Ethical questions raised after Clinton campaign visits class

by Alec Williams

Editor’s note: As this story required an investigation, much of the information we presented here from our sources was not the full picture. It was not until our final story on the matter that we had the most accurate representation of the story. Read that story for an accurate depiction.

On Sept. 22, a woman who reportedly identified herself as a representative from the Hillary Clinton campaign spoke during a CMU course called “International Business” and encouraged students to vote for Clinton and work for their campaign.

“For me, it wouldn’t have mattered what organization or what candidate they were representing,” Chris Cady, a student in the class, said. “I don’t think that type of politics belongs in the classroom at all.”

The professor of the course, Stanton Heister, said he was not aware that the woman was representing the Clinton campaign when she had originally emailed him asking if she could speak before students on “increasing voter registration and voter turnout.”

“I don’t remember anything in that email stating their affiliation with one party over another,” Heister said.

Heister responded back to the email and invited the woman to the class. On the day of Sept. 22, she waited outside the classroom as students entered, looking to speak with Heister before the class began.

“It wasn’t until a few minutes before class that they really showed up really about three minutes,” Heister said. “And I said ‘So, yeah it looks like it’s kind of a neutral type of discussion.’ And at that point, she said ‘No, we’re really one party specific.’ And I said ‘Oh, okay.’”

Following their conversation, the woman entered the classroom and spoke before the students about electing Clinton for president.

“She comes in, gives us her little spiel, hands out these little note cards and asks if we would like to participate in the campaign for Hillary Clinton,” Trevor Sutton, a student in the class, said.

The cards reportedly had sections for the students to write down their names, email addresses and whether they would be interested in working for the campaign. The cards that were filled out by students who chose to do so were collected by the woman and she left the classroom.

“It was an opportunity for students because they were paying students to canvass. And there was actually a couple leadership positions in there as well that were more salary-oriented,” Heister said. “So, I thought it might be a good opportunity for students who were interested in making a little bit of money on the side.”

Frank LoMonte, the executive director of the Student Press Law Center, believes there could be issues with this, as the other side was not represented.

“But if the professor brings an employment recruiter from only one political party and not another into a classroom during class time to engage in recruitment when there is no other educational benefit to that speaker’s presence, it would raise questions about the misuse of state resources in support of a partisan cause,” LoMonte wrote in an email.

The Clinton campaign visit came months after an email was sent out to CMU faculty and staff by President Tim Foster concerning the election and certain guidelines to follow. After corresponding with Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, Foster “paraphrase[d] and summarize[d]” an eight-page memo sent by her.

“It is illegal for CMU, its board, and its employees to advocate for or against a candidate seeking public office while on state time or through the use of any state resources,” Foster wrote in the email.

This is referencing the Fair Campaign Practices Act, a Colorado state law which says that state employees are not allowed to advocate or influence election outcomes while they are on state time or using state resources.

“These restrictions are complex but in summary using state resources to advocate for a political candidate or issue is simply prohibited,” Foster said in the email. “What state and university employees do with their own time and/or money is protected free speech.”

CMU administration currently doubts there is any sort of wrongdoing in a legal sense, but the ethical questions have been raised.

“I don’t think there are any legal implications, but I do think there are most certainly ethical implications,” CMU Vice President of Student Services John Marshall said.

Heister believes since he was not informed in the original email that they represented Clinton, the ethical dilemma is not as prevalent.

“It’s a breach of ethics only if I had known in advance and still let that go on,” Heister said.

The identity of the woman who visited the classroom is currently unknown due to lack of evidence of her visit.

“I deleted the email I got from them, so I don’t know generally – I don’t know specifically what the time frame was,” Heister said.

The exact day was later confirmed by some of the students from the class, but the woman in question has not been identified.

“I’d love to see that email,” the first vice chair of the Mesa County Democrats, Jolynn Phillips said. “The [Clinton] campaign certainly wants a presence on campus, as well as doing voter registration. […] But to initiate going into people’s classrooms, that just doesn’t sound like anything I’ve heard. […] I haven’t heard anything like that.”

Students have largely defended Heister and believe that this was not an act he did with purpose.

“I try not to use any kind of politics in my classes. In fact, I think most students probably wouldn’t know which side of the fence I sit, in that respect,” Heister said.

“I really don’t think he’s at fault […] I think she’s at fault because she clearly did not clarify. He had no idea she was going to be advocating for one of the candidates,” student in the class Erica Hovland said.

No action against Heister is expected to take place. The head of the CMU business department, Steve Norman, already spoke with Heister and expressed the situation is resolved.