> He claims he lost his private contracts because he was suspended. No, not really. He claims that he lost the lion's share of his income because the Anderson

> He claims he lost his private contracts because he was suspended. No, not really. He claims that he lost the lion's share of his income because the Anderson administration not only suspended him but also started attacking his character on social media based on the meritless accusations of racism. From the blog post: > You see, most of my income comes not from teaching at UCLA but from consulting to law firms and other corporations. Several of those firms dropped me after they got wind that I’d been suspended — the better to put distance between themselves and a “racist.” That cost me the lion’s share of my annual income. The students involved in this escapade may have moved on to other causes. I have not. I’m not sure I ever will. His blog post is quite clear on the path he is taking the law suit: he was subjected to attacks and abuse for not complying with requests to grant special priviledges to some students, and the Anderson administration proceeded to throw him under the bus as a scapegoat to avoid their institutional pattern of non-inclusiveness. Consequently, the actions taken by the Anderson administration ultimately caused him to lose the lion's share of his income.