University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
1–10 of 484 posts
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#2> "Faculty do not forfeit their First Amendment rights as citizens by accepting an offer of employment with UF," Donnelly wrote. "Professors Smith, McDonald, and Austin testify as expert witnesses in their fields on their own time. Their testimony does not interfere with any of their job duties. There are no conflicts of interest."
This is acting like a private sector employee would be able to testify on whatever matter they want but that’s not true. Google wouldn’t let an employee serve as an expert witness against itself, for example.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#3>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law.
Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#4>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?
Remember that testimony is given in an adversarial setting, and answers are framed by the attorneys questioning. So the idea is that either yes, they will give unbiased testimony, or the attorneys will be able to make it plain to the jury that the testimony is biased.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#5> "Faculty do not forfeit their First Amendment rights as citizens by accepting an offer of employment with UF," Donnelly wrote. "Professors Smith, McDonald, and Austin testify as expert witnesses in their fields on their own time. Their testimony does not interfere with any of their job duties. There are no conflicts of interest." This is acting like a private sector employee would be able to testify on whatever mat…
Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, state actors including this university are.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#6>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?
Its for their protection. East-coast-transplanted-into-floria values dictate DeSantis should kill the lousy eggheads if they squeal.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#7>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?
You don't need a "voting rights professor" to tell you what they're doing in Florida is undemocratic, un-American and 100% politically motivated.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#8>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?
Remember that testimony is given in an adversarial setting, and answers are framed by the attorneys questioning. So the idea is that either yes, they will give unbiased testimony, or the attorneys will be able to make it plain to the jury that the testimony is biased.
Or option 3, the plaintiff counsel successfully convinces some or all members of the jury that a biased testimony is unbiased.
These are "experts", after all. They're already starting from a position of credibility, and I don't think the defense lawyer is necessarily equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on, regardless of the objectivity of their teatimony.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#9>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?
The simple answer is yes.
You could make some elaborate post-modernist point about the impossibility of a value neutral perspective, and there is some merit to such claims, but there are also clear mathematical criteria that can be used to asses the fairness of a voting/districting scheme. This is as unbiased of a criteria as one can establish for voting rights and districting (unless your idea of bias is simply, defined in terms of agreement with the prevailing political ideologies, in which case we open the door to all sorts of procedural abuse).
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#10I have a colleague who does environmental litigation. (Think Erin Brockovich.) They have a big civil case against a large energy company in a southern, “energy-friendly” state. They had an expert witness all lined up - a professor at the (public!) state university. Well this expert happened to be up for tenure and was (allegedly) told in no uncertain terms that, should they testify as an expert witness in this case, tenure was off the table.
It’s absolutely outrageous that we allow those in positions of power to manipulate the justice system in such a way.