That wacky Florida!

[jimbogumbo]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/30/university-florida-professors-barred-testifying-voting-rights-lawsuit/6212864001/


Anyone heard of a similar circumstance?

[Langue_doc]

Here's the NY Times article:

After being hired as expert witnesses for groups opposing a restrictive voting law, three University of Florida academics were told they could not participate in the lawsuit against the state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/florida-professors-voting-rights-lawsuit.html

[mamselle]

I might go beyond "wacky" to "scary"....

M.

[jimbogumbo]

There is also a WaPo story. I just picked USA because it wasn't paywalled.

If this rule was in place in Indiana a century or so ago Pi would be 3 in Indiana.

[dismalist]

It is perfectly legal for a firm to regulate the outside economic activity of its employees, and to regulate it in the firm's interests. Now, the University of Florida is a public institution, so that the university cannot regulate the speech of its students or employees. I'm guessing that if the three were not paid for being outside experts the university could not stop them. This will likely play out in the courts.

I don't like such prohibitions, so I don't live in Florida.

[mahagonny]

After being hired as expert witnesses for groups opposing a restrictive voting law, three University of Florida academics were told they could not participate in the lawsuit against the state.

Yeah, I guess it's a restrictive voting law, but OTOH, every time a fraudulent vote is counted a legal vote is canceled.

ETA:

Anyone heard of a similar circumstance?

Yes, somewhat similar. Some years ago I could have been interviewed by a local newspaper about something in which I had a first hand information that contradicted a public statement made by the State University's representative. But I told the reporter 'no thank you' because I expected I would lose my employment if I did. So state universities, and I would expect, other state agencies, already inhibit speech of their paid employees, and doing so protects their status quo. The only reason we're finding out about this thing in Florida is the three of them have tenure. And, I expect, the reason they will win in court. But that win will not represent what people will think it does. Freedom to tell the truth is limited by your willingness to endure the retaliation. And when you're not wealthy there can be a lot to endure. by contrast, I predict these three will prevail and the experience will count favorably toward their reputations. This is how tenured academics see themselves as striking a blow for free speech while they're actually just availing themselves of their privilege, while usually stumping for left-leaning positions that are overrepresented in their fields.

[Aster]

Big Urban College once has a college president that told all faculty that anyone who was invited to talk to the press for whatever reason had to be personally cleared by her first.

She also said that all faculty were disposable and should only have a box's worth of items in their office.

[mahagonny]

The characterization by Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams et al of GA as 'modern-day Jim Crow' is not agreed with by most Americans, including a surprising number of BIPOCS.

[mamselle]

Are you on the wrong thread?

M.

[Ruralguy]

If you have the same answer to everything then it doesn't matter what thread it is.

[mahagonny]

There's only one correct answer here. It might as well be a math problem.

'What an outrage!'

[clean]

My employer has a similar policy.  We need permission to work for any party suing the state... We are prohibited from serving as an expert witness against any state issue.  My state has some oil interests, and this rule came to be after a professor (or a few) provided expert witness testimony that was used against the state that ultimately reduced the states' share of the money in oil revenues. 
I suppose that the powers that be dont want to pay for the experts in their employ to use their status as college professors (experts) against them!

Related, we have to get permission from (or at least notify) our employer before we contact any elected official!  As I understand it, I am not permitted to contact my state senator without first running it through the university first. 

[Aster]

My employer has a similar policy.  We need permission to work for any party suing the state... We are prohibited from serving as an expert witness against any state issue.  My state has some oil interests, and this rule came to be after a professor (or a few) provided expert witness testimony that was used against the state that ultimately reduced the states' share of the money in oil revenues. 
I suppose that the powers that be dont want to pay for the experts in their employ to use their status as college professors (experts) against them!

Related, we have to get permission from (or at least notify) our employer before we contact any elected official!  As I understand it, I am not permitted to contact my state senator without first running it through the university first.

Does your university actually have that as a written contractual policy, or is it just something that people say? For my institution, it was most definitely the latter. Our former president made something up, but there was no actual policy, and indeed, such a "policy" probably would probably not pass muster under our mission statement.

[clean]

All outside employment must be approved.  Generally, it is not much of an issue, but or expert testimony against the state, it is certainly not approved.

[clean]

Well, now that I have looked for it, I find that it WAS the law of the state, but that it was challenged.  So I am not sure if the state or the consulting faculty actually won.