Over the past few weeks, a number of people have asked me what I think of HB 2234, which would bar university and community college employees from using their job titles when writing letters or opinion columns for newspapers. While I doubt that the bill will actually become law, if it were to become law, my current intention is to continue to write my columns for the Journal-World and leave it up to the editors to decide whether to list my university affiliation — as they have always done. That has always been the newspaper’s decision and, so far as I am concerned, will remain their decision.

As far as not commenting on activities by the Legislature or the governor, I will continue to speak out on issues that I believe are important whether it puts my continued employment by the state in danger or not.

It is obvious that I am willing to refuse to obey HB 2234 if it becomes law in its present state. To my mind, it is a flawed piece of legislation on several counts. First, I find it remarkable that a bill is wending its way through the Legislature when no member of the Legislature is willing to claim ownership of the bill.

Rep. Virgil Peck has claimed that he is not the originator of HB 2234 and that he introduced it only as a gesture for someone whose identity he cannot recall. I am willing to believe his statements out of respect for his office. I am also sorry if he has been treated discourteously by opponents to the bill. In my opinion, ad hominem attacks against legislators are uncalled for, uncivil, and unwise. 

On the other hand, I think that it is absolutely appropriate to criticize a particular piece of legislation based on either substantive or procedural grounds. I believe that if a bill is to be introduced into the Legislature, someone should take ownership of it. If no member of the House will do so, then I believe that the bill should be defeated for that reason alone.

In addition to my procedural problems with HB 2234, I also believe that it is bad from both a policy and a legal perspective. From a policy perspective, university faculty should speak publicly on matters in which they have expertise or on which they have strong opinions. When Kansas University hires a new professor, that new faculty member is specifically told that public service is a key responsibility. Since the founding of our nation, informed political dialogue has been a critical part of our governmental process.

This bill, in my opinion, is an attempt to stifle a selected group of public employees from being part of that dialogue. It is true that the bill would not prevent faculty from writing if they were to suppress their university affiliations, but that a person is a faculty member with particular expertise is an important piece of information that the public should have, just as it is important that people know when a member of the Legislature has an opinion on a specific subject.

To single out university faculty members in this bill is unwise and, in my opinion, damaging to political discourse in the state. It is also, I believe, legally problematic as it would seem to violate the First Amendment rights of university faculty.

I love Kansas and I love teaching at KU, although I do not love all of the laws that the current Legislature is considering. It is because I love Kansas that I now speak out against HB 2234. It is because I love Kansas and because I love the freedom of speech for which our forefathers fought that I will not be silenced if HB 2234 becomes law even though that may cost me a job that I love.