[Goose]

To me it's not about his right to speak.  It's his right to fill a paid position that would be better served by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  Committees make decisions all the time about who gets an academic slot or who gets promoted based on the quality of their work.  Atlas does crap work.  He cherry picks confirmation points and dismisses pretty legit arguments from academics much more expert than him.  He's already made predictions that have been so wrong it's kind of ridiculous.  He continues to advance policy that has glaring holes.  I guess you could make a case that his primary expertise is healthcare policy with respect to new neuroimaging technology, but he's not doing that AFAIK anymore.  So why continue to support shoddy work at the university?

I would agree with your argument about "shoddy work" if it was applied uniformly. However, as I am sure everybody on this site knows there are many Stanford professors who haven't done anything for years. The Hoover Institute is somewhat different, in that it isn't real clear (at least to me) what is expected of someone with Atlas's job. Under those conditions, is his work worse than his peers? I tend to doubt it, but I can be convinced.

[Goose]

To me it's not about his right to speak.  It's his right to fill a paid position that would be better served by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  Committees make decisions all the time about who gets an academic slot or who gets promoted based on the quality of their work.  Atlas does crap work.  He cherry picks confirmation points and dismisses pretty legit arguments from academics much more expert than him.  He's already made predictions that have been so wrong it's kind of ridiculous.  He continues to advance policy that has glaring holes.  I guess you could make a case that his primary expertise is healthcare policy with respect to new neuroimaging technology, but he's not doing that AFAIK anymore.  So why continue to support shoddy work at the university?

I would agree with your argument about "shoddy work" if it was applied uniformly. However, as I am sure everybody on this site knows there are many Stanford professors who haven't done anything for years. The Hoover Institute is somewhat different, in that it isn't real clear (at least to me) what is expected of someone with Atlas's job. Under those conditions, is his work worse than his peers? I tend to doubt it, but I can be convinced.