On Monday February 5 I invoked a rule seldom used on the floor of the Legislature. I invoked the rule of Personal Privilege. This rule is used when members of the Legislature need to speak to matters pertaining to their integrity as a Legislator. I invoked the rule in order to respond to the University of Nebraska’s releasing of Senators’ e-mails to the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper, which they had requested via the Freedom of Information Act.

I needed to set the record straight on three important matters relating to developments that unfolded last fall at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL). The e-mails which were released pertained to an incident which had occurred on the UNL campus on August 25 between a sophomore student and an English professor and a graduate student lecturer, who berated the student as she recruited for Turning Point USA, a conservative student group.

The first matter I needed to correct related to the false accusation that I had never reached out to the administration at the University before I submitted my first Op/Ed piece to the newspapers. NU President, Hank Bounds, had sent me an e-mail which said: “I don’t relish the thought of a public dispute with members of the Legislature. Unfortunately, no one contacted me to discuss your questions before the piece was sent to the media, even though senators have my cell phone number and e-mail address…”

To the contrary, I had reached out numerous times to NU Chancellor, Ronnie Green, at his office before I wrote the first Op/Ed for the newspapers, but he never bothered to return my phone calls. Finally, after several attempts to reach out to him, I called his office and said to his staff, “I am going to write an Op/Ed for the paper and I’d like to talk to Chancellor Green. I want him to know what I am going to say before I send it out. Please have him call me because I am sending it out at noon.” I sent out the Op/Ed because he never called me back that day. In fact, Chancellor Green never bothered to call me back until after the Op/Ed had been published and NU President, Hank Bounds, promised me that he would call. I finally got his call two weeks after I began calling him. To me, this is unacceptable behavior from the Chancellor of our flagship university.

The second issue I needed to correct related to the very nature of the incident itself. I have never referred to the August 25 incident as a free speech issue; instead, I have always maintained from the very beginning that it was a conduct issue. The University of Nebraska has codes of conduct for their students; they need to develop similar codes of conduct on their faculty. This lack of accountability explains how these professors have been able to berate and belittle students and get away with it.

The third issue I needed to correct related to a false statement made about Sen. Brewer. NU President, Hank Bounds, had stated on KLIN radio that Sen. Brewer had never seen the Op/Ed piece co-authored by Sen. Brewer, Sen Halloran, and me before it went out to the press one month after my first Op/Ed piece. This was fake news. The fact of the matter was that all three senators had worked on this second Op/Ed piece together throughout the week and Sen. Brewer even made some last minute changes before it went out to the press.

Last Wednesday a public hearing was held in the Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee on my bill, LB 958. LB 958 is a very short bill. It is short because the only thing it does is expand the definition of a massage therapy establishment to include vehicles or mobile units.

The idea for this bill came to me from Mrs. Jean Thunker, a constituent of mine who works as a massage therapist in Paxton, Nebraska. Mrs. Thunker also made the long trip to Lincoln to testify at the public hearing on the bill. Massage therapists need mobile units because their clients oftentimes cannot travel long distances in an automobile to get to a brick and mortar massage therapy establishment. LB 958 would allow massage therapists to take their massage therapy clinics to where their clients live, work, study and play.

The hearing on LB 958 went very well. Only one person testified against the bill. The criticism against LB 958 is that the bill does not provide any stipulations about what kinds of vehicles could be used for massage therapy or about what kinds of equipment these mobile units should contain. Without any such stipulations, a massage therapist could theoretically use a horse trailer as a mobile unit for massage therapy. However, these kinds of provisions are not necessary in the law because they are usually spelled out in the regulations administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). I intentionally wrote the bill vague, because I saw it as an opportunity to remove these kinds of needless government regulations from our lives.

LB 958 will follow a different kind of pathway towards becoming a law than most ordinary bills. LB 958 will get absorbed into a larger consolidation bill currently being written by the Legislature’s HHS Committee. The timing on LB 958 was impeccable, because the HHS Committee was already preparing a separate committee bill to provide for mobile units to be used in cosmetology. So, the HHS committee will simply add another section to their larger committee bill to make provisions for mobile units to be used for massage therapy. Because LB 958 will get absorbed into this larger HHS committee bill, it will stand a much better chance of becoming a law.

So, the day is quickly approaching when massage therapists will come to you, instead of you having to travel long and painful distances in a car or on a motorcycle just to get a good massage. Perhaps, the best measure of good health is determined by which a person takes more of, pills or stairs. With the aid of a good massage, the wise person will always choose the stairs.

The Nebraska Family Helpline provides a single point of access to children’s behavioral health services through the operation of a 24-hour, year-round Helpline for the State of Nebraska. The Helpline is a service of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, provided by Boys Town.

The Nebraska Family Helpline offers a wide range of support including: Screening for immediate safety needs, connecting with first responders, referrals to local resources, development of strategies with families, and collaborative problem solving.

Helpline counselors are standing by to assist you with your family’s needs. All you need to do is call. The Nebraska Family Helpline phone number is: 1-888-866-8660.

Last week was a very busy week for me at the Capitol. On Thursday hearings were held on my two property tax relief bills, LB829 and LB899. LB829 is the bill I introduced to fulfill my campaign promise to lower property taxes. LB899 is a bill which pro-rates the property taxes on a destroyed property to the date of its destruction. The hearing on LB829 was the longest one, lasting approximately four hours. It was a long day, but it was well worth it!

I would like to thank everyone who made the long trip to Lincoln to testify at the public hearing on LB829. Several people drove from the Panhandle to Lincoln to testify. We had a very strong showing of private citizens who testified in favor of the bill. In fact, no private citizens came out testify against the bill. Only lobbyists, unions and non-profit organizations testified against the bill, and I believe that fact shows how much Nebraskans desire this bill. I believe the personal testimonies and stories that were shared at the hearing as well as the numerous letters which were submitted left an indelible mark on the members of the Revenue Committee. Thank you for helping me give Nebraskans significant and substantial property tax relief.

LB829 will finally put taxpayers at the front of the line, instead of at the back of the line behind tax users. This bill unites urban and rural dwellers. It does not pit them against each other. We are all in this together!

LB829 now resides within the Revenue Committee, where it will be up to the members of the Revenue Committee to vote the bill out of committee and into General File. The question which now faces the Revenue Committee is this: Will the members of the Revenue Committee represent the citizens of Nebraska or will they represent the special interests of the lobbyists, the unions, and the non-profits? When asked to explain how I intended to pay for LB829, I responded by asking the members of the Revenue Committee how they expect Nebraskans to continue paying their property taxes.

If the Revenue Committee kills the bill, there is still one measure left I can use as a last resort. As a member of the Legislature I can make a motion to pull the bill out of the Revenue Committee. If the motion were to carry on the floor with 25 votes, the bill would automatically advance to General File.

On Friday, LB17 was debated on the floor of the Legislature. I took over as the primary sponsor of LB17 after Sen. Joni Craighead of Omaha suddenly resigned from office. LB17 is a carry-over bill from last year’s session. This bill is needed in order to put Nebraska into compliance with federal laws and regulations concerning the Nebraska Appraisal Management Act and Title XI of the Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. LB17 advanced to Final Reading.

On January 25 public hearings will be held on my two property tax relief bills, LB829 and LB899. If you would like to testify at the public hearing for either bill, please arrive at Hearing Room #1524 at the State Capitol Building in Lincoln by 1:30 p.m. In order to testify, you will need to fill out a short form which will be available in the hearing room. I encourage everyone who desires property tax relief and who is able to travel the long distance to come to Lincoln and testify. The Revenue Committee needs to hear your story.

LB829 is my main property tax relief bill. This bill would enact The Property Tax Relief Act, which would give most property owners a 30% reduction in their property taxes. Once passed into law, property owners would be able to get a 50% credit or refund on that portion of their property tax bill which funds K-12 education when they file their Nebraska State Income Tax Return. Should my bill fail in the Legislature, we have put into place a citizen led petition drive to ensure that this measure will appear on your ballot in the November election.

LB899 is a property tax relief bill for destroyed properties. The bill would prorate the assessed value of a home or property to the date of its destruction by fire or by some other natural disaster. For instance, a homeowner should not have to pay property taxes on the full assessed value of a home on January 1 if the home was destroyed on January 2. Instead, homeowners should only have to pay property taxes on the full assessed value of their home or property for those days when the home was intact and livable; otherwise, they should pay a reduced or adjusted property tax amount for that portion of the year when their home was destroyed.

On another note, some area business owners have brought to my attention a matter concerning the Nebraska Council for Corporations (NCC). The NCC has been sending out letters requiring businesses to submit their Annual Records Solicitation Form and to pay a fee of $150. The Annual Records Solicitation Form asks for much of the same information already required by the Domestic Corporation Occupation Tax Report, which must be filed with the Secretary of State.

I have looked into this matter with the Secretary of State’s Office. While the NCC is considered to be a legitimate organization, businesses are not required by State Statute to fill out the Annual Records Solicitation Form, nor are they required by law to pay the $150 fee. Participation with the NCC should be considered voluntary.

If you have any questions or comments about what is going on in the State Legislature, please feel free to contact my office at (402) 471-2616 or send me an e-mail at serdman@leg.ne.gov.

LB829 is the number assigned to my, Sen. Steve Erdman’s, property tax relief bill. LB829 will allow tax payers to get a 50 percent credit or refund on that portion of their property tax bill which goes to fund public education when they file their Nebraska state income taxes. For most taxpayers, LB829 will result in a 30 percent reduction in their property taxes.

LB829 is necessary because property taxes in Nebraska have been running out of control. According to the Department of Numbers, Nebraska’s real median household income remained stagnant near $57,000 between the years of 2005-2016. However, the per capita property tax burden rose from $1,150 in 2004 to $1,550 in 2011. That’s a difference of $400 or 25 percent within a time span of only seven years while household incomes remained steady. This year the median property tax bill in Nebraska is $2,164.

In recent years rural areas of our State have been hit particularly hard. For example, I live in Morrill County and according to the Nebraska Department of Property Assessment & Taxation the total amount of property taxes levied in Morrill County in 2006 was $7,390,027, but by 2016 that number had climbed to $17,569,558. That’s an average increase of more than one million dollars per year in a county with only 5,042 residents, according to the 2010 Census. So, property taxes have been rising at an alarming rate while median household incomes have remained stagnant.

Recently, an editorial appeared in the Omaha World Herald challenging the constitutionality of LB829. The editorial criticized my bill by claiming that the Nebraska Constitution gives no authority to the Legislature “to commute taxes or release taxpayers from their duty to pay taxes.” But, this criticism of LB829 is wrong.

The proposition that the Legislature lacks the authority to release taxpayers from their duty to pay taxes ignores what LB829 actually says. LB829 does not release taxpayers from paying their property taxes; all taxpayers will pay their property taxes the same as before. What LB829 does, however, is offer a credit or a refund to taxpayers on a portion of their property taxes which goes to fund public education. So, I welcome my opposition to challenge my bill in court.

The Legislature has the power to change the way people get taxed. If the assertion made by these editors of the Omaha World Herald was ever deemed to be true, then wouldn’t the TIF laws all be declared unconstitutional? Furthermore, if this criticism of my bill was ever sustained by the courts, then there would be no recourse for the Legislature to ever get rid of a bad tax.

Contrary to the editorial, I believe the Legislature has the authority to correct these kinds of wrongs. I also believe that the citizens of our State form our State’s Second Legislative House. As our State’s Second Legislative House, the citizens have the right to decide for themselves how they should get taxed through a provision made in the Nebraska State Constitution known as the citizen led initiative. This year you will have the opportunity to sign our petition to put this measure on the November ballot.

The editorial in the Omaha World Herald went on to challenge LB829 again, but this time it did so on the grounds of violating “the Constitution’s equal protection and due process provisions.” The editorial criticized LB829 because only those who file a Nebraska State income tax return would be able to benefit from the income tax credit or refund offered by the bill. But this criticism, too, is wrong.

This second criticism lodged against LB829 ignores the fact that all laws discriminate to some degree. For instance, speed limit laws discriminate against speeders as well as against those who don’t own automobiles. Just as our speed limit laws do not obligate the State to provide motorists with vehicles, so also my tax relief bill is not obligated to provide property tax relief for those who do not file a Nebraska State income tax return.

The truth about the 14th Amendment is that the Equal Protection Clause simply requires lawmakers to provide a good reason or a rationale for the law being proposed. Consequently, the justification I am proposing for LB829 is that property taxes have been rising at a much faster pace than average household incomes. The burden of continuously rising property taxes has now become unbearable for far too many property owners, and I believe that is ample justification for the Legislature to pass my bill.

Here is a link to the bill:  LB 829

One bill I believe Nebraska needs is LB611. LB611 is a carry-over bill from last year. Last year the bill advanced out of the Appropriations Committee, where it also became the committee’s priority bill. The bill currently sits on General File.

LB611 would require annual reporting of federal funds received by state agencies participating in the State’s budgeting process. The report would require every State agency to create two operating plans; the first would go into effect once federal receipts drop by 10 percent and the second would be enacted once they drop by 25 percent. This kind of reporting is necessary so that the executive and legislative branches of the State government would be prepared to act in the best interests of Nebraskans should federal funding ever be reduced.

Because our country’s national debt has now surpassed $20,600,000,000, I believe this is now the next fiscally responsible step for our State to take. Because our national debt now surpasses our gross GDP, there are no longer any guarantees about the future status of federal grant monies.

Federal grants almost always come with strings attached. Whenever the federal government turns off the money spigot, the states are left holding the hose. So, federal grants put the State at the mercy of the federal government, where we are tied to their inconsistent whims.

Federal grants come with the potential to put the State into a spending crisis. In addition, states remain bound by the unintended consequences and extra costs associated with accepting federal dollars.

Besides suddenly turning off the money spigot, federal grants often incentivize unnecessary spending at the state and local level. Because some people view these federal grants as “free” money, it encourages impulsive and unchecked spending. Making matters worse, states are often unable to track how these federal dollars get spent.

LB611 would provide state officials with the opportunity to see where all of their federal grant monies go. LB611 would mandate an audit of all federal funds in the State, including a report of all the strings which are attached to these federal grants.

LB611 would also allow state officials to measure the impact of a future spending crisis. The bill would require a risk assessment to identify potential vulnerabilities so that state officials may make better decisions and plans about what to do in the event of a reduction in federal funds.

More than 30 percent of Nebraska’s budget is currently being funded by federal grants. 91 percent of Nebraska’s Labor Department, for example, is funded by federal grants, while 85 percent of Nebraska’s military spending comes from federal dollars. Because I sit on the HHS committee and the Education committee, it is important to report that $2.7 billion of the Department of Health and Human Services comes from federal grants, and $580 million of the University of Nebraska’s budget comes from federal grants.

The bottom line is that LB611 will help to ensure that Nebraska would be protected against Washington’s next federal funding crisis.

Happy New Year and welcome to 2018! The second session of the 105th Nebraska Legislature will commence on January 3. So, this week I want to offer an update on some of the bills I have been working on and will introduce this year.

The first bill I will introduce will be the property tax relief bill I promised to introduce in a press conference I held last May after the closing of the first session of the 105th Nebraska Legislature. My Property Tax Relief Act will give Nebraska taxpayers a 30% reduction in their property taxes. According to The Hightower Report, Nebraska now ranks as the fourth highest state in the union for property taxes, and we are second only to Illinois when it comes to combined taxes. Therefore, the best action the Nebraska Legislature can bring to the State this year is some much needed property tax relief. To ensure that this measure appears on your ballot in November we will begin collecting signatures for a citizen led initiative starting this year.

The second bill I will introduce is another agricultural land valuation reform bill. Last year I introduced LB 602, which stalled in the Revenue Committee. However, I have improved upon that bill. So, this year I will introduce an even better bill for agricultural land valuation reform. The way agricultural land currently gets valuated for property tax purposes is very unfair. My bill will change agricultural land valuations from the current market based system to a new and improved productivity method.

The third bill I will introduce is a destroyed property tax bill. The late spring tornadoes of 2017 inspired me to write this bill. When a property owner’s house or buildings gets destroyed by a natural disaster, it does not seem right that the property owner should have to pay property taxes for as long as the house or buildings remain unlivable. Therefore, my bill will adjust the property taxes of a destroyed property to cover only those dates during the year that the property is functional or livable.

As you know, I serve on the Health and Human Services Committee. This year the HHS Committee will continue to make improvements in the services offered by the three managed care organizations which comprise Heritage Health. In addition, the HHS Committee will also be looking into recent sexual abuse allegations with children who are wards of the State and who are in our foster care system.

I also serve on the Education Committee. The State Education Board recently lowered standardized test scores for our public teachers. By lowering the standards for public school teachers, are we also lowering the quality of education for our students?

As 2017 draws to a close, I sit by the fire with pen and paper in hand, reflecting on all that has transpired since I first took office back in January 2017. It has truly been an honor and a privilege to represent the good people of District 47 in the Nebraska Legislature. So, I thank you for providing me with this very exciting and wonderful adventure in Nebraska politics.

Nebraska really is the good life. So, I went to Lincoln with the understanding that my job is to somehow make the good life even better. This is no easy task when State revenues have been in decline. Nevertheless, I have communicated my vision for how to accomplish this task every week through these newspaper articles I write. I trust you have enjoyed reading therm.
The most important factor in shaping my vision for Nebraska’s future is you. I appreciate the way so many of you have shared your thoughts, your concerns, and your ideas with me this past year. I hope our conversations will continue. It amazes me to see how deeply so many folks living in the Panhandle care about what happens 400 miles away in a Capitol City far, far away.

This past year, I fought vigorously in the Legislature to provide all Nebraskans with agricultural land valuation reform. LB 602 was the most important bill I introduced this year, and this was strongly reflected by the positive support I received in the public hearing. So, I will continue to fight for the kind of agricultural land valuation reform which makes good sense for our farmers and ranchers.

Going forward, I plan to take up a new cause. I will fight for property tax relief. As I have stated so many times before, I will introduce a bill to give property owners back half of what they pay in property taxes for education. If I cannot successfully push the 50/50 plan through the Legislature, a citizen led initiative should ensure that the measure gets placed on the ballot for a public vote in November 2018.

In many ways, this is the calm before the storm. These days I am busily getting ready for the next legislative session, which will begin on January 3, 2018. For this reason, I will not submit a newspaper article for next week’s newspaper. Nevertheless, I will pick up right where I left off as soon as the New Year arrives. Thank you for reading my articles, and may God bless your plans for the year ahead.

Now we must pause, for we are about to enter one of the holiest times of the year. In a few days, we will celebrate the birth of the Savior, Jesus Christ. The baby who was born so long ago in a manger, came only to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. This is the true meaning of Christmas, and I invite you to join me in celebrating this most precious and joyous event in human history. Merry Christmas!

Last week the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) wrote a letter to University of Nebraska Chancellor, Ronnie Green, instructing him to reinstate graduate teaching assistant Courtney Lawton as a lecturer in UNL’s English Department by December 22. The letter was published in a Lincoln Journal Star article on December 10. This was a troubling development because all three Senators, Sen. Brewer, Sen. Halloran and Sen. Erdman, had previously asked the university’s administration to work with FIRE to rewrite their free speech policies. As much as we would like to commend UNL for reaching out to FIRE, it appears that FIRE was the one to initiate contact with the university, or at least they were encouraged to do so by letters written by the UNL chapters of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

While we do not completely agree with all of the findings nor the final recommendation offered by FIRE, we are not surprised by their conclusions given the limited amount of information they used to draw their conclusions. For instance, FIRE stated in the letter, “Our understanding of the facts of this matter is derived from public reports and correspondence, including letters sent by the UNL chapters of the American Association of University Professors on September 13, September 15, and November 28, 2017. Because the facts appear to be well-known and undisputed, this letter incorporates by reference the facts recounted in those letters.” So, Fire relied heavily upon the University and the AAUP, both of which have vested interests in protecting and perpetuating the prevailing culture on our university campuses. However, we maintain that these sources are extremely biased and one-sided. FIRE never contacted Kaitlyn Mullen or her attorney, nor did they ever contact or interview Sen. Brewer, Sen. Halloran or Sen. Erdman. As a matter of fact, FIRE never invited the Senators to contribute facts to the case until after the publication of their letter.
It is necessary to have all of the facts straight in order to make a right judgment about what actually transpired outside the Nebraska Union on August 25. For instance, FIRE never inquired about the proximity of Ms. Lawton’s protest to Ms. Mullen’s TPUSA table. Proximity matters. Proximity matters because Lawton protested directly in front of Ms. Mullen’s TPUSA table, effectively sharing the same space as Ms. Mullen. By demonstrating directly in front of the TPUSA table, Ms. Lawton was able to block access to the table. By sharing the same space and blocking access to the table, Ms. Lawton infringed upon Ms. Mullen’s First Amendment right to freely express herself.

FIRE never considered the pre-made protest signs of Lawton and Gailey, nor did they ever bother to ask who called the police that day, nor did they ever bother to investigate the reasons for the missing eight minutes of video tape. When the fact of Lawton’s proximity is coupled with the additional facts that Lawton and Gailey used pre-made protest signs, that another unknown employee of the University asked Ms. Mullen to move her table to a free speech zone, that eight minutes of video tape are mysteriously missing from the video recording of the incident, and that Ms. Mullen received a police escort away from the Nebraska Union by no request of her own, the facts suggest that this was a premeditated, pre-planned and well-orchestrated attempt by the English Department to shut down the recruiting efforts of Ms. Mullen and TPUSA.

Additionally, the letter by FIRE spends a vast amount of time addressing Ms. Lawton’s use of the middle finger while completely ignoring other key phrases used in her statement which were recorded on video tape, especially: “Neo-fascist Becky right here…wants to destroy public schools, public universities, hates DACA kids.” While Ms. Lawton made a number of unsubstantiated claims about what Ms. Mullen may or may not want to destroy, which unfortunately is a commonplace political strategy used today, FIRE never addressed Lawton’s use of the term “Becky.” FIRE has not been the only organization to ignore Lawton’s use of this term. Both the Lincoln Journal Star and the Omaha World Herald newspapers have ignored this term in numerous articles when referencing or quoting from Ms. Lawton about the incident on August 25. They have referenced the term “Neo-fascist” with no problem, but not the term “Becky”. This is very concerning.
Why don’t these organizations address the term “Becky”? According to www.urbandictionary.com the term “Becky” is a white girl who is self-obsessed and who performs certain sex acts. Now, the words used in the urban dictionary to define a “Becky” are actually much more profane and graphic in nature. You are welcome to read them on your own. The use of the term “Becky” is both racist and sexist. So, Ms. Lawton was attacking Ms. Mullen’s gender and race. Calling someone a “Becky” is not political speech; it is racist and sexist speech! One has to wonder that if Ms. Lawton had been passing out literature for some other organization and the use of a racial or gender identity slur was used to describe her, what would the reaction have been by the University or the media? Would it have been the same?

We support FIRE’s position on “no free-speech zones.” Although the University has stated that there are no such zones on campus, we now know that an unidentified University employee used those terms to redirect Ms. Mullen on August 25. With proper education of all University employees and students, we feel that this particular issue can be easily resolved.
We also agree with FIRE’s statement that “A university may impose professionalism standards on its faculty members’ conduct in an educational setting,” and that, “A university could penalize a lecturer or professor who engages in this [kind of] behavior during a class.” However, Lawton has argued that because she was not in a classroom setting, this kind of “punishment” does not apply. To the contrary, we maintain that whenever a professor leaves the classroom, he or she remains a professor. The role of being a professor does not change simply by walking out the classroom door; instead, he or she remains a member of the UNL faculty, especially while on campus grounds and should conduct himself or herself accordingly.

The problem of political bias on campus is not limited to this particular situation. We have received correspondence from former students at UNL and UNO, as well as from other campuses about classroom decorum, fear of being punished, actually being punished, and for speaking or writing an opinion counter to that of the lecturer or professor. So far, the chant from the University has been, “This is an isolated incident.” However just as we have seen with the recent sexual misconduct within the entertainment, media, and political arenas, an “isolated incident” is often the opening to the truth about a much more systemic problem. Clearly, this is no longer about a single incident.

By way of their own admission, FIRE’s letter to Chancellor Green only addressed the incident from the very biased perspective of the AAUP’s “censure” edict. We believe their only motive was to protect the rights of graduate teaching assistant, Ms. Lawton. However, this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually transpired on August 25. We have maintained from the very beginning that this was never a free-speech issue for Ms. Lawton. Instead, we have always agreed with NU Regent, Hal Daub, when he said to Coby Mach on KLIN radio that this was not a free speech issue – it is a conduct issue. It is a conduct issue precisely because it appears to have been a premeditated attempt to deprive Ms. Mullen of her right to free speech on campus.

Contrary to the opinions of FIRE and the AAUP, the First Amendment does not give university professors (or any other private citizen for that matter) the right to harass students or to deprive them of their right to freely express themselves on campus. UNL’s Professional Ethics Statement forbids discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, and even the very liberal and progressive University of California at Berkeley maintains in their own Code of Conduct that professors may be disciplined for “Discrimination, including harassment, against a student on political grounds…” We would also like to remind our readers that the Statement on Professional Ethics provided by the AAUP states that professors are expected to “avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students.” So, the fact that this incident occurred at the Nebraska Union does not excuse these instructors from the English Department. We encourage administrators at the University of Nebraska to uphold these same standards of conduct which apply to “ANY” exploitation, harassment or discriminatory treatment of students.

The University of Nebraska exists for the primary purpose of educating students. It is not a forum for professors to proselytize or to shut down organizations they don’t like. Whenever the conduct of faculty nefariously distracts from this most fundamental purpose, corrective action must be taken. As State Senators, we are called to maintain a forum where people can be heard, study problems, right injustices, and when needed, to create legislative solutions to correct them. Therefore, we will continue to safeguard the wellbeing and rights of students attending our State Universities.