3 ms·

Also, I don’t think the problem was the professor (yet the response was still “ill advised” because if you ever work for a university, even as a part time TA, a

Also, I don’t think the problem was the professor (yet the response was still “ill advised” because if you ever work for a university, even as a part time TA, as I did, you get a whole spiel about forwarding such emails to XYZ@universityyouworkat.edu). That did not make the professor wrong. Like I said, I don’t think the professor was wrong to say what he did. But more relevantly, UCLA did not think the professor was wrong. That’s why they cleared him after their investigations. And they did not slander him either. That’s why the complaint isn’t either about UCLA punishing him, nor about UCLA or a UCLA employee slandering him. The complaint is about private companies terminating his employment because he went through a standard UCLA investigative procedure. One which he agreed to and is common across the country. The only thread his entire argument stands on is that through the process a couple of non binding entities recommended the investigative actions not be taken. But no one is gonna fault an entity for investigating something, and they will definitely not find it illegal.

jollybean 5y ago
Yes, sorry, I think you've filled in some reason where I did not. The thing is - it was the act of suspension and subsequent investigation which resulted in material loss of revenue. Ergo, it's possible that this may very well have been the act of libel itself - in much the same way that being publicly accused of some terrible crime, and 'stick' to your public image. I wonder if for such things, it behoves the institution to not make material changes to a situation, and that such investigations must be private. A 'suspension' is a condemning act in and of itself. In Canada, right now, the Army General in charge of vaccine distribution was given the punt after someone made a sexual harrassment claim dating back to 1988. He lost his post and suffered quite a bit of damage, the results of the investigation may very well be nill (maybe not, we don't know), it doesn't matter, the damage is done. He's now suing the Government to be reinstated, but it's 100% politics at this point. Accusations of racism are really, really serious, perhaps we should handle them differently.

jollybean 5y ago

Yes, sorry, I think you've filled in some reason where I did not. The thing is - it was the act of suspension and subsequent investigation which resulted in material loss of revenue. Ergo, it's possible that this may very well have been the act of libel itself - in much the same way that being publicly accused of some terrible crime, and 'stick' to your public image. I wonder if for such things, it behoves the institution to not make material changes to a situation, and that such investigations must be private. A 'suspension' is a condemning act in and of itself. In Canada, right now, the Army General in charge of vaccine distribution was given the punt after someone made a sexual harrassment claim dating back to 1988. He lost his post and suffered quite a bit of damage, the results of the investigation may very well be nill (maybe not, we don't know), it doesn't matter, the damage is done. He's now suing the Government to be reinstated, but it's 100% politics at this point. Accusations of racism are really, really serious, perhaps we should handle them differently.