The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Supporting Suit against the Mayo Clinic
Dr. Michael Joyner alleges the Mayo Institute tried to muzzle his public speech in his area of expertise
The Academic Freedom Alliance announced today that Michael Joyner, M.D. is suing the Mayo Clinic for violating his contractually protected academic freedom. The AFA had provided financial support in Joyner's efforts to resolve this problem internally, and it is now supporting his state suit.
In June, the AFA sent a public letter to the Mayo Clinic complaining about its treatment of Dr. Joyner. The Mayo Clinic adopted its current free expression and academic freedom policy in 2020, which promised that its researchers would be free to discuss their scholarly conclusions and opinions without fear of censorship or retaliation. And yet,
Dr. Joyner, a distinguished professor and faculty member with thirty-five years of experience, is recognized as a leading expert on topics of scientific and public concern. Over the years, in his personal capacity, he has participated in numerous interviews with the media related to his areas of professional expertise. Mayo Clinic's admonishments, written warnings, and disciplinary actions against Dr. Joyner—which include a one-week unpaid suspension, denial of any salary increase at his next contract renewal, and threat of termination of employment for failure to comply with Communications Department preclearance and oversight of media interviews—are a direct attack on his academic freedom. Furthermore, the restrictions on Dr. Joyner's ability to speak publicly on controversial and important topics is a serious restraint on his speech.
The Mayo Clinic refused to change course, and so Dr. Joyner has been forced to seek a remedy in the courts. From the AFA press release,
"As the complaint clearly states, academic freedom is a key guarantor of scientific integrity," said Lucas Morel, chair of the AFA's academic committee. "We believe this lawsuit will set an important precedent about the right of other scientists, doctors, and academics to speak publicly and freely on topics relevant to their expertise. Americans should expect expert commentary to reflect the scientific evidence, not the financial or political interests of the institution. We hope Dr. Joyner is awarded the damages owed to him for violation of his rights."
The full complaint can be found here.
Previous coverage of the controversy by CNN can be found here.
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
The first part showing the public letter is duplicated.
Fixed, thanks!
Well, mayo certainly is unhealthy; I didn't know it had gotten so bad they needed an entire clinic to deal with the health effects.
I think their main function is to dispel the myth that mayo is dairy-based.
Long gone are these days:
https://youtu.be/lWcq8vr8AV0
According to CNN the Mayo Clinic is upset by Dr. Joyner's use of the expression "rope-a-dope".
And "the 800 pound gorilla" is forbidden "idiomatic language." That made me laugh to see it in the complaint, juxtaposed against the examples of the CEO's use of non-forbidden idiomatic language. Yes, they made a federal case out of it! Hilarious.
It is a great expression of a technique made famous by Ali.
Wild guesses:
Contrarian views regarding the pandemic and vaccinations.
Expressed with mention of his Mayo position.
Which is unrelated to work on pandemics and vaccinations.
Spot on accurate among knowledgable medical professionals and scientists - though clearly contrarian to the woke science.
58 pages before exhibits!
Its a press release pretending to be a "short and plain statement of the claim" as the civil rules state.
The gist of the situation appears to be, Joyner’s bosses feared his statements criticizing the NIH would jeopardize funding. This pissed them off - most likely some higher-ups had to do damage control with the government behind the scenes. Also, Joyner’s bosses were already pissed from an earlier incident where he reported a Mayo business partner who he claimed was misusing patient data.
Overall, I think most bosses in Mayo’s situation would have been pissed, and would have wanted their employee to stop causing them headaches. But assuming Mayo’s commitment to academic freedom is legally binding they’re out of luck – everything Joyner said was protected speech on subjects of legitimate scientific concern.
One of Joyner's topics was sports performance and testosterone.
Mayo clinic also has a active transgender practice.
Joyner's discussion of testosterone and athletic performance most definitely conflicted with one of Mayo clinics profit centers.
Interesting. Apparently someone tweeted that his statement that "testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla" in sports performance was transphobic in associating trans female athletes with large primates.
The 800 pound gorilla has been a common phrase for decades. In the woke world of transgender ideology, it becomes transphobic.
The second point is that his statements are would never be controversial - until recently when you are expected to adhere to the world of transgender ideology.
It's the transgender climate change covid ideology. Apparently.
you are finally correct - its an ideology instead of science
It's about time!!!!
Next we need to have folk suing for being punished for denying climate dejour.
How about Plaintiff Dr. Ed?
Oh right, you have no employer, and no jury could parse your ravings.
I have an employer, penis breath, and what I chose to do with my life is none of your fucking business.
Yes, I could be making a LOT more money doing other things, but what I am doing right now is something I consider valuable so GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!!!
Your employer is penis breath?
Did you miss the commas, or not know what they mean?
You really may be stupid enough for the latter to be true -- so I will explain -- by setting it off in commas, "penis breath" refers to BrotherMovesOn, not my employer.
Although you'd think that one could figure that out from the rest of the sentence....
Oh, and ******....
This is a new one among the many things Dr. Ed 2 thinks he knows better than anybody, comma usage, but he doesn’t detect how silly his argument is.
Hint: the most obvious interpretation is that we both wrote a compound sentence, the first part of which contains an independent clause set off by, yes, commas. The two parts of both sentences are joined by a conjunction: his “and” and my “but” (which, in the Dorothy-Parker-sharp spirit of penis breath, he may kiss).
Tell me the truth…Dr. Ed is a pseudonym and you’re really a horse who once starred as the title character in an early 1960’s American TV sitcom, right?
(And wouldn’t a talking horse graduating from medical school and starting his residency at a hospital staffed by a range of wacky characters be a great dramedy? Call it Dr. Ed, MD.)
Dr. Ed, DVM...
LOL, Meat.
Looking for a new "partner"?
" . . . and what I chose to do with my life is none of your fucking business."
He sez while denying a woman the right to choose what to do her life.
The only choices a woman should get is who she marries and what she cooks him for dinner.
There, that's free speech, and while I don't believe it, the Overton Window has shifted so much that it needs to be said.
We're now into the third generation of American men to have their lives destroyed by feminism -- the life expectancy for men has now fallen to 73 years, now nearly six less than women.
I'm reminded of what author (and then insurance broker) Tom Clancey once said about the Naval Institute -- a group of people attempting to disagree while all arguing how great the US Navy is. Forty years later, free speech is increasingly defined as being free to express approved opinions.
For example, much of the world -- including the praised Islamic world -- considers the purpose of women to be barefoot and pregnant. Yet American free speech, circa 2023, does not permit one to advocate such an opinion. And the ultimate irony is that one is not permitted to criticize Islam, which does advocate that.
And we won't even get into what happens to members of the LBGT+ community in Islamic countries. They attack the one country (Israel) that won't brutally murder them.
So I'll say it, just because I am not supposed to: The only choices a woman should ever be allowed to make is which man she marries and what she cooks him for dinner.
this is easy, now I can just mute everyone in the entire thread.
Well, since Dr. Joyner blatantly failed to condemn Hamas during his many media appearances, he’s obviously a raving antisemite. As such, the Mayo Clinic is completely within its rights to reach out and cancel Dr. Joyner’s ability to breathe.
That's an important distinction often missed -- it's one thing to say nothing, something else entirely to be compelled to say the approved thing.
DEI is not just a prohibition on speech, but compelled speech.
This case isn’t about DEI, just in case you’re confused.
DEI is not just a prohibition on speech, but compelled speech.
A) Not really.*
B) Teaching is, on the whole, compelled speech. I’m not sure how many knots I can get twisted into about telling professors that they’re “compelled” to speak to their students with respect.
* There are some DEI policies that call for “advocacy.” If that word were deleted, which I would be in favor of, then this would be “not at all.”
This is still the censorship that you have to be a certified X to have an opinion in the first place. As an example, CLimate Change...the worst indictments of it (for me) were made by human rights folks who pointed out the inequity of crusing African development dependent on fossil fuels, and the policy analysts that pointed out that privileging this fantastic waste of money over more deserving humanistic goals is wrong, finally anyone who pointed out, in any way, the advantages of a putative climate change -- they were just not listened to.
Let eveyone speak, everyone, or you raise a generation of folks with NO CRITICAL FACULTIES at all
compare:
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/jensen-files-2-lawsuits-alleging-politically-motivated-investigations/
Sounds like he very mildly criticized a government agency on the topic of COVID. Can’t have that!
Many such cases of COVID fascists threatening medical professionals.
From the CNN article, Mayo's demands in their own words:
"discuss approved topics only”
“stick to prescribed messaging.”
“behavior changes must be immediate and sustained”
Yep, sounds like a leftist.
Isn't this supposed to be a law blog?
I must have missed the breach of contract analysis among the complaint's many pages of atmospherics. Plaintiff says the Academic Freedom Policy (exhibit A) takes on the force of contract. Okay, let's go with that. The policy says:
"MCCMS may restrict expression that... is otherwise directly incompatible with Mayo Clinic values and policies."
"Nothing in this policy prevents MCCMS from regulating speech or activity as allowed by law."
"...[F]aculty have the responsibility to make clear when speaking on behalf of oneself, not the institution... [and] should make it clear that the views expressed are the individual's own views, and not the views of the MCCMS."
The rest of the policy basically talks about research freedom and teaching freedoms in the classroom.
So where's the breach of contract based on "academic freedom"? Did I miss an actual contractual commitment from MCCMS somewhere?
Well I certainly agree that professors don't have special 1st amendment rights, nobody does, or should.
But I don't have enough information to comment on how robust their policy is in creating contractual rights.