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

Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 223 posts

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#101

Post by bloaf »

claytongulick wrote: post #96
harshreality wrote: post #6

> 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 d…

All in all, it seems like this was a situation where the process worked. - 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 - Newspap…

This is not an accurate characterization.

- She made factual statements about policy impacts on overdose deaths.

- A politician's relative who was in attendance reported it to the political party backing those policies.

- The politicians successfully signaled to those at the university that criticizing their policies will be inconvenient at least, and a realistic threat to your career.

* Edit, for emphasis:

Your characterization would be like saying that it is fine that you're driving drunk since your car's auto-breaking feature is working and preventing you from hitting pedestrians.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#102

Post by Shared404 »

neilv wrote: post #83
vkou wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

How do tech workers in Texas cities like Austin feel about being under that?

Bad.

We feel bad about being under that.

I'm trying to improve things where I can, but I'm a singular young person in a state where it's not uncommon to want people like me "gone".

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#104

Post by idopmstuff »

rayiner wrote: post #100
Animats wrote: post #26

Crackdowns on free speech are increasing worldwide. Afghanistan, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Florida, Texas... Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...

[flagged]

> How is repercussions for criticizing your employer a free speech issue?

When your employer is the government, it clearly is. The biggest reason we have free speech in this country is so that the government cannot punish people for speaking up against it.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#105

Post by blantonl »

stevenwoo wrote: post #43
justin66 wrote: post #25

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.

This is equivalent to the daughter basically saying "do you know who my daddy is?"

Deplorable.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#106

Post by LispSporks22 »

neilv wrote: post #83
vkou wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

How do tech workers in Texas cities like Austin feel about being under that?

Tech worker in Austin here. I'd like to throw Abbott and Patrick in the Rio Grande.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#107

Post by bloaf »

I was struck by the final passage in the article:

>“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.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#108

Post by redeux »

idopmstuff wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> How is repercussions for criticizing your employer a free speech issue? When your employer is the government, it clearly is. The biggest reason we have free speech in this country is so that the government cannot punish people for speaking up against it.

> The biggest reason we have free speech in this country is so that the government cannot punish people for speaking up against it.

I’d go a step further and say it’s the only reason since the first amendment only applies to government retaliation.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#109

Post by kergonath »

pityJuke wrote: post #14

As Nilay Patel from the Verge put it [1] >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:/…

> 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.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#110

Post by kbenson »

harshreality wrote: post #76
kbenson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Every investigation of a professor, which fails to result in any official disciplinary action, should be equally condemned? How are universities supposed to investigate allegations then? Allegations are made all the time without administrations making the allegations public. They routinely take "protective" actions like limiting professors' non-critical duties during investigations. Do you condemn all those actions,…

> Every investigation of a professor, which fails to result in any official disciplinary action, should be equally condemned?

Every publicly announced investigation or action that did not include information about the evidence that caused it to be announced that then failed to result in disciplinary action and then refuses to explain what evidence they acted on should be condemned.

> ... Do you condemn all those actions, too?

I think my above clarification of your misunderstanding of my position should address all those questions sufficiently as to my position on them.

Now, all that said, I think I might have conflated UTMB and A&M's actions slightly. I thought A&M announced their investigation and suspension publicly, while it's UTMB that was public in their condemnation of the visiting and speaking professor, and I thought A&M had been more public, when I'm not sure they were in further review.

I think UTMB's actions should be condemned unilaterally. They sent out an email stating they did not afgree with the professor and that they were formally censuring her with no evidence as to why, and still have refused to indicate why.

I think A&M's conduct was not great, but at least somewhat defensible. They took an announcement of formal censure with zero evidence, and then when they followed up and could not get not get UTMB to cooperate with more info suspended her pending additional investigation. They had evidence, in that UTMB's formal censure was itself "evidence" in their eyes, but not great evidence given there were no concrete details other than that. I suspect, as the article alludes, that the environment of petitioning for funding had something to do with their knee-jerk reaction.

That said, I see no reasonable justification for UTMB's actions, where they publicly and formally censured the professor with no evidence given then or since.

Post reply on HN