
Kansas Board of Regents restricts free speech for academics - Suraj-Sun
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/19/kansas-board-of-regents-restricts-free-speech-for-academics/
======
msandford
Considering that it's the Kansas Board of Regents and not say the Kansas
Legislature and Governor I'm not sure their right to free speech is being
violated. What I mean is that every job comes with restrictions on speech, you
shouldn't badmouth the boss, you shouldn't stir up dissent, you can't give
away company secrets or violate an NDA you might have executed. None of those
are in violation of the First Amendment since they're voluntary measures.
These kinds of things have been going on in the corporate world for many years
now.

The thing that's unsettling about it is that a paper getting published with
fake data by someone at the university would make the university look bad. So
they're saying that professors have to deal with those kinds of issues
privately which is really unfortunate. Probably means issues like that simply
won't be addressed at all and I do think that's a big loss for everyone, not
just those scientists who are directly affected.

~~~
wpietri
I think you're wrong on two counts: one practical, one theoretical.

The practical one is that state schools are arms of the state. Given that
their governor sits on the Board of Regents, I'm not sure they're effectively
distinguishable in the way you suggest.

The theoretical one is that universities are not like "every job". The whole
point of universities is to encourage bold intellectual inquiry. Academic
freedom is at the heart of what universities do. Whether or not they can
legally get away with trying to treat professors like serfs seems less
important to me.

~~~
msandford
I always thought that your right to free speech was as a citizen, not as an
employee. For example if you work for the President and you badmouth him, he
can have you fired. The distinction is that once you don't work for him
anymore, you're now free to say whatever you want.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. If my mental model for how free speech works
is wrong I'd love to find out. Especially if you can give me case law to look
at.

~~~
HarryHirsch
Practicing free speech is a duty for an academic - there is this idea of
"public intellectual". It's also the duty of the employer not to restrict it
in the name of political expediency.

------
coleifer
This is directly related to a professor's controversial tweet after the navy
yard shooting:

[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/nov/25/after-discord-
cause...](http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/nov/25/after-discord-caused-
professors-tweet-ku-journalis/)

[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/19/kansas-
regents...](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/19/kansas-regents-
adopt-policy-when-social-media-use-can-get-faculty-fired)

~~~
pessimizer
That's an absurdly low bar for controversy. If they're looking to police
innocuous comments like that, this particular comment is just a pretext.

------
danso
> _The Kansas Board of Regents just adopted a new social media policy, which
> allows Kansas state universities to fire (tenured and untenured) employees
> for “improper use” of social media. “Improper use” includes inciting
> violence (perhaps justifiable though potentially open to contentious
> interpretations), posting confidential information about students (fine) or
> posting things that are “contrary to the best interests of the university”_

If the OP's summation is correct, then this is quite a curtailment. Keep in
mind that it's not about the "reasonableness" of the rules, it's about the
actual implementation and more importantly, the chilling effect. In America,
how Supreme Court has made it so that the media has a considerable amount of
leeway when it comes to publishing falsehoods. This sounds absurd, but in
practice, it has allowed the press to be far more aggressive in its
examination of public figures (whether they are best taking advantage of it is
another debate)

Consider it this way: your company says engineers are allowed to brainstorm
and implement features, unless those features end up causing an "unreasonable"
amount of harm to the customers or to the company. Otherwise, just stick to
maintaining legacy code and having meetings. What effect do you think that'll
have on the engineering culture?

~~~
ahomescu1
> Consider it this way: your company says engineers are allowed to brainstorm
> and implement features, unless those features end up causing an
> "unreasonable" amount of harm to the customers or to the company. Otherwise,
> just stick to maintaining legacy code and having meetings. What effect do
> you think that'll have on the engineering culture?

Depends on the field. In software, there's enough competition between
companies for talented engineers, so some companies might offer "you're
allowed to work on harmful projects" as a hiring perk/bonus, for some
definition of "harmful" (for example, not directly profitable projects).

------
pseut
Additional reading (links from the article):

[http://www.philnel.com/2013/12/18/kansasregents/](http://www.philnel.com/2013/12/18/kansasregents/)

[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/19/kansas-
regents...](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/19/kansas-regents-
adopt-policy-when-social-media-use-can-get-faculty-fired)

------
adamwong246
Aaaaand this is why I'm developing an alternate, anonymous online personality.

~~~
sentenza
Well good luck, 'Adam Wong'.

Don't forget to use separate browsers, so you don't accidentally do something
with one account that you should have done with the other.

~~~
angersock
Don't want to do it the wong way, after all.

~~~
adamwong246
After 27 years, that joke is still fresh as ever. /s

~~~
krapp
As my last name is Rapp, I can sympathize...

