Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture
texastribune.org
texastribune.org
Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...
This article doesn't say, but it does appear from other reporting that the community colleges implemented these policies without influence from state politicians.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/communit...
That means it is not an analogue to the Texas scenario, where the university censured people because the politicians said to.
Until we know, I don't think we can say if this is an attack on free speech or not.
We accept it’s a police state and kowtow in between as due to recent experience we know the alternative is open violence
The hose just got a lot bigger.
And, let's say, the Court also hasn't been exactly non-partisan lately either (if it reminds you some other country, then you are right, these things can happen anywhere). So, many people were very unhappy with such situation, where a largely self-perpetuating body (the Court controls a lot of appointment process too) has nearly infinite power over the elected officials.
Given that one major party (or rather coalition, but let's not get into the weeds) has lost the elections, but enjoys the power in the Court, and the other has the majority in the parliament, but has their actions constantly blocked by the Court with motivations like "it doesn't look reasonable to us", the inevitable readjustment happens. It does not mean at all the Court - or any courts - lost all ability to review the decisions of the government, far from it. It just means that use of that particular tool - declaring any decision "unreasonable" and be done with it - has been restricted. Of course the side that enjoyed using that tool doesn't like it at all. But the Court still has all the power of review that it had using any other tools - including all the laws previously passed and those Basic Laws that exist. It just moved from "infinite power" to "limited power".
This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform
> The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members.
> Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight.
> The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.
That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what I was addressing and that's what the comment I was answered was alleging (it said "just removed", not "planning to remove" or "going to remove" - and that's false).
As for the first paragraph (after the link), I suspect what it refers to is part of another bill, and as such it's kind of hard to discuss because these change all the time as part of inter- and intra-coalition wheeling and dealing. I did not find any reference to this provision being part of the law that actually passed, if you have any (non-Wikipedia) reference to it please provide it. On its face, it looks ridiculous - that means to nullify any Supreme Court decision the parliament has to just vote on it twice (and the majority is implied - you can not pass any bill without having majority anyway) - so there's no point to have any court at all. This exaggerated ridiculousness suggests to me something is missing - this is not how it works and even people wanting to somehow establish a dictatorship (which nobody in Israel actually wants, despite what both sides claim - they just want to bend the system towards the party they favor) does not do it by passing a law saying "anything I say twice is the truth". Why then bother with saying it twice anyway - once should be enough? It just doesn't make any sense, all politics aside, so I suspect the real bill, whatever it is, is something different. But, as I said, I haven't read it so I don't know.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.p...
> The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
> The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.
As such, I suspect that it was just a bargaining move by Netanyahu to introduce something which clearly is going too far, with the full intent to drop it as soon as things get really going, to show he's reasonable and compromising. Maybe so, maybe he did intend to pass it if he can - in any case, I don't think that will happen anymore.
Even supposing that law passes, how would it make Israel any different from the UK or New Zealand, in both of which almost any decision of the Supreme Court can be overturned with mere ordinary legislation. [0]
I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies
[0] New Zealand requires a referendum for certain changes to election law, so there are limits to the ability of Parliament to overturn court decisions in that specific area
If there is a criticism of the UK, New Zealand, and now (if this additional law were to pass) Israel, it would be that they're overly democratic. Though based on what I've read the current Israeli Supreme Court does go too far in the other direction since it has no written constitution to work from and is basically winging it.
At the risk of going off topic I do find it weird that the Americans who are terribly worried about the Israeli Supreme Court being made more accountable to the people are mostly the same Americans determined to do something similar to the American one (and the U.S. Senate).
I'm not trying to be harsh but it's weird how frequently this (badly offtopic) subthread has been speculative, when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about.
You are incorrectly assuming I haven’t read any of those articles, and then using that incorrect assumption to dismiss my argument without actually engaging with it
Like, so dumb that ideally you'd read my restatement above and have an epiphany about how dumb what you said was, and familiarize yourself with the facts. A guy can dream.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
If you think my comparison between the constitutional situation of Israel and that of UK and New Zealand is wrong, by all means provide a detailed explanation of why - that would be “conversing curiously”. But simply calling my argument “really dumb” isn’t
That’s standard for the parliamentary system. Israel in that is fundamentally no different from the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece - actually most countries in Europe (where parliamentary systems are the rule and semi-presidential systems such as France or Russia are the exception)
> Reducing the power of the only independent branch in this case is highly questionable to say the least
The UK government has done it before, many times. Most recent example I am aware of is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which stripped from the Courts the power to review the legality of prorogations or dissolutions of Parliament. In English law, this is called an “ouster clause”, and is nothing new - historically significant examples include the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, and the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. In the US, the same idea is called “jurisdiction-stripping”; a famous example is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
I’m not sure this is something you can flag comments for, but I don’t think that type of argument, regardless of how eloquently stated, is appropriate for HN.
People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you from government censorship as a basis to invalidate the vigorous defense of free speech ideals in society, are either disingenuous or wildly narrow sighted.
First, private and public censorship are fundamentally different due to power balances. The government is enjoined from censorship except in very carefully defined circumstances. Private entities are allowed to censor except in carefully defined circumstances.
Conflating the two is the thing that shifts the Overton Window.
You can say whatever you want but if it offends your employer, don't be surprised if they fire you.
Free speech doesn't mean that the others have to listen to you and agree with you, it means that you can say it and not have your freedom of movement restricted because of it. The exact opposite of what many dictators do.
There are no country on earth with "full" free speech because there are always limitations especially regarding threats to the safety of others.
We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.
This is not "suggestion". This is government coercing private business.
Perhaps how uncomfortable that is should be something we consider thoughtfully rather than something we point to and immediately try to discount.
Deplorable.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/11/texas-am-battalion-n...
> Less than two hours after the lecture ended, Patrick’s chief of staff had sent Sharp a link to Alonzo’s professional bio.
> Shortly after, Sharp sent a text directly to the lieutenant governor: “Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week.”
> [...]
> At 4:22 p.m., as Alonzo was learning that a controversy was brewing, a course coordinator sent an email to the entire class distancing UTMB from comments Alonzo allegedly made about Patrick. The subject line read, “STATEMENT OF FORMAL CENSURE.”
> “The statements made by the guest lecturer do not represent the opinion or position of the University of Texas Medical Branch, nor are they considered as core curriculum content for this course,” the email said.
> “UTMB does not support or condone these comments. We take these matters very seriously and wish to express our disapproval of the comment and apologize for harm it may have caused for members of our community,” the email continued. “We hereby issue a formal censure of these statements and will take steps to ensure that such behavior does not happen in the future.”
1. Professor Joy Alonzo, who's an expert in Opiod harm-reduction gave a talk where according to all accounts, she mildly critiqued the Lt. Governor and state's preferences for punitive approaches for drug control and that they are considered Federal non-reporters on Opioid stats since they don't collect the data required.
2. Dawn Buckingham, the TX Land Commissioner has a daughter who was in the audience of the talk. (presumably) The daughter texts her mom, telling her that the lecture disparaged the Lt. Gov.
3. Buckingham immediately texts the Lt. Governor that Alonzo had critiqued him - the Lt. Gov then called the Chancellor of Texas A&M where Professor Alonzo is employed.
4. Chancellor texts, literal hours after the lecture was finished, that "Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week."
Absolutely clear cut violation of the 1st amendment. If they had any shame, everyone involved would resign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos
When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violation. But that's not what happened, so I don't know it would be that clear.
I am skeptical if that is indeed your arguent. If university professors believed this, they would not take jobs at public universities; they tend to place a very high value on their ability to conduct research and express themselves freely on whatever subjects they choose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin
This case wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for a prof getting attacked by the state for stating something in a classroom. It's happened many times in the past too. Note this was the first time any court said there was a constitutional protection, and doesn't apply across the whole US currently.
The case you pointed to was about speech “that criticizes policies and decisions of university administrations” and grants relief for that set of circumstances. That wasn’t the case here. I’m sure you can cite to this, but is there a holding where the case was simply about the subject matter and not criticism of administration policy?
There is case law, yes.
https://casetext.com/case/vega-v-miller
I'm not familiar with exactly the comments which were said, so I can't really say what exactly happened. But there's definitely been many times in the past, many times that probably never resulted in some big legal battle that people wrote a lot about, where a professor was censured for how they conducted their classroom.
That said, I'm not really arguing TAMU/The State of Texas is in the moral right here. I'm definitely down to not give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but just hearing the idea that a non-tenured? professor said something potentially really bad that ultimately cost them their job, doesn't really strike me as something impossible and entirely without precedent. Things are different when you're a government employee and you're on the clock, often for good reason. Not that censuring professors for speaking potentially factual statements is a good reason though.
Very Soviet.
Is this a weird Texas thing, or is it normal for American universities? It's virtually impossible to imagine here; universities are more or less ground zero for criticising the government.
Come and get me, Texas Rangers.
UT Austin is the liberal public university in TX. It was famous for its hippies back in the 60s.
I sometimes wonder if I'm missing something fundamental about how Americans think. This behaviour would be interpreted (beyond being anti-democratic, but parts of the right wing won't necessarily care about that) as showing extreme weakness here. Like, to the extent that a politician wouldn't do it, even if they _could_, because would be very politically damaging; "my opponent is a weird baby" is a stupid talking point to hand to your opponent.
FWIW, George HW Bush is buried next to the Texas A&M main campus. There is also a school of foreign policy named after him there. Both Bushes, the father and son, cultivated an image of a likable goof, even if you differed with their politics, were someone you could go to a baseball game with and shoot the breeze over a couple of beers. The modern conservative movement is not like that.
This part of the country seceded in the not-too-distant past, and there are still confederate rallies in Texas to this day. It’s super diverse but all of the power is held by by old-money southern aristocracy. (I am from Texas)
>“While it is important to preserve and defend academic freedom and as such be able to discuss and present to students and the public the results of research observations and strategies, you should be mindful of how you present your views,” Udeani [the pharmacy school Dean] said.
Notably, Texas has banned diversity and inclusion programs and trainings. I think it is a valid line of questioning to ask whether or not the Dean's advice here constitutes an inclusivity mandate that would be illegal under Texas law.
In Texas, what entities have oversight over potential abuses of power by the Lt. Governor's office, the Texas A&M system Chancellor, and the Texas Land Commissioner?
Are they credible?
I'm not going to jump to conclusions, but am wondering whether this credible-looking journalism will prompt government investigation with integrity.
He's only been impeached for it this year.
There is no oversight to be had in that kind of single-party state.
If you're wondering about what the end game of that sort of thing looks like, Putin's Russia laid out a roadmap for it.
[1] The actual mechanism with which he has done so is by not paying the prosecutors that were supposed to prosecute him. It's utterly insane - the criminals are literally running the courts.
The guy belongs in prison but is not just refusing to be prosecuted, nor does he have the ability to do so.
That said, Williamson County flipped blue last election which was surprising. A lot of the wealthier, slightly older suburban tech/business Austin crowd lives there.
We feel bad about being under that.
I'm trying to improve things where I can, but I'm a singular young person in a state where it's not uncommon to want people like me "gone".
I'm pretty close to selling my house and moving to Colorado but as third generation Texan I feel like I'm abandoning my home and leaving it to the crazies.
Texas has always been a one-party state (Democrat until the 1980s and Republican since) but it managed to be mostly pragmatic until 2016 or so.
I wouldn't be happy living under one party government in California (the corruption on California high speed rail makes Texas look squeaky clean) or Hawaii either. But when I can I'll likely move somewhere more reasonable.
I know a lot of people who are pretty smart tech people who would argue for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, are pro school vouchers, want a flat tax rate, want to see prayer in schools, etc.
Results will have to be seen but I don't know that anyone really questions the general integrity or competence of the Rangers.
My understanding was that the journalism school extended a written 5-year tenure-track offer to a candidate signed by the journalism school head. The offer was then mysteriously revised (still with school head signature intact) to a 1-year non-tenure-track offer without the knowledge of the journalism school. When the candidate asked for an explanation, they were told it's because she's a Black woman that has worked at the NYT, and that the powers-that-be at A&M objected to her hiring. She then received a verbal third offer for a 3-year contract.
The candidate made all info available to a local paper, kicking off a firestorm. This led to a (funny, imo) call between the president and faculty where the president claimed she did not know where the multiple offers came from and why, and who had communicated with the candidate about the black/nyt stuff. When asked - in that case - whether the first offer was still good, she demurred. The faculty clearly lost faith in her leadership at this point. She resigned the day after this meeting.
The candidate wisely has chosen to work elsewhere.
The original offer wasn't tenure-track, it was tenured — she already had tenure at the far-superior and more-liberal institution 100 miles west of TAMU (of which I'm a graduate). "After hearing about the concerns, McElroy agreed to a five-year contract position without tenure, which would have avoided a review by regents. On Sunday, she received a third offer, this time with a one-year contract and emphasizing that the appointment was at will and that she could be terminated at any time. She has rejected the offer and shared all of the offer letters with the Tribune." [0]
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/11/texas-a-m-kathleen-m...
For those not from Texas, know that Dan Patrick is one of the most despicable politicians in the country, and wields almost total power over what gets presented to the Texas legislature. As horrible as this story is, I am not surprised by his behavior.
>Your regular reminder that the biggest threat to free speech is the government.
> Complaining about social platforms moderating content according to their whims is just how politicians distract you from how fast they’ve all gotten sick of the First Amendment. This story is outrageous — no one will even say what this professor allegedly said that was so offensive!
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/25/23806946/your-regular-rem...
The only thing the first amendment protects you from is the government.
It's not, really. It comes from conflating mentions of "free speech" with "the first amendment". The person you're responding to brought up the latter, despite the fact that the person they were responding to said the former.
That is a dangerous distraction. A private institution doing the same would not be dangerous in a perfect world of spherical cows and purely free market with no hindrances such as wealth concentration, any kind of politics and the involvement of anything that looks like a human. It’s disgusting to see people, even now, missing the forest for the tree because all they can see is their government. Useful idiots, all of them.
Sure, it is terrible and a terrible government is terrible. But get rid of it tomorrow and you’ll just get a corporatist oligarchy that won’t be any better, far from it.
The problem is power, not (only) government. Power needs to be checked. Once you’ve drowned your government in your proverbial bathtub, you’ll still be with any guns you might have, on the wrong side of power dynamics.
You show a mechanism through which the government can abuse its power, which is terrible and everyone should agree that it’s bad and change how this works. But how not having that implies that a chancellor picked by a board with no oversight could not be worse? The problem is the lack of checks against abuse of power and mechanisms to guarantee a basic independence level for the professors. Once you have those in place, how is a university better merely by being private?
I wish free-market neo-liberals would apply to themselves what they say every time someone mentions socialism: pure ideology might sound good but does not work in the real world.
Absolute though it crosses over with social platforms alot. There is currently an injunction against the Biden administration to stop them from instructing social platform on what to censor.
The answer is none. That’s why it’s not government censorship. It’s a completely voluntary. There’s not even a stick nor a treat involved.
In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms. While many people might argue that tech platforms are not public squares and should be free to censor however they like, everyone should have a problem with politicians directing tech companies on what can be said on their platforms.
As an addendum, I’m always curious to hear what that camp has to say about net neutrality after arguing so vigorously against its core principles.
IMHO if you want to operate as a mass market platform and are pursuing a winner takes all business strategy you should be regulated as a common carrier (Uber, Facebook, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, cloudflare, etc).
And, as is their First Amendment right, those tech companies frequently responded with "no". This is very clear from the Twitter Files information, even if the journalists involved glossed over that point.
For example:
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-tw...
> Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistleblower and former employee.
Trump has the First Amendment right to ask. Twitter has the First Amendment right - which they exercised - to decline that request.
If Trump had sent US Marshals to seize Twitter HQ when they said no, that is where we have issues.
I recommend reading judge Doughty's decision [1]. It's a long read, but well worth your time.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
It's since been stayed; https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/14/social-media-injunc....
I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.
Certainly not on the same scale of severity of the abuse of Japanese Americans, but much more massive based on the number of people affected.
Really this sort of thing should be seen as an in-kind political contribution, and the fact it’s not shows just how captured the entire judicial and regulatory branch is.
Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction.
For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a data request. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604888013422485505...
That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.
Nobody actually believes that other than right wing fundie culture warriors. Elon Musk thinks it’s complete bullshit, as does every other person who is willing to put objective facts above their personal feelings.
I'm not an expert but it doesn't really seem like a first amendment issue although I think most would agree that the government shouldn't be punishing its own employees for conduct like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Educatio... establishes a "right to speak on issues of public importance" for public employees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos limits that right when statements are "made pursuant to his position as a public employee".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin extends "First Amendment protection to professors at public universities for on-the-job speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship, whether inside or outside of the classroom", but doesn't apply everywhere as it's a Ninth Circuit decision.
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin has it right in this regard - that public educators have a specific First Amendment need/exception to be able to teach facts their chain of command doesn't appreciate - but it doesn't yet apply in Texas.
It will be interesting to see what effect these kind of antics have on quality of higher ed in these states. I must think that there would be some effect on the quality of professors that get hired.
https://www.thefire.org/news/judge-university-florida-cant-e...
Professors at state universities are state employees and you can't fire a state employee for criticizing an elected official.
Besides, IMO tenured professors are the very front line of free speech, perhaps right behind journalists - for the system to function at all (/continue limping along), tenured professors should NEVER be afraid of criticizing the government. At all. In any way.
I don't think she's tenured — her TAMU Web page says she's a clinical assistant professor. [0]
I heard that in Mexico right wing politicians are blocking the import of naxalone with the attitude that people that OD on the streets should not be helped.
Just wondering...
Without knowing what was allegedly said, this is difficult to judge, although I would certainly be inclined to side with the professor given what's been reported so far.
Professors should be given wide latitude to discuss matters of academic interest, and the opioid crisis and political decisions contributing to it certainly qualify.
On the other hand, if she made a snide comment about the TX Lt. Governor without grounding it in policy, that's not good. However, professors are only human, and I don't think it would be fair or reasonable to impose disciplinary action for isolated cases. It might potentially be worthy of disciplinary action in some cases, though... IF it was that kind of comment, and IF it was more than an isolated case.
Why? Because while private individuals are free to talk about anything they want, professors are supposed to be maintaining an environment of thoughtful academic discourse, and certain kinds of biased comments do not, therefore disciplinary (not legal) action might at some point be warranted. Far fetched? It's not as if it's unheard of for professors who disagree with politicians to go on fact-free political rants these days.
It's really not that hard to judge at all. They found no wrongdoing, and refust to even release what the purported problematic statements were. Their refusal to do so, and how that affects how you view the situation and whether it was warranted are exactly why it's problematic to behave like this in the first place and should be condemned.
Accusations should include some level of evidence. Public accusations should include some level of public evidence, otherwise what's the difference between slander or libel? If I called up your local police department and told them that harshreality is a pedophile, I wouldn't expect them to take any action other than to possibly quietly investigate if they thought it was credible, and if I supplied evidence, I'd expect them to verify that evidence before and public announcements or arrests, as I suspect you would and anyone would when accused of a heinous crime. To do otherwise is to allow the public to be swayed by innuendo rather than fact.
We should not condone behavior such as this.
This is not a criminal investigation. Organizations, even public ones, have wide latitude in how they handle internal investigations as long as they're not making overt public accusations before verifying them.
I'm not saying these kinds of investigations are good. The investigation itself is a punishment. However, administrations have a lot of discretion in future actions, discretion which they can exercise against a professor, without recourse, even when there's no policy violation to cite and punish them for. It's impossible to avoid unofficial punishments, and a punishing investigation process is just another one of those.
I'm also not saying that suspension was a reasonable action to take during this investigation. It sounds extreme for any investigation of comments made by a professor. But I don't know what the allegation was and nobody else is saying what it was. The fact that nobody else is willing to remember on the record what the professor might have said doesn't mean she didn't say anything worth investigating.
Every publicly announced investigation or action that did not include information about the evidence that caused it to be announced that then failed to result in disciplinary action and then refuses to explain what evidence they acted on should be condemned.
> ... Do you condemn all those actions, too?
I think my above clarification of your misunderstanding of my position should address all those questions sufficiently as to my position on them.
Now, all that said, I think I might have conflated UTMB and A&M's actions slightly. I thought A&M announced their investigation and suspension publicly, while it's UTMB that was public in their condemnation of the visiting and speaking professor, and I thought A&M had been more public, when I'm not sure they were in further review.
I think UTMB's actions should be condemned unilaterally. They sent out an email stating they did not afgree with the professor and that they were formally censuring her with no evidence as to why, and still have refused to indicate why.
I think A&M's conduct was not great, but at least somewhat defensible. They took an announcement of formal censure with zero evidence, and then when they followed up and could not get not get UTMB to cooperate with more info suspended her pending additional investigation. They had evidence, in that UTMB's formal censure was itself "evidence" in their eyes, but not great evidence given there were no concrete details other than that. I suspect, as the article alludes, that the environment of petitioning for funding had something to do with their knee-jerk reaction.
That said, I see no reasonable justification for UTMB's actions, where they publicly and formally censured the professor with no evidence given then or since.
You have the opposite reaction than what should be called for, if no one could even remember what was said then there is zero chance what was said was inappropriate.
How does this particular form of Lese Majeste work? Is it all elected politicians? Just those in the ruling party? Of the state, or federal too? If the Lt Governor's policies are in conflict with the federal government's policies, must she sing the praises of both him and Biden? If he loses the next election, must she turn on a dime and denounce him? If Dear Leader makes a policy u-turn, must all lecture recordings and publications praising the old, wrongthink policy be destroyed?
As I mentioned elsewhere, all very Soviet. They should get some old Russian academics who were around for de-Stalinisation in to give training on how to navigate these awkward matters.
- She said some stuff as a visiting speaker she probably shouldn't have in that context, or at least was taken wrong by some folks in the audience.
- Attendees complained
- She was formally censured by the hosting university that knew what the comments were
- Due to the censure, her employer investigated
- She was cleared, life went on
- Newspapers decided it was a great chance to twist events into an evil right-wing speech suppression story.
News at 11.
- She made factual statements about policy impacts on overdose deaths.
- A politician's relative who was in attendance reported it to the political party backing those policies.
- The politicians successfully signaled to those at the university that criticizing their policies will be inconvenient at least, and a realistic threat to your career.
* Edit, for emphasis:
Your characterization would be like saying that it is fine that you're driving drunk since your car's auto-breaking feature is working and preventing you from hitting pedestrians.
UTMB is a prestigious institution. Issuing a statement of censure is a pretty big deal.
Occam's razor would suggest that it wasn't done arbitrarily.
Objectively looking at the known facts without a political bias, it seems to me that the most likely scenario is that she made some inappropriate comments, got censured, but no one wants to embarrass her further or risk liability by repeating hearsay.
People make mistakes.
We don't have any facts that would support the narrative that the government encouraged the censure or the investigation in any way.
I'm not sure why there's so much passion around insisting that particular narrative when there are limited known facts.
Of course I'd change my opinion if more information comes to light.
Would you?
This is not an accurate characterization. The author reviewed the speaker's slides, interviewed students in the lecture, and consulted with her professional network; the reporter's investigation yielded no evidence of censure-worthy content or propensity for political rants.
> We don't have any facts that would support the narrative that the government encouraged the censure or the investigation in any way.
This is not an accurate characterization. The reporter has provided information from the university's spokespeople that Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham was the one who first contacted the university's governmental relations office as well as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick then contacted the chair of the University of Texas System’s board.
The board responded to Patrick, within 2 hours of the end of the lecture, quote: "Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week."
> Of course I'd change my opinion if more information comes to light.
You're not even engaging with the facts as they stand.
Occam's razor would suggest this isn't done arbitrarily. The simplest explanation for the set of facts before us is that the one student complained to mommy, who complained to the school in conjunction with Patrick. The school immediately kowtowed to this political pressure and made motions to punish the person they complained about, without any diligence whatsoever. Now that everyone is complaining, they aren't releasing the details of their censure because there aren't any.
She was formally censured by that institution with no evidence supplied, and that institution continues to refuse to provide any evidence of what she's censured for.
Without that evidence, why should we view this as anything other than a political hit job from the Governor? It's indistinguishable from that without evidence of what they're censuring for and with the evidence of student attendees that the statements they think might be the cause are fairly benign and based on facts and/or assessment by a per-eminent professional in that field without evidence to the contrary.
Is it the newspapers twisting it into a right wing suppression of speech story, or is it really just a right wing suppression of speech story that the newspapers are doing their job bringing to the public's attention?