OPINION: Forced to sign on dotted line
In this republic, nobody can force your signature. If someone says "you have no choice but to sign," drop the pen and run. Your signature is yours and yours alone unless and until you voluntarily sign it away to someone else. Even if you're elected mayor, governor, or president of the United States, nobody can force you to sign. Even a prison inmate cannot be forced to sign. Nobody can force us to sign simple contracts, let alone statements like "Jesus is lord," or "I support equality," or "I think student fees should be spent on a gay, lesbian and transgendered party." Only in the most fascistic environments are people forced to sign.
Despite the fact an individual owns his or her signature, something chilling is playing out at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
Politically incorrect Student Body President David Williams has been convicted of discrimination by the student Judicial Board, and he may face impeachment and recall.
Why? Because he declined to sign a bill that said student fees should fund a National Coming Out Day celebration of gay, lesbian and transgendered lifestyles.
As Williams gets abused, people should separate themselves from emotional and moral considerations about gay rights and break the scenario down to its most basic elements.
Here's the breakdown:
• Students elected Williams to serve as president.
• Part of the president's job is to make decisions about spending resolutions placed on his desk by the Student Government Association, and those decisions are expressed with his signature.
• The president has three options when presented with a spending bill: sign; leave blank; or veto.
• Presented with a resolution to fund a Coming Out celebration planned by Spectrum - an organization for gays, lesbians and transgenders - Williams chose not to sign. It was a decision to allow funding to go forward, unlike a veto, without his endorsement.
• For choosing not to sign, Williams has been convicted of misconduct and plans are under way for his impeachment or recall.
This means the Judicial Board has decided Williams didn't have the options traditionally available to an elected executive. Not in this case, when the subject involved sexual identity. He had only one option: sign on the dotted line, thus giving his endorsement of a Coming Out Day party. Choosing another option, it has been ruled, was a violation that can be punished. The Judicial Board has decided Williams had no right to control his own signature. In their view, he's required to give his signature to something he may object to.
This is scary stuff. Suppose Williams were an orthodox Jew, presented with a bill to fund a Jews for Jesus party. Would he be forced to sign it, even if he found the affair repugnant, just to make Christians and messianic Jews feel good?
Assume for a moment that Williams, who is multi-racial, had declined to endorse funding of a celebration of black unity because it bothered him. Would that make him racist?
Perhaps. It could also mean that he thinks race-based festivities are racist, and inflame racial hostilities in what should be a color-blind world. It doesn't matter. No group making any request of a political body is entitled to one man's signature, no matter how popular the cause.
A group may be entitled to funds, but not an individual's signature. And that would explain why funding can go forth without the president's signature. If a funding request is so sacred that approval is required, then the request is really a demand with a predetermined outcome. It's a dog-and-pony show, and the demand for Williams' signature has no practical purpose beyond forcing him to violate his conscience.
If an executive has only one option regarding sensitive subjects - to sign the resolution or face punishment - then the signature means nothing because it doesn't represent a valid decision. It's no different than, say, a confession signed under duress.
After the Judicial Board convicted Williams, he made excellent points. He said the decision erodes an individual's right to free speech and free thought, which it most certainly does. The Judicial Board has made clear that Williams had no right to express his personal disapproval of Coming Out Day festivities, and he had no right to make a decision about endorsing the event. And so, one wonders what the purpose of having a student body president is.
Williams also pointed out how the board's decision sends a message that any group can get anything by simply complaining of discrimination. Williams said he no longer feels safe to exercise his First Amendment rights.
No kidding. At UCCS he exercised his rights and there will be hell to pay.
Spectrum was not wronged by Williams, not in the least. The organization applied for funds and received them. Williams did nothing to stop that. And what if he had? It's an executive's job to sign, leave blank, or veto a bill. It's his signature, and he alone controls it. If he doesn't, then it has no value and nobody should seek it. Why would they?
UCCS and the student Judicial Board do not own or control the signature of David Williams under any circumstance imaginable.
Even the courts can't own or control the signature belonging to Williams. Those who are punishing him for declining to sign are violating his most fundamental human rights, and that threatens us all. Great lawyers of America, line up to help Williams sue.
