The professor, an expert on the opioids crisis, was placed on paid administrative leave and investigated, raising questions about the extent of political interference in higher education, particularly in health-related matters.
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
I’m not even necessarily on the other side of whatever argument you want to make. I just was pointing out that it didn’t make sense. I am also not going to put words in your mouth and try and extrapolate what you truly meant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh I can. But I’m not going to argue about it.
I’m not even necessarily on the other side of whatever argument you want to make. I just was pointing out that it didn’t make sense. I am also not going to put words in your mouth and try and extrapolate what you truly meant.
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.