4 ms·
> It says he must, among other things, “immediately refrain from using your university position or university resources in connection with your outside engageme
by msravi 4y ago
> It says he must, among other things, “immediately refrain from using your university position or university resources in connection with your outside engagement and activities for the personal gain of yourself or others”
How does this work? Isn't it very normal in US universities that professors are engaged in research with other (private and government) research institutions, use their university position and university resources, and are even funded by them? How/why is this "outside engagement" different? There must have been some basis on which the university put out this argument? What is the basis of this argument by the university?
- tyingq 4y agoProbably the specific outside engagement they wanted to distance themselves from was that he regularly gives expert testimony against deep-pocketed companies. They made it broad, likely, to also pull in other related activities and shield themselves. Without, as you say, considering the overlap with other common outside engagements.
- ModernMech 4y agoTypically as a professor you can fund your own research with grant money. That’s within the scope of the job. But the job is only 9 months, so during the extra 3 months you’re free to engage in employment that is separate from your job duties. Such engagements can be things like contracting or in this case, serving as an expert witness. In this capacity, you might say “my qualifications are that I’m prof C from university Y” to establish your credentials. However, you can’t say you’re from University Y without the University’s permission (in many cases). It looks like what’s happened here is that the Uni is revoking their permission to use their name, which is their right. That said, the professor can still serve as an expert witness. They just won’t be as “credentialed” in front of the jury, which may make them less desirable as an expert witness or serve to discredit him.
- kelnos 4y agoThat should not be their right. It's unconscionable that an employer should be permitted to bar an employee from making a factual statement on the record about their employment.
- ModernMech 4y agoThe professor is leveraging the reputation of the institution to augment their own in the eyes of the jury, and they're being paid a handsome fee for doing so. This fee won't be paid to the institution at all. Any organization on the planet has standing to sue you if you use their name for your own profit, whether you are affiliated with them or not. Maybe that's unconscionable, but I'd be far more concerned if that weren't the case; where anyone could use anyone else's name and not be liable for fraud, impersonation, or defamation.
- omniglottal 4y agoYou apppear to be missing or obscuring basic facts. "I am employed as a university professor at <X>" should never be a forbidden statement wherein it is (a) not fraud (b) not impersonation and (c) not defamation.
- ModernMech 4y agoWell the thing you're missing there is also (d) a for-profit enterprise while under employment. Please point out any employer who would allow you to go around using their name to make money on the side. Does your employer allow this?
- gopher_space 4y agoI'd argue that our need for expert testimony in the courtroom outweighs the desire of a company to manage their brand.
- ModernMech 4y agoPerhaps. But the way juries are conditioned to gauge expertise is by using the brand as a proxy. That’s why “Vanderbilt” professor can make $200k giving expert testimony, whereas professors at no-name schools aren’t even asked the time of day. If prosecutors want expert testimony in encumbered by brand dynamics, they are free to ask anyone. But they ask for the brand-names because they have more weight in the eyes of jurors.
- mola 4y agoThat's rather nuts. That your employer can forbid you from saying you work there.
- ModernMech 4y agoNo, the employer is forbidding you from using their name to turn a profit on your off time. What's nuts about that? Isn't it any organization's prerogative to maintain control of their brand, and their employees' use of that brand in the public sphere?
- nisegami 4y agoIf you have problems with an employee stating "I work for x" then the only reasonable recourse should be to let them go. How can you police stating a fact to that degree?
- ModernMech 4y agoYou frame this as "stating a fact" but it's actually "running a side business". Just because it is a fact, doesn't make the side business any less relevant. An employee is free to say "I work at X". They are not free to use the fact that they work at X to make money. > How can you police stating a fact to that degree? In the course of your employment anywhere, your employer is free to prevent you from making all kinds of statements of fact. If you do make them against their will, they are free to sue you for causes of action such as breach of contract.
- LatteLazy 4y agoHe is being told not to take university resources for outside projects. He can still presumably bring in outside resources for university projects. There is a big difference between those two...