Both of the professors say it was not appropriate: Wood: ".. I ask forgiveness for this error in judgment. I regret my decision and I understand the hurtful na

Both of the professors say it was not appropriate: Wood: ".. I ask forgiveness for this error in judgment. I regret my decision and I understand the hurtful nature of these symbols. ..." Sharland: "In retrospect, I can see why someone might find the image hurtful, and I regret this attempt at humor that clearly failed. It was not my intent to hurt or be offensive, and if anyone is offended by this picture I apologize.”" They quoted one person who thinks institutional repercussions are not appropriate. Terr: "the university had no authority to act on calls to sanction the professors" But ... it was at 'faculty, staff, and student Halloween contest held in the Mitchell College of Business'. How does the university not have authority to act on what happens by staff at a university event? Terr: "Punishing one of the professors despite finding his conduct did not violate any university policies highlights how arbitrary and unjust the whole process was," Without a more complete context, that quote doesn't seem meaningful. For example, even if the university guidelines don't explicitly say staff must follow civil rights laws (eg, EEOC guidelines on "hostile work environment" or Title IX issues on sex discrimination), they are still obliged to do so. Terr: "might target them for protected speech they engaged in years" Is Terr really making the argument that the choice of costume by a staff member at a university-hosted Halloween party is protected speech? Because that sounds like a great way for an asshole to choose a provocative costume, just to get a rise out of people, then declare the equivalent of Arjen Rudd's "diplomatic immunity".