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…
The chair of the board is a GOP mega-donor & “adviser”. Search “Mori Hosseini” for plenty of examples of he and his company getting cozy with the Desantis administration. His company’s political contributions: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ici-homes/summary?topnumcyc...
University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
401–410 of 484 posts
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If mediation is unsuccessful, neither party has lost or waived the right to a court appearance, so your analogy doesn't hold. Mediation in divorce is a cost-saving measure often required by the court.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like clear "witness intimidation" aka "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;…
Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible.
Generally whistleblowing laws override audio recording consent.
Tampering with a witness is a crime, and attempting to document evidence of a crime will outweigh the civil tort.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't find this information in the NPR article - do you have a different source?
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…
> I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing.
What you quoted "It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors..." comes from University of Florida and as far as I can tell is not an airtight argument. No valid conflict of interest is presented in the article for for example.
If typically has allowed such outside work, if there was not a conflict on a governmental issue, then the University of Florida as a governmental institution is performing 'self dealing', in this case by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse, by limiting/restricting the speech of the professors.
Part of why we have the first amendment is to limit the ability of the government to effect the course of public discourse and the University of Florida is definitely doing that.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#405Earlier 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…
> I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing. What you quoted "It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors..." comes from University of Florida and as far as I can tell is not an airtight argument. No valid co…
“You can work here and say things that will harm us, but you can’t accept payment to say things that will harm us.” Feels like a very reasonable position to me.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't find this information in the NPR article - do you have a different source?
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…
"Lots of folks asking what if we do the work pro bono? Our compensation was not given as a reason in the original disapproval from UF. That is new language the university added in its PR statement"
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I agree and agree the article is short on questions that the journalist should have brought up, even if they couldn't answer it (eg: names of the specific admins involved, how they got those positions and who they are beholden to).
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
An expert witness acts as a servant of the court, not as the agent of their employer. Naming the UoF as your employer is simply stating the truth to the court about your credentials; it doesn't mean the UoF has to take responsibility for your testimony.
I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.
IANAL (nor an expert!), but I would have expected that an expert witness appears in court in response to a summons; he is therefore obeying the orders of the court, which I would have expected would override any shifty terms in an employment agreement.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the subject is politically polarized then I am inclined to agree. Its an open secret that right leaning opinions are taboo across academia. That doesn't actually mean such opinions are wrong.
>>Its an open secret that right leaning opinions are taboo across academia. Nonsense I went to a top school in the US and encountered if anything, a constant right-leaning bias, and some people at the same school at the same time are now top RW personalities on Fox, books, etc. What is happening is that the RW, and particularly the GOP, which was formerly the party of science, technology, and progress, has in more re…
Your anecdote does not match study/survey data that has been around for at least a decade.
>And, yes, the facts (e.g., anthropomorphic global warming, vaccination, voting dynamics, etc.++
Part of the problem is this insidious, preemptive appeal to "consensus" as a misleading substitute for certainty, particularly in biological or social sciences. This isn't physics or math and the science is never so certain as to justify putting careers into jeopardy over dissent.
>a bona-fide expert presents data and expert scientific interpretation about how vaccines, public health measures, or voting actually works, that is not political
It is political when the science on these subjects is not actually settled as is dishonestly claimed and the only allowable opinions of so called experts at the vast majority of our academic institutions consistently align in a certain political direction.
Reality's liberal bias is an illusion, borne of groupthink, social shaming, a collusive media, and exclusion/shaming of dissent. The fact that one or more experts believe something does not make it true, and there is clear evidence of political bias in the sciences. For a more obvious example, consider nonsensical "consensus" that race does not exist, or cannot be used to predictively classify humans. Look at what happen to Watson for daring to suggest that maybe 200k years of natural selection did not stop at the shoulders. The same ideologically driven bias has spread to virtually all soft sciences, and laymen do not understand the hard/soft distinction.
Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking a clarifying question is something a journalist would do.
I agree and agree the article is short on questions that the journalist should have brought up, even if they couldn't answer it (eg: names of the specific admins involved, how they got those positions and who they are beholden to).
It’s possible for UF to have a nuanced position and still be in the wrong.
Do you believe the purpose of the article was to inform you of the nuances on both sides and let you make an informed judgement for yourself?