"Look, you have freedom of speech, but you can't go this far"There's a very, very, very fuzzy line about how one represents one's employer when one is functioning in the public square. We've seen a lot of folks get in trouble over saying things in social media that their superiors (and/or the public) though reflected poorly on their workplace.
The most recent result of that is the Kansas Board of Regents revising their social media guidelines. Now employees (including University of Kansas professors) not only can't say anything that might create violence or disclose private or confidential information, but can't say anything that is "contrary to the best interests of the university."
Which will be judged, of course, by the Board of Regents.
Now, an employer has to look after its interests — and, in this case, the Board of Regents is apparently pretty darned scared of the Kansas Legislature, which holds the purse strings (just as the governor appoints the regents), and which had prominent members up in arms about a particular tweet by a faculty member after a shooting: "The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters." The lege, and some of the public, went bonkers, leading Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady of the Kansas Legislature to utter that lovely quote in the headline, in support of the new social media policy, adding, "I think having a clear understanding between faculty and the board of regents on what's acceptable and what's not is better for everyone involved."
I.e., don't say anything in public that might get the public upset.
What's particularly galling about this is how the regents and pols are trying to paint it as increasing "academic freedom" — apparently by providing clear guidelines about what you can't freely talk about. Except, of course, they don't. "Academic freedom" isn't defined by what the taxpayers or their elected representatives might get upset about. If you are looking after the "best interests" of the university, you are not acting freely. If posting an anti-NRA tweet is "contrary to the best interests of the university," then what about a tweet about climate change, or gay rights, or political candidates, or religion, or evolution?
(And, yes, that goes both ways as far as political orientation. I'd like to think I'd be just as outraged if someone who tweeted a very strong pro-NRA message in a very liberal state were being slapped down by a formal policy of this sort. _Especially_ where the employer imposing the policy is, in fact, the government.)
The only restrictions I can think of that might possibly be legitimate, aside from the other caveats in the policy would be making public statements that might cause serious concern among students or employees about whether contrary opinions (or simply being of the wrong race, faith, orientation, origin) might be dangerous to their grades or their employment — in some ways, exactly what this policy does. Of course, being on the outs with the prof, for whatever reason, is always risky — and sooner or later that means that opinions are going to bump up against each other, sometimes with unpleasant consequences.
But that's part of what academic freedom is about. Something that the Kansas legislature and Board of Regents seem to be forgetting in their desire to make "don't rock the boat" the foundation of speech and liberty (and the irony there for ostensibly liberty-loving conservatives is even more galling).
(h/t +David Newman)
