Ensure school field trips for learning, not protests

The University of New Mexico has found itself in the middle of yet another controversy, this one over an allegation that an instructor and her students used a school van so they could protest a proposed nuclear waste storage facility between Carlsbad and Hobbs.

The episode is a good reminder of the heightened tensions that exist in our country right now. And it reinforces the need for clear policies at all of our state’s colleges and universities that spell out exactly what is, and is not, allowed.

UNM currently prohibits the use of school property for political activity.

Eileen Shaughnessy, a lecturer in UNM’s sustainability studies program, insists that the trip was taken for an educational purpose — specifically, to attend public hearings on Holtec International’s plan to build the nuclear waste storage facility. The trip was voluntary for students.

But while attending the public hearings in Hobbs and Carlsbad, Shaughnessy and some students spoke out in opposition to the Holtec plan. They also drove to the site of the proposed facility where opponents were protesting, and some students may have voiced dissent while there, Shaughnessy acknowledges.

She told a Journal reporter that the proposed nuclear storage facility “is one that is deeply connected to sustainability; I saw it as a great opportunity to continue the learning.”

But not everyone sees it that way. State Rep. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs, a supporter of the Holtec facility, questions whether the UNM van taking Shaughnessy and the students “to protest the Holtec interim storage application was an appropriate use of state resources.” Indeed, UNM fielded a couple of complaints about the field trip.

Richard Wood, the university administrator who handles faculty discipline, has had a “coaching session” with Shaughnessy, in which he pointed out that using the van for this purpose was “at least right on the boundary of violating (UNM) policy” that prohibits using university resources for political activity.

But in the end, Wood determined she was operating in good faith on the trip and attempting to follow policy. He notes that a public hearing is a legitimate educational setting, students have a right to express their views and there was no evidence Shaughnessy coerced them to oppose the project.

Wood and UNM deserve credit for how they handled their inquiry into this matter, and for announcing they will begin drafting new guidelines to supplement and clarify the university’s existing policy on political activity.

We don’t envy the university officials who will be hammering out those guidelines, given the competing interests they’ll need to balance, including UNM’s legitimate interest in prohibiting university resources from being used for political activity, the importance of exposing students to real world situations and the need to respect student rights to express themselves. But there are several things the guidelines should include: A requirement that students be exposed to all sides of an issue, without bias and before the field trip.

A prohibition on students being coerced to take any position.

The absolute right for a student to take a position contrary to the instructor and the majority of students.

The right for students not to attend such field trips, without it affecting their grades.

And a written justification from the instructor outlining the purpose of the excursion and how it will enhance the student educational experience.

Excursions, like the trip UNM students took to observe the process as Holtec attempts to get buy-in for its proposed nuclear waste storage facility, are important for the educational process and should continue. But taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill when those excursions amount to little more than political activism.

It’s now up to university officials to draw that line.