Daily Archives: September 7, 2022

Last September, a professor at the University of Florida wanted to sign a scientific consensus letter about kratom, a tropical tree with pain-relieving properties. The faculty members proposal was forwarded to Gary Wimsett Jr., the universitys assistant vice president for conflicts of interest, who had a question: What did Ron DeSantis, the states Republican governor, think about kratom?

Kratom has been the subject of controversy, as scientists and policy makers weigh its potential benefits against the possibility of addiction and abuse. Oliver Grundmann, the UF professor, had concluded that kratom, at least for the time being, should not be reviewed for global classification as a controlled substance; he sought approval to sign a letter in his role as a faculty member stating as much. But Wimsett wasnt sure it was a good idea.

I do note the DEA has listed kratom as a drug of concern, Wimsett wrote to administrators, describing the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, and it would be important to know where the governor and the state legislature stood on this. If taking this position were adverse to UFs interests (i.e., adverse to the interests of the State of Florida) it would not be something wed want them doing.

Grundmann got the green light to sign the letter. But the discussion about kratom, which has not been previously reported, laid out a rationale with far-reaching implications: A professor opposing the state could be a problem for UF. Six weeks after that exchange, news broke that the university had applied this logic to deny three political-science professors requests to participate in voting-rights litigation against the state. That decision, first reported by The New York Times, set off a firestorm over academic freedom and free speech. A week later, under enormous public pressure, the university reversed course.

A Chronicle investigation reveals that the political-science denials reflected a more deeply ingrained practice than has been previously reported. Reviews of a professors outside activity, such as serving as an expert witness, were typically led by the universitys Conflicts of Interest Program. But awareness of the universitys skeptical treatment of politically sensitive cases was significantly more widespread. Administrators in the general counsels office, government relations, the provosts office, UF Health, the research office, and the deans of the law school and College of Liberal Arts & Sciences all had some knowledge of the approach. There is little evidence, however, that people across these units sufficiently weighed the trade-offs of this practice, which pitted academic freedom and free speech against short-term political considerations.

This article is based on more than 1,000 pages of public documents and court filings, recordings of legislative hearings and collective-bargaining sessions, and more than 30 interviews with professors, outside experts, and administrators. Taken together the interviews and documents portray a universitys radical departure from what many assume to be its purpose: Creating and dispersing knowledge without fear or favor.

The crisis had an unlikely point of origin, tracing back to a period of dawning national anxiety over foreign influence in higher education. Across the nation, there was a new premium on knowing exactly what professors were up to.

In 2020, a select committee of the Florida House of Representatives began a series of hearings, interrogating ties between state research institutions and foreign entities. Concerns about such ties had been churning for a while at the federal level, but Floridas state-level committee was the first of its kind. And lawmakers had reason for concern.

A University of Central Florida lab assistant had shipped submarine parts to China. Her boss, a professor, fled the country, and she was eventually sentenced to federal prison. A renowned cancer center in Tampa cut ties with six scientists, including its chief executive, over allegations that researchers had hidden connections to China. And at the University of Florida, a longtime chemistry professor was discovered, among other things, to be moonlighting as a vice president at a Chinese university. In total, four UF faculty members resigned or were fired after falling under suspicion.

To Chris Sprowls, speaker of the Florida House and the Republican representative who chaired the select committee, these stories felt like something out of a spy novel. Openness and collaboration are hallmarks of the nations research success, but those ideals had left universities vulnerable, Sprowls surmised. We all want to do great things for the U.S. and for the world, he told The Chronicle. But that doesnt mean that we get to invite the robber over for dinner, leave the house, then let them clean us out while were gone.

During legislative hearings, lawmakers identified deficiencies in how universities monitored professors outside work. UF, for example, had relied on an antiquated system in which professors submitted disclosures on paper with little centralized oversight. How were universities going to better defend themselves, lawmakers wanted to know? Marshall M. Criser III, chancellor of the state university system, gave an answer. Universities needed an electronic system for assessing conflicts, he said at a March 2020 hearing. And that system needed to be manned by independent experts, people who will decide if youre in conflict with your employers best interest. That employer, Criser said, is the State of Florida, as well as state universities.

The system Criser described sounded a lot like the one already being developed at the University of Florida. And pressure was mounting at UF to get it up and running across the university.

The new system had a wonky name: The UF Online Interest Organizer, or Ufolio for short. Professors would submit requests for outside work into the electronic system, where analysts would decide whether the activity was permissible.

Wimsett was chosen to bring Ufolio to the masses, overseeing the newly established office known as the Conflicts of Interest Program. A longtime UF employee who had previously worked in the College of Medicine, Wimsett had considerable experience in conflict analysis. His marching orders were to get everyone in Ufolio by the end of the fiscal year, ensuring universitywide adoption of the centralized vetting process and its attendant standards for approval. The stakes were high. Wimsett wrote in a spring-2020 email that state and federal authorities believe we are not doing enough to safeguard the integrity of the institution respecting foreign influence, IP theft, and worse.

Though some professors welcomed Ufolios convenience, Wimsett met some resistance. One law professor provided surprisingly sharp feedback, Wimsett said in an email, rebuking his office for an insipid process. But Wimsett pressed on, with the backing of UFs top brass. When his aggressive timeline encountered some reluctance in another college, the provost told Wimsett to forge ahead: Youve got the moral high ground, he wrote in an email.

Wimsetts task was made all the more urgent in March 2020 with the passage of new legislation, which would soon become law. Senate Bill 72 includes language backed by the select committee requiring researchers at state universities to disclose outside activities and financial interests. Professors need to receive a determination that the activity does not affect the integrity of the state university or entity. Failure to disclose could result in termination.

Wimsett observed in an email that the language represents a much more aggressive stance toward nondisclosure. Faculty who have disclosed honestly will have a good insurance policy against some of the discipline contemplated by the new law, Wimsett wrote in May 2020, whereas faculty who have not disclosed will be in a precarious position.

The idea that Ufolio would help faculty members stay out of trouble was a common talking point among administrators at the time. Brian Cahill, an associate instructional professor of psychology, remembers sitting in on bargaining sessions in which the faculty union and university officials argued over aspects of Ufolio. UF officials always framed all this stuff in terms of: theyre protecting us. Like, this is a protection for us, too, Cahill said. He remembers assurances that the goal of collecting this information was not to hand out denials lightly.

But if the goal isnt to deny us, then why do you have to collect all this data, right? Obviously the goal is to tell us at some point, You cant do this. Otherwise you wouldnt care about all this stuff.

It did not take long for the first cracks to appear in UFs plan. In July 2020, just weeks after Ufolio was fully in place across the university, the dean of the Levin College of Law told faculty members in an email that participating in litigation against the state or a state agency is a potential conflict of interest. A professor must seek approval beforehand via Ufolio, wrote the dean, Laura A. Rosenbury.

Kenneth B. Nunn objected. He and some fellow UF law professors were planning to sign an amicus brief in a case that challenged a state law related to felons voting rights. Im sure you will not disagree, Nunn replied, that advocating on the behalf of exfelons is a laudable public-interest end that falls within the purview of typical activities pursued by criminal-law and -procedure professors.

Rosenburys expressed position would mean that a criminal-law professor could not engage in the practice [of] criminal law at all, without approval, as criminal defense is always adverse to the state, he continued.

In a later reply, the dean offered a solution, of sorts. She confirmed that the university would approve the activity, so long as Nunn and others participated as individuals. That meant the brief must clearly indicate that any law school or university affiliation is included for identification purposes only.

The mandate made the professors outliers among their national peers. In early August, Nunn and three other UF professors joined the amicus brief, without their affiliations, and with a footnote by their names indicating they were signing in their personal capacities. Of the dozens of professors who joined the brief, they were the only ones not to include mention of their institutions. (In another brief, the four professors names appeared with their law school and university affiliations. But that brief included disclaimers noting that the information was for identification purposes only.)

A kernel of an idea in the law-school debate proved to be important. When the university developed Ufolio, it flagged for scrutiny any activity that might adversely affect the universitys interests. That amorphous language gave the conflicts-of-interest office wide discretion.

Theres this catch-all phrase, adverse to UFs interests, which suddenly could just include everything, said Danaya C. Wright, a law professor and chair-elect of the Faculty Senate.

Within UFs Conflicts of Interest Program there was a powerful working assumption: The interests of the university and the state were one and the same. It was not an idea born of thin air. Under Florida statute, state universities are defined as agencies of the state which belong to and are part of the executive branch of state government. Few in higher education, however, would equate a public university with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Neal H. Hutchens, a professor of higher education at the University of Kentucky, said there are important distinctions between universities and other state agencies. If you go to other governmental agencies, youre not going to find academic-freedom statements, said Hutchens, who writes about higher-education law. Youre not going to find a statement at the DMV that says, When you are handing out car registrations, youre supposed to engage in philosophical conversations. Those kinds of statements are not adopted in other governmental agencies because thats not their function. But colleges and universities, at their core, are supposed to be places of exploration and discovery.

Public-college governing boards, like Floridas Board of Governors, were created in part to establish a buffer between universities and the state, Hutchens said.

When you say that the university is no different than any other state agency, Hutchens said, youre setting up a very hierarchical system where employees are essentially subject to complete levels of control. But you cant really have that and have a real university There is a choice to be made.

There is little evidence, though, that the weighty choice confronting UF was discussed or considered before the controversy spilled into public view. John G. Harris, a former chairman of UFs department of electrical and computer engineering, said that he does not recall any mention of academic freedom when his department participated in a Ufolio pilot program. I, and the faculty in my department, would have been flabbergasted if something that we were doing would have been blocked because of political interest, said Harris, who is now dean of the College of Engineering and Science at the Florida Institute of Technology, a private college in Melbourne, Fla.

W. Kent Fuchs, UFs president, and Morteza (Mori) Hosseini, the university boards chairman and a longtime Republican donor, have said that Governor DeSantis had no influence on the expert-witness denials. The Chronicles investigation found no evidence to the contrary. What is clear, however, is that a series of bureaucratic determinations, emanating from the quotidian corners of UFs administrative wing, placed strict new limits on what academic researchers could do. But none of this appeared to have been on the mind of the universitys highest-ranking research officer. David P. Norton, UFs vice president for research, told The Chronicle in a recent interview that his focus regarding Ufolio was limited primarily to the mechanics of the system.

We were just trying to get our hands around, How do we enforce the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of the policy that we have? without the nuances philosophically of something out there that may be at the boundaries, Norton said. We were mostly interested in things that were clearly of concern for the university relative to its conflict-of-interest policies and state ethics laws. That was, at least for my office, our focus and not so much in terms of that extension to freedom of expression.

Norton voiced his unequivocal support for academic freedom. At the same time, he said, questions about expert-witness testimony are not my lane. We dont weigh in on that, he said. Its legal. Testifying in court is outside of my expertise. I would defer to having others weigh in on that.

Wimsett, who issued most of the expert-witness denials, declined an interview request. So did Amy Meyers Hass, the universitys general counsel and Ryan R. Fuller, deputy general counsel. Steve Orlando, a university spokesman, said in an email that the lawyers wont be commenting because of pending litigation. Orlando, though, offered a statement: The conflicts-of-interest office would have denied the request of any litigation in which UF or the state was the adverse party to the side requesting expert services because UF is a state entity. This is recognized in state law and, historically, through collective-bargaining agreements.

Brad McClenny, The Gainesville Sun, USA TODAY NETWORK

Joe Glover, the universitys provost, also declined an interview request. In response to a detailed synopsis of The Chronicles findings, Glover provided a short statement via email. When faculty raised concerns about academic freedom, he wrote, the university acted quickly to clarify that it embraces our facultys right to academic freedom and does not consider viewpoint as a determining factor in considering whether to approve or deny outside activities.

Glover also noted that a special committee of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the universitys accrediting agency, had reviewed UFs revised approach to conflicts and found that it raised no questions about academic freedom. The committee did, however, determine that the university had paid too little attention to the potential problems with its processes regarding academic freedom before the controversy.

If there was a lack of discussion about these issues, it cannot be attributed to a lack of awareness among UF administrators. Public records show that the universitys posture toward politically sensitive cases was understood across a wide range of people in multiple units. Wimsett, who led the office, forwarded key decisions and the underlying rationale to COI staff. The general counsels office and Mark Kaplan, vice president for government and community relations, were directly involved in providing language for one of the political-science professors denials, according to David E. Richardson, dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, who spoke at a faculty meeting about having issued the denial. While the Conflicts of Interest Program sets, maintains, and enforces policy on conflicts of interest, the dean said, it would be inappropriate to view them as an independent body. On potentially, say, controversial issues they take cabinet-level consultations when needed, referring to Fuchs presidential cabinet.

Richardson and Kaplan declined interview requests.

It happened in quick succession. In the space of about three months, beginning in July 2021, UF rejected five professors requests to participate in litigation involving the state, citing conflicts of interest. The group included the political-science professors Daniel A. Smith, Michael P. McDonald, and Sharon Wright Austin, all of whom requested approval to participate in voting-rights litigation. In addition, UF turned down two pediatrics professors, Jeffrey L. Goldhagen and Mobeen H. Rathore, who sought approval to participate in cases related to mask mandates.

Goldhagens case set off a flurry of conversation among university officials, who weighed what it would mean to deny the professor. Goldhagen was a vocal critic of the governors executive order aimed at prohibiting school mask mandates, and the professor had been quoted in recent news articles on the subject.

On August 10, 2021, Mark L. Hudak, chair of the pediatrics department at Jacksonville, informed Linda R. Edwards, dean of the College of Medicine there, that Goldhagen planned to participate in two cases that are contesting the governors ban of mask mandates.

He intends to do this as a private citizen, Hudak wrote, but his expertise is inextricably bound to his medical experience and his UF employment.

Soon others were alerted, including Bill Young, now chief legal officer at UF Health; Wimsett; Eric H. Conde, an associate dean in the College of Medicine at Jacksonville; and Randall C. Jenkins, senior vice president and general counsel for UF Health. (Jenkins is the stepbrother of Jack Stripling, one of the authors of this article.) The following morning, Goldhagen submitted disclosures in the Ufolio system, requesting approval to participate in the cases. Less than an hour later, Young emailed Wimsett: Do you have five minutes to talk today or tomorrow? Txs.

Several of the emails that followed, some of which included a UF lawyer, were heavily redacted by the university, which cited an exemption for work product. But the emails establish that Wimsett consulted a bevy of university officials in the hours before denying Goldhagen. The circle of people on the emails include: Fuller, the deputy general counsel; Glover, the provost; Kaplan, the government-relations official; Colleen G. Koch, dean of the College of Medicine in Gainesville; David R. Nelson, president of UF health.

Fear of blowback seems to have been palpable. At a politically contentious moment in the pandemic, UF was about to shut down one of its own experts. And he wasnt going to be happy about it. In an email to Fuller, Wimsett sent links to two news articles in which Goldhagen was quoted in support of mask mandates. In one article, Goldhagen said that sending children into unmasked environments was equivalent to putting them in a toxic swamp of Covid.

Hes not shy, Wimsett wrote. This could go south very quickly. (Wimsett then sent the links to Young, the chief legal officer.)

In another exchange, Hudak, the department chair, asked Wimsett what would happen if Goldhagen participated in the litigation without approval.

In my opinion Dr. Goldhagens advocacy is on the side of angels, Hudak wrote. It is morally persuasive and based on the science. There is no internal conflict of interest. This appears to be a political impasse.

I appreciate your comments, Wimsett replied. However, engaging in an outside activity without approval subjects one to disciplinary action.

Minutes later, Wimsett denied Goldhagens requests in Ufolio, explaining that outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida.

The language of the five professors denials was not identical, but each rejection reflected the underlying position that a professors challenging the state in court was a conflict because UF itself is a state actor. But it didnt appear to matter whether the state or governor were even named defendants. Opposition to a state policy position was enough to trigger denial. One of the mask-mandate cases, for example, involved parents suing the Duval County School Board, challenging a requirement that grade-school children wear face coverings. As Wimsett explained in his denial, participating in litigation contrary to the states position was a nonstarter. The State of Florida has articulated a position against mask mandates, Wimsett wrote to Rathore. The Duval County School Boards mandate is contrary to this position.

(The language of this denial has not been previously reported, and Rathore has not publicly discussed the matter. He declined interview requests from The Chronicle.)

It was around this same time that UF officials discussed the proposal related to kratom. Grundmann, a clinical professor, had first asked an associate dean and a department chairman whether he could sign the scientific-consensus letter in his capacity as a UF faculty member. The request was eventually forwarded to five administrators, including Wimsett. In an email to Norton, the research vice president, and Chris J. Hass, associate provost for academic and faculty affairs, Wimsett said that it was important to establish where the governor and the state legislature stood on kratom. But Kaplan, the government-relations official, said he did not have significant concerns about faculty members with subject-matter expertise on this topic signing on to this scientific consensus letter.

Meyers Hass, the general counsel, was consulted about the kratom letter as well. Wimsett said that her office would have more immediate awareness of things on the legislatures radar. But it is unclear what Meyers Hass said; the university redacted her response, saying it was an attorney work product. (Amy Meyers Hass and Chris Hass were previously married.)

In the end, the kratom case concluded without incident. Wimsett did his own research, uncovering a few filed bills but nothing with traction. Grundmann signed the letter. In emails to The Chronicle, he and Christopher R. McCurdy, another UF professor who joined the letter, said that they did not experience any pushback and had never been told by anyone at UF that they could not speak about their expertise.

In a broader context, though, the exchanges over kratom provide a window into how political considerations figured into administrators conversations about what professors should or shouldnt do. The job of the Conflicts of Interest Program, as outlined by Wimsett in these emails, included researching legislative bills related to a professors expertise. In the emails, no one appears to directly challenge this approach.

David S. Altman and Elizabeth Lynch, who worked as analysts with Wimsett in the conflicts program, told The Chronicle that they were not privy to conversations about the politically sensitive cases that have caused such a stir. But when asked specifically about researching legislative bills to evaluate conflicts, Lynch said, I cant speak to what Gary did. But I certainly dont do that. (Lynch is now acting director and Ufolio administrator in the office.)

Behind the scenes, UF officials cast the expert-witness denials as appropriate and defensible. But things looked different under the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny. On October 29, The New York Times broke the news about the denials in the voting-rights case, describing the ban as an extraordinary limit on speech that raises questions of academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

The news landed like a thunderclap. A complex story that had been percolating for years in the bowels of a university bureaucracy was easily reduced to its simplest form: One of the nations top public universities, rather than risk the good graces of an ascendant conservative governor and his allies, had muzzled its own professors. Whether UF officials had done so on direct orders or out of reflexive obedience was beside the point. In some ways, the second option might have been worse.

The bombshell report came amid other concerns about political interference at the university. Around the time the denials were issued, UF made waves with a fast-track hire of Joseph A. Ladapo, an associate professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who was DeSantiss choice for Florida surgeon general. The doctor, largely known for his skepticism about Covid-19 vaccines and lockdowns at a time when many public-health experts had embraced such measures, had been a polarizing pick for surgeon general. With a tenured position, UF sweetened the pot, supplementing Ladapos government salary and bolstering his credibility in the state. Emails obtained by the news media showed that Hosseini, UFs board chairman and a DeSantis adviser, had sent Ladapos rsum to the president of UF Health before Ladapos hiring by the university.

Its all related, said Goldhagen, the pediatrician, who was told by UF that he could not participate in masking cases. Its all part of the continuum of how a university could prostitute itself to the whims of a politician whose policies resulted in the morbidity of thousands of Floridians.

The denials did not deter Goldhagen. He participated anyway in two masking cases, saying the issue was too important to ignore.

After The Times article broke, the university said that it was only blocking the political-science professors from paid work as expert witnesses; they were free to do so pro bono. Intentionally or not, the explanation steered the conversation back toward the kinds of fears that had set UF on this path to begin with fears of moonlighting professors doing something other than their taxpayer-funded jobs. It wasnt a sustainable argument, though. Goldhagen, for one, said he did not expect to be paid for his work in the masking cases.

On November 5, a week after the Times article, UFs president reversed course, announcing that the professors would be permitted to serve as expert witnesses in cases involving the state regardless of compensation. By this time, the university was under siege. The three political-science professors filed a federal lawsuit, charging that their First Amendment rights had been violated. (Goldhagen and Nunn, the law professor, would soon join the suit, along with Teresa J. Reid, another law professor.) The universitys accrediting agency had pledged to investigate, and a congressional subcommittee would soon follow suit with its own inquiry.

Academics across the nation condemned the universitys actions. Among them were a group of 15 professors, who have served as expert witnesses in election-related cases and work at some of the nations most highly respected institutions, including the Universities of Wisconsin at Madison and of Virginia, and Princeton. In an email to Fuchs, UFs president, the professors wrote, Because the university is not a defendant in this litigation, it cannot claim that its interests are adversely affected by the professors engagement. Rather, administrators are taking the position that faculty must act in a way that does not affect the interests of a funder of the university. In doing so, the university has transformed academic freedom the right to conduct research and teaching without political interference into something that faculty have so long as their work meets with the approval and policy goals of state political leaders or influential university donors.

Even one of Fuchss predecessors let him have it. Charles E. Young, who led UF from 1999 through 2003, emailed the president and Glover, saying he was f------ mad, using dashes to avoid profanity. If correct, Young wrote, that article makes it clear that our university has sold its soul to the politicians.

Bombarded with criticism, UFs president did what college leaders often do in crisis: He appointed a task force. The group recommended that the university alter its conflicts-of-interest policy so that expert-witness denials in cases in which the state is a party would, in theory, be vanishingly rare. On November 23, Fuchs accepted the groups recommendations, which included the suggestion that UF create an appeals process. The task force also recommended that UF establish an advisory committee to review proposed denials of expert-witness requests for cases involving the state. (Under the new procedures, several requests that would previously have been denied were approved, the committee of UFs accrediting agency said in its recent report).

In early 2022, as the controversy cooled, Wimsett quietly left the university, joining a private law firm in Gainesville. Brian J. Power, who had been director of administrative services for the conflicts program, also moved on, taking a director position with the deans office at the UF College of Medicine at Jacksonville. (Power did not respond to emails from The Chronicle.)

In Wimsetts place is Carolyne St. Louis, who, in May, became UFs assistant vice president for conflicts of interest. St. Louis cannot speak to how the office approached conflicts before her arrival, she said in a recent interview. But political considerations are not part of the universitys evaluation process now, she said. Were not looking at political interests at all when were reviewing these disclosures, said St. Louis, who previously worked for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The political climate should not impact whether or not somebody gets approved or not. Then its not a fair process.

Orlando, the university spokesman, said that UF is in the process of drafting new policy language, which will explicitly affirm that the university does not discriminate against professors based on viewpoint. The university has never considered and would not consider viewpoint in assessing conflicts, Orlando said in an email, but will affirm that for clarity.

These changes come in the wake of a stinging rebuke, issued in January, by a federal judge. In a 74-page order, Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida said UF could not enforce its amended policy to block professors from serving as expert witnesses in litigation involving the state. Describing UFs new policy as a dolled-up version of the old one, Walker said the policy continued to suffer from myriad constitutional infirmities.

In a damning comparison, Walker conjured oppressive images from China, expressing consternation that UF had asserted unlimited discretion to restrict professors speech. Its worth pausing to note just how shocking defendants position is, the judge wrote. Walker took note as well that the university had never disavowed its old policy.

Anyone expecting contrition from university leaders has been left wanting. In his most substantive public remarks on the case, UFs board chairman focused primarily on scolding unnamed professors for a litany of seemingly unrelated transgressions. Some faculty members, Hosseini said at a December board meeting, had used their positions of authority to improperly advocate personal political viewpoints to the exclusion of others. Let me tell you, he said, our legislators are not going to put up with the wasting of state money and resources, and neither is this board.

In a recent opinion column published in the Tampa Bay Times, Fuchs and David C. Bloom, the immediate past chair of UFs Faculty Senate, described as meritless any allegation that UF had been kowtowing to political influence from the governors office. The column takes no overt position on whether the university had erred in its initial approach, beyond noting that UF leaders had immediately dealt with the situation.

While abiding by Judge Walkers order, UF officials continue to fight it in court on appeal. In a recent legal brief, a lawyer representing the university argued that the plaintiffs lack injury. UF had reversed its decision, allowing them to testify. The judges order, the brief argues, prevents the university from enforcing a conflicts-of-interest policy that UF is required to have under state law. The professors are not the victims here, the lawyers said: UF and defendants, in contrast, have been harmed.

Lindsay Ellis contributed to this report.

The rest is here:

Inside the Academic-Freedom Crisis That Roiled Florida's Flagship - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Liz Truss is not the first Conservative prime minister to see her carefully cultivated self-image quickly clash with political reality.

Boris Johnson was the prime minister who compared himself to the reckless mayor in Jaws who kept the beaches open despite shark attacks but then had to order the British population to lock themselves up at home during the Covid pandemic.

David Cameron initially sought to compete with Labour on entering office by pledging increased expenditure on education and the NHS but then oversaw brutal austerity cuts that pared back public services to the bone.

And on Thursday, Liz Truss, who has spent the summer promulgating the economic benefits of the small state, will announce one of the biggest government handouts in generations, topped only by the Covid response of up to 400bn, in her first week in office.

The new prime minister is regularly described as the most ideological in a generation, making no secret of her desire to emulate Margaret Thatcher through fiscal discipline, attacks on the unions, culture wars and a variety of outfits featuring fur hats and pussy-bow blouses.

She rejected calls from all wings of her deeply divided party to appoint a unity cabinet, surrounding herself with loyalists like Kwasi Kwarteng, Thrse Coffey and James Cleverly and bringing on board rightwingers including Suella Braverman and Jacob Rees-Mogg. While her team protest that she has handed out roles to some of her original leadership rivals, she conducted a brutal clear-out of every senior Rishi Sunak backer. Just a peppering of more minor roles were offered to his allies.

Her first international calls were to Ukraines Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who she reassured that Britain would remain a staunch ally and discussed the need to strengthen global security, and to US president Joe Biden, with the pair although never likely to emulate Thatcher and Reagans close bond reflecting on the special relationship and the shared values of freedom and democracy.

And at her first prime ministers questions clash with Keir Starmer on Wednesday, the domestic political dividing lines were drawn as the Labour leader attacked her on the Tory fantasy of trickle-down economics, establishing clear policy differences on a windfall tax on energy firms and cuts to corporation tax.

But despite all that, she will turn up in the House of Commons on Thursday to announce a massive public spending package that would be applauded by statists and goes against all of the instincts of her neoliberal free-marketeer clique.

What her announcement shows us is that even the most ideologically rigid politicians have to be willing to defer to pragmatism when faced with the harsh, cold realities of government in this case the cost of living crisis and the prospect of millions of families struggling to pay their bills this winter.

Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you through the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning

Truss will be aware that the energy emergency is the single biggest issue facing her government, and if she gets the strategy to deal with it wrong when so many in her party were arguing for a different approach her days in No 10 will almost certainly be numbered, either by yet another brutal putsch or at the next general election.

That she is willing to go from rejecting handouts to announcing a huge one of her own believed to be costing somewhere in the region of 130bn hints at a political dexterity that not many, including in her own party, have credited her for.

But they shouldnt be too surprised, as Truss, who U-turned during her leadership campaign over regional pay boards, has a long history of taking firm policy positions and then backtracking, whether it was suggesting steel tariffs when trade secretary or campaigning for Remain before becoming a fervent Brexiter.

Those who have worked with her insist that she has always been a logical thinker, focusing on practical solutions to problems across the various Whitehall departments she has led. The tensions between her ideological vision and the need to be flexible look likely to continue.

See more here:

Liz Trusss energy price cap handout will put her talent for U-turns to the test - The Guardian

AMMAN Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi on Tuesday participated in the 158th regular session of the Arab League Council at the ministerial level in Cairo, according to a Foreign Ministry statement.

Beginning his speech, Safadi said, We meet again, in a difficult time for Arabs, in which crises intensify, and others erupt.

The prospects for solutions are absent. The suffering of brotherly peoples increases, and our entire region bears the consequences of these crises: Security threats and economic pressures, the displacement of millions, and the loss of generations, he added.

He stressed the importance of launching an initiative joint Arab action which dedicates resources and exerts effort to overcome crises afflicting the Arab world, achieving stability, development and prosperity.

Safadi warned of the danger of undermining the two-state solution, adding that the continuation of occupation pushes the region towards more conflict, where there is no peace, security or stability without meeting all rights of the Palestinian people.

The foreign minister described any proposal for a solution that does not meet Palestinians' right to freedom and an independent, sovereign state on their national soil as absurd fantasies".

He stressed that "the apartheid inevitably dooms the two-state solution, calling it a hideous, inhumane condition, and a path to conflict, not peace".

Palestinians are still suffering from the scourge of occupation. Their land is plundered. Their economy is restricted. Their right to freedom and a sovereign state is violated. Our Jerusalem and its sanctities are facing the threat of identity change under Israeli violations, he said.

Safadi said that the two-state solution, which the majority of the world agreed to be the only way to peace, is being undermined by illegal Israeli measures, including constructing settlements, plundering lands, and displacing Palestinians.

Intensifying joint efforts is a must to push for a return to real negotiations to achieve peace on the basis of the two-state solution, which embodies the independent, sovereign Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, on the lines of June 4, 1967, he continued.

Undermining the two-state solution will cause more regional injustice, oppression and conflict, he warned.

The Kingdom, as you have chosen, has chosen peace as a strategic objective, he said, adding that we want a lasting, just and comprehensive peace to achieve security and stability and provide necessary conditions for cooperation and development.

Addressing regional challenges necessitates regional cooperation, he said.

Such cooperation is conditioned by materialising a just solution to the Palestinian issue, as there is no development without stability, he said, noting that there is no stability, no security, and no peace without fulfilling the rights of Palestinians.

Turning a blind eye to the Palestinian issue is an illusion, he said, noting that UNRWA must continue to provide its vital services to Palestinian refugees, in accordance with its UN mandate.

UNRWAs fiscal deficit threatens its ability to fulfil its duties and eliminating that deficit requires Arab and international contributions to UNRWAs budget, he said.

Turning to the Syrian crisis, Safadi stressed the importance of crystallising an Arab mechanism to resolve the crisis in a manner that preserves Syria, protects its people, and prioritises its interests over conflicting regional and international agendas.

Let us protect the right of Syrian refugees to live in dignity. Aid for them is dwindling, but their needs are growing. Host countries cannot bear this responsibility alone. Meeting the needs of refugees is an international responsibility, he said.

Safadi highlighted the need to resolve crises in Libya and Yemen and prevent further deterioration in Lebanon.

Supporting Iraq's stability and security is an Arab duty and a necessity to preserve the stability of the region, he said.

He also referred to Egypt's water security as an integral part of our national security.

Stressing the need to end the tension in the Arab Gulf region through a dialogue that ensures good neighbourly relations based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries, Safadi described the security of Jordan and the Arab Gulf states as indivisible.

He called for building relations with Iran in order to enter a new era of cooperation.

The Kingdom will remain a partner in activating joint Arab action, calling for comprehensive Arab cooperation, supporting Palestinian rights, devoting all its capabilities to protecting Islamic and Christian holy sites in occupied Jerusalem, which constitutes a priority for His Majesty King Abdullah.

We will work to confront climate challenges, achieve health and food security, increase economic cooperation that creates job opportunities, achieve Arab integration and comprehensive development, he said.

In addition, Safadi met with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Ahmed Nasser Al Mohammed Al Sabah and Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra to discuss regional developments and furthering bilateral relations.

Safadi also held a meeting with Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita and Libyan Foreign Minister Najla Mangoush.

The Jordanian foreign minister discussed bolstering cooperation with Oman Foreign Minister Badr Busaidi, Tunisian Foreign Minister Othman Jerandi, Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif Bin Rashid Al Zayani, Yemeni Foreign Minister Ahmed Bin Mubarak, Somali Foreign Minister Abshir Omar Huruse, Mauritania Foreign Minister Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed and Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

Read more:

FM stresses joint Arab action to overcome regional crises - Jordan Times

Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of the voting process Hilary Rodham Clinton.

In civilized democracies around the world, the constitutional architecture of public offices rightly prioritises the office of the president, prime minister, governor, mayor, member of parliament etc. Now, none of those offices would exist but for those who put them there and, therefore, to whom they are ultimately accountable: citizens.

The hypothesis therein is that the office of the citizen or, the citizen, is, upon the singular criterion of the power to hire and fire; more important that of the president, prime minister, mayor, governor, member of parliament or national assembly member!That is because all those office holders can be impeached for criminality, wrongful acts or omissions or a combination thereof by citizens, through their elected representatives. More importantly, sovereignty belongs to the people (citizens) of Nigeria from whom government derives all its powers and authority by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, (the Constitution). What would be the point of any government without citizens anyway?

Who then is a citizen? The Constitution specifies 3 categories of citizenship; first, by birth; second, by registration, and third, by naturalisation. Citizenship, by virtue of section 25 (1) (a), (b) and (c), encompasses; every person born in Nigeria before independence, 1st October 1960, either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs to, or belonged to, an indigenous Nigeria community. It includes every person born in Nigeria post-independence, either of whose parents, or grandparents, or any of whose grandparents is a Nigerian citizen; and every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a Nigerian citizen.

Subject to the provisions of section 26 therein and strict residency requirements, a person, whether single, or married to Nigerian citizen, may be registered as a Nigerian citizen if such a person is of good character, establishes a clear intention to be domiciled in Nigeria, takes the statutory oath of allegiance to the country. Section 27 of the Constitution also establishes the modus operandi of citizenship by naturalisation upon similar foundations as that of registration.

Thus, a de facto social contract is established by the Constitution between citizens and government in that the security and welfare of the people shall be primary purpose of government, and the participation by the people (citizens) in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution Section 14 (1) (a), and (b) therein, establishes that on the one hand; and, the fact that the people must abide by the laws of the land and, when abroad, obey the laws of those countries, on the other hand. That social contract in turn entitles, upon compliance with the relevant laws, people to the fundamental rights embedded in sections 33 through 43 inclusive of the Constitution. These include the right to: life, dignity of the human person, personal liberty; private and family life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression and the press; peaceful assembly and association; freedom of movement; freedom from discrimination; and the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. These rights are not inviolable and may lawfully be derogated pursuant to section 45 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.

Today, September 7, 2022, Nigerian citizens domiciled abroad that is, Nigerians in diaspora, are not legally allowed to vote in Nigerian elections from their countries of domicile. In other words, they have been, and are being, disenfranchised and discriminated against.

This is a clear and present violation of the explicit provisions of section 42 (1) (a) which establishes that a citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria or of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject.

The extant discrimination against Nigerias own citizens by the state, in violation of established constitutional provisions is perplexing and raises several pertinent questions.

One, is diaspora voting technology rocket science in the 21st Century? Alas, it is not! Afterall, if todays smart encryption technology enables natural and unnatural persons to undertake secure financial transactions on a variety of portable devices, across continents and diverse time zones, why not electronic voting in diaspora?

Two, is there an absence of political will? Self-evidently! The International Institute for Democratic & Electoral Assistance (IDEA) affirms that Belgium, Canada, United Kingdom, USA are some of the western nations with a mature diaspora voting mechanism. IDEA also establishes that Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Kenya (as recently as 2022!), Morocco, Togo and South Africa et al have implemented diasporan voting into their electoral practices. The implication is that if the identified African countries, including a neighbouring state, can implement diaspora voting, there cannot be an objective rationale for discriminating against established Nigerian citizens who wish to exercise their rights to participate.

Three, is diasporan voting a back burner issue, which should not be prioritised? Again, the answer is no! Progressive nations consistently advance the security and welfare of their people (citizens), economic development, prudently manage public finances and, concurrently, discard outmoded practices and policies through innovative reforms. Put differently, citizens rightly expect performing governments to multi-task, and successfully deliver, on cross cutting themes impacting their lives whether its fiscal or monetary policy, national security, healthcare transformation, infrastructure development, education policy and electoral reform, the subject of this treatise.

Besides, the Nigerian Diaspora Commission estimates that there are approximately 17 million to 20 million Nigerians in diaspora who remit in excess of $ 25 billion annually to the Nigerian economy. If Nigerians in diaspora are good enough to remit billions to the home economy, which fuels economic growth in agriculture, education, healthcare, real estate, generates fiscal revenue for all tiers of government and, therefore, increasing GDP, upon what rational logic are they barred from participating in elections from their places of domicile?

To put this into some global perspective, the right to vote was routinely denied African- Americans and women in swathes of America, British and South African history. So, although the American Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4th July 1776, and the U.S. Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, it took the abolition of slavery in 1865, through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1866, for citizenship to be granted to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves and established equal protection of the laws for all citizens.

Whilst the 15th Amendment in 1870 enunciated that voting rights could not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, colour or previous condition of servitude, women only received the right to vote in the mid-19th Century with the adoption of the 19th Amendment; which impeded voter discrimination on the grounds of gender.

In the United Kingdom, women were only accorded full voting rights via the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. This statute gave women equal voting rights as men irrespective of their age and property-owning status. And, after decades of apartheid in South Africa, free and fair multiparty elections were administered for the first time in 1994, which produced Madiba Nelson Mandela as the first indigenous President of that country.

The above abridged historical detour is necessary in order to afford legislators and policy makers a broader and deeper understanding of, and the rationale for, the robust quest for electoral reform manifested, in part, in the extant advocacy for diaspora voting rights. After all, it took centuries for African Americans, all South Africans and women, around the world to gain the right to vote. It would be perverse to turn a blind eye to this pressing issue which, arguendo, will reinforce greater participation by a wider critical mass and, by deduction, reduce perennial voter apathy. The inescapable corollary is democratic credence and not democratic deficiency.

Paradoxically, the Electoral Act 2022 is silent on the question of diaspora voting. Section 9, Part III, of the latter statute, on the National Register of Voters and Voter Registration, does not expressly define a voter. It only makes reference at section 9 (1) (a) and (b) to persons: entitled to vote in any Federal State, Local Government or Federal Capital Territory Area Council election and with a disability status disaggregated by type of disability. A reasonable inductive interpretation to this provision is that persons therein assumes the same meaning as Nigerian citizens with the 1999 Constitution (supra), who have attained majority and suffer no legal impediments to participation in elections.

Synthesising the foregoing, it is recommended that: (1) legislators, irrespective of ideological leanings, seize the political will and enact the necessary reforms to place diaspora voting on the statute book without further delay; (2) amendments be made to the Electoral Act and expressly define a voter for drafting precision; (3) because the legal impediments to diaspora voting either wittingly, or unwittingly, creates two categories of citizens. That is, those within Nigerian borders and those domiciled abroad; that dichotomy constitutes an affront to the rule of law and the equality of persons. There cannot be two categories of citizens within the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, the lacuna created by the electoral disenfranchisement of Nigerians in diaspora should be tackled urgently.

Paraphrasing Hilary Clinton above, morality dictates that the integrity of the voting process will be enhanced, not diminished, with diasporan voting.

Ojumu Esq is the Principal Partner, Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners based in Lagos, Nigeria.

Link:

The contract of Nigerian citizenship and diaspora voting - Guardian Nigeria