News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Dec. 31
The 2008 elections have created some bizarre situations, particularly in Iowa, home of the first votes during the caucuses on January 3. After years of struggles to get more college students to vote and engage in politics, it is strange (and disappointing) to watch Democratic candidates suddenly declaring that students shouldn’t vote.
The debate over student voting was sparked when Barack Obama’s campaign gave out 50,000 fliers on college campuses declaring, “If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood.” Since Obama has the strongest support of any candidate among college students, and many out-of-state students in Iowa come from his home state of Illinois, this was no surprise. But the reaction may have startled Obama, who worked in the field of voting rights as a lawyer and a law professor at the University of Chicago.
Hillary Clinton proclaimed, “This is a process for Iowans. This needs to be all about Iowa, and people who live here, people who pay taxes here.” Apparently that doesn’t include the out-of-state students who pay higher tuition in Iowa, not to mention the various taxes on their books, supplies, and pizza, and the income taxes on their salaries.
A Clinton spokeswoman went even further, “We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people. We don’t have literature recruiting out-of-state college students.”
It wasn’t only the Clinton campaign that complained. Chris Dodd’s Iowa director, Julie Andreeff Jensen, said in a statement: “I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign’s attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses.... That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa.” Even Dodd’s wife claimed about voters, “They really resent it when candidates try to sign up people who are not really from Iowa.”
But encouraging young people to vote is only something to resent if you think students shouldn’t be voting. Actually, pretty much everything about the Iowa campaigning has a manipulative feel to it, including the Clinton campaign’s efforts to oppose the Obama campaign’s recruiting of students. After all, Hillary Clinton polls badly among college students, so she has few votes to lose. Instead, her campaign is skillfully appealing to the most xenophobic prejudice of older Iowa residents: the fear of people from Illinois.
This Illiniphobia is generated from many sources, from Big Ten rivalries to traditional border state snobbery, accentuated by the fear of big, bad Chicago and all its evil, urban influences. And not coincidentally, this fear goes along nicely with Clinton’s race against the junior senator from Illinois, Chicagoan Barack Obama.
Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen wrote a blog post called “The Illinois Caucus” that denounced Obama’s efforts. According to Yepsen, “While it’s legal for college students to register to vote in Iowa to do that, this raises the question of whether it’s fair, or politically smart” since it “risks offending long-time Iowa residents.” Yepsen proclaimed: “We have to respect the integrity of this caucus system.” But part of the integrity of the process is encouraging everyone who lives in Iowa to vote, even if they’re a college student from out of state.
As Rock the Vote tells students, “As a college student, you have the right to vote from the residence that you consider ‘home,’ including your campus residence.” Here’s the law nationwide: Anyone can register to vote where they live. College students typically “live” in two places, their campus address where they spend most of the year, and the home address of their parents. Students can choose where they wish to register. There’s nothing illegal at all so long as you don’t vote twice in the same election. College students from other states are “outsiders” only in the sense of their hometown. There is no fraud here, nor any danger of fraud.
This is a fundamental issue of voting rights that should be core for all people, even if you think the students in Iowa may not vote for your favored candidate. Ever since 18 year olds have been allowed to vote, in some college towns, officials have worked hard to try to stop students from voting, fearing that these students might, if organized, wield enormous influence. After all, no one would dare to express the fear that “too many” African-Americans or Latinos might vote in the election.
Mike Connery of Future Majority called this opposition to voting by college students “advocating voter disenfranchisement.” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, “Barack Obama doesn’t believe that we should disenfranchise Iowans who meet all the requirements for caucus participation simply because they’re in college... We should be encouraging young people to participate in the political process — not looking for ways to shut them out.”
Rock the Vote cites many examples of attempts to attack student voting rights. In 2004 near Prairie View A&M (a historically black university located in a majority white county in Texas), District Attorney Oliver Kitzman publicly declared, “it’s not right for any college student to vote where they do not have permanent residency,” and threatened to prosecute students who tried to register to vote. In 2004, after several students at the College of William & Mary ran for city council in Williamsburg, Virginia, the local register declared four students did not live in town and could not run for office or vote there. In February 2007, a state representative in Maine even proposed a bill to ban students from voting where they go to college.
As a New York Times editorial pointed out, “Political campaigns and elected officials have used a variety of tactics over the years to keep students from voting. There are often too few voting machines, so lines stretch for hours. Sometimes, students are falsely told that they will lose financial aid, health care or even car insurance if they vote while attending school.”
I’ve seen those long lines. On Election Day in November 2004 at Illinois State University, I witnessed enormous lines of students snaking through the student center, waiting for up to three hours after the polls closed for the opportunity to vote. The president of the university issued a statement praising this tremendous outpouring of student civic interest. I saw something much different: a fundamental injustice that threatened voting rights. After all, in the areas where students mixed with non-students, such as my home, the wait to vote was about 15 minutes. In some places with almost no students, the wait was negligible. Yet the Republican county officials hadn’t planned for a large student vote (which happened to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats).
Long lines to vote aren’t merely a terrible inconvenience; they threaten the ability of many people to vote. For students who have to go to class or go to work, a three-hour wait isn’t always possible. And even the most civic-minded person would have to think twice before standing for hours just to cast a vote. Local governments in college towns are rarely responsive to student needs for the simple reason that students usually don’t vote in local elections, and they like to keep it that way. If you encourage students to vote for president, they might get used to the idea of democracy and start to want local representation, too.
College officials could do a lot more to assure the right of students to vote because they have influence in the community. They must work to ensure that adequate supplies and facilities are available for precincts on and near campus, so that students don’t have to wait in longer lines than everybody else. In Iowa, where the caucus will occur during winter break, Grinnell College students coming to caucus will sleep on a gym floor, while the University of Northern Iowa is planning to keep open some of its dormitories to accommodate students.
Of course, civic engagement must mean much more than mere voting. The understanding of democracy among college students must focus on much more than just the first Tuesday in November. For the next year, all colleges should create a civic engagement program to encourage students to participate not merely in elections but in the broader scope of public activity, such as debating what policies are best for the country, and which candidates are the best to elect to federal, state, and local offices.
But the quest to promote civic engagement by college students must begin with access to the ballot box.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
The census counts students as living at their college address. When House of Representatives districts are determined, local students are counted as residents. If students register at their so-called “permanent home” then they are diluting their votes.
Perhaps the reason that some local people want to discourage student voting is to have their votes count more (and therefore mean more) than the votes of those in other congressional districts.
Frank, at 12:10 pm EST on December 31, 2007
In a perfect world, all voting would be fair and honest. However, until we have a national voting database and get rid of same-day registration, it is nearly impossible to see if people are voting more than once. How will the caucus judges in Iowa know if the students from other states will not be voting again at a later date in another state? Or by absentee ballot in another state?
I am all for photo IDs for voting, too. Democracy is fragile and always needs the perception of honesty.
Jean Sanford, at 12:10 pm EST on December 31, 2007
Great story, but it’s probably not just Illiniphobia going on here. The nonstudent residents (I hesitate to call them ‘locals’; everyone living in the area can really be considered a ‘local’) of college towns, in my experience, aren’t concerned in the slightest with out-of-staters influencing state or national elections. They are mainly worried that students will start voting in local elections. This would be catastrophic for the NIMBY zoning and anti-student laws they have spent years carefully enacting.
jcl, lecturer, at 1:55 pm EST on December 31, 2007
I got to caucus in 2000: it was a blast! I was even a Bradley delegate to the county convention, but the next two conventions conflicted with other committments.
I was a newcomer then: I’d only been teaching in Cedar Rapids for a few months. Nobody asked me how long I’d been in town or whether I’d earned the right to be there: they checked my voter registration and then it was straight politics.
We live in a mobile society. Even Iowans move, and people move to Iowa. Most of the students at UI are Iowans, too, if memory serves. This is a stupid dispute, the only value of which is that it shows us which candidates are interested in more democracy and which ones are interested in less.
Jonathan Dresner, at 3:10 pm EST on December 31, 2007
The disputes involving student voting are usually over local issues. The Iowa caucus situation is of a different variety.
The first need is to follow the law. If it is legal for the students to register and participate in the caucuses I think this is a no brainer: They can vote.
The more interesting question is the one that pertains to the Iowa caucuses more generally. How do the candidates spin the results and more generally how does the general public interpret them.
If college students participate in sufficient numbers, say 20% of the voters, to determine the winners, then of course the losers will attribute their defeat to the presence of a highly organized and selective group of student voters. They will spin the results as unrepresentative of the state or the general electorate.
The importance of the Iowa caucus, and the New Hampshire primary as well, is not in the delegates it selects to the national conventions but because it is the first measure of the public pulse in the primary season.
If students are a major factor in the outcome, the defeated candidates will of course point this out so as to discourage a band wagon effect for the winner.
The real questions here are whether the early primary constests actually do affect the eventual outcomes substantially, and if so, whether or not the primaries should be organized differently to lessen their impact.
The issue of student voting rights is however an important issue for local politics, particularly in smaller college towns where student participation can greatly influence the outcome of local elections.
The most important recent example of this type of town/gown conflict was the election of Michael Nifong in Durham, North Carolina. In an effort to defeat the Durham DA’s election bid, a group of Duke students were organizing students to register for the election in Durham. The university administration physically prevented the students from offering registration materials at a Duke football game in order to hinder their efforts. Unbelievable as it now seems, the administration’s efforts in this regard were supported by some members of the Duke faculty who accused the students of racism for attempting to register to vote in Durham.
In essence, the university sought to hinder the student’s exercising their constitutional right to vote, in order to facilitate the continuation of a frame up of its own students for a crime that had never occurred.
It is interesting and perhaps revealing that Professor Wilson did not choose to mention the Duke case in this article. It is symptomatic of a tendency for members of the AAUP to confuse their own political inclinations with more general issues such as academic freedom or students right to vote. The issue of whether one prefers Clinton or Obama is an important one for individual voters but it has little to do with the subject of the article, student voting rights.
Jonathan Cohen, Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University, at 2:05 pm EST on January 1, 2008
Jonathan Cohen finds it “revealing” that I didn’t mention the Duke incident, which is very interesting. What it reveals mostly is that I hadn’t heard about it until now.
John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 7:15 pm EST on January 2, 2008
John Wilson and I clearly agree. I wrote that it was interesting and perhaps revealing that he didn’t mention the Duke case in his article.
I find it interesting that someone (John Wilson) who writes on student rights and academic freedom and lists collegefreedom.org after his name is not familiar with the details of the Duke lacrosse hoax. And I think it is revealing, not of a conspiracy, but of the political biases that are inherent in the way that the AAUP is currently looking at issues of academic freedom and student rights.
The complaints that critics of political correctness have leveled at the nations’ campuses (and such criticism is coming from both conservatives and liberals) includes the complaint that in too many places professors have replaced scholarship with propaganda.
There has to be a point where advocacy alone does not constitute scholarship. A major indication of such a problem is when someone’s writing or speaking systematically ignores evidence that contradicts their views.
The organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) estimates that 75% of colleges and universities have speech codes that violate the constitutional protections of free speech. This is clearly a major threat to academic freedom. But the AAUP has been largely indifferent to such threats and has rarely seen fit to comment on the many incidents that have been reported by FIRE of abuse of free speech rights by college administrators. This suggests to me that many of the people who are active in AAUP have allowed their personal political preferences to blind them to the most serious threats to academic freedom and the free speech rights of students.
Jonathan Cohen, Professor of mathematics at DePaul University, at 12:40 pm EST on January 3, 2008
We, the Prairie View A&M University family, are proud of the part we’ve historically played in establishing and protecting the rights of this nation’s students to vote.
We were forced to take our grievance all the way to the United States Supreme Court in 1979, resulting in a landmark decision upholding the students’ right to vote (Symms v. U.S). The court found that although a student may not be able to state with certitude that he/she intends to permanently live in the university community, such a declaration is not necessary to establish domicile. That means that students can vote where they go to school even if they don not plan to stay there permanently.
As a historically black institution, established in 1876, we fully expect future voting rights challenges considering that we’re located just outside Houston, Texas in an area exploding with African-American home ownership and with a student-body expected to double from our present size of 8,300, within the next 8 years.
Glen Jay, at 4:30 pm EST on January 4, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Westwood College-Chicago Loop is looking for a Director of Student Services see job
Student Media. Direct all facets of Student Media to include supervision of staff and the management of a daily newspaper and ... see job
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
Join our Residence Life team, where our job is to care about students’ lives! We strive to present opportunities that not ... see job
Traditional military customs and courtesies are expected and extended between students, faculty and staff on campus. ... see job
Everest Institute is a world-class educational institution and a rapidly growing part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. At ... see job
The Executive Director for the Office of Minority Educational Affairs reports to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education ... see job
Everest College is a world-class educational institution and a rapidly growing part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. At ... see job
Georgia Institute of Technology Office of Success Programs Director of Academic Support/Assistant Director of Success ... see job
Recruitment/outreach is the primary focus but also provides academic advisement to students regarding degree and graduation ... see job
Iowa State also offers students housing option for caucuses
I just wanted to point out that Iowa State University is also making a housing option available to students who wish to come back to caucus this week. Here’s the news release providing details:
ISU students who live on campus have housing option if they plan to caucus
AMES, Iowa — Iowa State University’s Department of Residence will open a floor in Wallace Hall Jan. 2 through 4 for residents to participate in the Jan. 3 Iowa Caucus.
The opportunity is open only to those students who live in ISU housing. Since many students won’t have access to their residence halls over the semester break, Wallace Hall will provide a central location for those who want to come back to Ames to participate in the caucuses.
“We believe it is valuable for residents to have the opportunity to participate in this important political process,” said Pete Englin, ISU director of residence. “This initiative was raised with the Inter-Residence Hall Association leadership, and while no one had knowledge of students asking for access to the residence halls, they supported our decision to provide this option.”
Caucus housing in Wallace will be available for $19.50 per night. Students who do not have contracts with the Department of Residence will need to make other arrangements if they wish to caucus in Ames during the winter break.
Department of Residence staff will communicate this option to students and provide additional directions on how to reserve caucus housing after Thanksgiving break.
-30-
Mike Ferlazzo, communications specialist at Iowa State University, at 10:25 am EST on December 31, 2007