“This class sucks,” your friend says. And nothing happens.
Relish your right as a student to say whatever you please about the university, its courses or its professors, because when you enter the working world, you keep your trap shut.
Non-disparagement clauses are increasingly common in companies and state something to the effect of:
“You may not, either during your employment with the firm or thereafter, make or encourage others to make any statement or release any information that is intended to, or reasonably could be foreseen to, embarrass or criticize the firm or its employees, directors or shareholders as a group.”
Carin Clauss, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, noted that while non-disparagement clauses certainly suppress speech, they are common, and “if you’re talking about a private company, [employers] can do whatever they want.”
“Non-disparagement is pretty new. It’s kind of an overreaction to sexual and racial harassment claims,” she said.
It’s the ten-year anniversary of a non-disparagement clause battle at the UW, when students fought proposed endorsement contracts with competing shoe companies. Reebok scored the contract, but the rather embarrassing non-disparagement clause was deleted thanks only to student activism.
The San Francisco Chronicle once published a piece about newspapers that forced laid-off reporters to sign non-disparagement clauses. Reporters who had spent their entire careers ferreting out information for the public lost their own free speech with their jobs.
Non-disparagement clauses are still underutilized. If restaurants had them, waiters and waitresses would never diss the food or wine. In shops, sales clerks would refrain from negative judgments about the quality or attractiveness of merchandise.
Last year in Nashville, Tenn., a case erupted as one employee of Prime Hospitality accused another of calling her a derogatory name. The plaintiff “brought this action to recover damages resulting from an insulting remark allegedly made by an executive of her former employer in violation of a prior settlement agreement that contained a non-disparagement provision.” Whoah.
In Louthian vs. Louthian, a non-disparagement clause entered a child-custody battle. While detailed information on the case wasn’t available, it’s safe to say ex-spouses have a lot to say about each other. Seems like a perfect fit for non-disparagement.
Maybe students could sign non-disparagement clauses when relationships turned serious. If relationships didn’t work out, students could always reference their non-disparagement agreements to avoid petty gossip. “Sorry, we signed an N.D.” Trash talking would be limited to random, one-time hookups and failed, first dates.
It’s easy to see where non-disparagement clauses would help companies. At the company holiday party, someone has too much eggnog, and suddenly the complaints are flowing with the alcohol. With a non-disparagement clause, that guy would be out the door before his hangover set in.
What if getting a degree at UW required that students sign non-disparagement clauses as freshmen? Maybe ten years ago students were wrong. Maybe non-disparagement clauses are okay. Maybe the UW should make signing one as a freshman a condition for a diploma.
After signing non-disparagement clauses, students could only write positive TA or professor evaluations. After all, in this best of all possible universities, school spirit should extend to evaluations.
If we made only positive remarks about the UW, its reputation would soar, enrollment would go up, and we’d attract better faculty. Sales of red and white hoodies would boom and give the university more money. Would this help lower tuition?
Don’t worry, non-disparagement wouldn’t keep us from shouting obscenities at the opposing teams on football Saturdays; we just couldn’t badmouth the UW. But maybe sections O and P would have to chill out.
Cynthia Martens ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in Italian and European Studies.
