The feud between Topinabee senior Dennis Lennox II and Griffin Endowed Chair and Democratic congressional candidate Gary Peters ended with what Lennox considered a victory.

University administrators drafted a policy supposedly to bar full-time employees from running for full-time public office. But since then, the policy has gone nowhere.

It’s in limbo – and for good reason.

The policy, as first proposed, badly needs details specifying exactly when it would be permissible for a professor, or any other full-time employee, to run for public office. It would be needlessly harsh to prohibit all employees from running for any office. Professors, too, are citizens.

There are two major issues at stake, and any adequate policy needs to address both.

The first is whether full-time employees have the time for both campaigning and their jobs. Professors should not postpone grading or cancel office hours because of a rigorous political schedule.

A policy could prevent professors from shirking their educational responsibilities, but full-fledged prohibition would paint in too broad of strokes. It need not be the case that a professor ignores his or her students while campaigning; it is not inconceivable that an individual could find time for both. Campaigns can be conducted during free time.

Time conflicts need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and a policy could put in place procedures through which full-time employees would be assessed while on the campaign trail. Any more, however, would be too strict.

The second issue – and the larger one – is whether professors run into a conflict of interests while teaching courses and campaigning. Even if professors do not use university resources on their campaigns, is there something wrong with instructors, who ought not to be imposing upon students a particular political persuasion, publicly affiliating themselves with a political party?

This is at the heart of the Peters conflict: If Peters teaches politics but is running with the Democratic Party, can his class offer an impartial perspective?

Peters’ affiliation does call into question his teaching, but calling into question is not enough for prohibition – at least not in this case. Peters can hold, and even declare, political views without silencing all students who disagree with him. If those students feel they are being indoctrinated, then the complaint should be filed and investigated. A policy could better detail that procedure.

The problem with a flat-out prohibition is that it would take away from professors what should be their right: the ability to run for public office without jeopardizing their careers. Taking that right seriously requires spelling out nuanced procedures for spotting problems as they occur.

And that is the best a policy can do.

E-mail the author: defaultuser