 501 c 3 it turns out that there have been revenue rulings on the subject of faculty telling students to campaign on behalf of a candidate. In Revenue Ruling 72-512 and 72-513 the IRS has held that a university is NOT participating in a political campaign by providing a political science course that requires the students' participation in political campaigns OF THEIR (the students') CHOICE nor by provision of faculty advisors and facilities for a campus newspaper that publishes the STUDENTS' editorial opinions on political matters. That contrasts with recent reports where the professor requires a given viewpoint. Also, an exempt broadcasting station that provides EQUAL air time to all electoral candidates in compliance with the Federal Communications Act does not violate the prescription against partisan political activities. (Bruce R. Hopkins, Tax Exempt Law of Organizations New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983).

I am curious as to whether there have been subsequent revenue rulings about the kind of lobbying that has been reported in recent years (the book I have was published in '83). For example, there have been reports of professors requiring that students write letters on behalf of Kerry and of requiring that students take a required position regarding a law or proposed legislation.

ABOR Bill Referred to Higher Ed Committee in Albany

When Phil Orenstein and I met with aides to several state senators last summer I did not expect to see an actual bill proposed in the State Senate this legislative session. The following bill, S. 6336, has been proposed by Senators DeFRANCISCO, GOLDEN, JOHNSON, LARKIN, MALTESE, MEIER, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, TRUNZO, and WINNER. It is an important step for academic freedom in New York and in the nation. If the New York State Senate can propose ABOR, the rest of the country definitely can pass it.

Introduced by Sens. DeFRANCISCO, GOLDEN, JOHNSON, LARKIN,
MALTESE,
MEIER, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, TRUNZO -- read twice and ordered
printed, and
when printed to be committed to the Committee on Higher Education

AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to creating an
academic
bill of rights

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assem-
bly, do enact as follows:

1 Section 1. The education law is amended by adding a new section
224-b
2 to read as follows:
3 § 224-b. Academic bill of rights. 1. A student enrolled in an
institu-
4 tion of higher education has the right to expect:
5 a. A learning environment in which the student has access to a
broad
6 range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects
the
7 student studies in which, in the humanities, the social sciences
and the
8 arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly
methodologies
9 and perspectives has a significant institutional purpose;
10 b. To be graded solely on the basis of the student's reasoned
answers
11 and appropriate knowledge of the subjects the student studies and
to not
12 be discriminated against on the basis of the student's
political or
13 religious beliefs;
14 c. That the student's academic freedom and the quality of
education
15 will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently
introduce
16 controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that
has no
17 relation to the subject of study and that serves no legitimate
pedagog-
18 ical purpose;
19 d. That the freedom of speech, freedom of expression,
freedom of
20 assembly and freedom of conscience of students and student
organizations
21 are not infringed upon by administrators, student government
organiza-
22 tions or institutional policies, rules or procedures; and
23 e. That the student's academic institution distributes student
fee
24 funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and maintains a posture of
neutrality
25 with respect to substantive political and religious
disagreements,
26 differences and opinions.

EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in
brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD13937-01-5



S. 6336 2

1 2. A faculty member or instructor at an institution of higher
educa-
2 tion has the right to expect:
3 a. Academic freedom in the classroom in discussing subjects
while
4 making the students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other
than
5 that of the faculty member or instructor and encouraging
intellectual
6 honesty, civil debate and the critical analysis of ideas in the
pursuit
7 of knowledge and truth;
8 b. To be hired, fired, promoted, denied promotion, granted
tenure or
9 denied tenure on the basis of competence and appropriate
knowledge in
10 the field of expertise of the faculty member or instructor and
not on
11 the basis of political or religious beliefs; and
12 c. To not be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees
on the
13 basis of political or religious beliefs.
14 3. An institution of higher education shall fully inform
students,
15 faculty and instructors of the rights under this section and
of the
16 institution's grievance procedures for violations of academic
freedom by
17 notices prominently displayed in course catalogs or student
handbooks
18 and on the institutional publicly accessible site on the Internet.
19 4. The governing board of an institution of higher education
shall
20 develop institutional guidelines and policies to protect the
academic
21 freedom and the rights of students and faculty under this
section and
22 shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student or faculty
member
23 may seek redress of grievance for an alleged violation of a right
speci-
24 fied in this section. A governing board under this subdivision
shall
25 publicize the grievance procedure developed pursuant to this
subdivision
26 to the students and faculty on every campus that is under the
control
27 and direction of the governing board.
28 § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.






NEW YORK STATE SENATE
INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
submitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1



BILL NUMBER: S6336

SPONSOR: DEFRANCISCO
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the education law, in relation to creating an academic
bill of rights
PURPOSE:

To ensure that students enrolled in institutions of higher education
receive exposure to a wide range of scholarly viewpoints, and to recog-
nize the academic rights of faculty members.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 224-b (1) -- Outlines what a student enrolled at a higher educa-
tional institution can expect. Included in this portion of the bill are
provisions stating that a student can expect to be graded solely on the
basis of his/her work, student fee money should be distributed in a fair
manner, and a student's freedom of conscience shall not be infringed
upon by administrators or student government organizations.

Section 224-b (2) -- Outlines what a faculty member has a right to
expect. Included in this portion is a provision requiring that faculty
be hired, fired, or promoted on the merits of their work and not on
their political or religious beliefs.

Section 224-b (3) -- Higher education institutions are required to
inform students of their rights and of the institution's grievance
procedures for violations of academic freedom.

Section 224-b (4) -- The governing board of a higher education institu-
tion is required to develop and publicize a grievance procedure for
violations of academic freedom.
JUSTIFICATION:

Every institution of higher learning has a duty to promote intellectual
diversity on campus. Too often, students find many college classes
biased or one-sided. The ideas of all students and faculty members
should be treated with respect, and all ideas deserve to be represented
on campus.

Professors and administrators have an obligation to make students aware
of a broad range of viewpoints and perspectives. They are not hired to
teach only students who share their political or philosophical views,
and professors should never force their own views upon their students.
The classroom is not and should never be a soapbox for a professor to
promote his or her point of view.

The Academic Bill of Rights has been introduced as legislation in a
number of state legislatures, and a few states have already adopted a
form of the Academic Bill of Rights. In one of the most recent examples,
the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives -- in July 2005 --
passed a resolution supporting the principles of the Academic Bill of
Rights.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.