This is what happens when free speech is not valued and defended throughout our culture. Politics is downstream from culture. When we are OK with, and often encouraging of, private censorship, we shift the Overton window and provide moral cover for politicians and government entities to further consolidate power. This story is a prime example.
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.
How weirdly fragile and vindictive do you have to be to initiate a formal complaint against a guest lecturer for making an observation about public policy you think is off-base? How lame do you have to be to even know how to do that, and to do it so fast that the lecturer heard about it when she got home?
The first year medical school student who started things is the daughter of a GOP state official, she didn't fall far from the tree despite wanting to be a doctor.
So the same people who fight change they interpret as pushing "woke" culture also believe they have a right to never be exposed to criticism or negative comments against anything with which they identify?
I guess those students have been put on notice, not to voice anything critical of party officials or their public policy.
> 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.”
It's worth knowing more details than the headline here:
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.
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.
She said Dan Patrick is responsible for an increase in deaths associated with fentanyl because they didn’t take her suggestion for testing strips vs more severe sentences for dealers and pushers.
> The Texas A&M University professor had just returned home from giving a routine lecture on the opioid crisis at the University of Texas Medical Branch in March when she learned a student had accused her of disparaging Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the talk.
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.
Texas A&M is the very conservative public university of Texas. It started as a male military academy with the purpose of graduates entering the US military. The Aggies favorite son is Earl Rudder who commanded troops during the invasion of Normandy.
UT Austin is the liberal public university in TX. It was famous for its hippies back in the 60s.
Texas, and other “Southern” states are like this. The people with old power in these places are a special breed.
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.
> And Sharp was communicating directly with the lieutenant governor’s office about the incident, promising swift action.
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.
Texas's attorney general has had been both state, and federally indicted for fraud for the past 8 years, and has successfully stalled the case, on the basis[1] that as long as he's a Republican politician, he can't get a fair trial.
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.
To answer your question, the Texas Rangers have a Public Corruption Unit. The unit is relatively new (replacing a unit that used to be run out of the Travis County D.A.'s office, which Republicans objected to, because Travis County is Austin and run by Democrats). The Rangers would investigate and hand over to the D.A. in whatever county has jurisdiction (which is sometimes contested).
Results will have to be seen but I don't know that anyone really questions the general integrity or competence of the Rangers.
The only two things I've read about my alma mater recently were this, and the thing about the president being overthrown by what resembles a military coup, for the crime of trying to reestablish the school of journalism.
The constant keeping in the loop of the Lt governor (Patrick) is disturbing on several levels. One, that students and faculty would tattle on a lecturer holding an adverse opinion of a politician in efforts to punish them, and two, that the LtGov actually cares enough to stay engaged.
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!
> As Nilay Patel from the Verge put it [1]
>Your regular reminder that the biggest threat to free speech 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.
That's not really an insightful statement given that free speech in the context that it is being discussed is literally referencing ONLY government interference on the dissemination of speech. It's like saying that the biggest threat to becoming wet is water.
> Your regular reminder that the biggest threat to free speech is the government.
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.
What are the laws around the government punishing government employees for criticizing the government?
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/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.
A federal judge in FL ruled against UFL for denying professors the ability to testify as experts in cases against the state. DeSantis of course has made attacking universities part of his anti-woke cultural jihad. TX and FL have been reading from the same authoritarian hymnal so its not surprising to see a similar situation play out.
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.
It was the government school punishing a university professor for giving a guest lecture at another school. Both university professors (via tenure) and government employees (via the first amendment) deserve special protection from their employers to speak publicly.
This is literally the definition of a first amendment issue, in my eyes. Should the president be able to ban anyone who works for any company that has any government contracts from making any critical statements about his administration? This isn’t some intern in the office of the politician she (seemingly lightly) criticized, this is a tenured professor.
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 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.
> Neither UTMB nor Texas A&M would confirm what Alonzo said that prompted such a reaction, and UTMB students interviewed by the Tribune recalled a vague reference to Patrick’s office but nothing specific.
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.
Ultimately Texas A&M allowed Alonzo to keep her job after an internal investigation could not confirm any wrongdoing.
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.
>Without knowing what was allegedly said, this is difficult to judge.
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.
> On the other hand, if she made a snide comment about the TX Lt. Governor without grounding it in policy, that's not good.
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.
Animats|2 years ago
Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...
marcusverus|2 years ago
https://archive.is/VDNPj
RickJWagner|2 years ago
Until we know, I don't think we can say if this is an attack on free speech or not.
hfi0|2 years ago
We accept it’s a police state and kowtow in between as due to recent experience we know the alternative is open violence
bozhark|2 years ago
The hose just got a lot bigger.
willcipriano|2 years ago
[deleted]
rayiner|2 years ago
[deleted]
confoundcofound|2 years ago
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.
DoneWithAllThat|2 years ago
justin66|2 years ago
stevenwoo|2 years ago
wintogreen74|2 years ago
ddavis|2 years ago
ubermonkey|2 years ago
neilv|2 years ago
> 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.”
mikeyouse|2 years ago
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.
snvzz|2 years ago
vel0city|2 years ago
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.
Turner1996|2 years ago
treis|2 years ago
ubermonkey|2 years ago
[deleted]
rsynnott|2 years ago
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.
kstrauser|2 years ago
phone8675309|2 years ago
Come and get me, Texas Rangers.
rawgabbit|2 years ago
UT Austin is the liberal public university in TX. It was famous for its hippies back in the 60s.
HEmanZ|2 years ago
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)
bloaf|2 years ago
>“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.
neilv|2 years ago
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.
vkou|2 years ago
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.
0xBDB|2 years ago
Results will have to be seen but I don't know that anyone really questions the general integrity or competence of the Rangers.
breckinloggins|2 years ago
jeffbee|2 years ago
smithcoin|2 years ago
unethical_ban|2 years ago
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.
pityJuke|2 years ago
>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...
colechristensen|2 years ago
The only thing the first amendment protects you from is the government.
kergonath|2 years ago
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.
MisterBastahrd|2 years ago
kevingadd|2 years ago
tick_tock_tick|2 years ago
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.
vxNsr|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
kneebonian|2 years ago
vuldin|2 years ago
actionfromafar|2 years ago
NovemberWhiskey|2 years ago
Regnore|2 years ago
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.
ceejayoz|2 years ago
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.
thinkcontext|2 years ago
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...
patmorgan23|2 years ago
Professors at state universities are state employees and you can't fire a state employee for criticizing an elected official.
HWR_14|2 years ago
bbor|2 years ago
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.
vxNsr|2 years ago
[deleted]
padseeker|2 years ago
javier_e06|2 years ago
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...
berkle4455|2 years ago
phone8675309|2 years ago
aschearer|2 years ago
munchler|2 years ago
ktiro93n|2 years ago
[deleted]
harshreality|2 years ago
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.
kbenson|2 years ago
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.
joenathanone|2 years ago
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.
rsynnott|2 years ago
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.
claytongulick|2 years ago
- 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.