5 ms·
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 acc
by mikeyouse 3y ago
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.
- snvzz 3y agoEverybody but the professor. Prof. did no wrongdoing.
- ubermonkey 3y ago[flagged]
- Domenic_S 3y agoPlease save the low-quality mudslinging for Reddit.
- phone8675309 3y ago[flagged]
- treis 3y agoWhat did she say?
- lokar 3y agoTellingly, the school won’t say
- treis 3y agoWhat does that tell us?
- SauciestGNU 3y agoIf 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.
- phatskat 3y agoThe article didn’t have any quotes and was apparently unable to source anything direct
- Turner1996 3y agoShe 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.
- vel0city 3y agoI don't like the actions taken here, but I wouldn't say its that clear cut of a case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos 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.
- mjamil 3y agoAre 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.
- vel0city 3y agoAre 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? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin 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.
- mjamil 3y agoYes, 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?