You must log in or # to comment.
The freedom to criticize our leadership is cherished. This professor should never have been suspended for legitimate and legally protected behavior. I hope she seeks legal remediation for this.
The Guardian has a more in depth article and mentions that Texas A&M has recently been under fire for bowing to political pressure
This is the definition of “fascism” - the bundling together of unrelated things
Nothing in this article suggests she was suspended for saying anything at all about him. The school has not commented on why she was suspended.
The chancellor was texting about her to the lt gov’s chief of staff, as per the article. That’s fairly damming – there’s no legitimate reason for the lt gov to get involved with a university professor.
There’s also no legitimate reason an opioid expert should be weighing in on political topics in a lecture. That’s not what the people taking her course payed for.
I’m as left as they get- but I’d be pissed too if she was lecturing on political bias. And that’s IF she even was.
If you read the guardian article, students barely remembered the lt gov being mentioned, and it was in the context of medicine, which the lt gov has made a habit of inserting himself into.
Also: A professor criticizing an elected official wrt their specialty is how the system is supposed to work. Experts ought to call out bullshit when they see it. An elected official using their office to silence that critique is gross at best and unworthy of our democratic ideals
If you want the government out of academics, then academics need to stay out of the government.
Keeping academics out of the government really explains your whole view point perfectly because no thought went into your statement whatsoever.
Clearly you didn’t understand what I meant. Not going to bother elaborating. It’s not worth it.
It’s because you can’t elaborate any further because what you said makes literally zero sense.
All you did was plug in the words government and academia into a saying that you’ve heard before. However, it doesn’t make any sense.
No, this is false. That way lies fascism. Anyone with expertise, academics included, has a responsibility to call out elected officials who are acting badly or advocating bad policies.
Elected officials have a responsibility to the people, one of which is to not punish private citizens for speaking their mind.
I mean holy fuck. Abuse of power doesn’t get much more obvious then this.
First off, the first amendment says otherwise.
Second, in this case, it was an expert on the opioid crisis pointing out that the lt. governor had made policies that made it harder for people with opioid addiction to get help or be safe without being prosecuted. And that naturally this had the effect of people not pursuing treatment that could potentially land them in legal trouble. She wasn’t commenting on the personal life of Dan Patrick, she was commenting on his policies and the consequences of those policies on a subject that was the topic of her lecture and her field of research.
What do you mean?
Many many disciplines in academia discuss current events, society and politics. Universities (and those they educate) provide valuable research and data that governments should use to help guide their decisions and policymaking.
Also, in a free society government shouldn’t be able to crack down on academics (or anyone) for being critical. Thats is free and healthy democratic society 101.
Your note reads a lot like “let’s not let any of the measurably smart people be our leaders”. Might want to work on that elevator pitch.
I’m not responsible for how you chose to read things. Seems like something you need to work on, not me.
Texas has policies regarding opioids, its treatment of people with addiction and it’s enforcement of drug laws that directly contribute to the crisis. For example, Lt. governor Dan Patrick is responsible for laws that remove protections for people seeking help with addiction, which naturally results in fewer people seeking help. His office is currently stalling a bill (that passed in the Texas House) to declassify fentanyl test strips as drug paraphernalia. These decisions obviously have an impact on the opioid crisis, which was the topic of her lecture.
From the article:
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.
Much of research is supposed to inform the public about issues and risks that we face as a society and examine the effects of decisions, including political decisions.
I think that some (most) professors have far too much leeway and impunity to do almost whatever they want, which can and has created many issues within higher education. I also think that topic should be talked about far more than it is. But if you can’t see the issue with this story, I don’t know what to tell you.
