Did the California Community Colleges implement anti-racist policies because they believed they resulted in the best pedagogy, or because politicians told them to?
This article doesn't say, but it does appear from other reporting that the community colleges implemented these policies without influence from state politicians.
Forced participation in DEI is well beyond "equality of all citizens". In fact, if you notice, the very word "equality" is banned there - you must say "equity", because equality is not enough. As Kendi teaches us, "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination". I don't think this has anything to do with "equality" - and yes, the fact that people are required to participate in this discrimination, advocate it and advance it, lead efforts to implement it, and "develop and implement a pedagogy and/or curriculum that promotes a race-conscious lens" - yes, I think this is as bad as banning a person from criticizing the government. In fact, it's worse - at least it doesn't force you to publicly agree with the government and actively lead the efforts to conform to the government and implement the government diktats and government-led discrimination in your pedagogical and scientific endeavors. At least the silence could be you refuge. It is worse when even a silent disagreement is declared to be "violence".
> How is one "forced" to participate when all DEI really means is "the fair treatment and full participation of all people"
As I already proven, it does not.
> What's wrong with building a society that realizes wheelchair ramps are good, and stairs alone are exclusive?
I think some people would object to equating race with disability, but that is between you and your VP DEI . But yes, I think forcing people to advocate ramps and firing them if they fail to do so is wrong.
> Does this Kendi have a monopoly on the concepts of DEI? I
Probably not, but I never heard any DEI-supporting person to publicly denounce Kendi and his ilk and declare he is wrong and gets the concept (which he coined, as far as I remember? may be wrong on that, but he's certainly prominent) wrong, and the real one is so and so. Once I encounter such a person, I'll hear what they say, until that - that is what we have.
> Is it not enough to recognize that the statement is stupid and carry on?
No it's not. Because this is exactly how it is implemented, and nobody recognizes that it is stupid. In fact, they recognize is as a howto. That's why they demand "racially conscious lens" in the pedagogical approach. If they thought discrimination is stupid, they'd not require it.
> Sorry, but if you don't like trying to life up those around you
I don't even know what this means. But it's not about me and what I like. This is a really despicable rhetorical move to put the equality between "I don't support forced speech to promote 'anti-racist' discrimination" and "I want to be racist". It's not about me - it's about forcing people to perform political speech that the government favors. Yes, it's worse than even banning disfavored speech.
> I don't need you around me or in my organization.
Good thing I don't care what you need. The institutions that use my tax dollars are different business though.
> I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm saying to be here, you are required to do certain things, and you're more than free to refuse and work elsewhere.
You imagine yourself to be the owner of public universities. You aren't. And as such, there are rules to what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and forcing political speech favored by the government is not part of this. If you want to open your private university, from your private costs, and demand that everybody who joins it would proclaim whatever credo you like 5 times a day, I would think this is very stupid, but I wouldn't object, and I would object to the government efforts to shut you down, if it even happens. But when it comes to institutions that serve wider public is not about your whims anymore.
> and you're more than free to refuse and work elsewhere.
It is funny how in one place you are "everybody must vocally support the efforts to be inclusive or you're evil" and then once you feel a bit of power - even completely imaginary one - you are suddenly "you can go elsewhere if you don't like it here". Inclusion only works one way - the way that is favorable to you - but as soon as you feel it's not convenient anymore, it's hardcore "keep you nose out of my business". Fascinating.
"Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation."
If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them.
The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant.
Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people.
Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right
Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
"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 progressives. So it seems appropriate to categorize it as progressive.
Naming is not the be-all-end-all. If you think about the nomenclature of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is opposition to that country equivalent to "telling on yourself" as being against Democracy, Republics, Korea, or popular rule?
>"that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice"
What is this even supposed to mean? We can't be "not racist" unless its proven (by what means?) that its effective in remedying (how is this judged?) past racism?
This is a platitude thats orders of magnitude greater than that which you are attempting to criticize.
Seems pretty clear from the article that the expectations for professors was that they had to adhere, not to a general "don't be racist" code of conduct, but instead to a specific ideologies ("that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles"). I think it is reasonable to describe those ideologies as "progressive" (at least in the sense that they are promoted and promulgated almost exclusively by people who would describe themselves as progressive)...
Not sure what you mean by this - regardless of whether you agree with antiracism or progressivism- if you take them at face value, ie “progressivism” = reforming society to improve the average human condition, and “antiracism” = reforming society to be less racist, they seem fairly aligned, no?
Also I suspect that the venn diagram of politicians who self-identify as anti-racist, vs politicians who self-identify as progressive is something very close to a circle.
The binary nature of antiracism - if you’re not in agreement with antiracism you’re a racist - is not something I would associate with a middle of the road politician.
It's pretty clear that what the person you are quoting to is referring to "progressive" as an action stemming from the political group colloquially referred to as "progressive" which is objectively distinct from the concept of progress and there is no reason why you need to pretend to be this obtuse!
This is not at all what happened. What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. Since Israel has no Constitution (it has some Basic Laws, but they don't cover much) the Supreme Court has been increasingly intervening into politics - including appointments, government decisions, policies, etc. - much more than, for example, US Supreme Court would ever do, and using reasoning like "it doesn't look reasonable" to overrule the actions of the government. Since, remember, there's no Constitution, this essentially gives the Supreme Court infinite power - they could override literally anything the government does, and they didn't need much grounds for it either.
And, let's say, the Court also hasn't been exactly non-partisan lately either (if it reminds you some other country, then you are right, these things can happen anywhere). So, many people were very unhappy with such situation, where a largely self-perpetuating body (the Court controls a lot of appointment process too) has nearly infinite power over the elected officials.
Given that one major party (or rather coalition, but let's not get into the weeds) has lost the elections, but enjoys the power in the Court, and the other has the majority in the parliament, but has their actions constantly blocked by the Court with motivations like "it doesn't look reasonable to us", the inevitable readjustment happens. It does not mean at all the Court - or any courts - lost all ability to review the decisions of the government, far from it. It just means that use of that particular tool - declaring any decision "unreasonable" and be done with it - has been restricted. Of course the side that enjoyed using that tool doesn't like it at all. But the Court still has all the power of review that it had using any other tools - including all the laws previously passed and those Basic Laws that exist. It just moved from "infinite power" to "limited power".
> What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government.
This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it.
> The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members.
> Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight.
> The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.
I would seriously advise against using Wikipedia as an ultimate source for politically controversial topics, especially ones concerning fresh ongoing events.
That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what I was addressing and that's what the comment I was answered was alleging (it said "just removed", not "planning to remove" or "going to remove" - and that's false).
As for the first paragraph (after the link), I suspect what it refers to is part of another bill, and as such it's kind of hard to discuss because these change all the time as part of inter- and intra-coalition wheeling and dealing. I did not find any reference to this provision being part of the law that actually passed, if you have any (non-Wikipedia) reference to it please provide it. On its face, it looks ridiculous - that means to nullify any Supreme Court decision the parliament has to just vote on it twice (and the majority is implied - you can not pass any bill without having majority anyway) - so there's no point to have any court at all. This exaggerated ridiculousness suggests to me something is missing - this is not how it works and even people wanting to somehow establish a dictatorship (which nobody in Israel actually wants, despite what both sides claim - they just want to bend the system towards the party they favor) does not do it by passing a law saying "anything I say twice is the truth". Why then bother with saying it twice anyway - once should be enough? It just doesn't make any sense, all politics aside, so I suspect the real bill, whatever it is, is something different. But, as I said, I haven't read it so I don't know.
> The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
> The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.
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. But it is not passed yet. If it does pass, then there's a reason to worry that the judicial review has been seriously impacted. But it didn't happen so far. And it looks like it won't ever: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/art...
As such, I suspect that it was just a bargaining move by Netanyahu to introduce something which clearly is going too far, with the full intent to drop it as soon as things get really going, to show he's reasonable and compromising. Maybe so, maybe he did intend to pass it if he can - in any case, I don't think that will happen anymore.
> 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 any decision of the Supreme Court can be overturned with mere ordinary legislation. [0]
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
[0] New Zealand requires a referendum for certain changes to election law, so there are limits to the ability of Parliament to overturn court decisions in that specific area
The "death of democracy" criticism is strange because the functions of judicial review, enshrined civil rights, and (where applicable) a written constitution exist for the purpose of making a country less democratic. In an absolute democracy the people can change any rule they want whenever they want.
If there is a criticism of the UK, New Zealand, and now (if this additional law were to pass) Israel, it would be that they're overly democratic. Though based on what I've read the current Israeli Supreme Court does go too far in the other direction since it has no written constitution to work from and is basically winging it.
At the risk of going off topic I do find it weird that the Americans who are terribly worried about the Israeli Supreme Court being made more accountable to the people are mostly the same Americans determined to do something similar to the American one (and the U.S. Senate).
> 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 nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about.
It is true that Israeli newspapers - and non-Israeli ones - discuss it at length, and it is also true that the current crisis is a successor and the consequence of many historical developments and controversies, taking root before the state has been even established. This is exactly why one familiar with the history and the background of the question learns to take claims like “death of Israeli democracy” with a big dose of skepticism. It is true that some changes are happening, and it is true many aren't happy with them, but it's very far from the claims like the one that started this thread.
> 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.
> 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
I would mention that there is basically zero separation between executive and legislative powers in Israel (to form the government to need to have majority in Knesset and you get to choose all the ministers). Reducing the power of the only independent branch in this case is highly questionable to say the least
> I would mention that there is basically zero separation between executive and legislative powers in Israel (to form the government to need to have majority in Knesset and you get to choose all the ministers).
That’s standard for the parliamentary system. Israel in that is fundamentally no different from the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece - actually most countries in Europe (where parliamentary systems are the rule and semi-presidential systems such as France or Russia are the exception)
> Reducing the power of the only independent branch in this case is highly questionable to say the least
The UK government has done it before, many times. Most recent example I am aware of is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which stripped from the Courts the power to review the legality of prorogations or dissolutions of Parliament. In English law, this is called an “ouster clause”, and is nothing new - historically significant examples include the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, and the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. In the US, the same idea is called “jurisdiction-stripping”; a famous example is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Just leaving another comment to warn that there is a lot of “don’t believe your eyes and ears” argumentation going on in the other sub threads to this comment.
I’m not sure this is something you can flag comments for, but I don’t think that type of argument, regardless of how eloquently stated, is appropriate for HN.
The amount of taxpayer $$$ that Israel claws from the US in the name of religion was already quite sickening. Now they’re getting that money while simultaneously switching to a totalitarian government.
> 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.
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).
> She was delivering a lecture purchased and paid for by the government.
If that's to be the standard, what effect do you think it will have on the hiring desirable faculty by state universities in red states? I'm already seeing reports of trouble in that regard.
The government can punish employees when the speech is pursuant to their position as a public employee. A DMV worker saying "lets go Brandon" to everyone coming through the door while they're at the desk is not protected speech. That DMV worker getting off the clock and attending a Trump rally is.
This is what happens when free speech is not valued and defended throughout our culture. Politics is downstream from culture. When we are OK with, and often encouraging of, private censorship, we shift the Overton window and provide moral cover for politicians and government entities to further consolidate power. This story is a prime example.
People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you from government censorship as a basis to invalidate the vigorous defense of free speech ideals in society, are either disingenuous or wildly narrow sighted.
First, private and public censorship are fundamentally different due to power balances. The government is enjoined from censorship except in very carefully defined circumstances. Private entities are allowed to censor except in carefully defined circumstances.
Conflating the two is the thing that shifts the Overton Window.
Free speech doesn't mean that the others have to listen to you and agree with you, it means that you can say it and not have your freedom of movement restricted because of it.
The exact opposite of what many dictators do.
There are no country on earth with "full" free speech because there are always limitations especially regarding threats to the safety of others.
everybody (to a first approximation) supports private censorship. If you come into my house and insult my family or friends, or start in on a racist tirade, I’m kicking you out. Are there people who really wouldn’t do this?
I think when we have the government having regular meetings with major social networks, instructing them who to ban and which topics to exclude from discussion, and when we have the pipeline from foreign security services through the US government to the all major social networks which allow them to ban anybody without as little as cursory review - we are way, way beyond "family and friends" situation here.
The owners of social networks have free speech rights too. They can take others suggestions as to who and what to block and decide for themselves. The constitutional law is settled on this question. I wouldn’t be so quick to infringe that.
"Suggestions". Right. Regular meetings and demands from the government to shut down speech is just mere "suggestions". How stupid you think your target audience is?
It's one thing to politely disagree with others, and it's another to pretend like they are "targeting an audience". Your comment is rude, disingenuous, and doesn't further reasonable discourse and a rethink of your approach would be wise for the benefit of the community.
I don’t have a target audience. I’m just telling you the way it works. As far as I can tell the only place in the US that government is actually threatening private companies over their speech is Florida.
No, you are telling the way you'd like to pretend it works, because your partisan biases make you blind to facts. They way is actually works, as evident from Facebook executives themselves, is that they were constantly pressured by the government to censor, and attacked when the government felt they ate not censoring enough.
We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.
This is not "suggestion". This is government coercing private business.
It's entirely valid to point at different items on the same trend line, even if they may be at different points along it currently. Florida and Texas may not be hosing down protestors or throwing them in jail, but this is hardly an isolated incident and it certainly does qualify as a "crackdown on free speech" in my opinion, as do the classic extreme examples it's included with.
Perhaps how uncomfortable that is should be something we consider thoughtfully rather than something we point to and immediately try to discount.
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.
Both her parents are doctors but both parents' made alot of money from for profit schools preying on veterans (NAU http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/Conte...) and that help pay for the campaigns to start her mothers political career so not a lot of self introspection being done in the family.
So the same people who fight change they interpret as pushing "woke" culture also believe they have a right to never be exposed to criticism or negative comments against anything with which they identify?
I don't think calls for "formal censure" and attacks on an individuals livelihood are the same as "criticism" or "negative comments." I think the effort to normalize the two being viewed negatively is entirely understandable.
Parent got downvoted but speaking as an Aggie it's not totally wrong. This is hardly the university's first free speech controversy and doesn't seem likely to be the last. It's a bipartisan mess too - Chancellor John Sharp is a prominent Democrat.
I guess those students have been put on notice, not to voice anything critical of party officials or their public policy.
> Less than two hours after the lecture ended, Patrick’s chief of staff had sent Sharp a link to Alonzo’s professional bio.
> Shortly after, Sharp sent a text directly to the lieutenant governor: “Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week.”
> [...]
> At 4:22 p.m., as Alonzo was learning that a controversy was brewing, a course coordinator sent an email to the entire class distancing UTMB from comments Alonzo allegedly made about Patrick. The subject line read, “STATEMENT OF FORMAL CENSURE.”
> “The statements made by the guest lecturer do not represent the opinion or position of the University of Texas Medical Branch, nor are they considered as core curriculum content for this course,” the email said.
> “UTMB does not support or condone these comments. We take these matters very seriously and wish to express our disapproval of the comment and apologize for harm it may have caused for members of our community,” the email continued. “We hereby issue a formal censure of these statements and will take steps to ensure that such behavior does not happen in the future.”
It's worth knowing more details than the headline here:
1. Professor Joy Alonzo, who's an expert in Opiod harm-reduction gave a talk where according to all accounts, she mildly critiqued the Lt. Governor and state's preferences for punitive approaches for drug control and that they are considered Federal non-reporters on Opioid stats since they don't collect the data required.
2. Dawn Buckingham, the TX Land Commissioner has a daughter who was in the audience of the talk. (presumably) The daughter texts her mom, telling her that the lecture disparaged the Lt. Gov.
3. Buckingham immediately texts the Lt. Governor that Alonzo had critiqued him - the Lt. Gov then called the Chancellor of Texas A&M where Professor Alonzo is employed.
4. Chancellor texts, literal hours after the lecture was finished, that "Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week."
Absolutely clear cut violation of the 1st amendment. If they had any shame, everyone involved would resign.
When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violation. But that's not what happened, so I don't know it would be that clear.
Are you arguing that a teacher at a public university doesn't have 1FA rights when teaching or giving their opinion on a subject they're an expert on?
I am skeptical if that is indeed your arguent. If university professors believed this, they would not take jobs at public universities; they tend to place a very high value on their ability to conduct research and express themselves freely on whatever subjects they choose.
Are you really arguing that this hasn't happened many, many times in the past and yet people still take professorships at public universities and schools?
This case wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for a prof getting attacked by the state for stating something in a classroom. It's happened many times in the past too. Note this was the first time any court said there was a constitutional protection, and doesn't apply across the whole US currently.
Yes, I was really arguing that. Thank you for correcting me. My incorrect belief was based on too myopic a view (I’m in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and forget sometimes that the rest of the country exists) and too broad an assertion (that all speech related to teaching is protected).
The case you pointed to was about speech “that criticizes policies and decisions of university administrations” and grants relief for that set of circumstances. That wasn’t the case here. I’m sure you can cite to this, but is there a holding where the case was simply about the subject matter and not criticism of administration policy?
I'm not familiar with exactly the comments which were said, so I can't really say what exactly happened. But there's definitely been many times in the past, many times that probably never resulted in some big legal battle that people wrote a lot about, where a professor was censured for how they conducted their classroom.
That said, I'm not really arguing TAMU/The State of Texas is in the moral right here. I'm definitely down to not give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but just hearing the idea that a non-tenured? professor said something potentially really bad that ultimately cost them their job, doesn't really strike me as something impossible and entirely without precedent. Things are different when you're a government employee and you're on the clock, often for good reason. Not that censuring professors for speaking potentially factual statements is a good reason though.
There is a 9th circuit carve out for certain faculty speech in Demers v. Austin. Doesn't apply here but I think something like this could become a test case if she is fired?
Yes, I do agree if this continues on it could be an interesting court case to watch as it makes it up the courts. Will the 5th circuit agree with Demers? Will we have a circuit split? Who knows.
She said Dan Patrick is responsible for an increase in deaths associated with fentanyl because they didn’t take her suggestion for testing strips vs more severe sentences for dealers and pushers.
If there were anything remotely objectionable, the conservative officials would be screaming it from the rooftops so they didn't instead look like thin-skinned petty fascists.
> The Texas A&M University professor had just returned home from giving a routine lecture on the opioid crisis at the University of Texas Medical Branch in March when she learned a student had accused her of disparaging Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the talk.
Very Soviet.
Is this a weird Texas thing, or is it normal for American universities? It's virtually impossible to imagine here; universities are more or less ground zero for criticising the government.
Texas A&M is the very conservative public university of Texas. It started as a male military academy with the purpose of graduates entering the US military. The Aggies favorite son is Earl Rudder who commanded troops during the invasion of Normandy.
UT Austin is the liberal public university in TX. It was famous for its hippies back in the 60s.
So, my mental model of American conservatism (I'm not American) was always that they were _relatively_ thick-skinned as right-wingers go; George W took a fair bit of public criticism, say, without seeming to get particularly upset about it. Trump didn't react well to criticism, obviously, but he's kind of a baby, and a bit of a special case; extremely privileged and not a career politician. I've got to say I'm kind of surprised that the rank and file are so sensitive; I kind of thought this was largely _gone_ in western democracy. Feels very, very old-fashioned (or, as mentioned, Soviet).
I sometimes wonder if I'm missing something fundamental about how Americans think. This behaviour would be interpreted (beyond being anti-democratic, but parts of the right wing won't necessarily care about that) as showing extreme weakness here. Like, to the extent that a politician wouldn't do it, even if they _could_, because would be very politically damaging; "my opponent is a weird baby" is a stupid talking point to hand to your opponent.
I can't speak on modern American conservatism as I am not one. Looking from the outside, I would chalk this one up as part of the culture wars that is fueling the conservative movement, rage against "critical race theory" etc.
FWIW, George HW Bush is buried next to the Texas A&M main campus. There is also a school of foreign policy named after him there. Both Bushes, the father and son, cultivated an image of a likable goof, even if you differed with their politics, were someone you could go to a baseball game with and shoot the breeze over a couple of beers. The modern conservative movement is not like that.
Texas, and other “Southern” states are like this. The people with old power in these places are a special breed.
This part of the country seceded in the not-too-distant past, and there are still confederate rallies in Texas to this day. It’s super diverse but all of the power is held by by old-money southern aristocracy. (I am from Texas)
>“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.
> And Sharp was communicating directly with the lieutenant governor’s office about the incident, promising swift action.
In Texas, what entities have oversight over potential abuses of power by the Lt. Governor's office, the Texas A&M system Chancellor, and the Texas Land Commissioner?
Are they credible?
I'm not going to jump to conclusions, but am wondering whether this credible-looking journalism will prompt government investigation with integrity.
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 like, Putin's Russia laid out a roadmap for it.
[1] The actual mechanism with which he has done so is by not paying the prosecutors that were supposed to prosecute him. It's utterly insane - the criminals are literally running the courts.
The FBI is investigating him but no federal charges have ever been filed. The state situation is also a bit more complicated than the grandparent suggests. There have been both jurisdictional struggles and a county government refusing to pay sizable fees for outside special prosecutors (not state prosecutors).
The guy belongs in prison but is not just refusing to be prosecuted, nor does he have the ability to do so.
Well, tech workers here don’t make up a significant voting block in state-wide races. Not to mention we mostly got the conservative tech bros from NYC and Cali anyway, so they’re not really bothered.
That said, Williamson County flipped blue last election which was surprising. A lot of the wealthier, slightly older suburban tech/business Austin crowd lives there.
I live in Austin and I hate it here. I vote in every local and statewide race but it seems like it's getting worse.
I'm pretty close to selling my house and moving to Colorado but as third generation Texan I feel like I'm abandoning my home and leaving it to the crazies.
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.
Into the concertina wire, or into the more dangerous areas deliberately left unfortified as to increase the likelihood of migrants dying during crossing?
Going by Blind comments, they are enthusiastically cheering the demise of California. For every "lived in texas, found a company" commenter there's like ten "relocated my job to a more sufficiently republican locale" fascist enablers.
I'm no fan of these nutjobs at the wheel, but one important thing to consider is you don't have to be a leftist to be a "tech worker". There's lots of right-leaning tech workers out there. And since Texas has a few tech-focused cities in the South, there's quite a mix of people. Its not like there's just a some leftist tech workers in a sea of right-wing ranchers in Texas.
I know a lot of people who are pretty smart tech people who would argue for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, are pro school vouchers, want a flat tax rate, want to see prayer in schools, etc.
To answer your question, the Texas Rangers have a Public Corruption Unit. The unit is relatively new (replacing a unit that used to be run out of the Travis County D.A.'s office, which Republicans objected to, because Travis County is Austin and run by Democrats). The Rangers would investigate and hand over to the D.A. in whatever county has jurisdiction (which is sometimes contested).
Results will have to be seen but I don't know that anyone really questions the general integrity or competence of the Rangers.
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 candidate asked for an explanation, they were told it's because she's a Black woman that has worked at the NYT, and that the powers-that-be at A&M objected to her hiring. She then received a verbal third offer for a 3-year contract.
The candidate made all info available to a local paper, kicking off a firestorm. This led to a (funny, imo) call between the president and faculty where the president claimed she did not know where the multiple offers came from and why, and who had communicated with the candidate about the black/nyt stuff. When asked - in that case - whether the first offer was still good, she demurred. The faculty clearly lost faith in her leadership at this point. She resigned the day after this meeting.
The candidate wisely has chosen to work elsewhere.
> 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]
The constant keeping in the loop of the Lt governor (Patrick) is disturbing on several levels. One, that students and faculty would tattle on a lecturer holding an adverse opinion of a politician in efforts to punish them, and two, that the LtGov actually cares enough to stay engaged.
For those not from Texas, know that Dan Patrick is one of the most despicable politicians in the country, and wields almost total power over what gets presented to the Texas legislature. As horrible as this story is, I am not surprised by his behavior.
>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!
that is an excellent point, it's kind of a distraction to drag in extraneous protections that don't apply, namely speech between citizenry. There is a government focus to the amendments that's worth keeping foremost in mind. Your statement helps me to keep this understanding in the foreground which I don't always do all the time.
It's not, really. It comes from conflating mentions of "free speech" with "the first amendment". The person you're responding to brought up the latter, despite the fact that the person they were responding to said the former.
> 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.
That's not really an insightful statement given that free speech in the context that it is being discussed is literally referencing ONLY government interference on the dissemination of speech. It's like saying that the biggest threat to becoming wet is water.
Probably not. The Texas A&M chancellor is elected by the board of regents, selected by the Governor of Texas. This is true for many (all?) state systems (eg. the board of governors, appointed by the state politicians, picks the UNC head chancellor). So, that position is always under political pressure. This is not true at privates.
Private entities are immune from corruption and never collude with politicians? People do not get fired for political reasons at private institutions?
You show a mechanism through which the government can abuse its power, which is terrible and everyone should agree that it’s bad and change how this works. But how not having that implies that a chancellor picked by a board with no oversight could not be worse? The problem is the lack of checks against abuse of power and mechanisms to guarantee a basic independence level for the professors. Once you have those in place, how is a university better merely by being private?
I wish free-market neo-liberals would apply to themselves what they say every time someone mentions socialism: pure ideology might sound good but does not work in the real world.
You're inferring too much. Nobody said one was better or worse. Chancellors at privates also answer to a board, which may be good or bad, but they aren't appointed by the government, a fact particularly relevant to this situation. There's great private and public universities, so obviously neither option is necessarily bad.
> Your regular reminder that the biggest threat to free speech is the government.
Absolute though it crosses over with social platforms alot. There is currently an injunction against the Biden administration to stop them from instructing social platform on what to censor.
That’s an incredibly aggressive intentional misinterpretation of what I said.
In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms. While many people might argue that tech platforms are not public squares and should be free to censor however they like, everyone should have a problem with politicians directing tech companies on what can be said on their platforms.
As an addendum, I’m always curious to hear what that camp has to say about net neutrality after arguing so vigorously against its core principles.
IMHO if you want to operate as a mass market platform and are pursuing a winner takes all business strategy you should be regulated as a common carrier (Uber, Facebook, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, cloudflare, etc).
> In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms.
And, as is their First Amendment right, those tech companies frequently responded with "no". This is very clear from the Twitter Files information, even if the journalists involved glossed over that point.
> Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistleblower and former employee.
Trump has the First Amendment right to ask. Twitter has the First Amendment right - which they exercised - to decline that request.
If Trump had sent US Marshals to seize Twitter HQ when they said no, that is where we have issues.
I disagree. Case history is absolutely not clear about the difference between government encouraging action by companies vs. forcing said action, and whether the former is explicitly permissible.
I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.
Lol using the one instance that trump asked for something stupid and was denied and pretending that happened a lot is again a very intentional mischaracterization of what happened. Not only is that apparently like one of the only times trump asked for something it’s totally dwarfed in comparison to the Biden admin’s many censorship requests which had no pushback despite being equally frivolous. Not to mention the laptop from hell.
Really this sort of thing should be seen as an in-kind political contribution, and the fact it’s not shows just how captured the entire judicial and regulatory branch is.
If you think Trump's team only ever asked for one single tweet to come down, I don't know what to tell you.
Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction.
omg, I just went through that thread in its entirety, it makes it very clear that Roth has a very cozy relationship with the FBI and his only issue was not wanting to change their stance wrt to mass surveillance, which was already compromised due to fisa warrants anyway.
> Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation
That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.
This is pretty easy to find, but for an excellent judicial review and multiple case law citations I highly recommend reading Judge Doughty's recent decision.
Wow, why does it always feel like I get into this same merrygoround every 6 months with the same goalposts being retreated to the same positions, with each argument until we’re suddenly talking about how Reagan once brushed past a reporter so clearly his party is the authoritarian one. It’s so tiring. We went from politicians ordering (with implied threats) political action from private citizens to the FBI requesting something without a warrent… if you can’t see the difference idk why we’re even talking.
Because you are absolutely full of shit and not acting in good faith. You claimed "companies acting in lockstep", and then the other guy provided multiple sourced examples of of twitter employees giving the feds a clear "Nope, not going to happen", which IS NOT LOCKSTEP
He gave a single example of refusing an FBI inquiry which isn't anywhere close to the same thing as accepting every single political request. In case this is news to you, the FBI is not supposed to be politically motivated. The fact that you think this is the same thing is incredibly concerning. Conflating an FBI inquiry with a political do this or else "request" shows exactly how you view the FBI in relation to your political party... kinda saying the quiet part out loud...
Your point is an incredibly aggressive intentional misrepresentation of what actually happened.
Nobody actually believes that other than right wing fundie culture warriors. Elon Musk thinks it’s complete bullshit, as does every other person who is willing to put objective facts above their personal feelings.
Now do the Government and tech companies bypassing the right to privacy by 'purchasing' our data. If the Government asking to take something down is a violation of our rights the government asking for private information is a violation of our rights.
yes I totally agree. Not sure why anyone would think the government should be doing that... in fact we should make it illegal for anyone to sell/share private data like that.
What are the laws around the government punishing government employees for criticizing the government?
I'm not an expert but it doesn't really seem like a first amendment issue although I think most would agree that the government shouldn't be punishing its own employees for conduct like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin extends "First Amendment protection to professors at public universities for on-the-job speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship, whether inside or outside of the classroom", but doesn't apply everywhere as it's a Ninth Circuit decision.
I'd be interested to hear how this could fall under the second classification. The professor in this case wasn't even working directly with the politician.
Well I get that, but I'm curious what would be the "government employees' work product" in this case, using the Supreme Court's chosen phrase. The case you linked is about someone doing their job in a way that his bosses thought was wrong. It just happened to involved speech. I don't see the connection to this case. To the extent that the criticism of the politician was related to that person's work duties, it's because they're paid by a public university to share opinions related to their expertise.
The work product of a state university professor is, in part, their lectures.
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin has it right in this regard - that public educators have a specific First Amendment need/exception to be able to teach facts their chain of command doesn't appreciate - but it doesn't yet apply in Texas.
A federal judge in FL ruled against UFL for denying professors the ability to testify as experts in cases against the state. DeSantis of course has made attacking universities part of his anti-woke cultural jihad. TX and FL have been reading from the same authoritarian hymnal so its not surprising to see a similar situation play out.
It will be interesting to see what effect these kind of antics have on quality of higher ed in these states. I must think that there would be some effect on the quality of professors that get hired.
"you can't fire a state employee for criticizing an elected official" isn't entirely true, though. If the Governor's press secretary gets up to the podium and says "my boss is a corrupt fuckwit", they'll get fired, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos.
It was the government school punishing a university professor for giving a guest lecture at another school. Both university professors (via tenure) and government employees (via the first amendment) deserve special protection from their employers to speak publicly.
This is literally the definition of a first amendment issue, in my eyes. Should the president be able to ban anyone who works for any company that has any government contracts from making any critical statements about his administration? This isn’t some intern in the office of the politician she (seemingly lightly) criticized, this is a tenured professor.
Besides, IMO tenured professors are the very front line of free speech, perhaps right behind journalists - for the system to function at all (/continue limping along), tenured professors should NEVER be afraid of criticizing the government. At all. In any way.
If you're a professor at a state school, and part of your job involves research into the effectiveness of drug policies in harm prevention, then you're not only allowed to make derogatory comments about your employer but compelled to do so if that is where your research takes you.
This is not about party-political point scoring: lives are literally at stake, never mind fundamental academic freedoms.
I've worked in unclassified roles (not faculty). Academia likes to talk a good game about freedom but their annual appointments make it clear the money you get is at the governor's discretion. It's probably a mistake to exercise that discretion, but it's a mistake faculty are powerless to stop: "If you come at the king, you best not miss."
>It’s pretty clear from the article what the political leanings of the author are, so it almost comes off as hypocritical and tone deaf to start banging on the first amendment drum on this issue.
I heard that in Mexico right wing politicians are blocking the import of naxalone with the attitude that people that OD on the streets should not be helped.
> 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 discuss matters of academic interest, and the opioid crisis and political decisions contributing to it certainly qualify.
On the other hand, if she made a snide comment about the TX Lt. Governor without grounding it in policy, that's not good. However, professors are only human, and I don't think it would be fair or reasonable to impose disciplinary action for isolated cases. It might potentially be worthy of disciplinary action in some cases, though... IF it was that kind of comment, and IF it was more than an isolated case.
Why? Because while private individuals are free to talk about anything they want, professors are supposed to be maintaining an environment of thoughtful academic discourse, and certain kinds of biased comments do not, therefore disciplinary (not legal) action might at some point be warranted. Far fetched? It's not as if it's unheard of for professors who disagree with politicians to go on fact-free political rants these days.
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 the first place and should be condemned.
Accusations should include some level of evidence. Public accusations should include some level of public evidence, otherwise what's the difference between slander or libel? If I called up your local police department and told them that harshreality is a pedophile, I wouldn't expect them to take any action other than to possibly quietly investigate if they thought it was credible, and if I supplied evidence, I'd expect them to verify that evidence before and public announcements or arrests, as I suspect you would and anyone would when accused of a heinous crime. To do otherwise is to allow the public to be swayed by innuendo rather than fact.
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, too?
This is not a criminal investigation. Organizations, even public ones, have wide latitude in how they handle internal investigations as long as they're not making overt public accusations before verifying them.
I'm not saying these kinds of investigations are good. The investigation itself is a punishment. However, administrations have a lot of discretion in future actions, discretion which they can exercise against a professor, without recourse, even when there's no policy violation to cite and punish them for. It's impossible to avoid unofficial punishments, and a punishing investigation process is just another one of those.
I'm also not saying that suspension was a reasonable action to take during this investigation. It sounds extreme for any investigation of comments made by a professor. But I don't know what the allegation was and nobody else is saying what it was. The fact that nobody else is willing to remember on the record what the professor might have said doesn't mean she didn't say anything worth investigating.
> 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.
>Without knowing what was allegedly said, this is difficult to judge.
You have the opposite reaction than what should be called for, if no one could even remember what was said then there is zero chance what was said was inappropriate.
> On the other hand, if she made a snide comment about the TX Lt. Governor without grounding it in policy, that's not good.
How does this particular form of Lese Majeste work? Is it all elected politicians? Just those in the ruling party? Of the state, or federal too? If the Lt Governor's policies are in conflict with the federal government's policies, must she sing the praises of both him and Biden? If he loses the next election, must she turn on a dime and denounce him? If Dear Leader makes a policy u-turn, must all lecture recordings and publications praising the old, wrongthink policy be destroyed?
As I mentioned elsewhere, all very Soviet. They should get some old Russian academics who were around for de-Stalinisation in to give training on how to navigate these awkward matters.
- 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.
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 known facts without a political bias, it seems to me that the most likely scenario is that she made some inappropriate comments, got censured, but no one wants to embarrass her further or risk liability by repeating hearsay.
People make mistakes.
We don't have any facts that would support the narrative that the government encouraged the censure or the investigation in any way.
I'm not sure why there's so much passion around insisting that particular narrative when there are limited known facts.
Of course I'd change my opinion if more information comes to light.
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.
> She was formally censured by the hosting university that knew what the comments were
She was formally censured by that institution with no evidence supplied, and that institution continues to refuse to provide any evidence of what she's censured for.
Without that evidence, why should we view this as anything other than a political hit job from the Governor? It's indistinguishable from that without evidence of what they're censuring for and with the evidence of student attendees that the statements they think might be the cause are fairly benign and based on facts and/or assessment by a per-eminent professional in that field without evidence to the contrary.
Is it the newspapers twisting it into a right wing suppression of speech story, or is it really just a right wing suppression of speech story that the newspapers are doing their job bringing to the public's attention?
Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...