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".
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.
Perhaps how uncomfortable that is should be something we consider thoughtfully rather than something we point to and immediately try to discount.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
