Foundation for Individual Rights in Education on the University of Florida Matter

Here's their statement from yesterday; I expect it's short precisely because it was posted on the weekend, when some people have days off:

FIRE is deeply concerned by a report in The New York Times that the University of Florida has barred three professors from participating as witnesses in a voting rights lawsuit against the state of Florida.

FIRE has said it before, and we'll say it again: The profound civic importance of fair trials requires the ability of fact and expert witnesses to come forward to testify truthfully without fear that their government employer might retaliate against them. Public university faculty are no exception. We call on UF to reverse course immediately.

UF should be aware that Plymouth State University's ill-considered decision to punish faculty who had testified in a trial ultimately cost the state of New Hampshire's taxpayers $350,000. FIRE warned Plymouth State then, and we're warning UF now: If you pick a fight with the First Amendment, you will lose.

Here's FIRE's summary of the Plymouth State incident:

On July 31, 2018, Plymouth State University (PSU) punished two professors for their participation in a criminal proceeding. PSU adjunct professor Nancy Strapko testified as an expert witness for Kristie Torbick, a high school guidance counselor convicted of sexual assault, and professor emeritus Michael Fischler sent a letter to the court during Torbick's sentencing. After their participation was publicly criticized in the months leading up to Torbick's sentencing in early July, PSU refused to rehire Strapko and suspended Fischler from teaching until he completes Title IX training. On September 7, FIRE sent a letter to PSU reminding the university that professors' expression on matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment, and that citizens should not be disciplined for speaking on behalf of those facing the criminal justice system. On February 15, 2019, PSU settled with Strapko, agreeing to pay her $350,000 to avoid a lawsuit over her firing and agreeing to release a public statement acknowledging the importance of witnesses participating in the criminal justice process.

For my longer analysis, see this post.

Comments

[Gandydancer]

All the comments were disappeared???

[Gandydancer]

There currently are 16 comments on Somin’s post after this one.

And I thought I posted here already.

[iowatwo]

I know my employer will not allow me to volunteer to give testimony under oath as a paid expert. Expert defined by by bona fides due to my position with in the company.

Without the Profs position as state of Florida employees, under the direction of the Executive Branch, their opinion is of no value to those pressing the suit.
There are dozens of Professors across the Nation that could in fact be hired to answer questions under oath. But the optics is what is being bought, not the testimony.

[Sarcastr0]

The 1A is a right both of the listener and of the speaker. Even if your point about the listener still getting the message is correct, the speakers have still been silenced.

[Rossami]

Is your employer an arm of the state? If not, then your employer’s position may be morally wrong but it’s not a violation of the First Amendment.

I do think there is room within the First Amendment for a rule that respects and avoids conflicts of interest. But any such rule would have to be neutrally applied to all potential conflicts of interest. The facts available so far about this case weigh against the interpretation of this as a neutrally applicable rule.

[tkamenick]

This kind of thing is why I’ve never believed that government shouldn’t be able to act just as an employer. The idea that any employer just has to sit there and let their employees act directly against their interests and can’t do anything about it is fundamentally wrong.

[Darwinnie]

Not when it’s the government. This isn’t Wal-Mart.