Hacker News Reader

Comment by endisneigh | Hacker News Reader

this doesn't sound like a big deal. UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university.

in other words, they can testify for free, or they cannot use their the fact that they're UF professors as part of their credentials without prior approval, or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves.

the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF.

obviously UF wouldn't want that.

---

which organizations will allow you to testify against an entity that funds the organization without said organizations approval. free speech aside, obviously no organization will let you do that in your capacity as a member of said organization, but nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway.

View on HN

> the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF.

> obviously UF wouldn't want that.

This part is ridiculous. The "State of Florida" doesn't fund the UF, the Florida taxpayers do! And it's in the taxpayers' interest to get good, equitable laws - not whatever the lawmakers plop out for their own self-interest. The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.

> The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.

You must be new to southern politics, if you think this is a scandal.

> The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida

Like banning mask mandates by school districts and defunding them as punishment?

> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university

No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.”

> in other words, they can testify for free

No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?

> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.”

No, I didn't.

"or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves."

> No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?

They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes.

Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018.

This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...

I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”.

> There's no conspiracy here.

What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.

*edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.

> What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.

I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).

If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.

I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.

Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven.

My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.

There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.

> I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven.

Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.

Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."

> Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim

You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech.

The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?

We'll have to see what the result of the lawsuit is and the ensuing discovery to know.

>>The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).

Point of order: During the 2018 political cycle, there was not the same massive push by the party in power of Florida to promote an "election fraud is a massive existential threat to our democracy" narrative in the same way there was during 2020 and beyond.

Pretending a massive change in direction didn't happen in the intervening years seems either extremely naïve or disingenuous.

https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021...

"Hessy Fernandez, UF director of issues management and crisis communications, told the Gainesville Sun in a text message Sunday the university views the professors' request to do outside work for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit as harmful to the university's interests. "However, to be clear," she stated, "if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they would be free to do so."

I’m happy to be wrong about this, thank you for the link. It’s new information from the top linked article that pro bono would be allowed. I would speculate there’s maybe a big enough caveat in there that the university knows makes a pro-bono arrangement unworkable while appearing to be flexible. “On their own time without using university resources” could mean it’s not actually possible, and doing it pro bono obviously doesn’t change how the university feels about the case and it’s potential harm to their interests. But if the university really means it and would allow the testimony without repercussions, then the situation isn’t as bad as it seemed.

At least one of the professors has indicated they requested and denied from doing the testimony pro bono by by Gray Wimsett, Assistant Vice President of Conflicts of Interest.

https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1454526638578880516

The thing missing here is that they also wouldn’t be allowed to use their credentials as faculty members of the University, which makes their testimony less desirable.

> they also wouldn’t be allowed to use their credentials as faculty members of the University

Everything I have read from the University and the Professors indicates they are being flat out denied under the implicit risk of loosing their job. There is no circumstance where they can testify and not risk loosing their job from what I can tell.

They are in fact UF professors though, and that fact would be relevant in any case they testified in. Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general? Or just for this issue?

To your edit: the fact that the entity in question is a government is the difference here in my opinion.

per the article:

> Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general?

> Or just for this issue?

Yes

Organizations that aren't the government. State universities are public institutions, not private ones.

really? which private entities explicitly or historically have allowed a member to testify against either the entity itself or another entity that funds the one in which the member of a part of?

even whistleblowers generally quit before testifying, or are expected to not necessarily retain their rights as a member afterwards.

there's really no incentive for an organization to explicitly allow a member to testify against them or another entity that funds them.

genuinely curious if it's happened before.

Yes, really. State schools are public institutions. Their employees are public employees. As public institutions, they are not legally permitted to enact policy that infringes 1A rights. A private school could have more leeway on this—subject to employment law, union contracts, etc—but a public school is very limited. A public professor could be censured for expressing testimony that, for example, reveals that they are likely to treat students in a biased way. If they testify with something like “Racial minorities and women aren't qualified to have a right to vote,” that impugns their ostensible fair treatment of their students and fellow faculty, and that is actionable. But testifying about how a state's voting policies disenfranchise legitimate portions of its population? Not at all actionable. Testifying that election integrity demands that certain practices be established even though practically speaking it could result in disenfranchisement of certain minorities? Also not actionable.

We'll have to see how the lawsuit pans out, but I doubt you're right here. Public institutions are in no way obligated to let their members serve as expert witnesses in their capacity as an employee. See Garcetti v. Ceballos.

However nothing is stopping them from testifying against the institution in their capacity as a private citizen. This is why whistleblowing is possible.

UF is saying they cannot be expert witnesses affiliated with the university per their process explicitly outlined in the article.

It would be another thing if they were trying to testify in another capacity and UF was trying to stop them.

An expert witness acts as a servant of the court, not as the agent of their employer. Naming the UoF as your employer is simply stating the truth to the court about your credentials; it doesn't mean the UoF has to take responsibility for your testimony.

I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.

IANAL (nor an expert!), but I would have expected that an expert witness appears in court in response to a summons; he is therefore obeying the orders of the court, which I would have expected would override any shifty terms in an employment agreement.

> I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.

Government institutions are limited in how they can restrict the speech of their employees because of the first amendment. This is a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.

"nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway"

We gave up privacy of our most intimate files and communication 'to prevent crime', because apparently everyone of us is a potential pedophile.

Joe should also give up his lifehood so that rule of law can function?

God forbid an organisation would suffer the indignity of employees giving evidence in the court of law and having to answer some tough questions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com