4 ms·

this doesn't sound like a big deal. UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university.

this doesn't sound like a big deal. UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university. in other words, they can testify for free, or they cannot use their the fact that they're UF professors as part of their credentials without prior approval, or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves. the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF. obviously UF wouldn't want that. --- which organizations will allow you to testify against an entity that funds the organization without said organizations approval. free speech aside, obviously no organization will let you do that in your capacity as a member of said organization, but nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway.

gradys 5y ago
They are in fact UF professors though, and that fact would be relevant in any case they testified in. Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general? Or just for this issue? To your edit: the fact that the entity in question is a government is the difference here in my opinion.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  per the article: > Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general? No > Or just for this issue? Yes
obelos 5y ago
Organizations that aren't the government. State universities are public institutions, not private ones.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  really? which private entities explicitly or historically have allowed a member to testify against either the entity itself or another entity that funds the one in which the member of a part of? even whistleblowers generally quit before testifying, or are expected to not necessarily retain their rights as a member afterwards. there's really no incentive for an organization to explicitly allow a member to testify against them or another entity that funds them. genuinely curious if it's happened before.
  - obelos 5y ago
    Yes, really. State schools are public institutions. Their employees are public employees. As public institutions, they are not legally permitted to enact policy that infringes 1A rights. A private school could have more leeway on this—subject to employment law, union contracts, etc—but a public school is very limited. A public professor could be censured for expressing testimony that, for example, reveals that they are likely to treat students in a biased way. If they testify with something like “Racial minorities and women aren't qualified to have a right to vote,” that impugns their ostensible fair treatment of their students and fellow faculty, and that is actionable. But testifying about how a state's voting policies disenfranchise legitimate portions of its population? Not at all actionable. Testifying that election integrity demands that certain practices be established even though practically speaking it could result in disenfranchisement of certain minorities? Also not actionable.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      We'll have to see how the lawsuit pans out, but I doubt you're right here. Public institutions are in no way obligated to let their members serve as expert witnesses in their capacity as an employee. See Garcetti v. Ceballos. However nothing is stopping them from testifying against the institution in their capacity as a private citizen. This is why whistleblowing is possible. UF is saying they cannot be expert witnesses affiliated with the university per their process explicitly outlined in the article. It would be another thing if they were trying to testify in another capacity and UF was trying to stop them.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        An expert witness acts as a servant of the court, not as the agent of their employer. Naming the UoF as your employer is simply stating the truth to the court about your credentials; it doesn't mean the UoF has to take responsibility for your testimony.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.
dahart 5y ago
> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” > in other words, they can testify for free No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” No, I didn't. "or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves." > No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea? They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes. Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018. This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruver_v_barton_-_expert_report_of_daniel_a._smith_ph.d.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...
  - dahart 5y ago
    I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”. > There's no conspiracy here. What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting. *edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.
    - 5y ago
AlexandrB 5y ago
> the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF. > obviously UF wouldn't want that. This part is ridiculous. The "State of Florida" doesn't fund the UF, the Florida taxpayers do! And it's in the taxpayers' interest to get good, equitable laws - not whatever the lawmakers plop out for their own self-interest. The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.
- vkou 5y ago
  > The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true. You must be new to southern politics, if you think this is a scandal.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida Like banning mask mandates by school districts and defunding them as punishment?
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway" We gave up privacy of our most intimate files and communication 'to prevent crime', because apparently everyone of us is a potential pedophile. Joe should also give up his lifehood so that rule of law can function? God forbid an organisation would suffer the indignity of employees giving evidence in the court of law and having to answer some tough questions?

gradys 5y ago

They are in fact UF professors though, and that fact would be relevant in any case they testified in. Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general? Or just for this issue? To your edit: the fact that the entity in question is a government is the difference here in my opinion.

endisneigh 5y ago
per the article: > Are UF professors banned from acting as paid expert witnesses in general? No > Or just for this issue? Yes

obelos 5y ago

Organizations that aren't the government. State universities are public institutions, not private ones.

endisneigh 5y ago
really? which private entities explicitly or historically have allowed a member to testify against either the entity itself or another entity that funds the one in which the member of a part of? even whistleblowers generally quit before testifying, or are expected to not necessarily retain their rights as a member afterwards. there's really no incentive for an organization to explicitly allow a member to testify against them or another entity that funds them. genuinely curious if it's happened before.
- obelos 5y ago
  Yes, really. State schools are public institutions. Their employees are public employees. As public institutions, they are not legally permitted to enact policy that infringes 1A rights. A private school could have more leeway on this—subject to employment law, union contracts, etc—but a public school is very limited. A public professor could be censured for expressing testimony that, for example, reveals that they are likely to treat students in a biased way. If they testify with something like “Racial minorities and women aren't qualified to have a right to vote,” that impugns their ostensible fair treatment of their students and fellow faculty, and that is actionable. But testifying about how a state's voting policies disenfranchise legitimate portions of its population? Not at all actionable. Testifying that election integrity demands that certain practices be established even though practically speaking it could result in disenfranchisement of certain minorities? Also not actionable.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    We'll have to see how the lawsuit pans out, but I doubt you're right here. Public institutions are in no way obligated to let their members serve as expert witnesses in their capacity as an employee. See Garcetti v. Ceballos. However nothing is stopping them from testifying against the institution in their capacity as a private citizen. This is why whistleblowing is possible. UF is saying they cannot be expert witnesses affiliated with the university per their process explicitly outlined in the article. It would be another thing if they were trying to testify in another capacity and UF was trying to stop them.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      An expert witness acts as a servant of the court, not as the agent of their employer. Naming the UoF as your employer is simply stating the truth to the court about your credentials; it doesn't mean the UoF has to take responsibility for your testimony.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        I agree, but the entire point of the article is that UoF has had an agreement in place with all employees saying that they must get approval in order to serve as an expert witness to begin with.

dahart 5y ago

> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” > in other words, they can testify for free No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?

endisneigh 5y ago
> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” No, I didn't. "or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves." > No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea? They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes. Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018. This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruver_v_barton_-_expert_report_of_daniel_a._smith_ph.d.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...
- dahart 5y ago
  I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”. > There's no conspiracy here. What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting. *edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.
  - 5y ago

AlexandrB 5y ago

> the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF. > obviously UF wouldn't want that. This part is ridiculous. The "State of Florida" doesn't fund the UF, the Florida taxpayers do! And it's in the taxpayers' interest to get good, equitable laws - not whatever the lawmakers plop out for their own self-interest. The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true.

vkou 5y ago
> The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida is the real scandal if this is true. You must be new to southern politics, if you think this is a scandal.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The fact that there's a possibility that Florida lawmakers would retaliate against another public institution to the possible detriment of the taxpayers of Florida Like banning mask mandates by school districts and defunding them as punishment?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway" We gave up privacy of our most intimate files and communication 'to prevent crime', because apparently everyone of us is a potential pedophile. Joe should also give up his lifehood so that rule of law can function? God forbid an organisation would suffer the indignity of employees giving evidence in the court of law and having to answer some tough questions?