The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Letter to Texas A&M
Professor suspended for criticizing policies of Texas lieutenant governor
The Academic Freedom Alliance released a public letter to the Texas A&M University System regarding its suspension and investigation of Prof. Joy Alonzo for statements she made as a guest lecturer in a class about the policies of Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. Patrick is well known for his attacks on higher education, recently pushing to ban tenure at state universities. Texas A&M was quick to try to mollify him when he got wind of a professor criticizing him.
The story was first broken by the Texas Tribune. Alonzo, a professor of pharmacy practice, was serving as a guest lecturer in a medical school class at the University of Texas discussing the opioid crisis. During the class, she apparently made some critical remarks regarding Patrick's resistance to Alonzo's favored policy responses. A student in the class complained to her mother, the Texas land commissioner, who in turn informed Patrick's office. Patrick's office pointed Texas A&M University System Chancellor John Sharp at Alonzo. Sharp immediately had her suspended and launched an investigation into potentially firing her. Meanwhile, both the University of Texas and Texas A&M sent internal emails cautioning professors against saying critical things about Texas politicians.
From the letter:
The American Association of University Professors has long emphasized that the freedom of classroom teaching includes the right of professors to introduce into the classroom controversial but relevant materials. The AAUP's 2007 report on freedom in the classroom emphasized that "ideas that are germane to a subject under discussion in a classroom cannot be censored because a student with particular religious or political beliefs might be offended." It would be "inimical to the free and vigorous exchange of ideas necessary for teaching and learning in higher education" if professors could be sanctioned because of the reaction of one or more students to the words and ideas being discussed. State university professors should be free to express criticism of state government officials and public policy when such matters are relevant to topics under discussion in a class.
Alonzo has since been reinstated, but the Faculty Senate at Texas A&M is demanding answers on what procedures were followed in this instance. This is the second black eye for Texas A&M arising out of political interventions in academic affairs.
The behavior of both Texas A&M and the University of Texas in this incident shows the fear being created in some state universities as a result of political threats directed against those universities. The climate for open inquiry in such states is deteriorating.
Again from the letter:
The Academic Freedom Alliance stands firmly behind Professor Alonzo in this matter. The university needs to take explicit steps to reaffirm its commitment to academic freedom and to reassure the faculty that they will not be threatened with termination if they say critical things about state policy when the discussion of such policies is entirely germane to the courses being taught.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sn...snowflakes?
Pharmacists always remind me of that guy in "Office Space" who's job was to "Liaison" between the Engineers and Customers, their main contribution is making sure patients know that their prescription will kill them (you know one of the most dangerous medications?? Tylenol) Used to be they just put pills in bottles, but now they don't even do that.
Frank
Tell me you've never worked in a medical job without telling me you've never worked in a medical job.
Exactly. My brother-in-law got his PharmD nearly 30 years ago, and his job is *much* more than "just put pills in bottles." And it always has been.
Most Pharmacists are frustrated doctors, which is why they do “Internships” and “Residencies” now (and insist you call them “Doctor” like “Doctor” Jill Biden, and OK, some of the older ones will crush some benadryl capsules, mix it with Calamine, and charge the Insurance out the nose. And don’t even get me started on the Nurse Practitioners, who don’t even take a Pharmacology course (they’re Nurses! they know everything by Osmosis) which is why you’ll see them prescribe peoples 2 NSAIDs, 2 Beta Blockers, 2 Beta-lactams, and mix up Dyazide and Diazoxide (honest mistake, should be Die-a-zoxide) Frank
> Nurse Practitioners, who don’t even take a Pharmacology course
NPs are required to have a MSN and/or DNP, which require courses in pharmacology.
> ... which is why you’ll see them prescribe peoples 2 NSAIDs, 2 Beta Blockers, 2 Beta-lactams, and mix up Dyazide and Diazoxide
Which is why pharmacists aren't just pill bottle fillers. A pharmacist's job includes coverage for contraindicated medications--both for health conditions and drug interactions.
People who’ve lived in Texas for any appreciable time know that Dan Patrick has long been known as a political thug who isn't the least bit shy about throwing his weight around. Even in a state with a long history of thugs rising to power, Patrick stands out. He even had that reputation when he ran a radio station in Houston. Color me “not surprised” by his actions in this story.
And by the way, Patrick has no interest in running for Governor because the Texas Constitution gives most of the real political power and clout to the Lt. Governor, who presides over the state senate, where he has complete control over what comes in and out of the legislature, including funding public schools and universities. He would have almost none of that power as governor.
Yes, the people of Texas hate Patrick so much, they keep overwhelmingly electing him. But I suppose you've accurately stated the sentiment in Austin.
The story does not state that Patrick took any "action" at all. It was Chancellor Sharp who suspended her. (I believe she has already been reinstated, so her "punishment" was essentially two weeks paid leave.) John Sharp, incidentally, is a Democrat who served as the state comptroller from 1991-1999. He is the last Democrat to date to have won a statewide election in Texas.
It is a mystery that someone like Dan Patrick can be re-elected time and again. The only reason that makes any sense is that his political clout attracts more campaign money than his Republican opponents can muster. He's always the last man standing in the GOP primary. He also gets no serious competition from Democrats, who haven't elected anybody to a state office since the early 1990s.
I know! those stupid Voters!, how could they keep rejecting Robert Francis Orourke (Because he's Robert Francis Orourke??)
Frank
The land commissioner called Patrick. Within two hours after the end of the lecture Patrick’s office had texted Sharp a link to the professor’s online bio. He most assuredly took action.
It takes a thug to deal with thugs -- there is a classic line in _The Untouchables_ where the Canadian Mountie says "Sir, I do not approve of your methods" and Cosner qua Elliot Ness replies "You aren't from Chicago."
The tenured radical thugs have been running wild for the past 35-40 years and I'm glad that -- at least in Texas -- they've finally encountered a bigger bully than they...
Damn intellectuals with their book-learning and peer reviewed journals. Friggin' "knowledge."
A lot of what passes for "higher learning" these days is crap. Some of it is highly pernicious crap.
You disagree, I'm sure. So, what do we do?
I don't mind crap (even pernicious crap) being taught in private schools. But having the public pay for dissemination of crap (especially pernicious crap) is outrageous!
The libertarian, live-and-let-live solution is to shut down public schools (like Texas A&M), while leaving private schools completely free to teach whatever they want.
You think anything in victim studies or the fields it's infected have anything to do with knowledge?
Where you hear when he was the sports guy for CBS in Houston and did a broadcast shirtless with his chest and face painted Columbia Blue to show his devotion to the Oilers? I haven’t been able to take him seriously since.
But he sure is thin-skinned if a barely noticed minor comment at a medical lecture at UTMB can cause him so much butthurt.
I think the Academic Freedom Alliance is doing good work. But I get nervous when academic freedom is separated from freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech must be defended as a right of all people.
Academic freedom can be defended as a privilege for professors only.
"Academic freedom can be defended as a privilege for professors only."
Bullshyte.
Back when the AAUP had honor, it made it clear that STUDENTS had academic freedom as well, and that professors had to both respect and defend it.
Students haven't had academic freedom for at least 40 years now, and I see no reason why professors should have it either...
The AAUP continues to insist that students have academic freedom, but the main reason students don't -- and never have had academic freedom in any practical sense -- is that tenure is the only guarantee of academic freedom.
So what specifically did she say? How are we supposed to evaluate whether what she said was "germane" to what she was supposed to teach?
Try reading the article.
I’ve posted that on the threads related to this story 100 times. They just don’t want to know how benign it was.
Which article? All the ones I've read on this avoid detailing what she said -- just like you.
I posted this for you the other day. I’ll post it again. You could really fucking try to find information if you were actually interested in it. From the Texas Tribune article:
“When students at UTMB received the email hours after the lecture, several started texting each other, trying to figure out what Alonzo had said that was so offensive.
According to one student who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the school, some students wondered if it was when Alonzo said that the lieutenant governor’s office was one of the reasons it’s hard for drug users to access certain care for opioid addiction or overdoses.
A second student who also asked to remain anonymous for the same reason said Alonzo made a comment that the lieutenant governor’s office had opposed policies that could have prevented opioid-related deaths, and by doing so had allowed people to die.
A third student who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said Alonzo talked about how policies, like the state’s ban on fentanyl test strips, have a direct impact on the ability to prevent opioid overdoses and deaths. A push to legalize the test strips died earlier this year in the Patrick-led Senate despite support from top Republicans, including Abbott.
All of the students interviewed said they felt Alonzo’s comments were accurate and they were not offended by anything in the presentation.”
Yep, anonymous activists are always the best source of guesses to support one's biases. Fact is this is a diluted version paraphrasing her, not a quote but it fits your narrative so it must be true.
Activists. You’re so fucking full of shit. Why comment on this story when y’all want to talk about garbage you’re making up? Why waste your fucking time?
Your name criticizes social justice people, but you’re no better than they are. You’re making up bullshit to excuse an attack on speech from your side. You don’t believe in anything except for political power, and you’ll sacrifice the civil rights of whoever to get it
You are what you hate.
Yep. The way it always is. They find it significant, maybe sinister, that everyone is conspiring to avoid telling what she said. Post the section of the FIRST ARTICLE written in this that describes what she said, and they don’t acknowledge it. Or address it. They just scurry away and post somewhere else in the thread that it’s damned suspicious that everyone is hiding what she said.
Nobody is hiding. You refuse to accept the simple fact that you have only anonymous hearsay to base your assertion on. Was what she said enough that she should be fired? Most likely not. Are schools not basically required at this point to investigate every time any snowflake says they're offended? I didn't start this fire.
These stories keep referring to "her comments", but never say what those comments allegedly were. It seems that is a rather important detail.
I am skeptical that she was suspended merely for "criticizing" a Republican official. As someone who went to college in Texas, hardly a day went by that a professor didn't criticize a Republican official. College professors in Texas are pretty much like college professors in the rest of the country, about 95% running the gamut from left to far-left in their politics.
My thoughts are along similar lines with one addendum -- advocating the violation of the law constitutes "moral turpitude" and that is grounds to fire a tenured faculty member. It's how/why Harvard fired Timothy Leary.
And this would be particularly true if she advocated the violation of the laws governing the practice of medicine in Texas, in a class taught to medical students in Texas. (That would also require the medical school to send out a disclaimer quite similar to the one they did send.)
This is in the media report: "Alonzo said that the lieutenant governor’s office was one of the reasons it’s hard for drug users to access certain care for opioid addiction or overdoses."
That sounds to me like a mandatory reporting law -- that MDs who provide care to such persons must report them to law enforcement for criminal prosecution -- which is what the law used to be in most states back in the '70s. And if she's telling MDs in training to refuse to do make these reports, to intentionally violate TX law, that would be problematic. Likewise if she was advocating prescribing Methadone or similar opiates in violation of Texas law.
Or if she were to have handed out Fentanyl test strips, which are illegal in Texas.
This would be moral turpitude which isn't academic freedom!
Good Lord, Dr. Ed, it seems we were typing similar things at the same time.
You are correct that "her comments" have been carefully censored from every discussion of the matter.
Censorship and concealment is a necessary element of "academic freedom." If what happened in each classroom was brought to the attention of the public which funds such classrooms, faculty behavior would change; even in the presence of the censorship and concealment favored by the AAUP caste, the public lacks the degree of trust necessary to continue business-as-usual (see, for example, https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx ).
The solution seems to be to "let geese Gabble and hiss" -- let the AAUPups bark until appropriately "debarked."
The lack of evidence is all the evidence you need!
No, he is not corrected. Witnesses describing her comments were included in the original article that kicked this whole thing off. I’ve posted that fact 20+ times on articles related to this stuff. You and yours absolutely refuse to go look at it. I wonder why?
Posting something repeatedly that is easily provably untrue doesn’t help your argument too much. Makes the rest of it ignorable. And the whole thing ignorant.
No, he is not corrected. Witnesses describing her comments were included in the original article that kicked this whole thing off. I’ve posted that fact 20+ times on articles related to this stuff. You and yours absolutely refuse to go look at it. I wonder why?
You can keep asserting this, but it still doesn't make you right. We've all read the article. Three anonymous people say "she didn't say anything offensive in my opinion" and you accept that, uncritically, as fact. We don't know what she said. Period. Just admit that FACT and then carry on with your, entirely credible, argument that she very likely didn't say something worth being punished for. (Which it ends up she wasn't).
Academic freedom seems a noble concept, however elusive it has been since Plato. But when taxpayers fund schools, elected officials who represent those taxpayers have a legitimate role in governing what is taught in those schools. For secular progressives to claim that their speech is protected by academic freedom while seeking to suppress the speech of Christians is not just hypocritical, but misuse of public funds - in the case of taxpayer supported schools from Pre-K to post-graduate level.
Private schools should properly be free to police speech and behavior, since their private status - in a free land - grants them immunity from restriction on speech, behavior, or other codes that pose no risk of physical harm to their inmates. Those who choose to send their dependents to such schools are free to choose whether to expose those students to the offerings of private schools.
That any employee should claim to be immune to management of the content of his instruction in a school by the proprietors of the school is an affront to reason.
For secular progressives to claim that their speech is protected by academic freedom while seeking to suppress the speech of Christians is not just hypocritical, but misuse of public funds – in the case of taxpayer supported schools from Pre-K to post-graduate level.
Putting aside your equating 'the speech of Christians' whatever that means to the incident here, how is this firing a misuse of public funds?
an affront to reason.
You sure do seem full of reason! Or something, at least.
I see conservatives make this argument all the time, and it is breathtakingly ignorant.
Academic freedom benefits the state of Texas, you numbskulls. Do you know how much money the University of Texas at Austin generates for the state? Research money? Patents? Smarter, more educated young people who start businesses and go work for Texas companies and the Texas government?
"They work for the state, therefore we can silence them" is reasoning on the level of a kindergartener. Yes, you can totally silence them. You can destroy the competitiveness of the Texas university system, and watch as resources and intelligent people are drained from the state and go elsewhere where their academic freedom and academic pursuits are protected. And then you guys will feel all smart, how you showed those pointy headed academics who is boss.
But you will also be poor and begging the states that respect academic freedom for assistance.
Academic freedom benefits the state of Texas, you numbskulls. Do you know how much money the University of Texas at Austin generates for the state? Research money? Patents? Smarter, more educated young people who start businesses and go work for Texas companies and the Texas government?
No. They have no idea. According to the university in 2020-21 it received about $740M in research grants, a little more than it got from tuition and fees, and more than double the state's contribution. And that's just UT Austin.
At A&M, Alonzo, per the article,"has helped bring millions of federal research dollars to the university,"
You have no idea that this professor is a progressive. Or what her political view is.
She described a policy situation where there are additional live saving drugs available for opioid overdoses but said that they weren’t available in Texas because Patrick blocked them. Literally one sentence while going through a lecture on saving the lives of people overdosing.
“additional live saving drugs available for opioid overdoses but said that they weren’t available in Texas because Patrick blocked them”
Yes, it’s known as “keep them high on taxpayer-funded opiates.”
And you CAN overdose on Methadone, I knew someone who did.
She's now up to the cemetery.
So now you're saying that just criticizing a state policy is grounds for discipline.
What did you get fired for, anyway?
Literally one sentence while going through a lecture on saving the lives of people overdosing.
You found direct quotes? Transcript? Or are you still making things up?
One must note that a pharmacy professor is not like an English or history professor. Pharmacists are bound by specific rules and laws in their profession that they must follow. For example, to purchase Claritin-D, one must go to a pharmacy and show an ID. You are limited as to how much and how often you can buy it. Perhaps a pharmacy professor thinks that is a dumb law, but, nevertheless, I think it would be a fireable offense for her to suggest student pharmacists ignore that law.
Again, not knowing what she said, as none of these stories tell us, if I had to guess, it was about fentanyl test strips. Though widely available for online ordering, they are technically illegal in Texas, classified as drug paraphernalia. Possession of drug paraphernalia is a Class C misdemeanor in Texas. (This is the lowest level of criminal offense in Texas, equivalent to a speeding ticket, with a max penalty of a $500 fine.)
So, if, hypothetically, she were flirting with the idea of counseling students to do or advise illegal activity, that would be problematic and beyond the scope of "academic freedom".
The Texas Tribune article quotes three attendees as describing what she said, but none of you jamokes want to actually be informed. Easier just to assign everyone to an assumed political bucket.
Do you understand that there is no way to deduce what the offending comments contained within an entire college lecture may have been from three quotes about the lecture?
Of course, you don't. But thanks for contributing your one cent. You've really furthered the discussion.
With all due respect, and I mean that literally, you are what, in less politically correct times, was referred to as a high-functioning retard. Yesterday, for only the second time, I blocked a user on this site. You will be the third. As I told him/her/them, it's not you, it's me. I just don't have any patience for your sub-Twitter level of stupidity.
Godspeed.
Didn’t read the article did you? You don’t have to deduce anything if people who were there tell you what was said. Most people there didn’t even realize that she had said anything about Patrick. The few that did said it was one simple thought.
I don’t know why I’m bothering with facts because you don’t care about facts. They might make it more difficult for you to wrap this in your political narrative.
Oh, and fuck right off for the personal insult, you pompous politically broken prick. With all due respect.
Oh, still plugging the one article with anonymous sources and no direct quotes? How very enlightened of you. Maybe try reading the article.
You don’t have to deduce anything if people who were there tell you what was said. Most people there didn’t even realize that she had said anything about Patrick. The few that did said it was one simple thought.
How would you know? Did you poll the attendees? That mind reading class must have really paid off. Was Sarcastr0 your mentor?
Wow -- *IF* she told med students that they could order an illegal drug paraphernalia on line, that alone is a big deal.
Good Lord. She said no such thing.
Maybe, but how would you know? Please, cite that stupid anonymous article which doesn't back up your assertions again. Nobody is hiding. I've got the spotlight out for you. Show me the money.
It’d be irresponsible not to speculate!
The ‘without her exact words I am forced to assume this isn’t what it looks like’ crowd are really showing what they care about, and it’s not speech, or freedom!
It's always best to withhold judgment until all the facts are in but this seems to be yet more proof that there aren't enough politicians hanging from lamp posts.
I don't see any evidence that these letters are, on the whole, helping promote academic freedom.
Perversely, given how little fallout results, they may be giving other university administrators the impression that they can violate all academic freedom norms with immunity.
I'm sure this qualifies as "an attack on higher education," but anyway:
Texas A&M is a public university. If it were up to me, I'd shut down all public colleges / universities. (Providing higher education is not a proper function of government.) But, as long as they exist, it is the public, through its representatives (such as Lt. Governor Patrick!) that gets to decide who gets to teach there and what they get to teach. No one has (or at least, no one ought to have) unfettered "freedom of teaching" on the public's dime.
Dan Patrick, King of Texas. Think he has King bro meetings with King Biden? I bet they like to place chess with their subjects used as pieces. And they share info on how to keep the serfs quiet and obedient.
I mean, fuck dat First Amendment someone hurts the king’s fee fees. Right?
“Providing higher education is not a proper function of government.”
Whole books have been written on what might be the “proper function[s] of government,” so a simple declaration such as this is not an adequate argument. Regarding one small dimension of your claim: is it a proper function of government to provide primary education? If so, what is the key difference that justifies one but not the other?
“...it is the public, through its representatives.... that gets to decide who gets to teach there and what they get to teach. No one has (or at least, no one ought to have) unfettered “freedom of teaching” on the public’s dime.”
Historically, public colleges and universities had to balance the principles of academic freedom and faculty governance against the principle of state government authority: to function as institutions of higher education, public colleges and universities were granted considerable levels of academic freedom and self-governance. That does not disappear simply because a state official is unhappy about a portion of a presentation in a class. Colleges that maintain rigid top-down control of teaching are generally ranked near the bottom in terms of quality, and most states have been concerned with maintaining respectable quality in their major public colleges and universities.
Once again this thread demonstrates that those on the right give no more shits about civil rights than those on the left that they hate. Fucking pathetic.
Really? Does it really demonstrate that?
"What did she actually say"
Bevis- "Shut up fascist, how dare you ask questions!"
"So, what did she say?"
B- "You hate civil rights!"
"..."
Well, so if we are talking about all these things, can someone here please recommend me some reliable online writing services right now? I have found this https://writersperhour.com/research-paper-writers and I would like to get more information about that one as well. Thanks in advance guys