[sjsdaiuasgdia]

We only really have his word for that. We have him saying that he was told that if he didn't resign, dismissal proceedings would start. We have him saying that the only reason he was given for starting a dismissal proceeding was "collegiality".

His past behavior is likely causing the administration to be very, very cautious about what is said by who and where because anything touching this individual will likely result in legal action.

[dpifke]

We have his lawyers' word for it as well: https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-suspended-reasons-unk...

The university is also refusing to tell them the nature of their "investigation."

(The non-profit organization FIRE and the legal firms involved here are extremely reputable. If the university is afraid of being sued, their apparent aversion to anything resembling due process would seem to be having the opposite effect.)

[dragonwriter]

> The university is also refusing to tell them the nature of their “investigation.”

Since he hasn’t contested that the refusal to participate itself was a termination-eligible offense per the staff handbook, and since he hasn’t offered any indication of anything in the staff handbook or other material that would form part of the employment contract that entitled him to know about the subject of the investigation, I don’t see how that’s material. He has not disputed that he committed an offense that is in black and white an offense justifying termination, and seems mostly to be (even if you accept his explanation in its entirety as to the facts known to him) speculating only on the context of that offense, and then suggesting that that speculative context is the real motive for firing him, not the uncontested firing-worthy offense.

Yeah, yeah, it sucks for everyone (well, everyone in private employment, without a better contract that Gerber apparently had) in this country that private employment doesn’t come with the same type of due process rights that having adverse consequences imposed by the State has. But Gerber’s a law prof, so presumably he knew that already, and, anyway, he’s not making a complaint about the legal structure of private employment relations, so, I’m really not sure what the point is beyond an argument that he is entitled to special treatment outside of the contract even though there is no general entitlement to such treatment.