Professor Says He Was Barred from Campus After Monsanto FOIA Inquiry | Hacker News Reader

Professor Says He Was Barred from Campus After Monsanto FOIA Inquiry

insidehighered.com

171 pointsmiguelazo50 comments

> It says he must, among other things, “immediately refrain from using your university position or university resources in connection with your outside engagement and activities for the personal gain of yourself or others”

How does this work? Isn't it very normal in US universities that professors are engaged in research with other (private and government) research institutions, use their university position and university resources, and are even funded by them? How/why is this "outside engagement" different? There must have been some basis on which the university put out this argument? What is the basis of this argument by the university?

Probably the specific outside engagement they wanted to distance themselves from was that he regularly gives expert testimony against deep-pocketed companies.

They made it broad, likely, to also pull in other related activities and shield themselves. Without, as you say, considering the overlap with other common outside engagements.

Typically as a professor you can fund your own research with grant money. That’s within the scope of the job.

But the job is only 9 months, so during the extra 3 months you’re free to engage in employment that is separate from your job duties. Such engagements can be things like contracting or in this case, serving as an expert witness. In this capacity, you might say “my qualifications are that I’m prof C from university Y” to establish your credentials.

However, you can’t say you’re from University Y without the University’s permission (in many cases). It looks like what’s happened here is that the Uni is revoking their permission to use their name, which is their right.

That said, the professor can still serve as an expert witness. They just won’t be as “credentialed” in front of the jury, which may make them less desirable as an expert witness or serve to discredit him.

That should not be their right. It's unconscionable that an employer should be permitted to bar an employee from making a factual statement on the record about their employment.

The professor is leveraging the reputation of the institution to augment their own in the eyes of the jury, and they're being paid a handsome fee for doing so. This fee won't be paid to the institution at all. Any organization on the planet has standing to sue you if you use their name for your own profit, whether you are affiliated with them or not. Maybe that's unconscionable, but I'd be far more concerned if that weren't the case; where anyone could use anyone else's name and not be liable for fraud, impersonation, or defamation.

You apppear to be missing or obscuring basic facts. "I am employed as a university professor at <X>" should never be a forbidden statement wherein it is (a) not fraud (b) not impersonation and (c) not defamation.

Well the thing you're missing there is also (d) a for-profit enterprise while under employment. Please point out any employer who would allow you to go around using their name to make money on the side. Does your employer allow this?

I'd argue that our need for expert testimony in the courtroom outweighs the desire of a company to manage their brand.

Perhaps. But the way juries are conditioned to gauge expertise is by using the brand as a proxy. That’s why “Vanderbilt” professor can make $200k giving expert testimony, whereas professors at no-name schools aren’t even asked the time of day. If prosecutors want expert testimony in encumbered by brand dynamics, they are free to ask anyone. But they ask for the brand-names because they have more weight in the eyes of jurors.

There’s a line between factual statements and what is effectively marketing.

I’d you had a freelancer side hustle going on and your website was “I-work-at-google-so-you-know-I’m-good-at-my-job.com” and all of your messaging was geared around “hire an expert level google employee”, is this marketing or a factual statement about employment?

That's rather nuts. That your employer can forbid you from saying you work there.

No, the employer is forbidding you from using their name to turn a profit on your off time. What's nuts about that? Isn't it any organization's prerogative to maintain control of their brand, and their employees' use of that brand in the public sphere?

If you have problems with an employee stating "I work for x" then the only reasonable recourse should be to let them go. How can you police stating a fact to that degree?

You frame this as "stating a fact" but it's actually "running a side business". Just because it is a fact, doesn't make the side business any less relevant. An employee is free to say "I work at X". They are not free to use the fact that they work at X to make money.

> How can you police stating a fact to that degree?

In the course of your employment anywhere, your employer is free to prevent you from making all kinds of statements of fact. If you do make them against their will, they are free to sue you for causes of action such as breach of contract.

He is being told not to take university resources for outside projects.

He can still presumably bring in outside resources for university projects.

There is a big difference between those two...

The linked article from Feb. has many more details, including this gem:

    With the consent of top university officials, Carpenter has for two decades arranged for the money he has received for testifying as an expert witness (minus travel expenses) to be funneled back to the university to assist his graduate students, staff and research programs.

ie. He has been openly earning up to $200K per year as an expert witness and funneling all that money back into supporting students and not himself.

This isn't some "sudden revelation" to the university that he has a lucrative 'side hustle'.

See:

https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/renowned-ualbany-pc...

Feb 5th 2023

I had no idea expert witnesses got paid that well. I guess it makes sense, with them being experts and not having a personal stake in the lawsuit, paying him for his time sounds reasonable.

The issue seems to have been resolved since https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org

Why is the site black-listed on CenturyLink ISPs?

While the headline is factually true, the investigation seems to have more to do with his side hustle than the inquiry from Monsanto’s lawyers.

Of course it may also be that the university is looking to dump an 86 year old professor that probably doesn’t bring in much grant money, and doesn’t even seem to teach many students.

I must say though, I was impressed by the article. Seemed to do a very good job of balancing the story, as opposed to the usual reporting when one side makes claims in a lawsuit. All you usually get is the claims, presented as fact.

well if he has tenure he shouldnt have to do too much!

That's right! He should be free to work on the problems that are most pressing in his field, as he sees them, because he's the expert.

OK, thank you for your input. The word "seems" is an off hand comment you are making, not anything definitive, right? Let's look at some facts:

* Monsanto was the primary U.S. manufacturer of PCBs until they were banned in the U.S. in 1977, having manufactured 99% of PCBs [1].

* There are ongoing lawsuits in the United States against Monsanto for the manufacture of PCBs. [2]

* David Carpenter has a huge amount of studies showing how bad PCBs are. [3]

* While I can't see any evidence of ongoing funding of Bayer to the University of New York / Albany, Bayer does fund scientific research, fellowships, etc. in Medical and Agricultural Science [4], which may be a sufficient explanation to build a plausible narrative that someone or a few number of people at that University could have potentially been afraid of losing some grant. I don't have direct evidence supporting this, but there is reasonable suspicion.

All of the above coupled with the fact that, at least according to Dr. Carpenter, that the University concluded that his work in testifying against this massive corporation was not in fact problematic. [5] suggests that instead the University at the very least was extremely careless in even temporarily disciplining and muzzling this guy. They could have allowed him to continue working while doing an investigation.

By the way, you characterize Dr. Carpenter's serious work as a, "side hustle," for some reason - I'm assuming you were just trying to be cheeky and funny, which is good and hilarious - we all need to laugh. However if you're trying to attack him by saying, "side hustle," - I would encourage you to read up more on this story and all of the researchers out there in history who have tirelessly worked to protect you and I from chemicals. For example, lead used to be normal in gasoline - we all know a-priori that lead in gasoline is horrible now, but we may not all be familiar with PCBs because it hasn't been covered in the news as much or whatever. Just pause and think a bit about this stuff because it could really seriously affect your health some day, cause you cancer, cause your family members cancer - stuff you would really care a lot about presumably.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#:~:text=Until%20it%20.... [2] https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-monsanto-knowingly... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=dav... [4] https://www.bayer.com/en/societal-engagement/science-educati... [5] https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_bb14...

My reference to side hustle is his being a paid expert witness.

We have no idea of the details of the investigation, we just have his version vs. the university.

That’s why I say seems.

This is so freaking strange, but I can see how it happened and it doesn't surprise me at all. Thankfully it's been resolved, as another poster pointed out (https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org).

It's not uncommon for a FOIA to be extra scrutinized if it's sent by a lawyer. Meaning the request will be brought up in a meeting with higher ups when it normally wouldn't be. It's basically an implicit threat to sue. My guess is the administration freaked out at the implicit threat, saw something that looked fishy at-face, and made a decision too early thinking the whole thing would have cost quite a lot of money.

(ianal)

It’s BAYER Monsanto. BAYER Monsanto.

In case other folks missed the intent of this comment, Monsanto is now a part of Bayer. I guess this is meant to remind us of that.

Isn't it more correct how the article words it?

> Monsanto, owned by Germany-based Bayer, said in a statement...

Bayer isn't using the Monsanto name as a brand, which "BAYER Monsanto" strongly suggests.

It would be more correct to just call them Bayer all the time. They are trying to shield the original brand from the bad press associated with Monsanto but they stir the ship now.

How often do we talk here about Google rather than Alphabet?

The situation is totally dissimilar: Alphabet was clearly setup as a holding company to host both Google which remains a company by itself and other activities which were being spun out. Meanwhile, Bayer completely bought out Monsanto intending to merge it with its activities chasing synergies and phase out the name.

The press generaly properly refers to either Alphabet as the holding company or Google the company as approriate.

I thought Monsanto had been bought but continued to exist as a daughter of Bayer, but it seems you're right: there's no entity called Monsanto anymore, and the entity that was once Monsanto does not exist.

People don't call RedHat "IBM/Redhat", or as others suggest here, just "IBM".

Monsanto has always been in the news for things like this before the takeover, I doubt that the Bayer owners get involved in a U.S. matter like the FOIA request.

do we call it Meta Instagram?

I mean, it would make sense, like Meta Facebook, Meta Oculus VR, etc.

Good or bad, the ones at the top have to be responsible for whatever happens under them or the buck just gets passed around, and if we don't even know where to point the finger, they don't have an incentive to be better.

A naming convention like this, while a bit stupid, would be better than having to look up who bought/owns/(is a subsidiary of) whom.

Eh, do you buy Duracell batteries or Berkshire Hathaway Duracell batteries?

It's also a clear example of synecdoche.

Why is it important to add the Bayer in this context?

Bayer actually went to war against the USA before WWI even started. That's why.

What are you referring to? How does a company go to war (before it's government?)

Look up the Phenol crisis, and it's easy - companies are at war with Russia today.

All the Phenol results are about the (2000s) US opioid epidemic (except one which is about Phenol free cigarettes in the 1960s...). I can't find a Phenol Crisis pre WW1.

The general history of Phenol makes no mention of Bayer either. The only application was by Lister as an antiseptic.

You can’t Google so it didn’t happen. OK. That’s unfortunate but I guess you’re stuck.

I've asked you three times what your talking about. I've looked myself. You still can't manage to tell me. So I guess I will never know...

Somebody else who knows how to Google already replied to you, now I expect you to fully read the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Phenol_Plot

> after a Monsanto lawyer filed a records request with his university, the university barred him from campus

Yesterday I was listening to a Podcast episode [0], "How Interpol Hunts Criminals - Who Benefits from the World Police?", which sadly is in German so I can only point to the written transcript [1].

It talked about how useful it is, but over half of the episode was criticizing it, how it is misused by autocrats and totalitarian regimes:

> The United States and other democratic countries do not extradite politically persecuted persons. But that is not always the goal of a red notice, explains Professor Edward Lemon. For many dictators, it is enough to terrorize their dissidents living abroad:

>> An Interpol wanted person request does not only mean that one can be arrested and extradited. In addition, it is very difficult to open a bank account, find a job or travel anywhere. In Istanbul, the United Arab Emirates or Qatar, with their large transit airports, there would be a high the likelihood of being arrested. Moreover, the government that obtained the warrant can undermine the reputation of the person in question: "This person is wanted by Interpol. It then has committed serious crimes." Yes, Interpol wanted persons are also a proven means of discrediting anti-corruption fighters and political opponents worldwide.

> There is another Interpol tracing tool that dictators use to bully their opponents in exile: the Interpol database of stolen and lost identity documents. It's a tool that the Turkish government apparently likes to use: in 2019, the Nordic Research Monitoring Network published explosive documents from the Turkish intelligence service. According to these, Turkey had declared several hundred thousand passports stolen or lost after the 2016 coup attempt and uploaded the relevant information to the Interpol database. Lawyer Marko Stambuk, who looks after many Turks stranded in Serbia without passports, said:

>> With this simple measure, the Turkish government harasses opposition members and critics worldwide. Without a passport, they have problems traveling and in everyday life; without a passport, they cannot apply for a residence permit. And when they check with their embassy, they are told to return to Turkey. Some have also asked authorities in Turkey what is going on with their passports. But they did not get an answer from there either.

[0] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/wie-interpol-verbrecher-jagt-...

[1] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/230220-wie-interpol-verbreche...

* translated by DeepL with manual corrections

I mean Interpol used to have a Chinese president, a country notorious for illegally kidnapping people in foreign countries, who suddenly vanished as he was forcefully called back to China to be prosecuted on bogus charges. He was then replaced by a general from the UAE, another paragon of enlightened values and democracy.

I think it tells people all they need to know about it.

The podcast also talked about it: current president is Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi [0].

> Accused of presiding over torture, his candidacy was strongly condemned by human rights groups. A coalition of 19 human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and the Gulf Center for Human Rights, wrote an open letter to Interpol advising against his appointment.

The ending words of the podcast are:

> [...] With its so-called TRAP Act, the US Congress has obliged the Justice and State Departments to monitor Interpol more closely than before with regard to transnational repression.

> However, that does not change the fundamental problem: namely, that the misuse of the Interpol search tools by dictatorships IS ultimately part of the structure of the organization. Which raises the fundamental question: Does a politically unlegitimized association of police authorities have the right to weigh up and decide between security and the freedoms of countless people?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Naser_Al-Raisi

> a country notorious for illegally kidnapping people in foreign countries

You could just as easily say this about the US. Just because we dress it up as “extraordinary rendition” makes no difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com