mandated public policy therefore exist as to the right to higher education thus according to the if help or because of the policy exists in the right to a higher education any complaint by an oil leak in the higher education field it will create something potentially detrimental to higher education is protected under principles of retaliatory discharge this they claim to be reporting on issues that they feel are detrimental to health care your teleporter here did exactly what this court said not to do you turn it decided that higher education was something in the public good and it denies every employee in the higher education field who complains about something potentially detrimental to the higher education pro it clearly mandated public policy in this state requiring specific qualifications for the instructors of the he pro one a one course about which mr roberts supposedly complained a survey course at the city college is in introduction to the help careers available at the city of personal program no illinois or federal law rule or regulation sets for any specific that course the general assembly it certainly could have done so and has done so in other educational areas in this state you must be a certified teacher to teach in an elementary school or teaching high school you must have certain content knowledge simply does not suffice to establish peace the civic clearly mandated public policy under the laws of this state is not enough to say that there are some general overriding good this court has instructed certification bodies with some general requirements they claim or not met in this case but this court has never held that anything other than the statutes the constitution and the judicial decisions of this state w federal government may for be clearly mandated of the us is never allowed private pretty standards to serve whites as the law of this state but if we look at this case there's actually three other feelings in what mr roberts price do first of all if we look at his complaint he never alleges that any of the three accreditation bodies that he claims set forth the appropriate standards have anything to do with the city policy what is complaint says is there are these three boxes in the general require you to but there's no specific citation to what we have allegedly while in third i think this is a more general is that using accreditation standards presents a host of problems with this or in this case is a perfect example because there can be state because the statute requires no specific accreditation your honors i think it would go back to this issue of what mr roberts actually says is the public policy implications here which is the right to higher education public policy is directly contrary to what this court said turner needed to be stated this workers compensation or should know if i fired employee for exercising their statutory right i have specially violate law the state this court said intruder generalized expressions of a public policy fail to provide essential notice to employers and the phrase clearly mandated public policy will be recognizable simply because of this clear there is nothing clear about mr roberts supposed of the policy or its application to his complaint of these statutes feel with funding of higher education student loans have nothing to do with running a college they have nothing to do with the day to day operations of a college they don't set forth any specific requirement for  fact that our government has decided to back up student loans does not create an absolute right to a higher education and that somehow immunize employees if they're intentionally talking about something that could be detrimental to higher a right to higher education in this theater so on for next find there is a right to or in this state republican funding and if so does that mean that disagreements about the qualifications of an artist become fodder for re terminations of there's no further questions on that i'd like to move on to the second issue in this case which is section twenty of illinois whistleblower with respect to section twenty of the illinois whistleblower act this is presented with a straightforward question what does it mean to refuse there is a straightforward answer to that question a refusal is the denial of something offered were demand where there is no offer or demand there can be no refusal the necessary predicate with the word refusal is that there is an offer to manage an opportunity to participate in something mr roberts readily admits that not only was he never asked by the city colleges to participate in the activity claims to be a lawful he consistently and specifically alleges that the city college is excluded from that process mr roberts pleaded himself out of court with respect to section one section twenty provides that in a lawyer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in the byelection of the state or federal law ru the denial of something offered or demanded that definition the requirement for an office or be a man has been accepted by every federal state court in illinois that has looked at the meaning of section twenty the first the second fourth districts have accepted that the seventh circuit in a case that predates certain ego excepted that same sort of formulation and courts in the northern and southern districts of federal courts in the northern and southern district of illinois have accepted that interpretation no illinois court has ever accepted the proposition set forth by mr rock's that a complaint and it complaint without any request that someone participate in an section twenty four protection and i think an example with respect to the word usual the president here in this courtroom today this is a loop i cannot refuse to be a justice of the only supreme court today decided in this case no one has offered plain ordinary reading of the english language i simply can't refute because i've never had the opportunity to participate in the first place the definition that we set forth of the word refusal is also consistent with the remainder of your whistleblower one of the canons of statutory interpretation in this state is that you have to read the whole statute and you can't read words or phrases terms out of the other core substitute provision governmental agency if as mr robert suggests merely complaint is sufficient to qualify as it refusal under section twenty section fifteen would be meetings every complaint would be a refusal and there will be no meeting allegations will be protected under the whistleblower complaints about unlawful activity made to a governmental law enforcement agency and refusals to participate in an awful activity the legislature certainly could have set for the broader definition in fact in our briefing we list a number of other states that have whistleblower rights that specifically protect objection to or refusal to participate in a lawful activity our legislatures made a determination and we would know as we did in our briefing that in an internal complaint to an employer without a refusal is still protected so long as someone can set forth the sufficient public policy under our parliament to tell a story to shirk up to this is not the case where  reading the statute in this way it would somehow leave somebody without any potential the legislature has made a determination as to what will be protected under the whistleblower and there simply is no reason for this court to expand that definition if it needs to be  back to this word refuse to purchase he was out of the loop that's one of the things he complained about how did he how did he refuse to participate if he didn't even if he was out of the loop when it was all in process he was right so let's look at the definitions you refuse means under webster which basically is the same as blacks it's a tick indicator show you're now willing to do something especially something offered or request now would you agree there was nothing offered or requested to the player there was no over his price for that but once he under section one if the roberts about this isn't well if the conduct isn't illegal an employee can report it to the appropriate government agency and then he's protected under section fifteen  qualified to get the job the fact that they were qualified or once they get into the practice if they are able to pass certification test then they have not learned the skills necessary in order to do that's the read how could someone to learn to came loans or use their product to pay for a class to be taught by a certified and a professor who know what they're doing who knows how the teacher curriculum and they did is still to its essence what mr roberts really is asking this court you have section twenty is defined that the op is supposed to apply to whistleblowers and so this court should rewrite it to protect him because he is it was so that's not how refusal to participate in unlawful activity there simply was no refusal here and mr roberts cannot qualify under the law or whistleblower moreover this notion that there can never be a claim under section twenty because no what section twenty is intended to protect as well and employer asked somebody to do something what they're asking them to do is in violation of a law rule or regulation and the of course is no i'm not going to do that didn't happen and i think justice thomas who point is spot on because mr roberts says to this court up to whom was i supposed to comply what if there is no one for him to complain to how is this illegal we don't have laws that can't be enforced mr roberts if you thought this was a property of one of the department of education he could have found someone to go to he didn't there was no refusal and i think one point really needs to be cleared up from what i was with mr robertson there and some training by your employer you can be a full box but what mr roberts asked this fourth point is that if you're not taught by a certified botanist then there's some danger here to the public and then we get against this sort of derivative idea you give those patient view that as the right to higher education good richard roberts theory we could have the greatest doctor in the state of illinois he's the students how to draw blood but it's not right because they're not a survivor that can't be that can't be correct  d finally what i would offer to this court is that there is no violation of title or higher education what mr roberts tries to do here is set in place a series of dominoes that most fall he starts at this  of the dominoes and says broadly there is a great the higher education he starts with that of the downers and says well if we don't know all of our instructors then that domino topples of the students won't get what their pay for and the next domino topples because you mean lose your credit asian if you lose your ability well then you can't get any student loan that series of dollars is exactly what this court said turner is not appropriate for a specific clearly mandated public policy you have to as a pla