Since the law suit is against the state, and as state school professors they are paid by the state and are employees of the state, it's somewhat reasonable to see a conflict of interest for them to testify when the defendant is their employer.
That said, it should be up to the lawyers and parties involved in the law suit to evaluate that conflict of interest. There was no reason for the school to interfere there.
First, the idea of "conflict of interest" is not about allowing or disallowing testimony. That's (1) normally an argument you make after testimony and (2) absolutely not something one party to a suit (the State of Florida in this case, via its organ the University of Florida) gets to decide unilaterally.
Second, your logic is exactly backwards. The reason you might infer a conflict of interest and thus judge someone's testimony because of their employer is that they might be induced (e.g. by being rewarded or punished) to represent their employer's opinions instead of their own. Here, they were called by the plaintiffs and are expected to testify against the interests of the State.
> it's somewhat reasonable to see a conflict of interest for them to testify when the defendant is their employer.
This statement appears to imply that you cannot sue your employer, because of a conflict of interest. I could almost see where you're going with this if the employer is the plaintiff, but when the employer is the defendant, that would be completely absurd.
They're testifying as expert witnesses, being brought in to be informative to the jury, not as first-hand witnesses to the law suit matter. In theory such experts should be objective and not have a bias towards either defendant or the plaintiff.
Your arguments here are a bit peculiar. Have you integrated the judge's response to the situation, where he not only ruled that there was no conflict of interest, but mentioned that the university's actions may constitute felony witness intimidation?
I didn't see the judge's response, so no. Though another commenter here mentioned it was the plaintiff that called for these people as expert witnesses (another fact I missed), which is also relevant. And I agree with the judge's take on the university's actions.
My intention with this thread wasn't to take a side or defend the university. My intention was to point out how having these specific people as expert witnesses could be seen as a conflict of interest (as compared to, say, expert witnesses that have no relation whatsoever to either party in the suit). This was in response to the people interpreting the situation strictly as "don't oppose the government". The university's actions were abhorrent, but the seed of their concern isn't necessarily invalid.
Your parent said nothing about a specific law. They're talking about the practice of law. But let's turn that around. If this is a conflict of interest, can you identify for us where that is codified?
(I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on the Internet) lets say it is important to notice this is a State-funded school, the students are adults and the Faculty have long and detailed legal protections in law, in addition to Constitutional rights as individuals.
yes, as noted, the legal framework of law in the USA
That said, it should be up to the lawyers and parties involved in the law suit to evaluate that conflict of interest. There was no reason for the school to interfere there.