> As FIRE explained in our April and May letters to the college, faculty have the right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern
The employee absolutely has the right to say whatever they want (well, not whatever they want… there’s a whole set of things they cannot speak about. They cannot slander, they cannot reveal trade secrets, they cannot break copyright, they cannot incite violence, etc).
But that does not protect them from the consequences of saying what they want. Especially from private entities, such as The Mayo Clinic college of Medicine and Science is a private institution.
Now there may be many reasons that this might be bad and that we should be opposed to it.
But not because there’s a right to protection from the negative consequences of free speech, since such a thing doesn’t exist.
Even though it’s a private university, Mayo has a written freedom of expression policy (copy here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/mayo-clinic-freedom-e...) that grants professors similar rights as those protected by the First Amendment for public university professors. This is typical for private universities. If you’re trying to attract the best faculty, you’re at a disadvantage if your professors are going to be muzzled when compared to public university professors.
There’s a large body of law built up around the First Amendment rights of university professors and public employees more generally. The fact the government is an employer in some cases doesn’t override the fact that it’s still the government and largely prohibited from regulating speech except in narrow circumstances where the First Amendment doesn’t offer protections to anyone (libel, obscenity, and a few other historical exceptions) or where the speech would significantly impact the workplace or learning environment. The latter isn’t a specific test used by the courts, but that’s essentially the spirit of the case law surrounding when the government can regulate the otherwise-protected speech of its employees. For private universities, contracts or even contractual expectations created by policies regarding free speech and academic freedom (like Mayo’s policy) can place similar restrictions on the university being able to act against an employee.
Every university behaves this way & all faculty are muzzled. It’s been this way for decades now.
This is just one exceptionally qualified & recognized individual who can afford to take the risk because the media celebrity he gains might compensate for losing his position.
He will be gone in the near term “for unrelated reasons” or blocked from ever taking a media appearance until he moves on.
Universities are businesses & brands. Their academic values are as useful as those of any other corporation - as propaganda.
Acetaminophen, aspirin, and ibuprofen (nsaids) are all wonderful alternatives to opioids that fall into this category. There’s also the placebo effect treatment.
The employee absolutely has the right to say whatever they want (well, not whatever they want… there’s a whole set of things they cannot speak about. They cannot slander, they cannot reveal trade secrets, they cannot break copyright, they cannot incite violence, etc).
But that does not protect them from the consequences of saying what they want. Especially from private entities, such as The Mayo Clinic college of Medicine and Science is a private institution.
Now there may be many reasons that this might be bad and that we should be opposed to it.
But not because there’s a right to protection from the negative consequences of free speech, since such a thing doesn’t exist.