Professors are saying their First Amendment rights are being violated after a newsletter outlining the University political ethics policy sent last week from the University stated acceptable and unacceptable political activity as the election approaches.

Cary Nelson, a professor of English at the University and president of the American Association of University Professors, sent a memo to 5,000 employees at the University expressing his displeasure with the newsletter.

The University ethics policy states that University employees, while in a job-related context, cannot show political preference to candidates or political parties by participating in activities such as attending rallies, wearing T-shirts or buttons and registering voters at party-specific booths.

In his memo, Nelson wrote, “The Ethics Office has failed to recognize and accurately define both the special context of a university and the role of its faculty members.”

Nelson said the graduate students who also work as teaching assistants are in a difficult position.

They are technically considered University employees, but at the same time they have the role of students on campus.

“The ironic thing is that the University spent 15 years fighting a grad student union, claiming they were not employees,” Nelson said. “Saying this is hypocritical is modest.”

Tom Hardy, University spokesman, said that the newsletter was not stating University policy, but rather it was reiterating for employees the State Officials and Employers Ethics Act which provides a code for ethical conduct for state employees while on the job.

“You become an employee and all the sudden the employer can regulate your freedom of speech in any way job-related,” said Steven Helle, journalism law professor at the University and First Amendment attorney, referring to the University’s policy.

Helle said that if the case were taken to the courts it could probably fall under the realm of the First Amendment right to assemble or the right to express grievances.

A past California court precedent, however, has allowed public employers “more latitude” in restricting the speech of public employees, Helle said.

“Putting the arm on employees for political contributions is one thing, but this strikes me as too far,” Nelson said.

Hardy said newsletter did not intend to restrict political activity on campus, it was to make faculty aware that they must be in accordance with state policy as well.

“Faculty should exercise common sense, and it is unlikely that anyone will get busted for anything,” Hardy said.

Helle said he considers the University policy very broad, and it is unclear what it means by restricting political preference.

“At some point, professor preferences come through to students,” Helle said.

“Why just political preference, why not religious? I don’t know, at some point students need to realize they’re dealing with human beings.”