> there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was. The article says it started from a "discussion" in a classroom settings --- First, the complai

> there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was. The article says it started from a "discussion" in a classroom settings --- First, the complaint of a handful of students concerning the events of a single class in which we discussed racism at Duke --- I guess it could have a been a visual display, a movie, soundbite? "Hearing" might not have been precise but not sure if splitting hairs helps the topic here. "Exposed to" maybe would be more general... Also note that the harm was also "alleged" harm. They don't actually assert the student was harmed: > Professor Charney’s tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some But maybe that's enough. Overall I think it's a private school so they can have a lot of leeway in who they hire and fire. So barring some negative PR, which they can probably get around, they are free to fire him. Speaking of PR though, they probably learned a valuable lesson of not including the real reason for firing in any written form in the future. It should be something like "cultural incompatibility" or "restructuring".