Well it has been an interesting week. After word got out that I had been banned by my university from using their name on my blog with follow up actions, which was covered almost immediately by Inside Higher Education, there were quite a few comments on the internet. There were a number of comments about a double standard where others had used letterhead from the university to promote medications on behalf of drug companies, but they pounced on me for using it in a satirical piece, or where they pampered other authors with their own web sites and publicity but shunned me. BNET pharma speculated that their suppression of the press release of my book and subsequent squashing of publicity may have been a clever ploy (I think the word was “genius”) amongst the PR dept to create a conspiracy theory that would create even more publicity than a normal press release.

Actually the suppressed book release was over a year ago before they made the papers for too close ties to pharma. So it might have been a conspiracy, that actually wasn’t a conspiracy, that actually was a conspiracy. If that makes any sense.

But what was involved in the conspiracy probably wasn’t what he had in mind.

Gary Schwitzer showed interest in something that combines “academic freedom, double standards, and blog censorship.” Other comments are here and here and here, including one entitled “University Throws Doctor Under the Bus for Pharma Ties“. I liked that one, so here you go.

University throws doctor under the bus for pharma perks. That's Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA lobbying group, at the wheel.

It’s getting a little tight down here.

On the actual questions of fact, the head of the American Association of University Professors offered his opinion in the Inside Higher Ed piece that the university absolutely had no right to block me from identifying myself as a member of that university. This seems in contradistinction from the “policy” of preventing the use of the name for “non-university” activities which could be construed as anything other than buying pencils on your university account. I mean alot of professors are writing blogs, writing books, speaking in public, making movies, whatever, and I think it really strikes a nerve to say that they cannot identify themselves as a university professor in the things they do, which is why this case has basically drawn national attention. As for the blog, I think many professors see their blogs as an extension of their professional life, and in fact it is an excellent way to quickly express ideas on newly breaking events in their field and get instant feedback. Not to mention twitter.

Amy Philo wrote the following about this situation: There is a case called Garcetti v. Ceballos involving government employees that limits the employee’s right to free speech if the speech is considered part of their official duties. Therefore if your university declares your blog ‘personal’ that would imply that you could not be retaliated against for whatever you write on the blog. On the other hand having you remove their name could be considered retaliation since it does relate to academic freedom. However, in Garcetti the Supreme Court said that their decision does not apply to scholars / academic freedom, implying that a professor would still have the First Amendment right to say whatever they wanted.

Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline…

…The Court instead found a reason for limiting First Amendment protection to public statements made outside the scope of official duties “because that is the kind of activity engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government.

The Court also reserved for a future decision the issue of whether its analysis would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.

Hat tip to Amy Philo [this does not represent legal advice]

Last week I posted some musings on among other topics academic freedom and I got quite a response to this topic. The question arises how much am I allowed to talk about and what can my university do to control what I write (last week my university announced that they don’t want me to put their name on this blog because of a complaint they got about a satirical letter I wrote on my blog saying that mental health blogger Phillip Dawdy should be allowed to smoke in his appartment because of his mental health condition). They claim that this blog is for “personal” use it was a violation of their policy to have me use their name or letterhead for personal use. Which raises some interesting questions

First off, is this blog really “personal”? I mean all of the topics relate to my field in some way, which is medicine, health, medications, and psychiatry. Even the “personal” posts about things like my childhood or my emotions relate to my field because, well, I am a psychiatrist for Christ’s sake. What they were worried about was getting sued by somebody because I wrote a sarcastic letter supporting Philip Dawdy’s right to smoke in his own home. Which seems weird that they wouldn’t want their name associated with me.

Which gets me to the next point. If I were to say something like, for example, they treat professors more like corporate employees than academics, would they have the right to take action against me for criticizing my employer? Or is that a violation of academic freedom?

Legally there isn’t a good basis for academic freedom. How safe you are depends on where you live and whether or not you have tenure. In the US there is specific legal concept of academic freedom as apart from the 1st amendment to the US constitution that gives you the right to free speech without being retaliated against. But that protects you from retaliation from the government. So for professors at private universities, they don’t necessarily have legal protection, unlike in Germany, where academic freedom is the law. If you don’t have tenure, they can let you go for any reason. If you do, they have to let you go for cause, meaning you have to do something really bad, I guess. Maybe some of the legal eagles out there could write in and say what that is.

Remember that professor from Colorado who wrote a paper calling the 9/11 victims “little Eichmans”? Turns out they dismissed him for plagiarism and research misconduct, not for what he said.

In general your protection as a professor is all about what is in your contract at your university, and ultimately the culture of your university. So if having divergent views and saying stuff that is out there (we never do that here… Naaa…) is accepted as part of the culture of the university, then you are on good ground. Oh, and also if for-cause tenure is part of your contract.

After word of this blog and the issue of removing the name from my university got around, it piqued the interest of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and ultimately Inside Higher Education. I would quote the title of the article, but it contains the name of my university, which I am not allowed to name here.

You see how awkward this gets.

And how absurd.

Sarah Goodwin, head of media relations at my university, was quoted as saying “if you read [his blog] over a long period of time, you can see comments he makes that may be of concern.” She also said the ban on use of the university name on blogs was “across the board”.

I mean, give me a break.

As the article points out, Mark Bauerlein, an English professor who blogs for the National Review online, and Drew Westen, who blogs for the Huffington Post (I used to write for them too but would be ashamed to be associated with that swill these days) both prominently display the name of our university on their blogs.

Both Bauerlein and Westen are politically correct and garner positive media information for my university. Both also get mentioned in press releases, from which I have been unceremoniously dropped since writing my book, which was labelled as “anti-pharma” but which as anyone who has actually read it knows is just an honest review of the published literature on the benefits and risk of medications.

If you consider Goodwin’s comments, it tells you that: 1) someone from my university has been reading my blog for a long time, and; 2) they have been considering whether or not the comments should be censured.

Which is more evidence that they are thinking more like a corporation than a university, where the free exchange of ideas, regardless of the perceived value or political correctness of those ideas, is held to the highest standard.

Things are really starting to get weird around here.

I don’t know, maybe I am just an idealist.

Or maybe I should move to Germany.