[mikeyouse]

It's worth knowing more details than the headline here:

1. Professor Joy Alonzo, who's an expert in Opiod harm-reduction gave a talk where according to all accounts, she mildly critiqued the Lt. Governor and state's preferences for punitive approaches for drug control and that they are considered Federal non-reporters on Opioid stats since they don't collect the data required.

2. Dawn Buckingham, the TX Land Commissioner has a daughter who was in the audience of the talk. (presumably) The daughter texts her mom, telling her that the lecture disparaged the Lt. Gov.

3. Buckingham immediately texts the Lt. Governor that Alonzo had critiqued him - the Lt. Gov then called the Chancellor of Texas A&M where Professor Alonzo is employed.

4. Chancellor texts, literal hours after the lecture was finished, that "Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week."

Absolutely clear cut violation of the 1st amendment. If they had any shame, everyone involved would resign.

[snvzz]

Everybody but the professor. Prof. did no wrongdoing.

[vel0city]

I don't like the actions taken here, but I wouldn't say its that clear cut of a case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos

When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violation. But that's not what happened, so I don't know it would be that clear.

[mjamil]

Are you arguing that a teacher at a public university doesn't have 1FA rights when teaching or giving their opinion on a subject they're an expert on?

I am skeptical if that is indeed your arguent. If university professors believed this, they would not take jobs at public universities; they tend to place a very high value on their ability to conduct research and express themselves freely on whatever subjects they choose.

[vel0city]

Are you really arguing that this hasn't happened many, many times in the past and yet people still take professorships at public universities and schools?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin

This case wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for a prof getting attacked by the state for stating something in a classroom. It's happened many times in the past too. Note this was the first time any court said there was a constitutional protection, and doesn't apply across the whole US currently.

[mjamil]

Yes, I was really arguing that. Thank you for correcting me. My incorrect belief was based on too myopic a view (I’m in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and forget sometimes that the rest of the country exists) and too broad an assertion (that all speech related to teaching is protected).

The case you pointed to was about speech “that criticizes policies and decisions of university administrations” and grants relief for that set of circumstances. That wasn’t the case here. I’m sure you can cite to this, but is there a holding where the case was simply about the subject matter and not criticism of administration policy?

[vel0city]

> is there a holding where the case was simply about the subject matter and not criticism of administration policy?

There is case law, yes.

https://casetext.com/case/vega-v-miller

I'm not familiar with exactly the comments which were said, so I can't really say what exactly happened. But there's definitely been many times in the past, many times that probably never resulted in some big legal battle that people wrote a lot about, where a professor was censured for how they conducted their classroom.

That said, I'm not really arguing TAMU/The State of Texas is in the moral right here. I'm definitely down to not give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but just hearing the idea that a non-tenured? professor said something potentially really bad that ultimately cost them their job, doesn't really strike me as something impossible and entirely without precedent. Things are different when you're a government employee and you're on the clock, often for good reason. Not that censuring professors for speaking potentially factual statements is a good reason though.

[mgraczyk]

There is a 9th circuit carve out for certain faculty speech in Demers v. Austin. Doesn't apply here but I think something like this could become a test case if she is fired?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin

[vel0city]

Yes, I do agree if this continues on it could be an interesting court case to watch as it makes it up the courts. Will the 5th circuit agree with Demers? Will we have a circuit split? Who knows.

[Turner1996]

She said Dan Patrick is responsible for an increase in deaths associated with fentanyl because they didn’t take her suggestion for testing strips vs more severe sentences for dealers and pushers.

[treis]

What did she say?

[lokar]

Tellingly, the school won’t say

[treis]

What does that tell us?

[SauciestGNU]

If there were anything remotely objectionable, the conservative officials would be screaming it from the rooftops so they didn't instead look like thin-skinned petty fascists.

[phatskat]

The article didn’t have any quotes and was apparently unable to source anything direct