A Professor Criticized a Public Official. Then Her University Suspended Her.
Texas A&M placed a professor on paid leave for criticizing Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in a lecture on the opioid crisis.

Joy Alonzo, an opioid researcher and professor at Texas A&M University, gave an uneventful lecture to a group of medical students earlier this spring. But a few hours later, she had been placed on paid leave, pending an investigation into a few comments she made about Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
While Alonzo was cleared following an investigation, that she was investigated at all spells continued concerns for a university already under fire for allegedly pushing out a professor over political complaints.
According to The Texas Tribune, which first reported on the case, Alonzo said she was reported by a student "who has ties to Texas A&M Leadership."
At first, Alonzo's presentation to University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) students on March 7—which focused on the opioid crisis and harm-reduction measures—seemed to go smoothly. But soon after, Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham—whose daughter attended the lecture—called Patrick and told him that Alonzo had made critical comments about him during the presentation, according to a Texas A&M spokesperson.
It's not clear what Alonzo's exact comments about Patrick were. The lecture wasn't recorded, and Alonzo and Buckingham both declined to comment to the Tribune. However, several students told the Tribune that Alonzo made comments about how the lieutenant governor's office has made it harder to combat opioid-related deaths due to its opposition to certain harm-reduction measures.
Soon after Buckingham complained to Patrick, an administrator sent an email to the class of medical students with the subject line "STATEMENT OF FORMAL CENSURE."
"The statements made by the guest lecturer do not represent the opinion or position of the University of Texas Medical Branch, nor are they considered as core curriculum content for this course," the email read. "UTMB does not support or condone these comments. We take these matters very seriously and wish to express our disapproval of the comment and apologize for harm it may have caused for members of our community."
By the end of the day, Alonzo was placed on paid leave by Texas A&M, and the school had opened an investigation into her comments. It took two weeks for the university to clear her of wrongdoing.
"The investigation into the matter was a reasonable step to take, particularly after UTMB issued a public statement 'censuring' one of our faculty members," a spokesperson told the Tribune. "In fact, it would have been irresponsible not to look into it."
However, free speech groups disagree. "Texas A&M's punishment of Alonzo to please powerful political forces is a stunning abdication of its constitutional obligations, deeply chilling faculty and student expression on campus," wrote the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in a Tuesday letter to the university. "When confronted with inevitable pressures to encroach on academic freedom—whether from powerful alumni, donors, or, as here, politicians—institutions like Texas A&M must abide by the constitutional principles that instill trust in our public universities."
As a public university, Texas A&M had no legal right to investigate Alonzo for criticizing a public official. However, considering that the school is already under fire for pushing out the recently appointed director of the school's journalism program following complaints over the professor's political beliefs, it's unlikely that the school will change its trend of eroding faculty speech rights anytime soon.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is all a bit muddled. We don't know what Alonzo said, she hasn't said what she said, she was investigated, and was cleared of wrongdoing.
Given the state of our University system, how student complaints are all taken deadly seriously (thanks Title IX, I guess) my knee-jerk is to assume the whole thing was bullshit. So it seems that what we're objecting to is the investigation itself... or the process.
For instance, if a professor at a Maryland public school had said, "I think that nigger governor Wes Moore should be hanged"-- would we call that "comments critical of a public official." Well, yes, in the most broad sense, we would. If a professor had made such comments, I would not be standing up and vociferously defending such comments from a professor (at a public university) as protected by some kind of Academic Freedom principle.
Bottom line, it would be nice to have a little more than "comments critical of the governor" before I can really have a strong opinion here. I am willing to assume that whatever these comments are, probably weren't that bad, because "[i]t took two weeks for the university to clear her of wrongdoing."
That would require some actual reportering. Journolaisming. You know, finding out the who, what, why, when, and where of it all. We don't do that at Reason. We just get a vague rumor of the what, then report what Vox said about it or something.
While taking risks and visiting far-flung locations, I make $100 each hour. Last week, I travelled to Rome, Monte Carlo, and ultimately Paris while working remotely. This week, I’m back in the USA. I just use this one ed48 fantastic website for easy tasks. see it,
.
.
Click here—————————— >>> http://www.join.salary49.com
This should be investigated by the accreditation bodies.
It's just a quickly tossed off blog post, you know, on a blog.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Tossed off sounds about right.
My only opinion here is we are being lied to. They cleared her and themselves which means nothing but they want it over. I’m going with the prog playbook here and assuming that what was said was so bad nobody is willing to repeat it.
It’s one thing to lay out the good your proposal or path can bring, it’s another to comandeer a class to give a mini stump speech blasting the opposition when they cannot defend themselves and given modern professors I think that’s closer to what happened here.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Because Reason has been pretty clear to point out that we don't know what was said, but the injustice was the suspension and investigation itself.
On that subject, I might even be inclined to agree. But because Reason has taken that position in a compete absence on the substance of the comments, I'm forced to interpret the argument to be just that: no investigations, no suspensions for comments "critical of a public official" even if the comment is [REDACTED].
That's certainly a position, but it's not one that I necessarily agree with. These are employees of the university system-- they don't have an unfettered right to continued employment in the public university system regardless of what they say, full stop. So given that I hold the position that there is no right to full, continued employment in perpetuity with a public university system no matter what collections of words and syllables escape your mouth while in the capacity of your employment, I simply can't raise my fist in the air and declare this a gross injustice. It might BE a gross injustice, but I have to file it under: needs more context.
"they don’t have an unfettered right to continued employment in the public university system"
The public university system doesn't have an unfettered right to keep its accreditation when it essentially lets faculty know that criticizing a public official gets you disciplined. Actions have consequences.
Also, a public university, as opposed to a private university, comes under the First Amendment. Texas, like most states (probably all states) has its on version in its own Constitution.
Ok, so a professor saying "“I think that nigger governor Wes Moore should be hanged” would not be a condition for any sort of sanction by the University. In fact, being an employee of the state (entirely 100% owned by the Public), the District Attorney should keep his or her job if xe said, in the capacity of their employment, "I think that nigger governor Wes Moore should be hanged".
For instance, since we're claiming (I guess) that being a public university, anything goes in the speech realm because it's 100% subject to the first amendment, then this is a travesty of justice.
I'm a UTMB grad. Before my recent retirement, I used to do medical treatment of opiate dependency, which is one meaning of "harm minimization". It is hardly leftist or woke and in fact is a very libertarian approach. Moreover, it is the only one which really works. Unfortunately, too many politicians inflict their own views about things they know nothing about simply to pander. BTW, I'm an MD, so I could walk out the door and get a better job were I treated this way. But it does no credit to the state of Texas, A&M, or UTMB.
When people talk about harm reduction, it is generally used to mean needle exchange and "save injection" programs. While medical treatment does help, there is rampant criticism that needle exchange programs actively support and spread the problem.
I don't know the data well enough to say if it is correct, but the criticism definitely exists
The lack of clarity does make me suspicious. Emma has shown herself to not be remotely trustworthy as well.
Since this is the first I've heard of it, I'll tentatively accept the given narrative and agree that the government's intrusion is wrong. Even while saying that, I will also say that that "academic freedom" is a bullshit concept especially when used as a cover for political activism on campus. I'm not necessarily convinced this is such a case, but most of these "academic freedom" arguments seem to be bad faith attempts to secure protections beyond the first amendment for partisans in academia.
It's not her. Even the closest thing to a primary source, the Texas Tribune, is distressingly vague about what was actually said, and the University has refused to explain.
One suggestion is that the complaint is protected by FERPA since it's a student record, and so the university is legally prohibited from revealing it.
If a professor had made such comments, I would not be standing up and vociferously defending such comments from a professor (at a public university) as protected by some kind of Academic Freedom principle.
Well, let me play devil's advocate. First, if this professor had said such things as a private citizen without speaking on behalf of the university and in her official capacity as a employee of the university, then of course I would defend such comments. At least, her freedom to make them without her employer (which is a public university) punishing her. I have a lot of tolerance to let people say horrible things because free speech is an important principle.
So the question is to what extent is she representing or acting in an official capacity with her speech. In situations where professors use the platform of their classrooms and the resulting power dynamics to enforce their politics, I'm fine with reasonable limits on speech-especially at lower levels where students don't actually have a choice about attending class. There should be reasonable limits on the degree to which the state is allowed to proselytize and propagandize to people under its power. This is the same principle as not wanting state agents, in their official capacity, policing speech on social media.
But is a private individual giving her specific thoughts on public policy as it relates to her field exerting a power dynamic? Freedom to criticize and condemn government officials is the whole reason we have the first amendment. If you don't have the right to say "That traitorous senator needs to be hanged," then you really don't have free speech at all.
According to the Texas Tribune, the context was criticism where she blamed Lieutenant Governor Patrick for deaths in the opioid crisis due to him not supporting harm reduction techniques like needle exchanges. However, that was third-hand from another student, and given the tone of the article, I cannot trust it completely.
What really matters is what the initial report to the school said. If the complaint said she called Patrick a murderer and urged violence against the government, then their actions seem perfectly justified. This is why filing a false police report is a crime. Because the process itself is a punishment.
If the initial complaint was falsified and deliberately incendiary, then that would explain all actions, and I hope the person responsible is properly punished.
'if a professor at a Maryland public school had said, “I think that nigger governor Wes Moore should be hanged”', no college administration could have kept that secret while they investigated. Most likely, several students would have recorded it with their cell-phones and posted it to youtube and facebook even before class ended. Even if no one had a recording device turned on, there'd be many people on-line quoting and misquoting the professor. It might be unclear the professor's entire statement was, but everyone would be reporting that he used the N-word.
So I conclude that whatever the A&M professor said, it must have been mild by today's (horrible) standards.
Anyone else notice FIRE, since they stopped being education only, is all about the right to leftist speech?
Like they got taken over. The vast majority of the chilling effect has been against right and centrist views, but here they champion someone who is bitching about making "harm reduction" measures more difficult, and harm reduction is very much a progressive dog whistle.
How about we champion the regular people who are crushed by the overwhelmingly progressive educational establishment. They might be more sympathetic victims.
March 22nd, 2023:
https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-north-carolina-greensboro-pro-life-chalk-messages-washed-away-other-students
On March 22 and 29, 2023, Students for Life members at UNC Greensboro chalked their views on university sidewalks approved for chalking, but other students took offense and erased the messages with water. FIRE wrote UNC Greensboro on May 8, calling on it to make clear that destroying other students’ written messages is not acceptable and to ensure the students who erased the messages understand the gravity of their actions.
The organization started out good and seemed willing to address these issues in an even-handed manner. Unfortunately, it looks like they became ACLU light very quickly.
I literally gave a recent example of FIRE defending conservative speech in the comment directly above yours, proving that Stuck in California’s assertion isn’t true.
When they started out, it was pretty strictly students and student organizations that people generally regard as powerless with regard to the University even when both were acting in more private, contractual obligations (the University acted only as a contracted forum for organizations that had 'attained permission' to recruit or hold membership within the student body).
Recently, they've moved to, rather exclusively, defending professors against any/all actions by University and/or Students. Which, considering professors have already been defended for the better part of a century, if not longer, and to the point where tenure is granted not even de rigueur, but as policy, and spouses are hired, again not even de rigueur but as policy, and Universities collaborate favorably (selectively) among each other in such a fashion (i.e. no other University is really going to give a shit about what was said about Patrick and some/many may even view it favorable) are not the group generally in need of any sort of defending.
Yes. Or, at least, Reason's coverage of them since whatever partnership took place has certainly cast them in that light.
As a public university, Texas A&M had no legal right to investigate Alonzo for criticizing a public official.
Alonzo said she was reported by a student
Am I just not thinking about this critically enough? Don't they have a responsibility to investigate complaints by students? They don't have a legal right to discipline Alonzo, but since they declined to do that, what is the point of the article?
However, several students told the Tribune that Alonzo made comments about how the lieutenant governor's office has made it harder to combat opioid-related deaths due to its opposition to certain harm-reduction measures.
Drugs good, Republicans bad. Got it!
Am I just not thinking about this critically enough? Don’t they have a responsibility to investigate complaints by students?
Yes. She was cleared of any wrongdoing. Unlike a whole host of other people in this exact same situation-- and were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to never have done anything wrong.
Abbott and Costello's 'Who's on First' makes more sense than this article.
Consider the source is the Texas Tribune, which is a notorious shitlib rag in Austin that notably gets amnesia on how to do "journalisming" when the information might help shed more light what actually happened, versus a bunch of conjecture.
So cite something from another media outlet that proves that the Texas Tribune screwed up. It should be easy to find one if it did.
This actually is a "local story". Why would any other outlet cover it? And why did Camp?
Are you upset because your ally printed up an intentially vague article that puts their enemies in a bad light, and someone pointed that bias out?
And in that vein, let me quote this particular jeremiad from one of Patterico's commenters today on this topic in comparing it to what happened to Bret Weinstein, since it perfectly encapsulates how the center-right thinks when it comes to Current Year politics:
"My point was this; I expect the Left-Wing Academic Establishment to shut down dissent, even the modest kind like what happened to Weinstein, who basically could not return to work because the socialist hardliners would not brook the notion that he wouldn't take a day off so that he could attend a seimnar that guilt-tripped him becuase of his skin color.
I did not expect that the Right-Wing Academic Establishment would do the same thing as the Left-Wing Academic Establishment, that my side was so intolerant of political dissent that they would shut it down and sack a professor who criticized an elected Republican official. Call me naive, but I thought that my party and the conservative movement were better than that (at least it should be better than that), that we could handle the criticism, that our ideas were so superior that, instead of autocratically canceling dissent, we would make the stronger argument, the better case in defending the conservative point of view, not resort to the Clintonesque "they did it, too" defense.
But no, the authoritarian streak in the Left today is apparently as strong and prevalent in the Right, and the case at A&M is Exhibit A, and it signifies the increasingly bullying and autocratic tendencies of the Trumpist Right. For me, this Jack Kemp conservative never signed up for that. It's that hypocrisy I was trying to point out."
Now, let's break this invective down a bit:
1) The article makes it clear that these situations were not, in fact, the same thing. One was investigated, cleared, and the professor went right back to business. The other was actually hounded out of the job. So already we not only have an apples to oranges comparison, the pompous, self-righteous moron complaining about it is completely wrong about the professor getting sacked. His outrage is entirely based on something that didn't actually happen. He thought he had a A:A comparison because the original reporting was intentionally vague and incomplete about what happened, but mostly because his types LOVE to whine about the right pushing back against the left in ANY capacity other than their own desired policy positions.
2) Note the hilariously low expectations the center-right indulges of the left. "Oh, I expect the left to act like assholes, so it's not a big deal. But I'm going to fan my face when the right does the same thing!" If only these people were half as zealous to prevent the left from doing this in the first place, as they are to cry about the right doing something that's only vaguely similar in an environment where they even admit the left does this routinely. The pretense is that, in politics, the left gets to act with impunity, while the right can only fight with one hand tied behind its back, because somehow the right's "ideas" are so awesome that they can one-shot the left with a snarky comment, and that no actual engagement on the cultural front is really necessary.
3) Note further the appeal to tired, glittering generalities about "ideas" and "stronger arguments" and "autocratic tendencies". This is exactly what I was talking about in the Jonah Goldberg thread about how these political dinosaurs LOVE to peacock about their supposed "ideas." But apparently their "ideas," and their arguments for them, are so shitty, weak, and self-serving that neither the left nor the right wants anything to do with them anymore.
I also love the pretense about the GOP being "his party." Bitch, it hasn't been "your party" since about 2009. These are the same idiots who want to "compromise" with a party who thinks it's acceptable to convince teenagers to get hormone treatments and cut their sexual organs off in service to a LARP.
In short, this is a classic example of why the self-styled "Kemp Republicans" and neocons are either a sliver of a faction without a party, like this moron, or are Democrats now, such as the Lincoln Project and Bulwark crowd.
One was investigated, cleared, and the professor went right back to business. The other was actually hounded out of the job.
Addendum: Another sterling example of BOAF SIDEZ.
Actual *both sides* - Universities and virtually all employers have the ability, if not right, and legal obligation to conduct investigations specifically to ensure their workplace isn't unduly or intolerably hostile to other employees or customers. The only way to separate the two is to divide the baby in half.
Your author's BOAF SIDEZ - Divide the baby in half (because the author chose to bring the two cases together and Weinstein was hounded out no matter what TX A&M did) because the biological mother isn't righteous enough.
Paid Leave. How awful. At least lefties can get a job at one of the 3or 4 most conservative campuses in the nation. Not so much like Conservatives at any solidly lefty campus (most of them)
When did saving lives become exclusively a lefty cause?
Pro life is pretty much all right wing. Defending self-defense is also almost exclusively right. What "saving lives" initiatives is the Left all for?
Opposing the death penalty.
When you are paid to speak on behalf of your employer, you need to conform to what your employer wants you to say. I’m not going to pay someone to say that my company sucks! Free speech rules don’t apply in an employment situation. Same thing if you’re a pharmacist and your employer wants you to dispense morning-after pills. You don’t get to go against the wishes of your employer just because you believe in an imaginary fairy who created the world in a week’s time, smites his enemies and aims hurricanes at gays.
If you don't like what your employer wants you to do, then GET ANOTHER JOB; the free market at work.
The Lieutenant Governor of Texas is not her employer.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The state is her employer. She spoke out against the #2 official in the state.
I'm the one being obtuse?
You don’t get to go against the wishes of your employer just because you believe in an imaginary fairy who created the world in a week’s time, smites his enemies and aims hurricanes at gays.
I'm not entirely sure where exactly, between yourself, your pharmacist, and your pharmacist's imaginary fairy that things detach from reality, but it definitely sounds like you've got some issues to work out among yourselves.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
This is Right Wing Cancel Culture. Same as the Left Wing Cancel Culture. Criticize the Red State governor's policies and lose your tax status if you're Disney, or lose your job if you're a professor.
How is this any different from people losing their jobs because they tweeted out something that wasn't politically correct?
Fuck both sides. Fuck this stupid ass culture war.
“How is this any different from people losing their jobs because they tweeted out something that wasn’t politically correct?”
She didn’t lose her job, this wasn’t the administration going after a teacher they didn’t like. That’s how.
You lose preferential benefits that literally no company in the state gets and that is, somehow, vaguely authoritarian.
"How is this any different from people losing their jobs because they tweeted out something that wasn’t politically correct?"
Besides no loss of job, you mean?
Brandy just isn't that smart, really.
Well, for one thing - there should be zero "state" universities. Government owned and operated education systems create an unnecessary and unresolvable tension between private rights and public authority. Private employers have the right - or at least SHOULD have the right - to censor or fire their employees at will. If government tries to censor a professor, it is - or SHOULD be - a violation of the First Amendment. The only solution is to immediately privatize all educational institutions in America.
Start making more money weekly... This is valuable part time work for everyone... The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week ... Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week...
HERE →→ https://iplogger.com/2SZsh5.link
Why doesn't the fledgling slack-jawed, superstitious bigot -- the daughter of a Republican state official who complained about the classroom content -- explain herself?
She had plenty to say when calling her mommy to complain; why so shy now?
I hope the other students refuse to speak with her, sit next to her, or acknowledge her until she graduates or withdraws.
pushing out
Lemme guess, same article where "refusing to hire someone who was not yet hired" = "pushing out".
A number of points here – first of all “combatting drug-related deaths” is not a thing; next government unquestionably makes drug-related deaths more prevalent with its war on drugs; criticizing the war on drugs does not constitute criticizing particular politicians – if a particular politician is responsible for the war on drugs they should own it, including the unintended consequences (or intended?) from their policies and legislation; and punishing a professor before the investigation finds them “guilty” is wrong legally and ethically. Professors are not in safety-sensitive positions of trust and deputized to use force on the public.
The Lieutenant Governor and the Land Commissioner and the A&M officials should all be placed on “paid leave” while they are investigated and see how just THEY think it is.