|
From the letter linked in the article: > In sum, your own oral and written statements to the OIE investigator, the Dean’s Office, and
others clearly establish the following: > On May 8th, 2019, carrying bolt cutters and leading a group of non-affiliates to campus, you
forcibly entered Garland Hall in the middle of the night. By your own admissions, your
actions were premeditated and you expected that your actions could result in a violent
confrontation with students and others in or around Garland Hall. In fact, you believed the
group of non-affiliates you brought with you could become violent. As a faculty member at
Johns Hopkins University, you created a dangerous situation that could have ended in
serious harm to our students, yourself, and others in the community. > Prior to May 8th, 2019, JHU administrators had clearly and repeatedly instructed you that
Garland Hall was closed and that you were not permitted to enter, despite your requests
for permission to access the computer servers in the building. You acted in deliberate
defiance of the administration’s directives. You have flagrantly and unapologetically
violated JHU directives and your actions have endangered the University community.
Further, you stated you feel no remorse or regret for your actions. I don't understand how these events are acceptable. Neither Daniel Povey nor JHU seem to dispute any of the critical facts. How is recruiting some muscle to go bust some heads, in any universe, an acceptable course of action? For any employer? |