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

211–220 of 223 posts

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

#211

Post by 0xBDB »

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?

I don't like it. Texas's leadership when not corrupt is cruel, and when not cruel manages to give the appearance of cruelty. It's also increasingly dumb, doing things like trying to strangle the incredible renewable energy generation growth that has kept the power on during recent heat waves.

Texas has always been a one-party state (Democrat until the 1980s and Republican since) but it managed to be mostly pragmatic until 2016 or so.

I wouldn't be happy living under one party government in California (the corruption on California high speed rail makes Texas look squeaky clean) or Hawaii either. But when I can I'll likely move somewhere more reasonable.

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

#212

Post by marcusverus »

drak0n1c wrote: post #81
JohnMakin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"Anti-racist rhetoric" is a very recent ideological phenomenon that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice. It is possible for it to be flawed, prone to be implemented badly, or self-defeating and thus worthy of critique without being fired from academia (as in parent comment's example of California, or in Bret Weinstein's case). It is also commonly defended and advanced by p…

It’s amazing how many people are easily manipulated by cynical word games. Amazing and extraordinarily depressing.

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

#214

Post by skissane »

justin66 wrote: post #196
skissane wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thanks for the link. This is certainly a different bill, and not the one that has been recently passed. As such, it indeed looks quite ridiculous and reaching too far and basically makes Supreme Court completely powerless - because the government controls 61 votes by default, otherwise it falls Even supposing that law passes, how would it make Israel any different from the UK or New Zealand, in both of which almost…

> I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies I'm not trying to be harsh but it's weird how frequently this (badly offtopic) subthread has been speculative, when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the…

> when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about.

You are incorrectly assuming I haven’t read any of those articles, and then using that incorrect assumption to dismiss my argument without actually engaging with it

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

#215

Post by bloaf »

claytongulick wrote: post #187
bloaf wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 char…

We have absolutely no idea what comments she was censured for, they aren't saying. They certainly didn't claim she was censured for factual discussion about opioid crisis, as you've implied (and the reporter, without evidence, also implied). UTMB is a prestigious institution. Issuing a statement of censure is a pretty big deal. Occam's razor would suggest that it wasn't done arbitrarily. Objectively looking at the kn…

>and the reporter, without evidence, also implied

This is not an accurate characterization. The author reviewed the speaker's slides, interviewed students in the lecture, and consulted with her professional network; the reporter's investigation yielded no evidence of censure-worthy content or propensity for political rants.

> We don't have any facts that would support the narrative that the government encouraged the censure or the investigation in any way.

This is not an accurate characterization. The reporter has provided information from the university's spokespeople that Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham was the one who first contacted the university's governmental relations office as well as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick then contacted the chair of the University of Texas System’s board.

The board responded to Patrick, within 2 hours of the end of the lecture, quote: "Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week."

> Of course I'd change my opinion if more information comes to light.

You're not even engaging with the facts as they stand.

Occam's razor would suggest this isn't done arbitrarily. The simplest explanation for the set of facts before us is that the one student complained to mommy, who complained to the school in conjunction with Patrick. The school immediately kowtowed to this political pressure and made motions to punish the person they complained about, without any diligence whatsoever. Now that everyone is complaining, they aren't releasing the details of their censure because there aren't any.

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

#216

Post by justin66 »

skissane wrote: post #214
justin66 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies I'm not trying to be harsh but it's weird how frequently this (badly offtopic) subthread has been speculative, when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the…

> when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about. You are incorrectly assuming I haven’t read any of those articles, and then using that incorrect assumption to dismiss my argument without actually engaging with it

I guess that's true. In my defense, your argument, and the implication that half of Israelis are just being overly "heated" and if they understood things better they would realize that the current process will leave them with a government whose checks and balances are comparable to the UK or New Zealand, is really dumb.

Like, so dumb that ideally you'd read my restatement above and have an epiphany about how dumb what you said was, and familiarize yourself with the facts. A guy can dream.

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

#217

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #179
idopmstuff wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That doesn’t mean that government employers must allow employees to say whatever they want: https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/federal-employee-... For public employee speech to be protected, you must be speaking: > 1) as a private citizen, > 2) about a matter of public concern, and > 3) your speech does not interfere with your job A government-employed lecturer speaking within the scope of her lecture isn’t…

Horses for courses, as the Brits say. Here we had a government-employed professional who publicly (and mildly) expressed disagreement with another, high-ranking public servant on the merits of an issue of public concern — in a field in which the academic is something of an expert and the other public servant is ... not. That's a whole different kettle of fish than, say, a DMV employee greeting people at the counter with "Let's Go Brandon" (from a comment elsewhere in this thread).

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

#218

Post by dctoedt »

mjamil wrote: post #122
jeffbee wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only two things I've read about my alma mater recently were this, and the thing about the president being overthrown by what resembles a military coup, for the crime of trying to reestablish the school of journalism.

Jeff, where's your interpretation of events surrounding the president's resignation based on? My understanding was that the journalism school extended a written 5-year tenure-track offer to a candidate signed by the journalism school head. The offer was then mysteriously revised (still with school head signature intact) to a 1-year non-tenure-track offer without the knowledge of the journalism school. When the candid…

> the journalism school extended a written 5-year tenure-track offer

The original offer wasn't tenure-track, it was tenured — she already had tenure at the far-superior and more-liberal institution 100 miles west of TAMU (of which I'm a graduate). "After hearing about the concerns, McElroy agreed to a five-year contract position without tenure, which would have avoided a review by regents. On Sunday, she received a third offer, this time with a one-year contract and emphasizing that the appointment was at will and that she could be terminated at any time. She has rejected the offer and shared all of the offer letters with the Tribune." [0]

[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/11/texas-a-m-kathleen-m...

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

#219

Post by skissane »

justin66 wrote: post #216
skissane wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about. You are incorrectly assuming I haven’t read any of those articles, and then using that incorrect assumption to dismiss my argument without actually engaging with it

I guess that's true. In my defense, your argument, and the implication that half of Israelis are just being overly "heated" and if they understood things better they would realize that the current process will leave them with a government whose checks and balances are comparable to the UK or New Zealand, is really dumb. Like, so dumb that ideally you'd read my restatement above and have an epiphany about how dumb wha…

The site guidelines [0] say:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

If you think my comparison between the constitutional situation of Israel and that of UK and New Zealand is wrong, by all means provide a detailed explanation of why - that would be “conversing curiously”. But simply calling my argument “really dumb” isn’t

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#220

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #217
rayiner wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t mean that government employers must allow employees to say whatever they want: https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/federal-employee-... For public employee speech to be protected, you must be speaking: > 1) as a private citizen, > 2) about a matter of public concern, and > 3) your speech does not interfere with your job A government-employed lecturer speaking within the scope of her lecture isn’t…

Horses for courses, as the Brits say. Here we had a government-employed professional who publicly (and mildly) expressed disagreement with another, high-ranking public servant on the merits of an issue of public concern — in a field in which the academic is something of an expert and the other public servant is ... not. That's a whole different kettle of fish than, say, a DMV employee greeting people at the counter w…

But she wasn't speaking as a private citizen. She was delivering a lecture purchased and paid for by the government.
Post reply on HN