4 ms·

I read the introduction to the brief he filed as well, to see if there was something I was missing that he did not mention in the blog, about being maligned or

I read the introduction to the brief he filed as well, to see if there was something I was missing that he did not mention in the blog, about being maligned or slandered. The closest I could find was: > Moreover, the Dean of the Anderson School, Defendant Antonio Bernardo (“Bernardo”), disparaged Plaintiff to alumni and the general public based on the private communications between Plaintiff and the student who had requested preferential race-based grading policies (“Student”). Dean Bernardo even went so far as to publicly disclose the adverse personnel action the School had improperly imposed on Plaintiff. The private communications he is referring to here is his emails with the student. Which isn’t private if the student chooses to reveal it, like he did in this case. I mean, there’s absolutely 0 legal expectation of privacy in an email sent to someone, but there is hardly even an ethical expectation of privacy if the dispute is based on the email sent. But here’s the thing. Even here he doesn’t use the term defamation, because he knows that’s a legal term completely unsupported by the facts. Speaking badly of somebody is not illegal (and adds even more irony because if that was illegal it would chill public discourse far more than losing private at will contracts with 3rd party entities, when the party you’re suing decided to investigate a claim and then cleared you of it completely).

jollybean 5y ago
Why was the University actively passing along supposed evidence, or even commenting on some kind of ongoing investigation? It could only be seen as damaging - wether something is technically 'made public' or not is almost secondary issue. " it would chill public discourse " Well it might 'chill' and restrain Universities ability to have someone 'suspended and investigated' in a public spectacle, and to communicate those issues to alumni, which is possibly materially damaging to individuals careers. It's disturbing to read the comments here about what is 'chilling' because the obvious irony here is that this man did absolutely nothing wrong, and has suffered material damages due to a brigade of ideologues. I don't think we should be concerned about the Unis ability to sanction profs. This is evidence of a form of 'cancel culture', in this case private interests cancelled contracts and probably made it more difficult for him to pursue future contracts with other parties more than likely out of concerns of public outrage as opposed to any real moral condemnation. Everyone at the University has taken note, surely there's a 'chill' on campus. Do you think profs are going to likely speak their minds and have reasonable discourse about these difficult issues? Or will they avoid having any opinion other than what is sanctioned by the most radical elements on campus so as to ensure there will be no uproar? It's deeply illiberal. The conversation should be about appropriately addressing the concerns of the students (whether accommodating their demands or not), and then protecting everyone, staff, students included from inappropriate outrage. The University probably should be contacting the firms that cancelled contracts towards asking them to reinstate the prof in good standing i.e. repairing the situation, and then repairing the culture on campus to allow for reasonable dialogue.

jollybean 5y ago

Why was the University actively passing along supposed evidence, or even commenting on some kind of ongoing investigation? It could only be seen as damaging - wether something is technically 'made public' or not is almost secondary issue. " it would chill public discourse " Well it might 'chill' and restrain Universities ability to have someone 'suspended and investigated' in a public spectacle, and to communicate those issues to alumni, which is possibly materially damaging to individuals careers. It's disturbing to read the comments here about what is 'chilling' because the obvious irony here is that this man did absolutely nothing wrong, and has suffered material damages due to a brigade of ideologues. I don't think we should be concerned about the Unis ability to sanction profs. This is evidence of a form of 'cancel culture', in this case private interests cancelled contracts and probably made it more difficult for him to pursue future contracts with other parties more than likely out of concerns of public outrage as opposed to any real moral condemnation. Everyone at the University has taken note, surely there's a 'chill' on campus. Do you think profs are going to likely speak their minds and have reasonable discourse about these difficult issues? Or will they avoid having any opinion other than what is sanctioned by the most radical elements on campus so as to ensure there will be no uproar? It's deeply illiberal. The conversation should be about appropriately addressing the concerns of the students (whether accommodating their demands or not), and then protecting everyone, staff, students included from inappropriate outrage. The University probably should be contacting the firms that cancelled contracts towards asking them to reinstate the prof in good standing i.e. repairing the situation, and then repairing the culture on campus to allow for reasonable dialogue.