University of Alaska professor loses federal funding
Published Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The University of Alaska has rejected a faculty union grievance filed on behalf of a professor who had federal funding pulled for being an outspoken critic of the oil industry.
A university lawyer on Thursday rejected the claim filed on behalf of professor Rick Steiner. As a result, the decision to strip the $10,000 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant from Steiner stands.
Steiner, a 30-year university employee, has for years criticized what he considered were irresponsible actions by the oil industry, beginning with the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The fisheries professor said Tuesday that he was disappointed university administrators caved under pressure from NOAA to try to silence him.
"My job as a faculty member is to seek and teach the truth without fear and without favor and that is what I am doing," Steiner said. "Either you have complete freedom to speak your truth or you don't. Unfortunately what we have learned here is I don't."
University of Alaska system spokeswoman Kate Ripley said Steiner is wrong.
"We just don't believe his academic freedom or his freedom of speech has been infringed," she said.
Mark Hamilton, president of the University of Alaska system, appointed lawyer Roger Brunner to handle the grievance decision. In his decision, Brunner wrote Steiner's claims appear to be a continuation of past attempts to "free himself from supervision and to have the university create a different job for him which would be more to his liking."
Steiner received the money as an extension agent in NOAA's Sea Grant program.
A review of Steiner's employment history found that on numerous occasions he had accused someone of infringing on his academic freedom, Brunner said in his decision.
But Brunner said free speech is protected both under university policy and constitutionally.
However, "Free speech is not freedom from the requirements to do one's job and to respond to reasonable direction," he said.
Ripley said the university believes strongly in freedom of speech and academic freedom.
"There has been no retaliatory action against Professor Steiner," she said.
She pointed out that Steiner remains fully funded. When one month of the funding source for Steiner's salary "changed" the university stepped in last spring to restore the money by using university general funds, she said.
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a Washington, D.C.-based group that Steiner belongs to, he assumed a public profile in 1989 as a university marine adviser in Cordova responding to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
After that, the university administrators began applying pressure to prevent Steiner from making public statements regarding oil and environmental issues in general, PEER says.
He was told by administrators at one point to stop being an advocate and refrain from publicly criticizing the university, PEER says.
Against his wishes, Steiner's office was moved into the main Marine Advisory Program office even though he considers that to be a hostile work environment, PEER says.
Ripley said the move had been in the works for years and was intended to bring him closer to his colleagues.
The latest chapter began in 2008 when Steiner held a news conference about his concerns that a University of Alaska and NOAA Sea Grant conference on offshore oil development in Bristol Bay did not focus enough on environmental risks.
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said Steiner is being punished for criticizing the oil industry in a state where big oil talks.
He provided a copy of a letter sent from a NOAA assistant administrator in May regarding Ruch's concerns that the Sea Grant program was favoring the oil and gas industry. The letter said extension agents must avoid "the appearance of advocating for any particular position" in order to be successful.
"When extension personnel fail to take a neutral approach to controversial issues, they jeopardize their ability to work effectively with all sectors," the letter said.
PEER intends to send a formal petition to the Obama administration to make sure that people who receive NOAA grants aren't constrained from speaking out as scientists or as citizens, Ruch said.
"President Hamilton seems to believe that his faculty still enjoys academic freedom even while he permits imposition of penalties for views simply because they conflict with the university's financial backers - big oil," he said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
how's that old line go about not biting the hand that feeds you? i recall a professor of mine who in 1989 on the morning after the exxon valdez oil spill started ranting about oil companies and how this was why he never accepted a dividend check and i recall thinking to myself "where do you think your paycheck comes from?"
Mark Hamilton has been a champion for free speach in his tenure at the University. Mr. Steiner is an employee of the University and therefore under the direction of Mr. Hamilton. There is a saying in the oil patch concerning loyalty, you need to "ride for the brand". If you can not you move on no hard feelings. I'm thinking its time for Mr. Steiner to move on. Sooner the better.
Bit the hand that fed him. If my dog bit me, he'd be gone too.
Seems like William Wood did not die, he just transferred to UAA. In the 1960's he fired two professors for their comments against the Nuclear Harbor the FEDS wanted to blow-up in western alaska.
thankfully, the project eventually was stopped.
Dan O'Neil wrote about this episode in the book, "The Firecracker Boys."
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Interesting take on 'free' speech.
Only if you're not considered bought and paid for?
I think in good part it would depend on context - where the speech ocurs, and how it related to his job.
Ex: if I'm teaching a course on Emergency Medicine, and I have a [justifiable/not slanderous] poor opinion of the local ER tx methods[I don't, but just say I do], and critizise those methods in my class, or anywhere else, I'm well within my rights, EVEN IF the local hospital IS paying me or paying for the class. [AND many might consider it my *duty*, as matter of *professional integrity*, to present those opinions in class]
However, teaching that same class, I decide to take class time to air a [equally justifiable/non-slanderous] opinion about the price of tea from China, then my employer would be justified in jerking my funding, whether the employer was the hospital, or China-Tea importers. THAT would not be an infringement of my rights, because I wasn't funded to discuss tea prices.
But I'd be within my rights to state my negative opinion about tea prices anywhere else, on my own time, even if my work is paid for by the tea companies.
I think the legal [constitutional] precident for this was set about 1/2 a century ago.
I would also point out, that the *University* did NOT end his funding. The University replaced the withdrawn [grant] funding for this prof. with funds from another source.
The issue appears to be whether the *Fed gov't* agency, NOAA, can terminate his grant.
It would appear that Prof Steiner, and PEER, are taking a legal 'standing' to challenge the Bush Admin's efforts to 'edit' or 'color' the findings and opinions of the scientific community.
The University has declined to support that legal challenge, but they continue to support [employ] Prof. Steiner.
There's no such thing as academic freedom. A university plays politics just like any other type of business.
Seeing as he is still funded & not out of a job, I think he's sitting pretty well. They do comment that he has been a 'frequent filer' & that bothers me. If his position had been ended his argument could have merit, as it stands now, I can't see a valid issue.
And the scumduglry has no bounds. Our system is so corrupted. I would think our higher education system would encourage this man.
Free speech doesn't mean someone else has to pay for it.
There's a fee for free speech?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.