University says it did not authorize the professor’s usage of its name in the anti-gay marriage ads. However, a campaign manager says faculty asked that Pepperdine’s name be kept in the ads in support of Prop 8.
By Melonie Magruder / Special to The Malibu Times
In a campaign season that is growing increasingly overheated, an already controversial electoral issue has become even more so with the involvement of a Malibu Pepperdine University professor in a campaign for Yes on Proposition 8, involving the institution’s name in political expression without its permission.
Richard M. Peterson, director of the Special Education Clinic and Assistant Law Professor at Pepperdine, has been prominently featured in television ads for the Yes on Proposition 8 Campaign, called the “anti-gay marriage” proposal.
Although Peterson has been asked by the university to delete all references to Pepperdine from these ads, they are still being aired with the university’s name.
Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Such an amendment would invalidate the state Supreme Court’s decision last spring that same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry according to the Constitution’s nondiscrimination statute.
Opponents of the proposition claim its passage would enshrine discrimination against a portion of the population and eliminate equal protection laws.
While Peterson’s right to acknowledge his support of the amendment has not been questioned, the fact that his affiliation with the university is prominently featured in the ad, thereby, critics say, implying the institution’s endorsement of the ballot initiative-has raised a firestorm.
“I shudder to think of the message these ads send to my kids who have, known gay students from Pepperdine and accepted them without question,” Malibu resident Laureen Sills wrote in a letter to The Malibu Times. “I am happy that they are too busy to watch CNN and see this travesty of intolerance coming from our university every 20 minutes.”
But Pepperdine’s policy on all things political is unequivocally neutral. Communications Director for Pepperdine University, Jerry Derloshon, said, “Particularly during an election period, applicable law prohibits the university from engaging in activities which promote or advance a political candidate, political party, proposition or a Political Action Committee.”
Derloshon acknowledges that the issue has become a headache.
“The ad is a Yes on 8 Campaign ad, not a Pepperdine ad,” Derloshon said. “Professor Peterson speaks for himself, not the university.”
The controversy prompted Pepperdine to issue a press release emphasizing the university’s neutrality on the initiative, as well as to publish a statement on its Web site and send out an e-mail to California alumni.
“We requested to have the Pepperdine name removed from the ad and the Yes on 8 Campaign accommodated the request for only a couple of days,” Derloshon said. “When a second ad came out, a small, very small disclaimer was inserted along with the Pepperdine name that said ëtitle for identification purposes only,’ or something like that. We have no legal footing to stop the ads from running.”
However, Sonja Eddings-Brown, deputy communications director for the Yes on Proposition 8 Campaign said, “The entire Pepperdine faculty stood up and asked the university president to reverse his stance and have the Pepperdine affiliation returned to the ad after we removed it.”
This was news to Pepperdine Provost Darryl Tippens, who wrote in an e-mail, “This information is not correct. Our faculty did not step forward’ as a group to express an opinion on this matter. Indeed, our faculty members have multiple views on the Prop 8 matter and they have differing views on what a colleague should or should not do when it comes to the public expression of his or her political views. True to their character as faculty, they are entitled to their opinions and views and they do not hold a uniform opinion on these matters.”
Derloshon was also perplexed at Eddings-Brown’s contention that she had not seen a version of the ad that ran the disclaimer disassociating Pepperdine from Peterson’s views.
“Well, the disclaimer was there,” Derloshon said.
Eddings-Brown argued that there was nothing unusual in identifying a campaign issue spokesman with the institution he represents.
“Professors identify themselves with their universities in books and publications all the time,” she said. “Just because he is employed somewhere doesn’t mean he can’t appear on an ad.”
But Dr. Andrew Harker of Stanford University voiced concern at political statements being attributed to institutions of higher education by members of that school’s faculty.
“University professors are used by media to give impartial analyses on an issue,” Harker said in a phone interview. “But if a professor actively identifies himself as a representative supporter of a political view, particularly one this controversial, it brings into question his judgment as a professional and as a representative of the Pepperdine community.
“At Stanford, the tenets of academic freedom are important,” Harker continued, who has no professional affiliation with Pepperdine. “Anyone is entitled to free speech. But common sense dictates that your free speech could be misinterpreted to represent the position of the university you represent. In my mind, it’s important for Professor Peterson to make clear that this is his opinion and that he is not representing Pepperdine.”
Peterson did not respond to requests for comments for this story by phone or e-mail.
While Eddings-Brown contended that Peterson’s ad is no longer running in this market, several people canvassed in the Los Angeles area claim to have seen it as recently as this past weekend.