A State Attorney General Demands that a Professor be held "Accountable" for a Tweet

The Louisiana state attorney general seems unclear on the nature of free speech

On December 7, Lauryn Sudduth, an assistant attorney general of the state of Louisiana, appeared at a meeting of the faculty senate at Louisiana State University to read a letter from state attorney general Jeff Landry. The letter was responding to a faculty resolution regarding vaccine requirements at the university. Landry has been active in opposing vaccine mandates. The faculty senate resolution that Landry was criticizing was sponsored in part by Robert Mann, a professor in the School of Mass Communications and formerly the press secretary to several Democratic politicians in the state.

Mann took to twitter to criticize Landry for sending "some flunkie" to LSU to read his letter. Landry responded on twitter from his official government account, criticizing Mann for his "disparaging remarks" and expressing his expectation that LSU President William Tate will hold the professor "accountable" by taking "appropriate action" for his tweet, which has "no place in our society." Landry indicated that he had expressed these views directly to Tate in a phone call, and he subsequently released a letter he had sent from the attorney general's office calling for action against Mann. The response from the university has been muted at best.

The Academic Freedom Alliance sent a public letter to LSU explaining that Mann's social media posts are protected by the university's own policies on academic freedom and by the First Amendment and that the university should publicly reaffirm that it will not sanction professors for criticizing state politicians. It is particularly disappointing that a state attorney general would demonstrate so little appreciation of the principles of free speech. As we note in the press release:

Attorney General Landry is perfectly free to express his own disagreements with Professor Mann's tweet," Whittington continued, "but the attorney general went well beyond voicing disagreement when he used his position as a public official to pressure a state university to take action against member of the faculty. That is a line that he should not have crossed, and the university has a responsibility to stand up to such pressure."

Read the whole letter here.

Comments

[Union of Concerned Socks]

Christ, what an asshole.

[DaivdBehar]

End all immunities to prevent a solid justification for violence. The asshole should be fired for failing to understand enough con law. He is incompetent.

[Darth Chocolate]

Sometimes, the only appropriate response is "Fuck off".

[Enrique]

or: "ok, boomer"!

[m4019597]

I like a good “your mom” joke, especially on Sunday mornings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Landry is a multifaceted bigot who advocates for prayer in public school classrooms. He is a virus-flouting, science-disdaining, Tea Party yahoo who pushed 'stolen election' delusions -- in court.

That makes him a standard-issue Republican elected official these days, especially in our can't-keep-up south, but it is inexplicable that any legitimate educational institution would welcome Landry or his representative to campus.

He also may be considering a run for the Republican nomination for governor of Louisiana, which might explain his conduct and certainly says plenty about the gape-jawed, bigoted Republicans and conservatives of Louisiana.

Carry on, clingers. You know the rest.

[DaivdBehar]

OK, Boomer. Whatever. You need to be replaced by a diverse.

[Cheerio]

Good grief...how about simply celebrating some common ground where we can find it?

Prof. Mann's right to be free from such attacks is wholly independent of the merits of anyone's views or perspectives. (Though if anything, defending those with whom one *disagrees* with is especially praiseworthy - and all too uncommon.) We have to have some basic ground rules that are viewpoint-neutral, and be able to discuss those separately from any philosophical/ideological perspectives (such as what one might view as "bigoted" or "science-disdaining," etc.).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Common ground with whom? If Landry were not aware that Republicans would applaud this move (and many like it), he would not conduct himself in this manner.

[Cheerio]

"Common ground with whom?"

With the bloggers here (whose libertarian-ish leanings you often question...)

And although EV isn't the author of this particular OP, every indication is that he'd probably agree with it...

(Admittedly, Republican politicians are not consistent champions of free speech -- but neither are Democrats, so that's a wash.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" With the bloggers here "

Was that "s" a typographical error?

[Krayt]

You are right, but clearly puzzled why this blog would not defend him, and instead defends the Democrat.

[Roman Moroni]

Can we make a note for the record here that the Academic Freedom Alliance is defending a lefty against a righty, and that there's an article about it on this blog?

Some people think that never happens.

[arch1]

Bravo AFA (lefty here)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Some people think that never happens. "

It rarely happens. Prof. Kerr returns from exile occasionally. Some Conspirators, including Prof. Bernstein, drop the purely partisan polemics periodically. Profs. Adler and Somin rarely -- if ever -- resort to reflexive, downscale partisanship.

The perception you mention may be precipitated by the point that the pair of most prolific Conspirators are such pathetic, paltry partisans wallowing in cherry-picked, misleading ankle-nippery.

(Punch up the bass for this one)

[Roman Moroni]

I will forever disagree with your assessment of Eugene. Perhaps in part because I know him, and I'm very close to people who know him better than I do. I'm genuinely convinced that he's as principled and objective in his legal assessments as you'll probably find in any lawyer. I think he generally does an excellent job of separating his legal opinion from his personal policy preferences. And I'm very confident that his defense of free speech, both legally and in principle, is not limited to those that agree with him. Far from it. The only cherry picking he does in terms of posting stems from his varying degree of interest in any particular story. But that's why he started the blog to begin with.

My instinct here is that we tend to get less stories of free speech advocates defending liberals from conservative silencers is that those cases tend to come up less frequently in modern academia. And I know you'll be quick to bring up all those religious colleges with horribly restrictive speech and conduct policies. Believe me, I'm right there with you in my opinion of such schools of thought. But I just don't think speech conflicts come up very often in those places. I mean why would anyone choose to go to that kind of school unless they found all of those clearly advertised restrictive parameters to be a feature rather than a bug? It would be like choosing to go to a military school and fighting for your right to wear whatever you want all the time and to choose a haircut that better reflects flamboyant personality. I'm sure that kind of thing happens, but it's understandably rare.

Most mainstream universities, both public and private, don't market themselves exclusively to adherents of a specific dogmatic cult, where dissenting speech will be treated as blasphemy, and no one who doesn't already fully buy into the dogma would have any reason for attending or wanting to teach there. Because the vast majority of mainstream universities have a greater degree of diversity, in all respects including diversity of opinion, you get way more cases of speech conflicting with the orthodoxy of the administration. And since that orthodoxy tends to lean in a very specific direction, it naturally follows that most public conflicts involve the left leaning powers that be attempting to stifle the speech of dissenters.

Since you proudly admit that mainstream (right thinking, progressive, reason based, etc.) academia leans left, wouldn't this obviously be the case?

And if there are way more instances of the right stifling the speech of the left in academia than my intuition would lead me to believe, then I'm sure this blog would benefit from you linking to those stories - that might otherwise go overlooked around here - as they occur.

[Cheerio]

This is a very thoughtful and reasonable response to that poster -- not only for what he posted here above, but also to the general theme of his continual insistence that EV is somehow unworthy of serious attention (despite being widely recognized in legal academia as a top first amendment scholar).

Many on the left these days simply conflate their strong beliefs against something with it being somehow "out of bounds" or illegitimate. But of course, intellectual legitimacy is not something bestowed by one's ideological opponents - otherwise we'd all simply deny it to each other, and all strongly opposed views would be illegitimate.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Political correctness" has gradually expanded, so that now just about any views the Left opposes are treated as illegitimate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mr. Moroni, I thank you for the thoughts of a common patriotic citizen such as yourself . . .

I do not wish to diminish your affection for the proprietor, but ask you to consider whether that affection might incline you to excuse these points (among others);

1) the one weird trick (or is it a tic?) of publishing a series of out-of-the-blue reports concerning Black crime and other minority-related misconduct that feature little commentary and seem calculated mostly to lather up this blog's bigoted followers

2) this blog's cultivation of an audience that features a disturbingly strong concentration of racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes

3) this blog's bizarre record of publishing a vile racial slur (at least 15 different posts -- not comments, posts -- so far this year), seemingly whenever an opportunity for plausible deniability is perceived

4) this blog's blatant, partisan cherry-picking with respect to outrage concerning censorship

5) this blog's repeated, partisan, and continuing viewpoint-driven censorship of comments

6) recently, this blog's predictable pattern of actively and aggressively opposing psuedonymity in litigation -- unless a right-wing litigant seeks pseudonymity, in which circumstance this blog ignores the issue, refrains from litigating the point, and/or expresses sympathy for the bashful Republican-conservative

7) this blog's abandonment of its ostensible championship of free speech in the context of the current right-wing crusade against Facebook, Twitter, etc.

8) this blog's remarkably White, odds-defyingly male roster of contributors -- I omit "inexplicably" because there might be an explanation

9) this blog's silly, misleading reference to libertarianism -- with no mention of movement conservatism -- at its masthead

10) Professor Josh Blackman

With respect to your suggestion concerning spotlighting the censorship incidents (and interesting legal developments) this blog ignores to flatter its downscale right-wing audience, that would constitute a substantial part-time job. I see them regularly -- and can generally predict how little attention will be directed toward them by a White, male, right-wing blog with scant academic veneer.

A final point, motivated by goodwill: Watch out for that paperboy, Mr. Moroni. He seems a sneaky little bastage.

[Cheerio]

Well this is more substantive than the usual conclusory assertions about "bigotry" and whatnot, so I appreciate that...

Regarding the points:

- Several of them use terms like "seemingly" and similar references to inferences about motives. People who disagree with a point are often likely to assume bad motives (rather than honest blind spots), but a bit of goodwill in that regard would go along way.

- Likewise, several points allude to bias/selectivity, which has multiple potential explanations (apart from bad faith).

- Quoting a racial slur is quite different from "using" it, as generally understood, and using a term like "publishing" is a rather unfair obfuscation of that critical fact.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank you for the reasonable response.

If this is the best his defenders can advance, I am content.

[LongTimeListenerFirstTimeCaller]

Revcuntland, you read all that into a blog posting on current topics? Are little cismen talking in your head too?

Sounds like you need to start your own blog and show us all how "you and your betters" woud do it..
Revcuntland.com is available for purchase..(Checked for you, $15/yr)

Or how about
Myideasaresogoodihavetocramthemdownyourthroat.org

Don't worry about responding (for several reasons):
1. I don't identify at all on your list of the strawmen you fight here
2. I could give a shit about your opinion (other than good comedy and a sad commentary on the losing of the enlightenment period gains)
3. I won't come back here and see your response no matter how 'epic' you think it is

[bernard11]

Roman,

I am one of those who has been critical of EV for seemingly being eager to point out left-wing infringements on free speech and not much noticing right-wing infringements. I have also criticized him for being credulous of accounts from RW sources, like campus Federalist Societies and ignoring or downplaying responses from university officials.

I have not seen much comment from him on the various attacks on CRT, or anything vaguely resembling it. It is Whittington, not EV, who posted about the LA AG's efforts to suppress speech.

So while there may be more stories about left-wing suppression efforts, I don't think the actual ratio is as extreme as EV's posts would lead one to believe, and I think there is a major difference between students shouting down speakers and government officials threatening faculty, as happened and is happening in FL, for example.

So to me it does seem that he is seriously biased in the cases he chooses to highlight, and is in fact influenced by his political leanings.

YMMV.

[m4019597]

You write many words when fewer would suffice.

You also should learn to mute Kirkland.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not care whether you read my words, m4019597.

But I -- with the rest of the liberal-libertarian mainstream -- will have your compliance.

I am content.

[LongTimeListenerFirstTimeCaller]

Haha..how Orwellian..freedom is compliance.. That brown shirt and Jack boots fit you well Revcuntland

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I will forever disagree with your assessment of Eugene."

It's worth remembering that Kirkland's "assessment" of Eugene stems from a personal beef over a few deleted comments about ten years ago.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Is "demanding accountability" a violation of the First Amendment here? The left goes about and makes such a "demand" all the time (both involving state actors and not) and everyone acts like it is just a normal thing. Calling for adverse actions based directly upon the speech may be present constitutional concerns, but surely the administration can perform a myriad of other actions that would not (like simply saying "calling people names is not acceptable behavior...").

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't like this behavior especially when the government does it. But, it really isn't all that earth shattering these days now that the left has normalized using calls for censorship as a regular weapon.

[bernard11]

So some RW asshole does something ridiculous, and it's all "the left'" fault.

Try not to be such a jackass.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah because I wonder where this right wing guy got the idea of doing something like this.....?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nope. Not buying it. I don’t think you’re dumb enough to actually believe that the idea of politicians lashing out at critics for perceived slights was an invention by “the left” that right-leaning politicians discovered in the last few years or so. No one could be that dumb. So why did you post this?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Because it is true and not dumb. Most the right's behavior is learned from leftists. I'm not saying mimicking it is a "good" thing, but that is what they do. The AG thinks he has the prof in a classic "gotcha" moment so is using it as such. The problem is the machinery doesn't work that way for the right (unless it was a truly egregious case) so nothing is going to happen here.

[bernard11]

It is dumb.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. This is dumb. You’re smarter than this. I know you’re smarter than this.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Typing "it is dumb" over and over again doesn't prove anything except you have no argument....

[LawTalkingGuy]

You forgot the part where I said “you’re smarter than this.” Because you are. I know you are.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Ok lets lets assume a left wing AG sends a deputy to read a nasty letter in front of some professors. A right wing prof decides to call that person a few names (like "flunkie") in a social media post. What do you think is going to happen?

Are you seriously going to tell me that the response isn't going to be:
1. The right wing prof gets front page coverage demanding he apologize for his offensive comment. People openly questioning if he is capable of doing his job fairly if he will call just anyone a "flunkie" without cause.
2. The university issues some kind of statement about how its values are not reflected in the actions of this prof and maybe do some kind of murky investigation.

Here though because the politics are switched we get the "blah blah blah First Amendment" "so minor who cares" arguments. Or are you so dumb you can't see what is going on here?

[Krayt]

It used to work that way for thousands of years.

Most here can remember the astounding turn of events when Disney and others decided to give benefits to domestic partners.

That was against then cancel culture, wielded by TV preachers.

The idea this is some new thing is ludicrous.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Yeah because I wonder where this right wing guy got the idea of doing something like this.....? "

I figure eight-pound, six-ounce sweet infant baby newborn Jesus whispered the instructions in Mr. Landry's ear. Isn't that the cause of most sovereign patriotic citizen activity?

[Jimmy the Dane]

You do know that "baby" Jesus was the Son of God right? And that as such even in that form he would have presumably not been like any other typical human? Now, I don't expect your ignorant ass to actually know any of this, let alone believe it, but if you are going to be a jerk the least you can do is at least try to get your jerkdom more factually correct.

[Sarcastr0]

What a Jesus-like comment right here.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You do know what he did to the moneychangers in the temple, right?

Try reading the gospels, like the actual text, not what Guitar Jesus Sunday Preacher tells you, and you will see the man that was Jesus was not all that nice of a guy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" You do know that "baby" Jesus was the Son of God right? "

Are you gullible and dumb enough to believe that, Jimmy?

Please disregard this comment if you are 12 or younger.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the all anyone needs to know about baby eight-pound, six-ounce tiny newborn infant cuddly Christmas Jesus, in golden fleece diapers . . .

And if Jesus is all that and a bag of chips, why are we still without Mystic Mountain Blueberry Powerade? Try to explain that one, clingers!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Guess you will find out one day AK, won't you, if it is all some kind of lie or big joke...

[Flight-ER-Doc]

What exactly is the demand for? The professor said something the AG didn't agree with. Something that was clearly within his first amendment rights to say.

The AG wasted taxpayer money in sending a flunky to threaten.

18USC242 seems to be a valid complaint here

[Frank Drackman]

wow, death penalty territory, too bad LA doesn't have that portable electric chair they had in the 1940's (worked most of the time, and was always sucessful(eventually)

[Roman Moroni]

I imagine strapping someone to a non-electric chair would do the trick eventually as well.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

These days the electric chair is solar powered.

And highly inefficient

[m4019597]

But it would provide weeks of amusement.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

We're saving that part of 18USC242 for Mario Cuomo

[Sarcastr0]

Not even Bob is with you on this one. Congrats on being the king tool of the thread!

[Jimmy the Dane]

As usual you just straight up lie to make your point. Bob hasn't opined in their thread at all.

If you can't understand the double standard aspect of it then you are really the king tool here. If this were some right winger calling a leftie a bad name then we wouldn't hear the end of whatever -ism(s) were involved. But here because it is a leftie the 1st Amendment gets troded out.

Surely, you don't agree with calling people names and "flunkie" is not appropriate from a college professor. And surely you also see that the administration can make a value driven statement about the affair without running afoul of the First Amendment. Why shouldn't they do that here if the prevailing standard (being pushed mostly by the left) is that name calling is not OK?

[Roman Moroni]

You might very well be right that some aspects of this would play out differently if the ideology amongst the two parties involved were reversed. I'd like to think that the University would still end up not punishing the professor in any way. But I can't say that I know that for sure.

But if you can look at this from a slightly different angle, in terms of both long term strategy and principles, isn't it best to be on the side of free speech in general? I realize you can come back with something like, "but they started it!" or "why should we adhere to our principles when they don't?" My honest question to that approach is, what advantage to the implementation of your ACTUAL principles does that serve? I'm assuming in good faith that your goal is a less restrictive society when it comes to punishing dissenting speech, with the longterm purpose of allowing the marketplace of ideas to flourish, not just to reinforce your own currently held opinions about all things, but also to allow better ideas to win you over where you happen to be wrong.

Or is your goal simply to gain the authoritative power to implement all of your currently held beliefs as unquestionable dogma and to bathe in the tears of the vanquished tribe?

Is free speech and unpunished inquiry a goal onto itself? Or does it all come down to a struggle to decide who is the suppressor and who is the suppressed, just as the neo Marxists claim?

I ask that without judgement. Just seeking clarity.

[David Nieporent]

If this were some right winger calling a leftie a bad name then we wouldn't hear the end of whatever -ism(s) were involved.

Hypothetical hypocrisy is the worst kind of hypocrisy!

[Sarcastr0]

You once again rationalize your own bad behavior based on the speculative liberals in your head.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You ignored my question above and then just threw out a non sequitur. That is some good argumentation!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, your irrelevant question is working to defend this kind of thuggery as just a statement of values.

[Jimmy the Dane]

There is no thuggery here. It was just a wishy washy statement saying that perhaps the university should express its feelings on the situation. And I would take it they are not OK with name calling (unless they are) and a prof ought to do better.

[jb]

"As usual you just straight up lie to make your point. Bob hasn't opined in their thread at all."

Seems like a weird thing to write when Bob had posted in the comments several hours earlier.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"The response from the university has been muted at best."

So the University basically ignored the letter from the AG? If so, how is that not a completely appropriate response.

[Roman Moroni]

What the university should do is publicly express that they will indeed fulfill the AG's expectation to hold the professor "accountable" by taking "appropriate action" for his tweet. And then take the appropriate action of doing absolutely nothing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Silence is golden.

A state university snapping back at the state AG is foolish. Others, like here, can make the point.

[Roman Moroni]

You're probably right when it comes to the self interest of the university. It would be nice if institutions with a louder voice, especially locally, helped to disincentivize foolish behavior by government officials by pointing out their foolishness. But the down side of that practice probably outweighs the upside for university administrators.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps the university president should have sent a flunky to the AG's office to inform him that the university would be taking no action.

[David Nieporent]

Bob is right here. Fantasy roleplaying the university president, my response is "With all due respect, FOAD." (That was also my response when fantasy roleplaying social media executives appearing at Congressional hearings.)

But actually putting myself in his shoes, I realize that it is neither in my nor my institution's interests to spit in the face of a guy who has a lot of power in his own right and presumably a lot of powerful friends as well.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I feel that AG Landry should be aware that some asshole is signing his name to stupid letters.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Damn. He should lock his keyboard before he goes to the bathroom!

[Ridgeway]

I learned of that letter more than 20 years ago, and it still brings me the same amount of joy every time it comes up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Man if this guy thinks that a professor is tweeting that an unnamed Assistant AG is merely a “flunkie” is cause for so much concern, imagine what he’s going to do when he finds out what public defenders’ offices say about people from his office.

[F.D. Wolf]

What? A college professor criticized a Republican politician? Now I've seen everything. I'm sure his superiors will really take to task for that one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would educated, accomplished, modern Americans criticize science-disdaining, stridently ignorant bigots and half-educated, superstition-addled clingers?

That is your question?

[benji]

In his letter he says he's merely defending the honor of a LSU alumna according to the faculty handbook. A very valuable use of the AG's office.

[Greg J]

The faculty senate resolution that Landry was criticizing was sponsored in part by Robert Mann, a professor in the School of Mass Communications and formerly the press secretary to several Democratic politicians in the state.

Wow, because when I want good public health advice, I'm definitely going to go to a former press secretary who's now a "professor in the School of Mass Communications".

Actually, come to think of it, I can't imagine anyone who I'd listen to less than this creature.

Whether or not he's got an "academic freedom" right to tell the paymasters to FOAD, anyone who's listening to this dork about why we should have a "vaccine mandate" is establishing their gross stupidity.

Or did I miss the part where he also has an MD? No? He's just a Democrat political hack polluting the world with his stupidity?

Thought so

[bernard11]

So suddenly RWNJ's only want to take public health advice from individuals who actually know something, and not Tucker Carlson?

Give me a fucking break, Greg. You guys listen to anybody who tells you what you want to hear, or what Trump want you to hear.

You're laughable.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, come to think of it, I can't imagine anyone who I'd listen to less than this creature.

Apparently you don't own a mirror.

[David Nieporent]

Whether or not he's got an "academic freedom" right to tell the paymasters to FOAD, anyone who's listening to this dork about why we should have a "vaccine mandate" is establishing their gross stupidity.

Like Landry, you apparently haven't read the resolution you're attacking, which is not about imposing a vaccine mandate.