Every now and then, these violent reThuglicans, do make a good point.

15 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Eh...it's not that black and white. The professors are being blocked from testifying by their employer, which just happens to be the University of Florida, i.e., the state of Florida. The professors are free to resign and then still testify. 

It's petty and stupid, but it isn't a violation of their right to free speech. No one is putting them in jail for this, they are simply making this a requirement of their continued employment. Maybe it violates their employment contracts -- that would be interesting to know. But this is akin to a police department firing an officer for not getting vaccinated -- no one has a Constitutional right to be a police officer or a college professor. 

Just because something is stupid and petty doesn't mean its Unconstitutional. I'd even call this an abuse of power, and maybe a violation of their employment contracts (need more details). But it's not a free speech violation if they are testifying in their capacity as University of Florida professors. 

Here is what the University said on this:

"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin. Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university’s interests as a state of Florida institution.”

A teenager testifies at a school board meeting, gets shouted at by adults in the room. 

There is something seriously flawed in these human beings causing trouble, like they haven't found their worth to society.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Eh...it's not that black and white. The professors are being blocked from testifying by their employer, which just happens to be the University of Florida, i.e., the state of Florida. The professors are free to resign and then still testify. 

It's petty and stupid, but it isn't a violation of their right to free speech. No one is putting them in jail for this, they are simply making this a requirement of their continued employment. Maybe it violates their employment contracts -- that would be interesting to know. But this is akin to a police department firing an officer for not getting vaccinated -- no one has a Constitutional right to be a police officer or a college professor. 

Just because something is stupid and petty doesn't mean its Unconstitutional. I'd even call this an abuse of power, and maybe a violation of their employment contracts (need more details). But it's not a free speech violation if they are testifying in their capacity as University of Florida professors. 

where it gets a bit gray here is that they're employed by the state more or less, given that they're employed at a state university. so it's essentially the state (who is their employer) telling them they cannot testify. 

so the question is whether the right of an employer to make "not testifying" a condition of employment supercedes an individual's right to not be told what they can and cannot say by the state. 

I would tend to think that given it's the state on the other end of this equation the 1st amendment supercedes the state's right as an employer to set conditions of employment.

15 minutes ago, toolg said:

No, it's not black and white.... DeSantis has enough connections to UF to make it appear he's coerced the university to bar the professors from testifying. He made a power play against the professors. He silenced them by threatening their job; or he's forced them to resign to testify, weakening the University. DeSantis doesn't care.

That can and all likely is true. But that doesn't make this a free speech/Constitutional violation. As I said -- abuse of power.

9 minutes ago, RPeeteRules said:

Here is what the University said on this:

"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin. Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university’s interests as a state of Florida institution.”

So much for the rising authoritarianism in Florida!   

Swing and a big miss for Riot Kitchen. 

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

So much for the rising authoritarianism in Florida!   

Swing and a big miss for Riot Kitchen. 

If they wanted to do it unpaid, I’d be curious if they’d still be denied.  Keep in mind, this is what the university said. The truth is probably somewhere between what they said and what the other side is saying. 

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

where it gets a bit gray here is that they're employed by the state more or less, given that they're employed at a state university. so it's essentially the state (who is their employer) telling them they cannot testify. 

so the question is whether the right of an employer to make "not testifying" a condition of employment supercedes an individual's right to not be told what they can and cannot say by the state. 

I would tend to think that given it's the state on the other end of this equation the 1st amendment supercedes the state's right as an employer to set conditions of employment.

I completely disagree. Many jobs, in both the public and private sector, make you enter into contracts with binding arbitration and waive your right to sue your employer. And in this case, they would be testifying in their capacity as college professors (and therefore experts). The University can block them from doing so, just as if they wanted to testify in defense of something abhorrent (like slavery), the University can stop them. They are free to resign and still testify. 

Generally speaking, the professors may testify if it does not conflict with University interests. LINK

This case appears to go against State interests. Specifically the governor, DeSantis.

The professors have a right to speak, to testify in their area of expertise. Does the university have the right to stop them?

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

Generally speaking, the professors may testify if it does not conflict with University interests. LINK

This case appears to go against State interests. Specifically the governor, DeSantis.

The professors have a right to speak, to testify in their area of expertise. Does the university have the right to stop them?

If they will do so using their position as a UF professor...yes.

Usually, situations like this are handled by the person taking an unpaid leave of absence. They should offer to do that.

EDIT: also, the state fund the University. If the state cuts funding in response, that is against University interests. If someone at my firm had wanted to testify against our largest investor (back when we had LPs), that would have been a hell no.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

If they will do so using their position as a UF professor...yes.

So then tell me, how does the case impact UF's interests? What is so unusual?

Straight from UF guidance: LINK

Quote

Low Scrutiny:
These types of activities are generally approved, absent unusual circumstances.

2. Expert Witness/Legal Consulting: Serving as an expert witness or legal consultant for a case
that is not likely to adversely impact UF’s interests. Cases involving healthcare require additional
review by the Self Insurance Program (SIP) Office.

If the truth is a pain point for your organization, you have a serious problem.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Usually, situations like this are handled by the person taking an unpaid leave of absence. They should offer to do that.

EDIT: also, the state fund the University. If the state cuts funding in response, that is against University interests. If someone at my firm had wanted to testify against our largest investor (back when we had LPs), that would have been a hell no.

There isn't a corporate relationship between UF and the state of Florida. They are both (supposed to be) serving public interest.

1 minute ago, toolg said:

There isn't a corporate relationship between UF and the state of Florida. They are both (supposed to be) serving public interest.

But if the state if coercing the University, then it isn't. 

I'm not saying that this is appropriate. I'm saying it's not a free speech issue -- it's an abuse of power by the government issue.

8 minutes ago, toolg said:

So then tell me, how does the case impact UF's interests? What is so unusual?

Straight from UF guidance: LINK

"That is not likely to impact UF's interest"

That language is purposely and effectively vague. No chance the profs win in court on that.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

But if the state if coercing the University, then it isn't. 

I'm not saying that this is appropriate. I'm saying it's not a free speech issue -- it's an abuse of power by the government issue.

 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

"That is not likely to impact UF's interest"

That language is purposely and effectively vague. No chance the profs win in court on that.

I get your point. I agree, it's abuse of power if DeSantis is directing the University. It appears his hand is in it. The profs win in court when it's shown the state did not allow them to testify. It is also true the professors can resign to testify. Not black and white at all. The state can take advantage of that, and they are.

And here it is spelled out. UF basically doing what it can being squeeze in the middle. Do it pro bono and don't use University resources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/01/university-of-florida-desantis-voting-law/

 

Quote

 

When I asked a university spokesman to clarify, he emailed me this:

To your question, the university views the professors’ request as a request to be paid to testify against the state, and the university, as a public institution, is part of the state — therefore, that would be adverse to the university’s interests. However, to be clear, if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they would be free to do so.

 

 

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

 

I get your point. I agree, it's abuse of power if DeSantis is directing the University. It appears his hand is in it. The profs win in court when it's shown the state did not allow them to testify. It is also true the professors can resign to testify. Not black and white at all. The state can take advantage of that, and they are.

Now the University is saying to do it pro bono and don't use UF resources. Expert witnesses are paid witnesses. So the profs can simply do it for free and not use any UF resources when compiling testimony and evidence. 

Not sure what it means for a professor to do something pro bono.  My wife only teaches 3 classes a year.  You could say like 80% of the stuff she does in her job is pro bono.

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Not sure what it means for a professor to do something pro bono.  My wife only teaches 3 classes a year.  You could say like 80% of the stuff she does in her job is pro bono.

It means not getting paid to testify, as I explained in the post RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Now the University is saying to do it pro bono and don't use UF resources. Expert witnesses are paid witnesses. So the profs can simply do it for free and not use any UF resources when compiling testimony and evidence. 

The trouble is the professors are employed by the University in their area of expertise. It's not like they punch a time clock, when it's 5 o'clock they are free to go about their own business... They're going to represent the university based upon who they are, no matter what they do.

I feel like the professors should be free to testify any which way they want. They aren't paid to always defend the state's interests. That's fascism. The profs are paid to study their area of expertise. They can use it against the state if that is what is called for. They serve public interest.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It means not getting paid to testify, as I explained in the post RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE.

Who pays them to testify?  Is there grant money or something?  I don’t understand the pro bono part.  

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Who pays them to testify?  Is there grant money or something?  I don’t understand the pro bono part.  

The plaintiffs pay them. I've had to hire expert witnesses before -- they aren't cheap at all. They are very well paid.

6 minutes ago, toolg said:

The trouble is the professors are employed by the University in their area of expertise. It's not like they punch a time clock, when it's 5 o'clock they are free to go about their own business... They're going to represent the university based upon who they are, no matter what they do.

I feel like the professors should be free to testify any which way they want. They aren't paid to always defend the state's interests. That's fascism. The profs are paid to study their area of expertise. They can use it against the state if that is what is called for. They serve public interest.

I think asking them to do it pro bono is pretty reasonable. Don't profit off testifying against our owner.

Just now, vikas83 said:

The plaintiffs pay them. I've had to hire expert witnesses before -- they aren't cheap at all. They are very well paid.

Ok, gotcha.

1 hour ago, toolg said:

A teenager testifies at a school board meeting, gets shouted at by adults in the room. 

There is something seriously flawed in these human beings causing trouble, like they haven't found their worth to society.

Many of these people don't even have kids.