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

461–470 of 484 posts

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

#461

Post by Consultant32452 »

joveian wrote: post #417
Consultant32452 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the policy that requires them to ask permission to do something ever apply to volunteer work under any circumstances? Or is this something they only have to do when getting paid?

I have no direct knowledge of the policy but the comment implies that it wouldn't matter.

The comment was given with in a context of a policy that required the professors to ask permission to perform some work. If the policy only applies to paid work then that is the context and makes all the difference.

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

#462

Post by davorak »

rayiner wrote: post #448
bsanr wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cherry-picking restrictive (and, might I say, somewhat off-topic?) policies doesn't change that some form of postal voting is associated with national freedom and wealth, which is both an image I imagine that we'd like to project and a reality level-headed lovers of democracy support. Japan has it. Australia has it. The UK. Canada. Germany. It's a good thing. Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the…

> Japan has it. Australia has it. The UK. Canada. Germany. It's a good thing. Sure, but Texas, Georgia, and Florida have no excuse-needed absentee voting. Democratic rhetoric about “Jim Crow on steroids” is precisely about these restrictions such as number of days of early voting—which are still generally more liberal in these states than in advanced western countries. > Many foreigners recognize this, just as they r…

> Sure, but Texas, Georgia, and Florida have no excuse-needed absentee voting.

I do not think this is the case for Texas I voted absentee in the last presidential election and I was only able to do so because I was out of state during the election. If I had not been out of state I would not have qualified for absentee voting. That does not match what I would call 'no excuse-needed absentee voting'.

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

#463

Post by ModernMech »

isoskeles wrote: post #444
ModernMech wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abusive partners exerting control by restricting access to important documents is a very real problem for many women, and men for that matter. Also this is something abusive parents and human traffickers do. It should not be minimized and trivialized as “my dog ate my voter id”.

I’m trivializing the use of the victim of an event as justification to say we can’t have voter id. It’s a strange argument, coming off as if voter id laws and protecting people from spousal abuse must be at odds, so anyone who supports voter id must support spousal abuse as well. Is the next argument that Hitler wanted voter id? At what point do we get to actually discuss the merits of validating a person is who they…

If you want to champion a law that impacts someone's fundamental rights as a citizen, rights protected by the US Constitution, it's your duty as a fellow citizen to consider the impact of that law on everyone, and to show that you've taken appropriate consideration as to the first and second order impact of your proposal.

Implementing a voter ID law in the way being pushed right now will disenfranchise people, and it seems like every time an example of an impacted group is brought it, they are summarily dismissed and their existence minimized as "edge cases" or mocked. e.g. "What, are minorities so dumb they can't get an ID?" or in this case "What, did the dog eat your voter ID?"

But it doesn't change the fact that this law you are pushing will take away their rights. What are you going to propose to make them whole, or did you not think it through that far? It would just be nice if you would demonstrate you are as concerned with disenfranchising your fellow citizens as you are cracking down on suspected and heretofore yet unproven massive voter fraud.

> At what point do we get to actually discuss the merits of validating a person is who they say they are so they get exactly one vote?

Well, it would be nice if the side claiming massive systemic voter fraud would prove their claims. That would be a good starting point. Then we could have actionable fixes that address a specific problem to minimize collateral damage. I just don't understand why we have to engage in a massive civic project that will strip rights from citizens under literally no burden of proof for those making these claims.

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

#464

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #460
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I hope not. We tried that with journalism and wound up with endless views from nowhere. It was barely better than when journalists parrot Gov/Biz/LEO press releases w/o vetting the content (which is done all the time). edit: I'll append to note that NPR's 2008 election covera…

The only thing that bothers me is pretending to not be activists. If you wear your activism loud and proud then the more the merrier.

It's an insignificant detail compared to competency and it seems tedious to let it bother you. Past that, a declaration would be counterproductive. No matter how it's worded, some substantive journalism will be seen to be in disharmony. Why invite that trouble for no meaningful benefit?

One example of how it's unimportant: A motto like "fair and balanced" kind of pretends that one particular network wasn't founded on activism but it was. More importantly, it's the activism that those viewers want.

Perhaps the motto brings the viewers some comfort by reinforcing a view that the only world worth having is the one they visualize. Why take that away based on some arbitrary calculation?

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

#465

Post by chuckee »

davorak wrote: post #421
Consultant32452 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

That is the way it works for a private institution, but not for government institutions. It is supposed to a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.

That may be so, but the article gives the impression that the professors were forbidden from testifying, presumably under threat of losing their jobs.

If they were simply not allowed to take payment for that testimony, the article and title should reflect that, regardless if such a policy is also wrong.

And I would have liked for the article to elaborate more on this barring. What would happen if they testified anyway, if they did or did not get paid for it, etc.. It is after all the central issue of the article, and that they leave it so vague is either incompetence or deception.

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

#466

Post by davorak »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #461
joveian wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no direct knowledge of the policy but the comment implies that it wouldn't matter.

The comment was given with in a context of a policy that required the professors to ask permission to perform some work. If the policy only applies to paid work then that is the context and makes all the difference.

Conflict of interest policy typically cover both paid and unpaid work since either could be a conflict of interest.

From the University of Florida: "Conflict of Commitment: occurs when a University Employee engages in an Outside Activity, either paid or unpaid, that could interfere with their professional obligations to the University." https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-commitment-and-co...

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

#467

Post by _-david-_ »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #218
_-david-_ wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.

I think the "elections clause" (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1) gives Congress broad authority to override state laws regarding how its own representatives are elected. (Note: edited to simplify...) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...

I am aware of that clause but I am not sure I interpret "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" as the same thing as drawing district lines.

Is there any precedence you are aware of?

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

#468

Post by [deleted] »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #461
joveian wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no direct knowledge of the policy but the comment implies that it wouldn't matter.

The comment was given with in a context of a policy that required the professors to ask permission to perform some work. If the policy only applies to paid work then that is the context and makes all the difference.

[deleted]

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

#469

Post by _-david-_ »

Lendal wrote: post #244
_-david-_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.

You can be for reform while at the same time benefiting from the current system. If you don't have power, it doesn't matter what your opinions are. If the playing field isn't level, you still must either play on it or forfeit. If you decide to play, it doesn't mean you want the field to remain as it is.

My point is, if Democrats actually cared about this they would fix it in the states they have power in. Instead, they just benefit from it without trying to reform it. It feels like virtue signalling to me. If you think it is a problem then fix it.

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

#470

Post by [deleted] »

_jal wrote: post #316
isoskeles wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for scare quotes around something I never said. What will you accuse me of next? I don't think any of this is "worth it," I just don't agree with coming up with sob stories as a counterexample. It's not that hard to hold onto important government documents like your birth certificate, social security card, etc. The argument against disenfranchisement shouldn't look like such a clear edge case. If anything,…

Wait, are they scare quotes, or am I quoting you? The fact that you can't decide makes me think you know I wasn't quoting you, which was contextually obvious. I find the rest of your argument equally sincere and convincing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN