Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 484 posts

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#391

Post by ceejayoz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #374
ska wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a noticeable gap there, any plan to fix it? A gap doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem, unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely. If you don't want to go all that way, algorithmic/automatic redistricting goes a long way to address issues. [edit since I was obviously not very clear. I'm not suggesting you do actuall…

> A gap doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem Yes, it does. > unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely. Two problems here: (1) it prevents a false dichotomy that the only way to address the gap is erasing regional ties completely, and (2) it confuses the question of “does a problem exist?” with the question of “is there a mean…

> Yes, it does.

For a concrete scenario: a 50/50 split state with three Congressional seats. One party will likely get one seat, the other two. Potentially by tiny margins.

There will be a major gap in representation, even with perfectly fairly drawn districts.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#392

Post by R0b0t1 »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #386
R0b0t1 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the US. Courts in the US are often useless. If you have a high profile case you might get justice but usually nothing happens. I'm definitely aware of what can happen. I don't know how often it does. But if you restrict yourself to forcing justice only when you aren't acting on a hunch you're probably doing the best for yourself you can, because the alternative is usually nothing.

I live in the US as well and you're arguing for a medieval form of justice. You think we should go back to conviction on a "hunch" and feelings. Have we fallen so far that I have to argue for the merits of a justice system based on evidence in a technical forum? Education and critical thought should be inextricably linked.

No, you didn't understand what I wrote. If you are sure you're not operating on a hunch, which is certainly possible, then just shrugging your shoulders when the court does nothing is insane. If you have proof that a court refuses to listen to then it is your moral imperative to act on it if you can do so.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#393

Post by R0b0t1 »

osense wrote: post #259
xyzzy21 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, sure technically, but it also Streisands everything about it. The cost-benefit for prosecutors and the other party isn't a slam dunk! Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)

Great, so instead of being able to count on the justice system we're basicall back to mob justice?

Mob justice can be true justice. As in this case precisely, there was proof that a court refused to listen to.

At some point you need to worry about deep fakes, etc, but there's still cases where the accused more or less says they are guilty and flips the court off and everybody acts like nothing can be done about it.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#394

Post by nefitty »

zackmorris wrote: post #172

Probably what's going on is that someone on the board of trusties gets money from the political establishment in Florida and is worried that they'll lose it if the voting barriers are fixed and different leadership is elected. This has similarities with the shenanigans pulled by Sinema and Manchin around the Build Back Better plan. Political horse trading to advance the agendas of special interests, at great expense…

It should be straightforward to chop something up in Observable. OpenSecrets has an API https://www.opensecrets.org/open-data/api/

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#395

Post by Consultant32452 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #347
Consultant32452 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is from the article: >"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin," the school said in an email to NPR. "Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution." The oper…

> The operative phrase there is "outside paid work." > you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. This take seems born out of bias, one that comes with prebuilt animosity toward NPR while assuming the university admin's stated reason is the sole and actual reason for denying testimony. It's notable that the university could defuse the situation by clarifying what are acceptable av…

Asking a clarifying question is something a journalist would do.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#396

Post by OrvalWintermute »

xphilter wrote: post #377
rayiner wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's tit-for-tat. Moderate Democrats won't push back against the "community organizers" when they push highly questionable practices such as ballot harvesting or allowing ballots to be counted that arrive days after election day. Moderate Democrats also never pushed back on two decades of claims about election fraud and stolen elections from the likes of people like Terry McAuliffe and Stacey Abrams: https:/…

What exactly is the problem with ballot harvesting if they’re legitimate votes? Maybe the State shouldn’t make it hard to vote. And your source is not exactly unbiased, stating without evidence that “ Updating the voter rolls by removing dormant registrations does not “disenfranchise” voters; it is necessary in order to keep the rolls accurate and up to date, as many people move or die every year.” How do they know t…

Are you tracking what just happened in Wisconsin?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#397

Post by davorak »

specialist wrote: post #385
davorak wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The critical question here is whether the University is restricting alternate employment or speech. The process that stopped the professors was not one for restricting additional work in general, but one for restricting additional work based on a conflict of interest. Since they are a public University their ability to limit free speech like this is more limited than a private institution as iudqnolq mentioned abov…

> ...but one for restricting additional work based on a conflict of interest. Since they are a public University... Public university serves the public, no? So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest?

> So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest?

The government, or in this case the University of Florida, is not supposed to be the ultimate authority of what is is the best interest of the public, the public is supposed to be the ultimate authority. The first amendment serves as protection from the government 'self dealing', looking out for their own interests and not the public's, by preventing them from stifling or limiting speech.

> Public university serves the public, no?

Yes and because they are public university their ability to limit their employee's speech is limited compared to a private institution.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#398

Post by colejohnson66 »

brazzledazzle wrote: post #310
mullen wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you did voluntary signed a Contract. As part of a commercial exchange, you agree to do and do not certain things for money. Inalienable Rights can't be signed away, so the argument that you are signing away Inalienable Rights really does not hold water.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that confining yourself to civil judgement via private arbitration removes your rights.

It’s worth remembering that arbitration is actually a common enough practice outside of employment. Any divorce involving “mediation” is arbitration, and both parties agreed to it. The disconnect comes when the person “suggesting” arbitration (the employer) is in a position of power.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#399

Post by throwawaylinux »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #334
throwawaylinux wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the trustworthiness of academics being affected by academic institutions pressuring them, relates to examples of universities forbidding and threatening their academics not to speak freely about inconvenient topics? I'm not really sure how to explain it better. Is there something particular aspect of what I wrote that was confusing or poorly worded?

Because the issue is that the state is forbidding academics from speaking at trials, and you are roping in right-wing disdain for academia under the guise of "bias".

> Because the issue is that the state is forbidding academics from speaking at trials,

I don't see how you can't fathom how they are related.

> and you are roping in right-wing disdain for academia under the guise of "bias".

I'm making a simple observation about reality, motives, cause and effect. If you think that is some right-wing conspiracy theory or something that's your problem, not mine. It seems you are incapable of addressing what I wrote without resorting to ad hominmens.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#400

Post by dragonwriter »

ceejayoz wrote: post #391
dragonwriter wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A gap doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem Yes, it does. > unless you believe that proportional representation is important enough to do away with seats having a regional tie completely. Two problems here: (1) it prevents a false dichotomy that the only way to address the gap is erasing regional ties completely, and (2) it confuses the question of “does a problem exist?” with the question of “is there a mean…

> Yes, it does. For a concrete scenario: a 50/50 split state with three Congressional seats. One party will likely get one seat, the other two. Potentially by tiny margins. There will be a major gap in representation, even with perfectly fairly drawn districts.

Heck, even with three seats with PR you get that result; that's a proportionality problem from limited granularity.

This is also why strong, independent, unitary executive systems are themselves an additional proportionality problem on top of any that exist in the legislative branch, as a one-member body is the extreme limit case of granularity-limited proportionality.

Of course, granularity-limited proportionality in a representative body has a fairly obvious trivial approach for mitigation to any arbitrary extent desired, so proportionality gaps from this source are neither non-problems or problems without corrections available.

Post reply on HN