A federal judge last week barred University of Florida administrators from enforcing a policy that six of its professors argued unconstitutionally limited their ability to testify against state actions as expert witnesses.
The opinion by Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida compared the university’s revised conflict-of-interests policy for faculty members to Hong Kong universities’ support for repressive laws enacted by the People’s Republic of China.
“Some might say, “That’s China, it could never happen here,’” Walker said in the Jan. 21 opinion. “But plaintiffs contend it already has. … They say, UF has bowed to perceived pressure from Florida’s political leaders and has sanctioned the unconstitutional suppression of ideas out of favor with Florida’s ruling party.”
UF administrators last year rejected requests by the six plaintiffs – Professors Sharon Wright Austin, Michael McDonald, Daniel Smith, Jeffrey Goldhagen, Teresa Reid and Kenneth Nunn – to testify as expert witnesses in litigation that challenged Florida’s public health policies and a voting rights law. Though that policy was later revised under the direction of President Kent Fuchs, the professors pressed on with their lawsuit, arguing that the revised policy violated the First Amendment.
David O’Neil, an attorney representing the six plaintiffs, called Walker’s ruling a victory for faculty members’ free-speech rights and academic freedom.
“The university may no longer prohibit faculty members from sharing their views with courts and the public just because the ruling political party doesn’t want to hear their truth,” O’Neil said in a statement emailed to the Florida Record. “The decision sends a clear message to public universities across the country – and to politicians who would try to interfere with them – that they too must honor the constitutional principles that make the college campus a vital engine of a free society.”
Walker, however, declined to affirm the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the university policy governing faculty requests to sign amicus briefs, concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to show they were likely to prevail on the merits of their arguments.
But the judge said his decision on the conflict-of-interests policy would take place immediately.
“Defendants must take no steps to enforce its conflict-of-interests policy with respect to faculty and staff requests to engage as expert witnesses or provide legal consulting in litigation involving the state or Florida until otherwise ordered,” he said.