The polity that is Denmark, let’s root for Brooke Harrington

by on November 29, 2017 at 3:08 am in Education, Law | Permalink

An American citizen who teaches in Denmark, she may be charged with a crime and kicked out of the country for violating the terms of her work visa, carrying a criminal record for the rest of her life.  Her sin?  Giving a talk to Danish Parliament:

Laws barring nonpermanent Danish residents from holding side jobs, paid or unpaid, have been in effect for some time. But Harrington said public scholarship is hardly a side job for an academic. Moreover, a separate Danish law mandates that university faculty members publicly share their research. Ironically, on the day Harrington learned of her criminal charges, she was notified that she’d received an award for research dissemination from the Danish Society for Education and Business.

And no matter that Parliament invited Harrington to speak — it’s facing scrutiny, too, for being unaware of laws preventing academics from speaking outside their universities without first obtaining explicit permission to do so from the Danish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration. That permission process is lengthy, by the way; Harrington said applying for a recent one-day work permit to give lecture to a political group took 15 hours.

Here is the full story.

1 dan1111 November 29, 2017 at 3:41 am

Wow, that’s rotten.

Reply

2 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 8:37 am

Kudos!

Reply

3 Classic November 29, 2017 at 3:48 am

Our last president said many countries have free speech besides the U.S., so she should be fine[d].

Reply

4 Curious November 29, 2017 at 4:05 am

I must have missed it – what is the alleged side job?

Reply

5 Mr Harvard, PHD November 29, 2017 at 6:19 am

Her side Job was speaking to Parliament, i.e. “public scholarship.”

Her frist was research.

This dual use of the iron was perhaps best noted by Shakespeare when he said “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.’”

Reply

6 Matt November 29, 2017 at 8:15 am

The first rule of research is “You don’t talk about research”

Reply

7 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 8:38 am

I though the first rule of research is “Ask for more grant money.”

Reply

8 Matt November 29, 2017 at 8:42 am

So maybe she would have been okay if she had ended her presentation to Parliament with “Oh, and I could use more grant money”.

9 rluser November 29, 2017 at 4:21 am

Ham sandwich nation, danish style

Reply

10 Hong Long November 29, 2017 at 4:23 am
11 Paul November 29, 2017 at 4:27 am

Yawn.
Try running any buisness in the states. For decades now, complying with dictated administrative agency orders from one crew of government oxygen thieves, puts you into violation of another crew.

I have no sympathy for the woman. I rather enjoy academics being jailed, fined, permitted, violated.

Academics have been the priest class advocating the totality of the unconstitutional adminstrative dictatorship. Welcome to your creation.

Reply

12 So Much For Subtlety November 29, 2017 at 4:46 am

I agree more academics should feel the wrath of the regulatory state they created. But this reminds me of the famous poster showing some anti-Fa protesters (labelled as people who want more government) being beaten by the police (presumably not the more government they wanted).

She wanted to live in an over-regulated Social welfare state did she? Well good for her. She can enjoying living in a country where a third of the population enforces regulations on the rest.

Reply

13 Anon November 29, 2017 at 11:14 am

Anti-fa wants more government? I’m not intimately familiar with the movement, but I always they were a bit on the anarchist side of left?

Reply

14 Harun November 29, 2017 at 11:26 am

Some are communists.

Anyone have a good primer on left-wing anarchism? Like…how can such a society keep itself “left wing” and anti-capitalist without some kind of force?

Reply

15 Slocum November 29, 2017 at 6:54 am

‘No sympathy’ seemed a little harsh. But then I looked into Harrington’s work for a couple of minutes, and I have to admit that I did find my own sympathy ebbing just a bit. There’s this, for example:

“Leaks like the Paradise Papers tell a story of rampant law avoidance. That’s what really makes the ultra-wealthy different from you and me: for them, the laws are mostly optional. ”

Treating laws as mostly optional? Hmmm…

Reply

16 Tanturn November 29, 2017 at 10:44 am

+1

Reply

17 Harun November 29, 2017 at 11:26 am

Oh, seriously? She deserves the whole book to be thrown at her.

Reply

18 Adrian Ratnapala November 29, 2017 at 3:30 pm

The point is that a moral judgement cannot be made simply because something is against the law. You really have to look at the reasonableness of the action in moral terms.

Reply

19 Stephen Senn November 30, 2017 at 2:17 am

Kudos! She knows how to case a pronoun. That gives her som points in my book. The number of academics these days who would say ‘for you and I’ . Ugh! Just terrible

Reply

20 Stephen Senn November 30, 2017 at 2:19 am

On the other som academics can’t spell. #guilyascharged

Reply

21 Art Deco November 29, 2017 at 8:35 am

I think lawyers and media are much more responsible than are academics for these sort of injuries (though academics almost universally countenance them).

Reply

22 devil wrangler November 29, 2017 at 1:35 pm

with so many villains to choose from, how do you decide?

Reply

23 Pensans November 29, 2017 at 5:57 am

Fake news. Most work visa for foreigners in most countries limit your employment by kind of work and employer. She violated the specific terms of her visa by getting paid for side lectures outside her approved employment. If she wanted a general visa to reside, she should have applied. Fancy pants academic who knows it all about corruption can’t be bothered to read her own visa.

Reply

24 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 7:06 am

A very bad use of “fake,” here to mean true news which does not impress you.

Reply

25 Pensans November 29, 2017 at 8:13 am

It’s fake because it suppresses the real story: woman violates a common law and faces consequences. It attempted to hide the fact that she was working in a foreign country on a limited visa and chose to exceed it for pay. Hence, fake.

Reply

26 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

This is what’s wrong with people today.

Reply

27 XVO November 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

I mean, maybe I’m reading it wrong, but isn’t that the first thing mentioned in the quote?

Reply

28 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 8:41 am

+1, it’s certainly the first line of Tyler’s abstract.

“An American citizen who teaches in Denmark, she may be charged with a crime and kicked out of the country for violating the terms of her work visa,”

29 dan1111 November 29, 2017 at 8:57 am

Maybe she should have known better, but the law she violated is extremely stupid and unbefitting of a free country. That’s still a story.

30 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 9:45 am

‘but the law she violated is extremely stupid and unbefitting of a free country’

Do you have even the slightest experience with American law in this regard? Though you are welcome to consider that question a variety of a Tu quoque fallacy if you wish to consider the U.S. not the sort of place to have laws regarding residency that are extremely stupid and unbefitting of a free country.

31 dan1111 December 1, 2017 at 8:10 am

@clockwork_prior, no, the equivalent would not be banned under American law. Not even close. I don’t think you understand the case.

A visa restricting you to work for a particular employer is normal. Such a visa being construed in such a way that an academic can’t give an unpaid presentation about their work outside their workplace is not normal, and it amounts to a significant restriction on speech.

32 Jimbob November 29, 2017 at 4:44 pm

Small point to make, but you seem to be harping on it, so it’s worthing making: the law is written so that all work, paid or unpaid, violates the visa. So when you say she “exceed[ed] it for pay”, you are mistaken. She also spoke at parliament at their invitation – so, the government invited her to do something illegal. Your argument is still valid, but get the facts right.

Reply

33 Chanita King December 4, 2017 at 5:03 pm

Even better, ass-wipe accuses her of being a snob who “knows it all about corruption” (but) “can’t be bothered to read her own visa.” Apparently, the arrogant non-know-it-all critiquing her *can’t be bothered* (or maybe just *can’t*?) read even the first few sentences of the article correctly.

Facts. Schmacts.

Oh wait. I guess the fake news comment makes sense now. That other guy who is always claiming *fake news* can’t tell a fact from a fart, either.

34 JanD November 29, 2017 at 7:47 am

The idea of a work permit i stupid. I’m danish and I hate that we punish foreigners for coming for our country and contribute to our economy.

Reply

35 Anon November 29, 2017 at 11:34 am

Work permits seem to be one of those things that almost no-one wants but that still exist almost universally. Even among anti-immigration folks the opposition is (at least here in Europe) typically against immigrants who don’t work (either because they are happy to just enjoy the welfare benefits or because they don’t have any skills), not against immigrants who come to work and contribute to the society.

Reply

36 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 9:44 am

By the way, there was a new low set for Presidential Twitter this morning. “Fake News” was a theme, of course. The craziest Tweet either accusing Scarborough of murder, or implying Lauer was innocent. Since deleted.

Why doesn’t somebody Article 25 this guy?

Reply

37 Bob from Ohio November 29, 2017 at 10:30 am

It is the 25th Amendment, not Article.

Ever read it? It has a provision whereby the President can force a Congressional vote, repeatedly.

So, yeah, 3 years of constant political chaos. Because of tweets.

Next time try nominating someone better.

Reply

38 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 10:42 am

I voted Cruz.

Reply

39 djw November 29, 2017 at 10:33 am

I don’t particularly like the guy, and I wouldn’t mind seeing him not be president. However, article 25 would set a really bad precedent. We can muddle through.

Reply

40 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 10:41 am

It would be a long four years if we just bumped along at this level, but given obvious degradation .. something will have to break loose.

It would be better for everyone, Republicans included, if Pence were president and this was water under the bridge.

Reply

41 Chip November 29, 2017 at 10:52 am

Stocks are up 25%, two straight quarters of 3% growth and consumer confidence highest since 2000, but the pres is a moron on Twitter so the country is just ‘bumping along.’

Emotional distaste is the enemy of logic. You don’t have to like a person for them to be, on balance, better than the alternative.

42 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 10:59 am

The markets are up, so the president must be sane. Cogent.

There are no other possibilities.

43 aMichael November 29, 2017 at 11:05 am

Are you claiming that Trump is the cause of the economy doing well? To the extent we can credit it to government officials, the good economy is likely the result of actions taken before Trump came to power. I suspect the anticipation of lower taxes and fewer regulations helps, but the stock market boom started before Trump. If your claim is that it doesn’t matter who is president, may I interest you in learning about a small country named North Korea. Yes, Obama taking out Qadhaffi made the situation worse, but unhinged signaling in a game of nuclear stalemate is not good.

44 aMichael November 29, 2017 at 11:30 am

And Chip, if this is a market bubble, when it goes bust, will you also blame Trump for that? Just wondering.

45 Anonymous November 29, 2017 at 4:48 pm

No fan of Trump, but the boom took off when he won. He has done good deregulation, as I understand it

46 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 6:41 pm

No, Anonymous, the stock market boom started March 9, 2009. Look at a chart.

47 Anonymous November 30, 2017 at 1:33 am

Perhaps you should take your own advice, msgkings

48 Alistair December 1, 2017 at 5:27 am

Dems: Feelz > Words > Deeds

49 Brian Donohue November 29, 2017 at 10:48 am

+1. People who are all like “Democracy is just The BEST! Also, impeach Trump.” don’t understand what they are saying.

Reply

50 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 10:56 am

How can you be proud of something that stupid?

No one believes that the US has a direct democracy, and if it did, would it need a president?

The harsh reality is that we have a delusional in the role of chief executive. Read the tweets. Don’t bury your head.

51 Brian Donohue November 29, 2017 at 11:08 am

Yes, Trump is a wild card, a bit unpredictable, and this is modestly unsettling. And yes, he can be cringeworthy as Head of State.

But so far he’s been better than GWB, who everyone is remembering fondly all of a sudden.

Also, he was elected according to the rules. The fact that he was able to get himself elected is simply extraordinary, way beyond being sniffy superior Internet dude.

Threatening impeachment of every President we don’t like as a dumb pastime precedes Trump by decades anyway. And it’s not healthy. The rule is, if you have elections, you fucking live with the result. Before the election, everyone was wringing their hands about how dangerous it was for our democracy if Trump didn’t graciously accept defeat. And all these idiots just turned on a dime last November 8th.

52 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 11:15 am
53 Brian Donohue November 29, 2017 at 11:19 am

OK, I read your link. Are you saying we should impeach Trump over this? Because that’s an idiotic position, sniffy Internet dude.

54 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 11:27 am

The most important thing is that people internalize where we are.

That includes the other crazy things we heard this week, like the deleted Scarborough tweet. Like Trump now telling people that the Access Hollywood tape was faked. Like him saying in the freaking White House that he thinks Obama’s birth certificate was faked.

If we accept that, we stop with the weak defenses by deflection, I think the guy will just (cut a deal and) go away.

55 Brian Donohue November 29, 2017 at 11:49 am

“The most important thing is that people internalize where we are.”

I know where I am. I’m on the Internet, with a goofy President tweeting about this and that and rando sniffy dudes wringing their hands and talking big about impeachment. I for one am determined to enjoy the circus.

56 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 12:02 pm

Well you know, buddy. If you have to make this about me ..

you have already decided you can’t make it about the competence of the President of the United States.

57 TMC November 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm

Brian has a good take on this. If you look at what he’s done and ignore all the tweets he’s been pretty good. Better than Bush and a crapload better than Obama. Deeds matter more than words.

58 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 5:09 pm

“After his latest spasm of deranged tweets, only those completely under his spell can deny what growing numbers of Americans have long suspected: The President of the United States is profoundly unstable. He is mad. He is, by any honest layman’s definition, mentally unwell and viciously lashing out.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/donald-trump-madman-article-1.3665163

59 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 5:30 pm

If you’re trying to convince the country that the President is crazy, it would help not to sound like crazy people yourselves.

60 Amalgamated Spats November 29, 2017 at 5:39 pm

It is probably not my problem if you can’t follow the story.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/29/politics/president-donald-trump-competency/index.html

61 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 6:42 am

Well, I sure all the Danish citizens who come to the U.S. on an academic visa and then start getting money for working a second job witthout fear of being deported will start coming forward.

No they won’t – if you have an American J-1 (or student F-1) visa, you will be deported for not following the terms of your visa. Here is an example of what that means – ‘The spouse and children under 21 of J-1 visa holders are eligible for the J-2 visa. The J-2 spouse is eligible for work authorization upon receiving the employment authorization document. The J-2 spouse must certify, however, that he or she is not obtaining the EAD in order to financially support the J-1 spouse.’ http://www.visapro.com/resources/article/us-visa-options/

And the U.S. has been a nightmare for decades when it comes to foreigners attempting to legally reside here for a period of time. To the extent that one could almost believe that keeping Americans separated from people from other countries was an intentional policy, particularly when coupled with the decades long drumbeat of American media featured fear when travelling outside of the U.S. .

Reply

62 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 8:44 am

Here comes prior with his standard Tu quoque fallacy.

Reply

63 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 9:16 am

‘standard Tu quoque fallacy’

If you say so – the above was in response to Prof. Cowen’s ‘… root for Brooke Harrington.’ Prof. Cowen, myself, and one assumes you are not Danish citizens, but are all American citizens. And America’s visa law, both in law and practice, has been a decades long disaster – instead of rooting for an American violating Danish law (though anyone is welcome to root for someone violating the terms of their voluntarily assumed residency in a foreign country), why not try to improve American law in this area instead? Because there is absolutely nothing outrageous to what happened to Brooke Harrington, at least if one has any experience of how foreign academics or students were treated in the 1980s in the U.S., in my actual experience dealing with INS for several different people.

This would be a recent example of how an academic coming to the U.S. can be treated, which at least did not lead to deportation and subsequent automatic ban on visiting the U.S. (and yes, I know someone to whom that happened to – oddly enough, by mentioning they would be working for three weeks doing some translation work for PeopleSoft when asked about their reason for visiting the U.S.- a Jehovah’s Witness unfamiliar with American law in this area, though one can reasonably assume he would not have lied if he had known) ‘A prominent French historian has said he was detained for more than 10 hours in Houston and threatened with deportation, in the latest of several examples of high-profile individuals being questioned extensively at US airports before being allowed entry.

Henry Rousso flew from Paris to Houston last Wednesday to take part in a symposium at Texas A&M University but was wrongly detained and almost sent back to France after a border guard failed to understand Rousso’s entitlements under visa rules, university officials said.

Rousso said on Twitter that he was “detained 10 hours at [Houston’s George Bush intercontinental airport] about to be deported. The officer who arrested me was ‘inexperienced’.”

While he was held, Rousso contacted university officials who attempted to secure his release. “He was waiting for customs officials to send him back to Paris as an illegal alien on the first flight out,” Richard Golsan, a professor at Texas A&M, told the Eagle.’ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/26/henry-rousso-french-academic-deportation-houston-airport

And do note the reason one person thinks he was treated this way – ‘She said that Rousso came to the US on a visitor’s visa which normally does not allow recipients to work or receive compensation, but there are exceptions for some academic activities, such as giving lectures or speeches.

“My best guess is that it was his honorarium, I don’t think the officer who decided to detain him really understood the visa requirement and the technicalities on getting an honorarium which are permitted under his visa,” Marouf said.’

Though oddly enough, according to Rousso, the original reason was different – ‘After landing in Houston he was taken to an interview room where an officer suspected him of travelling on another, expired, visa, he wrote in the Huffington Post’s French edition.’

And interestingly enough, the French government decided to ensure that one of their citizens could also safely leave the U.S. – ‘Rousso did not immediately return a comment request on Sunday. He is scheduled to fly back to France on Sunday – accompanied to the airport by a French consulate official to ensure his check-in process goes smoothly, Golsan told the Guardian.’

Somehow, I doubt Rousso would want Prof. Cowen rooting for him to enjoy participating in any academic sidelines in the U.S.

Reply

64 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 9:42 am

“instead of rooting for an American violating Danish law (though anyone is welcome to root for someone violating the terms of their voluntarily assumed residency in a foreign country), why not try to improve American law in this area instead?”

Because normal people can do both of these. There’s nothing inherently hard about both rooting for the American against a stupid Danish law and also realizing that America has a lot of similar laws that need to be improved. Only obsessive people like yourself feel the need to continuously bring the subject matter back to the target of their obsession. One of your obvious obsessions, is that when any flaw is found with an EU country you must immediately counter with how America is just as bad or worse.

At least Thiago Ribiero does that kind of thing with humor and style.

Reply

65 Steve November 29, 2017 at 9:59 am

+1.

66 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 12:41 pm

+100, bravo

67 Thor November 29, 2017 at 1:35 pm

+1

68 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 2:47 pm

‘Because normal people can do both of these.’

If you say so – I’m sure that the Danish government will be at least as willing to change its residency laws for non-citizens due to non-citizens asking them to as the American government is. Instead of rooting, why not change the title to something like ‘The polity that is Denmark, let’s help Brooke Harrington read the rules concerning her Danish residency’

‘One of your obvious obsessions, is that when any flaw is found with an EU country you must immediately counter with how America is just as bad or worse.’

If you say so – which is why I described Germany’s rules about keeping pedophiles in custody past their sentence as ‘disgusting’ and ‘abhorrent,’ violating the principle of ex post facto, which still exists in U.S. sentencing.

And there are plenty of areas where the U.S. is considerably better than the EU – the 1st Amendment is one of the crowning achievements in human history, for example. (That Germany, after exterminating millions of human beings, wants to prevent that happening again is a very special case, as slippery slope arguments are no longer applicable.)

69 Bob from Ohio November 29, 2017 at 10:31 am

I think the criminal conviction is what makes it worse than similar US provisions.

Reply

70 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 3:23 pm

A good point, to be honest.

71 Vivian Darkbloom November 29, 2017 at 3:33 pm

Define “criminal conviction”. And what is your authority for claiming that Harrington is subject to a “criminal conviction” in Denmark? Her own statement? The term “criminal” gets thrown around pretty casually, particularly by people who do not know what it means. I’m not convinced it is applicable here, but feel free to convince me with specific and credible evidence that the term is appropriate to what Harrington is potentially subject to.

72 Bob from Ohio November 29, 2017 at 4:14 pm

“And what is your authority for claiming that Harrington is subject to a “criminal conviction” in Denmark?”

From the original post:
“she may be charged with a crime and kicked out of the country for violating the terms of her work visa, carrying a criminal record for the rest of her life.”

“feel free to convince me with specific and credible evidence that the term is appropriate to what Harrington is potentially subject to”

So serious.

73 Vivian Darkbloom November 30, 2017 at 2:22 am

@Bob

Seriously, that information came from Harrington herself. I think you need to be a bit more sceptical of those sorts of claims. Again, if you can come up with a credible independent source, I’ll be convinced. Also, define “criminal conviction”. That would help us come closer to the truth.

74 improbable November 29, 2017 at 7:14 am

The article doesn’t specify whether she was paid for this work, or not. Seems like a major omission. Anyone know for sure?

There’s a big difference between volunteering to explain some stuff from your day job, and working a financial consulting gig on the side. In the US the former would be no problem, I believe, but the latter would be illegal.

Reply

75 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 7:24 am

Actually, the article seems to mix several things, and does not actually make it clear that she may have been aware of the rules before being cited, along with more than a dozen foreign researchers – ‘That permission process is lengthy, by the way; Harrington said applying for a recent one-day work permit to give lecture to a political group took 15 hours.’ Nonetheless, the president of the Copenhagen Business School seems to indicate that she was engaged in a sideline occupation, in violation of her residency permit.

The funny thing is that British researchers are about to enjoy all the benefits and privileges that Prof. Harrington does, as EU citizens do not face problems with residence permits for having relevant sideline occupations.

Reply

76 JanD November 29, 2017 at 7:53 am

Three departements within the danish government had asked her to give a lecture on her research. It shouldn’t be a matter of payment. If the government ask you to do things that, the same government have made iilegal, you shouldn’t be punished.

Reply

77 Eric Rasmusen November 29, 2017 at 8:25 am

It would increase transaction costs for those departmetns to have to check her immigration status rather than just leaving the burden to the lecturer. For all they know, she could be a naturalized Danish citizen.

Reply

78 Ricardo November 29, 2017 at 9:31 am

It would only increase their transaction costs to the extent that it is a stupid law in the first place. In most countries, it is as simple as asking for someone’s locally issued ID and tax ID number and checking the ID for the person’s immigration status. If they didn’t think to ask for these, maybe even the government employees were under the impression they were living in a free country in which an academic could be asked to deliver a free lecture without having to apply for permission from the authorities.

Reply

79 improbable November 29, 2017 at 8:41 am

It’s one thing to be asked to testify before congress on your research, and another thing to moonlight teaching excel to the secretaries who happen to work at your local town hall. It’s really unclear where along this line she stands.

“a series of lectures Harrington delivered — ironically — to members of the Danish Parliament, Danish tax authorities and a law class at the University of Copenhagen”

Reply

80 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 8:42 am

However, you did notice this, according to the article – ‘And no matter that Parliament invited Harrington to speak — it’s facing scrutiny, too, for being unaware of laws preventing academics from speaking outside their universities without first obtaining explicit permission to do so from the Danish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration.’

Just because part of the government asks someone to do something doesn’t provide carte blanche against breaking the law.

Reply

81 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 8:45 am

“Just because part of the government asks someone to do something doesn’t provide carte blanche against breaking the law.”

LOL, you are literally attempting to justify entrapment.

Reply

82 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 9:28 am

Or the exact opposite of justifying entrapment, by saying no government body has carte blanche – ‘Unrestricted power to act at one’s own discretion; unconditional authority:’ https://www.thefreedictionary.com/carte+blanche

Would it be better, instead of writing ‘Just because part of the government asks someone to do something doesn’t provide carte blanche against breaking the law.’ to write ‘Just because one government agency asks you to do something does not mean the government agency asking you to do something is not themselves breaking the law when asking.’ Arguments about good faith are relevant, of course, but just because the CIA asks someone to kill someone else (think Castro) does not mean the request is legal in the eyes of a prosecutor – and to have that considered entrapment is strange, to be honest, as it is not the CIA that will arrest you if you had actually managed to kill Castro.

83 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 9:50 am

“Would it be better…”

Yes it would have been much better. But those two things are not equal. You wrote this:

‘Just because part of the government asks someone to do something doesn’t provide carte blanche against breaking the law.’

Not this:

‘Just because one government agency asks you to do something does not mean the government agency asking you to do something is not themselves breaking the law when asking.’

If you’re correcting your early comment and admitting that you phrased it incorrectly, you should say so. But it looks like you are attempting to move the goal posts instead.

84 Hazel Meade November 29, 2017 at 11:21 am

I never figured prior to be a “law is the LAW” type, but then given his attitude towards Uber, I should have known.

85 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Of course he’s a ‘law is LAW’ type, he’s a wannabe German. Sticklers for detail.

86 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 3:00 pm

‘f you’re correcting your early comment and admitting that you phrased it incorrectly, you should say so’

And here I was, thinking I was doing exactly that. So, let us try again – ‘the original phrasing was so poor that it needed to be restated to make its intent clear.’ It is not the first time that an original statement was not clear, and certainly won’t be the last.

Mea culpa.

87 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 3:20 pm

‘I never figured prior to be a “law is the LAW” type’

This is becoming strange – a woman voluntarily living in another country does not apparently bother to actually understand or follow the rules of her residency, and is (unsurprisingly) faced with consequences. And I am supposed to care? If I start using my American 1st Amendment rights in Germany to praise a genocidal political ideology, guess what? The German government will arrest me, most likely sentence me to jail, and then deport me – this is not exactly a secret, and is part of the terms of voluntarily living in the BRD (that’s right, unbelievable as this might seem, Germans simply do not put out the welcome mat for foreigners espousing Nazism). Non-citizens of the BRD who don’t like such terms are free to leave.

And Uber made a business model of breaking the law, up to and including developing software to evade enforcement. Why should anyone have any sympathy for them either? That was not a case of the law being the law – as I’m sure was pointed out at different points by me, Uber needed to work within the democratic process to change the laws, not break them. Or, though this would be too much to expect from a corporation, to break the law and then suffer the penalty to highlight the injustice involved – not that Martin Luther King Jr. is a CEO guru figure, of course. Of course, Uber did neither – it spent its time and effort in trying to better evade laws it did not want to follow.

88 Bob from Ohio November 29, 2017 at 10:34 am

Why does not Parliament just pass a bill amnestying her? Seems like it would save face for them.

Reply

89 Sunny November 29, 2017 at 7:39 am

When this is going to occur in the history of British? You might see some financial roots.

Reply

90 charlie November 29, 2017 at 7:41 am

Funny how open borders means that I can’t move to Canada or Europe or Japan or Singapore or the UAE without a job in hand.

Reply

91 XVO November 29, 2017 at 8:26 am

Unless your a 3rd world peasant.

Reply

92 Borjigid November 29, 2017 at 8:45 am

We don’t have open borders. Neither does anywhere else with a functioning government.

Reply

93 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 9:39 am

Depends on how one looks at a suprastate like the EU – something noted in the article, actually.

Reply

94 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 8:45 am

Or marrying a citizen of those countries.

Reply

95 Harun November 29, 2017 at 11:32 am

Even if you marry a German, do you get work permit right away?

Some countries have waiting periods and such.

Reply

96 Hazel Meade November 29, 2017 at 11:18 am

You can’t move to the US even IF you have a job in hand, under current law.
You employer first has to prove, to the satisfaction of the Department of Labor, at several thousand dollars expense, that there is no American who could possibly do the job they want to hire you for.

If the law merely stated you had to have a valid job offer, that would be a massive liberalization of current law.

Reply

97 Harun November 29, 2017 at 11:33 am

You do know they fake those, right?

There’s an internet video where a lawyer doing work visas explains that since they don’t want to actually hire an American, so we have to structure these to fail.

Reply

98 Hazel Meade November 29, 2017 at 11:52 am

Of course they try to narrow the job qualifications to fit the specific person they want to hire. However, they are working against the DoL, which works in the interests of domestic labor, and the DoL has to approve the qualifications advertised. This is why the process takes years. You have to advertise for the job opening and interview candidates, but in order to do that , the DoL has to approve the ads, so there is literally a years long process in which the employer has to develop job advertisements , get them approved by the government, then advertise the job, then interview candidates, then explain why they aren’t qualified. It’s an adversarial relationship between the DoL and the employer the whole way.

Side note, it’s fairly common for employers to end up hiring the American candidates they interview, sometimes for different positions, sometimes they hire both.

Reply

99 Careless November 30, 2017 at 9:41 pm

And yet during the Great Recession Deloitte hired an accountant I knew fresh out of college on an H1-B. Yeah, there were no Americans who could have done her job.

100 Careless November 30, 2017 at 10:04 pm

Also, it was done in a couple of months

101 Vivian Darkbloom November 29, 2017 at 7:51 am

Before rooting for anyone, I’d suggest one stay on the sidelines until a bit more information is obtained.

The article posted on Inside Higher Ed by Colleen Flaherty is obviously sympathetic to Harrington. So much so that I question the author’s objectivity. The article contains some internal inconsistencies and omits facts that are important to evaluating the case.

Example:

“Laws barring nonpermanent Danish residents from holding side jobs, paid or unpaid, have been in effect for some time. But Harrington said public scholarship is hardly a side job for an academic.”

But, later:

“And no matter that Parliament invited Harrington to speak — it’s facing scrutiny, too, for being unaware of laws preventing academics from speaking outside their universities without first obtaining explicit permission to do so from the Danish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration. That permission process is lengthy, by the way; Harrington said applying for a recent one-day work permit to give lecture to a political group took 15 hours.”

So, is speaking to an outside group a “job” or not? Was Harrington paid for her lectures or not (I suspect she was; otherwise, this sympathetic author would have highlighted the fact that she wasn’t). And, since when is volunteer work a “job”?

So, apparently there is a process for obtaining a “work permit” to give these lectures (paid or unpaid). And, apparently, although the author doesn’t tell us, Harrington ignored these rules until she got caught. She then tells us it “recently” took her 15 hours to get a work permit for outside work (does that refer to the time she took to prepare the application, or the time from application to approval?). Does this say something about the bureaucratic process in Denmark, Harrington’s ineptitude, her propensity to exaggerate, or all the above?

In my experience, getting “permission” for outside employment (aka a “job”) is not unusual. I think it is standard procedure at American universities, irrespective of immigration status. I know that it was even the case of the private firm in which I was a partner. The firm also had rules requiring advance reporting of outside speeches (paid or unpaid), including the nature of the talk and the prospective audience and permission for those speeches could be denied.

The author’s framing is disturbingly one-sided throughout. For example, is equating giving a (paid?) outside speech with “public scholarship” and the requirement to make research available to the public really accurate? Making your research available to the public doesn’t require an outside job and even to the extent it might, there appear to have been procedures in place that Harrington ignored.

Reply

102 Eric Rasmusen November 29, 2017 at 8:31 am

I bet she could have applied all at once for permission to add Outside Lecturer to Professor at U. of Copenhagen as a permitted kind of work. I wonder if she was trying to avoid taxes by not doing so.

Practical question: suppose she was doing consulting that didn’t involve speeches, just producing analysis papers. Would she have to leave Denmark, write them up in another country, and mail them in to avoid violating her visa? (What would US law be on this?) Could she slip over to Sweden, do her analysis there, and mail it to Denmark?

Reply

103 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 8:51 am

+1 to Vivian D.; It’s unclear exactly what happened hear.

Reply

104 WB November 29, 2017 at 8:52 am

“In my experience, getting ‘permission’ for outside employment (aka a ‘job’) is not unusual. I think it is standard procedure at American universities, irrespective of immigration status.”

Not true. It varies considerably by institution in the US. Some contracts make specific stipulations; other do not. At my current institution, you can work on the side without having to seek administrative permission.

Reply

105 clockwork_prior November 29, 2017 at 9:40 am

A foreigner most distinctly will need explicit permission from the U.S. beforehand, assuming they care about being deported.

Reply

106 Vivian Darkbloom November 29, 2017 at 10:25 am

So, “is not unusual” and “standard procedure at universities” is inconsistent with your statement “it varies considerably by institution in the US” and conflicts with the policy at your current “institution” and that makes my statement “not true”. Good to know.

As far as universities are concerned, the U of Texas policy (selected at random) appears to be typical:

“Before beginning any outside employment, you must complete and obtain all necessary departmental signatures on the appropriate Outside Employment Form (Faculty/Research Staff Form [PDF]; Staff Form for most non-exempt staff [PDF]); Outside Activity Portal 5-2011 for all exempt staff and non-exempt staff who award contracts and make financial transactions. For faculty the completed form will be filed in the Provost office and for non-exempt staff the completed PDF form will be filed in the employee’s personnel file.”

https://hr.utexas.edu/current/compliance/outside-employment

Reply

107 Alistair December 1, 2017 at 5:33 am

+1. It’s raising my “lies by omission” flags too.

Reply

108 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 8:44 am

Yet she defected to Denmark. Such is life in Trump’s America.

Reply

109 Borjigid November 29, 2017 at 8:46 am

The real question is why she chose Denmark to defect to, when Brazil is available. I wonder why?

Reply

110 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 9:15 am

No, it is not. Millions of people visit Brazil every year and many never leave the country. However, Brazilian universities don’t use to hire foreigners. The point is, she chose to live under socialism rather than live in her country. There is no difference between what she did and what Philby,
Ri Sung-gi and Lee Harvey Oswald did.

Reply

111 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 12:49 pm

The point is actually that she chose to live under socialism rather than live in the paradise that is Brazil

Reply

112 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 1:10 pm

No, it is not. As I said, Brazil does not allow many foreign professors to teach.

113 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 2:37 pm

So this is what Brazil has become, a land where students must not learn from the best teachers in the world.

114 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 3:31 pm

If they were the best professors in the world, they would have been born Brazilians! Also, the State makes exceptions for some foreign visitors of exceptional quality. Mr. Feynman, for example, enjoyed teaching in Brazil.

115 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 3:49 pm

But Feynman was not Brazilian, so how good could he have been?

116 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 4:21 pm

He was the exception that proves the rule. He was a very brilliant professor, and learned to play Brazilian music.

117 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 4:46 pm

How does an exception prove a rule? An exception would be evidence that a rule is incorrect.

118 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 5:09 pm

No, it would prove there are exceptions to the rule, which, as the name says, are exceptional.

119 msgkings November 29, 2017 at 6:43 pm

That’s not how proof works, but I wouldn’t expect a Brazilian to understand such things.

120 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 6:55 pm

Yes, it is. If one proves something as an exception, then one proved what is not the exceptions are the rule. The rule is not the exception.

121 Anonymous November 30, 2017 at 1:36 am

Name one Brazilian who is one of the best professors in the world

122 FauxThiagoRibiero November 30, 2017 at 10:15 am

Brazilian’s are naturally a great people. Every Brazilian professor is one of the best Professors in the world. It’s a natural truth.

123 Chanita King December 4, 2017 at 5:15 pm

Actually, she has been working in Europe for some years, long prior to even Trump’s candidacy.
But many here would defect from Trump’s America if at all feasible.

Reply

124 Hazel Meade November 29, 2017 at 11:12 am

How does it count as a “job” if it is unpaid? The article mentions that paid OR unpaid side-jobs are forbidden. Wouldn’t that effectively bar volunteering for a charity even? What the heck is an unpaid side-job? She’s not doing an internship. This is giving a free talk about her research, which is effectively just speech. I’d imagine that Danish speech protections (whatever those might be) would have to supercede the bar on unpaid jobs. There’s no difference between this and appearing on a talk show or standing on a soapbox.

Reply

125 Harun November 29, 2017 at 11:35 am

This is very common. Foreigners just playing in a band in Taiwan can run into this problem.

Reply

126 JWatts November 29, 2017 at 2:01 pm

“There’s no difference between this and appearing on a talk show or standing on a soapbox.”

It’s not the USA. There is no Bill of Rights.

From wiki:
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Denmark are ensured by § 77 of the constitution: Anyone is entitled to in print, writing and speech to publish his or hers thoughts, yet under responsibility to the courts. Censorship and other preventive measures can never again be introduced.

The phrase under responsibility to the courts provides the main concept of the freedom: the constitution grants one the freedom to say whatever they please, but does not protect them from being punished for doing so. The courts generally set wider boundaries for what is deemed inappropriate for the press or in a political debate than for civil citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press_in_Denmark

That’s one hell of an exception. Pretty much the “but” is a NOT statement.

Reply

127 Alistair December 1, 2017 at 5:44 am

Welcome to European Freedom of Speech. This kind of total c**p is distressingly common in Europe. Freedom is speech is proclaimed in documents, and then immediately followed with some “BUT….” which eviscerates it. Take the so-called European Convention on Human rights, Article 10:

A10. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Wonderful! But wait….

A10. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. “Do what you want until we decide otherwise.” The marriage vows of Ming the Merciless gave more protection.

Reply

128 TMC November 29, 2017 at 12:05 pm

It’s nice to see that their Parliament is expected to follow the laws they pass. Refreshing that they don’t exempt themselves from everything.

Reply

129 Butler T. Reynolds November 29, 2017 at 1:24 pm

There must be a rational basis for the work Denmark’s work visa restrictions because according to my progressive friends Denmark has it all figured out and the US should do everything just like Denmark.

Reply

130 Ellisor November 29, 2017 at 1:39 pm

Denmark is the blueprint for the political landscape for US elections 2020. This is likely because Bernie will be pushed aggressively as a contender and the centrally important issue with spending/revenue will dominate the backrooms.

Reply

131 Thor November 29, 2017 at 2:04 pm

Not exactly. Denmark is pro business and pro entrepreneur. Don’t assume your progressive friends are doing anything except working from an old schema in their minds.

And, as the story of the woman who left her child outside a restaurant years ago and was arrested shows, it’s a country where common sense prevails re: child rearing practices.

Reply

132 Roy LC November 30, 2017 at 12:44 am

Not to mention it has an immigration policy the US right would not dare.

Don’t confuse the Danes with Scandinavians like Sweden and Norway. Denmark gets a very weird halo effect from Swedish social democracy even among people who should know better. Denmark’s experience is a major driver, concious or not, of Norwegian egalitarianism and fear of becoming a petrostate, and its entire history is full of examples of what should not be emulated. One incident in the fall of 1943 does not tell the true story.

On the upside the result includes a lot of current pro business policies, but then Sweden is not exactly the strangler of entrepreneurship that many assume either.

Reply

133 A Truth Seeker November 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm

“This is likely because Bernie will be pushed aggressively as a contender and the centrally important issue with spending/revenue will dominate the backrooms.”

Only if Dick Chenney shares with him the Philosopher’s Stone.

Reply

134 Thor November 29, 2017 at 2:00 pm

“Harrington said two uniformed police officers even came to her home and banged on her door to speak with her about them last month.”

They really banged on the door too, it wasn’t like they knocked. Alarming!

(I don’t know much about rhetoric, or is it semiotics? but it’s easy to see how a writer builds biases into a narrative.)

Reply

135 Stefan November 29, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Brooke was one of my favorite professors at Brown!

Is it also ironic here that she taught organizational theory?

Reply

136 Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard November 30, 2017 at 1:57 am

I am not defending the decision but would like to stress that it is factually wrong when it is claimed that “… a separate Danish law mandates that faculty members share their research publicly”. That is simply not true and seems a bit polemical.

Reply

137 Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard November 30, 2017 at 2:09 am

And another thing: It was not “the parliament” who invited her but one of the political parties.

That said, I too think it is a silly decision.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: