December 19, 2016

"The University of Kentucky has punished me in a 'sexual misconduct' case, in part, for singing a Beach Boys tune covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks."

Instapundit quotes the first line of a column by Buck Ryan, director of the Citizen Kentucky Project of UK’s Scripps Howard First Amendment Center. It's fascinating that the University of Kentucky punished the director of its First Amendment Center for his verbal expression. You'd think they'd steer clear of trouble with someone in that position, but — as he tells it — the university's Title IX coordinator deprived him of travel funds and an "award worth thousands of dollars" without offering him any process whatsoever.

Now, what did Ryan actually do? He had taught a course called "Storytelling: Exploring China’s Art and Culture" in a University of Kentucky program at a Chinese University, and during "closing ceremonies for an inaugural Education Week," he sang some version of the Beach Boys song "California Girls." We're expected to assume that the Title IX coordinator was plainly wrong to judge his performance to be offensive "language of a sexual nature," but we are not given a full text of the song, let alone a video that would convey the tone of voice and any physical gestures.

If you care about process, give better process to us, the people you seek to enlist in your outrage. Don't begin with the distraction of The Chipmunks. I'm not going to assume that any song covered by The Chipmunks is impossible to rewrite with sexy lyrics. Even if something is an outright children's rhyme from the start, it can be rewritten dirty, as brilliantly demonstrated here (NSFW):



But "California Girls" is not a children's song. It's about finding lots of different women sexually attractive. Evans only quotes one line of the song he sang: "Well, Shanghai [changed from East Coast] girls are hip; I really dig those styles they wear." That sounds relatively inoffensive, but why is a teacher singing to students about digging clothes worn by females? Other lines are sexier, notably "And the Northern girls with the way they kiss/They keep their boyfriends warm at night." And "I dig a French bikini on Hawaii Island dolls."

However that may sound coming from a cartoon chipmunk, it is at least arguably creepy for a teacher to be singing that to students. And I don't know what variations were made in the text — who wore what and how they behaved at night.

I love The Beach Boys, and I think this is relatively wholesome...



... especially when males are singing about females their own age who are not their students.

I'm all for due process, so let's hear the point of view of the Title IX coordinator, and let's see the evidence that person relied on, such as the full lyrics to the song.

122 comments:

Birkel said...

So creepy is the standard? Can you point to that in Title IX for future reference?

Gahrie said...

I'm all for due process, so let's hear the point of view of the Title IX coordinator, and let's see the evidence that person relied on, such as the full lyrics to the song.

But that is just it...the university provided no due process, or any process at all. It cited no complaints, skipped any form of tribunal and went straight to punishment.

Meade said...

"Other lines are sexier, notably "And the Northern girls with the way they kiss/They keep their boyfriends warm at night."

And how!

Mike said...

"Wait for the facts"!!!!???

My God what are you? A Republican?

Michael McClain said...

So shouldn't William Jefferson Clinton be seen as a walking talking Title IX violation?

traditionalguy said...

The 1960s are under attack from puritanical Females who hate men power enforcers. The men need to fight back like this guy is doing. The females were never slavery victims, except for Mormons. Affirmative Discrimination for females is total BS.

Ann Althouse said...

"So creepy is the standard?"

Creepy is not a term of art, but I am resisting the "Chipmunks" characterization. "Chipmunks" isn't a term of art either.

The question is: What did he do? Do you know? I don't. That's my point. I'm not finding him guilty. I'm just not going to be herded into finding him innocent.

Mike Sylwester said...

This is what happens when a Scientific Progressive is allowed to become a university's Title IX coordinator.

Kristian Holvoet said...

I'm just not going to be herded into finding him innocent.

Isn't the state actor required to prove guilt first? And to demonstrate that proof? Since the state has all the power in that relationship, shouldn't we presume IT is guilty, then have it justify it position. That is the framework a lot of feminism and racial grievances are built upon, so shouldn't it apply to the state as well?

Nonapod said...

Some Professor singing the Chipmunk's version of a Beach Boys song in an attempt to be funny sound's like an absolute nightmare of lameness.

Ann Althouse said...

"But that is just it...the university provided no due process, or any process at all. It cited no complaints, skipped any form of tribunal and went straight to punishment."

I don't know that for a fact. The university seems to have done something. There was a 3-month investigation. It's fine for Evans to open up the subject here, I simply want the full story, which I don't think I'm getting here.

He does know what he did publicly. I only know part of that. He tried to get his files and was unsuccessful. I don't know exactly why.

I'm not against his substantive or process argument, necessarily. I just don't know enough. I'm into process too. Evans is attacking the Title IX coordinator in the press. I understand his motivation, but I'm not willing to take sides at this point.

cubanbob said...

Ann Althouse said...
"But that is just it...the university provided no due process, or any process at all. It cited no complaints, skipped any form of tribunal and went straight to punishment."

I don't know that for a fact. The university seems to have done something. There was a 3-month investigation. It's fine for Evans to open up the subject here, I simply want the full story, which I don't think I'm getting here.

He does know what he did publicly. I only know part of that. He tried to get his files and was unsuccessful. I don't know exactly why.

I'm not against his substantive or process argument, necessarily. I just don't know enough. I'm into process too. Evans is attacking the Title IX coordinator in the press. I understand his motivation, but I'm not willing to take sides at this point."

Better still, time to get rid of Title 9 outright.

Ann Althouse said...

In the mid-60s, I had a junior high school teacher who used class time to express his enthusiasm for miniskirts, which were just being reported on in the press. I remember him saying: "I wonder who will be the first to wear miniskirts" at our school?

That made a big impact on me! (And I got into soooo much trouble for wearing miniskirts in junior high school.)

William said...

Isn't presumption of innocence part of due process? I suppose if he delivered the song in a Speedo with multiple hip thrusts, it would change the nature of the lyrics, but, in the ordinary course of events, such lyrics are not objectionable.

Ann Althouse said...

"Some Professor singing the Chipmunk's version of a Beach Boys song in an attempt to be funny sound's like an absolute nightmare of lameness."

He didn't try to sing the Chipmunk's version!

Unless I'm misreading his column. I think he's just bringing up the Chipmunks to create the inference that the song can't be that sexy.

Sebastian said...

Could you point me to the part of Title IX that covers songs sung in China? Thanks.

rhhardin said...

Due prowess beats due process.

mikee said...

The point of the article is that the complaints, if they exist, were started not by any offended party but rather by the prosecution; that the evidence, which was not presented before any authority for adversarial due process, does not support any finding of any guilt; that the "process" was merely a conviction without a trial.

The subject of the witch hunt is by definition a witch!

I see a large payoff in this professor's future. Were I a tenured academic, I'd be tempted to parlay, quite purposefully, such diversity program prosecutions into a retirement fund.

Ann Althouse said...

"Isn't presumption of innocence part of due process? I suppose if he delivered the song in a Speedo with multiple hip thrusts, it would change the nature of the lyrics, but, in the ordinary course of events, such lyrics are not objectionable."

It wasn't a criminal trial. The question is what process is due. It's pretty complicated actually and depends on various factors, like the private interest, the government interest, and the risk of error from one process as opposed to another.

Henry said...

I think it was the Hot for Teacher / I'm Just a Gigolo David Lee Roth medley that really got him noticed.

rhhardin said...

There ought to be a song about babes getting upset by anything.

Oh yeah, there is Always a Woman.

Mike Sylwester said...

Here is the song on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7qEPAoGEbk

The Beachboys sang it much better.

Ann Althouse said...

"The point of the article is that the complaints, if they exist, were started not by any offended party but rather by the prosecution; that the evidence, which was not presented before any authority for adversarial due process, does not support any finding of any guilt; that the "process" was merely a conviction without a trial."

Obviously, somebody was offended or how did this ever get started? What do you mean by "the prosecution"? Some UK faculty or staff person decided it was inappropriate and put the program in a bad light.

And he wasn't convicted. It wasn't a crime. It was an administrative process. An employer does have some power over an employees speech. There are many things an employer might tell employees they can't do. I recommending reading and thinking more deeply about problems that could arise.

PB said...

It appears the professor wants to hear the opinion of the "investigator", too He only received a judgment and was denied appeal.

This is the issue: anonymous complaints, investigations by non-legal professionals, no right to question your accuser or witnesses, no right to have legal representation at the hearing, no right to have an actual hearing, and no right to appeal. The only recourse is a lawsuit in a real court of law where many of these things have ended up with universities paying significant sums in judgment.

It's clear the universities were pressured into this and the recognize the threatened loss of federal funds would far exceed anything they'd pay out in legal claims.

There's a whole sub-industry of "educational judicial professionals" Like at Univ of MN, they aren't lawyers, they don't have legal training, they don't support the normal legal protections and they are there to generate data to try and support the farcical claim that 20% of women are sexually assaulted in college.

Like global warming morphed into climate change, incorporating any extreme weather as evidence, the 20% rape claim didn't match real crime statistics so they reset it as 20% are sexually assaulted. When that still didn't match real crime statistics, they began incorporating all sorts of behaviors like ogling and whistling as sexual assault. All to generate data to support a conclusion.

Mike Sylwester said...

Here's a YouTube video of the song, illustrated with lots of photographs of pretty California girls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DF6y2JTTHU

rhhardin said...

I recommending reading and thinking more deeply about problems that could arise.

Ridicule is one of the arise things.

Ann Althouse said...

"Here is the song on YouTube."

Is it really necessary to listen to a Chipmunks version of a song if you know the original? The Chipmunks version can be heard in your head already. It's always the same.

But the Chipmunks are so irrelevant to this story that I'm about to get mad.

Unknown said...

You do not need to see the process professor. They know better than you what is offensive and they will tell you.

mikee said...

In the late 1970s, I had a high school Economics teacher who told the following joke in class: "Why are blondes preferred over brunettes? They're easier to find in bed, in the dark." The teacher was a female. The sex of the subject of the joke was not stated.

In the later 1970s, I had a male high school swim team coach, who was also a History teacher. He was flagrantly homosexual. The coach liked to touch his male and female swimmers, and his male and female students, putting an arm over their shoulders, hugging them, patting them on the back.

In the early 1980s, as a grad student, I attended a party for a visiting professor who gave our department a lecture. Another grad student left the party with the prof and slept with him that night. When the prof was hired and started teaching at our university the next semester, the grad student took his class.



Which behavior deserves censure, if any?

Gahrie said...

The question is: What did he do? Do you know? I don't. That's my point. I'm not finding him guilty. I'm just not going to be herded into finding him innocent.

This simple sentence encapsulates all that is wrong with our legal and social environments.

You're supposed to believe he's innocent until proven guilty....remenber?

Rick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

The Obama Administration has commandeered all our universities to enforce its ideas that sexual complaints must be adjudicated through kangaroo-court proceedings.

The commandeering method is "Dear Colleague" letters that threaten to terminate Federal funding.

mikee said...

The interesting thing about thoughtcrimes such as the one discussed here is that they are defined after the fact. There is no way to know before conviction for thoughtcrimes whether or not one's actions are right or wrong.

Right and wrong are just social constructs anyway, or so I've been told. And we shouldn't ever judge anyone else. But the rightness or wrongness of our actions will be judged by our betters, arbitrarily, so as to emphasize that they are our betters.

Michael K said...

In China, there may be some differences in student teacher relationships among adults.

Two friends of my daughter are a fellow who was teaching English in China and one of his students, who became his lover, then his wife.

There seems to be a lot on interest in China in popular western music.

“There is no constitutional right to represent the University of Kentucky abroad. Nor is there a constitutional right to teach a particular class. Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.”

They seem to be following the Red Queen rules. Punishment first, trial after.

Rick said...

The position of the Title IX Coordinator seems beside the point, there's a larger issue. The appropriate reading of Title IX has nothing to do with sexual innuendo even if its existence were proven. Schools should and do have policies about classroom ethics, but they shouldn't be enforced by kangaroo investigations by radical apparatchiks enabled by the willful distortion of the law.

Title IX Warriors' bad faith is so extreme Title IX should simply be repealed. It's obvious there's nothing that can't twist to suit their needs considering the people they're supposedly imposing it on are in fact their allies. Universities have to take responsibility for their own policies rather than pretending they are forced into them by Title IX.

William said...

I would recommend to anyone who wishes to make a public statement about anything to anyone that they preface their remarks by burning an American flag and, as an extra security measure, they should conclude their remarks by burning another American flag. If these precautions are taken, their words will be covered by the First Amendment.

Birkel said...

I enjoy watching "administrative process" by a state actor get twisted into something other than a state actor exacting punishment. Let's just pretend all state action that deprives a person of property is only an "administrative process" that receives less protection for the individual so deprived.

Further, we can decrease the influence of universities - dominated by Leftist Collectivists - by making them into absurdities. Because ordinary people will obviously continue to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to subsidize the lifestyles of people who hate them.

Maybe the non-process is the non-punishment.

SeanF said...

Ann Althouse: And he wasn't convicted. It wasn't a crime. It was an administrative process. An employer does have some power over an employees speech. There are many things an employer might tell employees they can't do.

That's true, as far as it goes, but if Title IX is involved then it seems to me to be government action and not private party action.

If your employer says, "I'm choosing to punish you," that's one thing. If your employer says, "The government requires me to punish you," that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And he wasn't convicted. It wasn't a crime. It was an administrative process. An employer does have some power over an employees speech. There are many things an employer might tell employees they can't do. I recommending reading and thinking more deeply about problems that could arise.

The man's a tenured professor at a public university. I would think that would entitle him to some sort of due process.

While I agree that the Chipmunk's having covered the song is a non-sequitur, I find the idea that employees at public universities whose job's require that they disseminate information informed by their understanding of their field and their values are not due a fair process when accused of wrong doing unsettling.

Because, if that is the situation, then administrators can use the threat of punishment as a method to stifle opinions and for that matter facts which they find distasteful.

rhhardin said...

"Why are blondes preferred over brunettes? They're easier to find in bed, in the dark." The teacher was a female. The sex of the subject of the joke was not stated.

Blonde and burnette are about the only two adjectives still inflected for gender.

The masculine is blond and brunet.

rhhardin said...

If you're going to look at women, you have to pay them.

Brando said...

California girls was only offensive in that it makes girls from other regions terrible by comparison. Southern girls? Oh, they talk nice. Midwestern farmers' daughters? They keep you warm at night, like a blanket or a space heater. East coast girls? They dress nice.

I wouldn't want to know what they have to say about Pacific Northwest women!

whitney said...

That story was the proverbial straw for me and I set up a monthly donation to FIRE. It has a 4 star rating from charity navigator

Brando said...

Maybe we need to re-adopt "Sinatra-speak". Broads, dames, bozos, pooches, ring-a-ding-ding, booze, and knock it off or I'll give you some chin music.

Rob said...

My objection is not to the process but the punishment. Don't they give spankings in Kentucky?

Rick said...

Ann Althouse said...
Unless I'm misreading his column. I think he's just bringing up the Chipmunks to create the inference that the song can't be that sexy.


It seems truer to say his reference demonstrates the song's level of sexiness (whatever it is) is generally deemed appropriate even for children.

boycat said...

I'm with Althouse, the former con law professor. We must resist being tricked into sympathizing with this guy who wants to deprive UK from being able to punish him for exercising his 1st Amendment rights without due process.

Mike Sylwester said...

SeanF at 9:49 AM

... if Title IX is involved then it seems to me to be government action and not private party action.

That's the key issue here.

It's the university's Title IX coordinator who is conducting these kangaroo-court proceedings.

Mike said...

I've seen the Chipmunks version. They weren't even wearing pants! Definitely NSFW!

Birkel said...

Due process is required because a state actor is depriving a person of property.

Michael said...

The title ix coordinator can coordinate whatever the fuck s/he wants to and decide what is and what is not hateful speech, aggravating speech or lyrics that should never have been written in the first place.

Back off they are trying to run a University.

Birkel said...

Michael,

You have to close the sarc tag.

EDH said...

Interestingly, "California Girls" by the Beach Boys is like the Electoral College of shout-out love songs, wishing California could be more like the rest of the country, giving props to all areas of the US.

Conversely, Hillary patron Katy Perry's "California Gurls" is focused entirely on California as the cultural be-all, with lyrics that are more sexually suggestive if not offensive to the likes of Title IX administrators.

Perry is naked for much of the video before she shoots whipped cream from her beasts.

California Gurls (with some of the potentially Title IX offending lyrics in bold)

Greetings loved ones
Let's take a journey

I know a place
Where the grass is really greener
Warm, wet n' wild
There must be something in the water
Sippin' gin and juice
Laying underneath the palm trees
(undone)
The boys
Break their necks
Try'na to creep a little sneak peek
(at us)


You could travel the world
But nothing comes close
To the golden coast
Once you party with us
You'll be falling in love
Ooh oh ooh oh oh ooh

California gurls
We're unforgettable
Daisy dukes
Bikinis on top
Sun-kissed skin
So hot
We'll melt your Popsicle

Ooh oh ooh
Ooh oh ooh

California gurls
We're undeniable
Fine, fresh, fierce
We got it unlocked
West coast represent
Now put your hands up
Ooh oh ooh
Ooh oh ooh

Sex on the beach
We don't mind sand in our stilettos
We freak
In my jeep

Snoop doggy-dog on the stereo oh oh

You could travel the world
But nothing comes close
To the golden coast
Once you party with us
You'll be falling in love
Ooh oh ooh ooh oh ooh

California gurls
We're unforgettable
Daisy dukes
Bikinis on top
Sun-kissed skin
So hot
We'll melt your Popsicle
Ooh oh ooh
Ooh oh ooh

California gurls
We're undeniable
Fine, fresh, fierce
We got it on lock
West coast represent
Now put your hands up
Ooh oh ooh
Ooh oh ooh

Toned tan
Fit and ready
Turn it up cause its gettin' heavy
Wild, wild west coast
These are the gurls I love the most
I mean the ones
I mean like shes the one
Kiss her, touch her
Squeeze her buns
The gurls a freak
She drives a jeep
And live on the beach

I'm okay
I won't play
I love the bay
Just like I love L.A.
Venice beach
And palm springs
Summer time is everything
Home boys
Bangin' out
All that ass

Hanging out
Bikinis, tankinis, martinis
No weenies
Just a king
And a Queenie
Katy my lady
(yeah)
And looky here baby
(uh huh)
I'm all up on you
'Cause you representing California (oh yeah)

California gurls
We're unforgettable
Daisy dukes
Bikinis on top
Sun-kissed skin
So hot
We'll melt your Popsicle
Ooh oh ooh
Ooh oh ooh

California gurls
We're undeniable
Fine, fresh, fierce
We got it on lock
West coast represent (west coast, west coast)
Now put your hands up
Ooh oh ooh
Ooh oh ooh

California gurls man
(California)
(California gurls)


cubanbob said...

"The point of the article is that the complaints, if they exist, were started not by any offended party but rather by the prosecution; that the evidence, which was not presented before any authority for adversarial due process, does not support any finding of any guilt; that the "process" was merely a conviction without a trial."

Obviously, somebody was offended or how did this ever get started? What do you mean by "the prosecution"? Some UK faculty or staff person decided it was inappropriate and put the program in a bad light.

And he wasn't convicted. It wasn't a crime. It was an administrative process. An employer does have some power over an employees speech. There are many things an employer might tell employees they can't do. I recommending reading and thinking more deeply about problems that could arise."

Hmm, the ultimate employer is the State. Presumably a little jigger by the State Legislature could give the Governor the right to fire without cause staff and or faculty whose speech the State could find offensive. As for the withholding of Federal funds by the DoE functionaries that there might be a test case for apply the coercive standard of the Obamacare ruling.

Quaestor said...

Repeal Title IX.

Mike Sylwester said...

A Title IX coordinator has a personal interest in initiating cases, finding guilt and imposing punishments. The higher the numbers, the better for the coordinator's career.

I suspect that the coordinator herself wants to keep the lyrics secret, so that she does not become a public laughing-stock. That might be bad for her career.

rhhardin said...

There's no popular song about offended girls, is the trouble.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

For that matter, aren't the people of Kentucky the man's employers? In which case, how do the state's governor and legislature feel about the denial of due process?

dreams said...

When Trump takes on Title IX, the Obama voter Althouse and all the other feminists are going to feel like they have gotten grabbed by their you know what.

Jim Nicholson said...

No, Ann, just no.

This guy was harmed by a public state-run institution for exercising his free-speech rights, and for doing his job as an educator and a professional.

Any other reading of the situation is not just wrong, it's morally abhorrent.

My name goes here. said...

"It wasn't a criminal trial. The question is what process is due. It's pretty complicated actually and depends on various factors, like the private interest, the government interest, and the risk of error from one process as opposed to another."

Even if it is not a criminal trial, please explain why he should not get a presumption of innocence? He is innocent should be the starting spot for all discussions with a state actor.

dreams said...

"For that matter, aren't the people of Kentucky the man's employers? In which case, how do the state's governor and legislature feel about the denial of due process?"

A Republican governor and both houses of the legislature are now Republican so I'm guessing they don't like it.

Meade said...

"There's no popular song about offended girls, is the trouble."

You must've missed The Police - Don't Stand So Close To Me

Charted #10 US Billboard Hot 100; UK Singles Chart #1

Next Adventure said...

One other thing that the story is missing: These kind of dress-up gag performances are a big thing in China. My sister worked there for a huge American company and they would do Rock Star impersonations. I've seen pictures from a lot of other companies with silly skits that would never get approval in the USA. I don't know if it is related to the karaoke culture or some other thing, but this guy doing a silly or even suggestive performance may have been expected by the host university.

Mike Sylwester said...

I like that Buck Ryan is expressing his complaint by means of a long article in the local newspaper. For sure, the University of Kentucky did not expect that to happen.

It's the dawn of the Age of Trump.

* Trump's got to tweet.

* Title IX victims got to publish their complaints in the mass media.

Kassaar said...

California girls was only offensive in that it makes girls from other regions terrible by comparison.

I have always interpreted the lyrics the other way around: girls from other regions are equally fantastic but they excell in other departments, which is why it would be great (from a male Californian point of view) to have them close at hand in CA.

Johnathan Birks said...

Can "Back in the USSR" be far behind?

Meade said...

Kassaar, that is at once my interpretation and the correct interpretation of the lyrics. ;-)

Goldenpause said...

Forget writing in the newspaper. The UK professor needs to lawyer up pronto. It is clear that the presumption of innocence, due process and something akin to transparency are concepts which UK and its educrats are unfamiliar with. A lawsuit might give them the opportunity to acquaint themselves with these concepts.

Unknown said...

For years the song's only credit was "Brian Wilson" though those are clearly Mike Love lyrics. At the time Love was on the outs with Murray Wilson, Brian, Carl & Dennis's dad who still controlled the publishing. It took a lawsuit years later to get Love's credit. Nowdays, Love says in a not totally unconvincing retcon that they weren't dissing *any* girls in favor of California girls, but wanted all those great girls they were talking about from other places to "be California girls" so they could be around them all the time..

The backing track shows Wilson continuing with his "pocket symphony" approach despite the "Summer Days & Summer Nights" album being a return to earlier Beach Boys themes in between the more "adult" "Today" and "Pet Sounds" albums. I think it is one of the few pop songs completely recognizable on the first note. Although the backing track is complex, the boys are often able to pull off great (non-lip-synched) live versions. Most recently, the surviving Beach Boys managed a classic rendition, ravaged voices and all, on their 2012 50th anniversary tour here.

They also did a great version of what is (currently) the last great Beach Boys' song ,Isn't It Time?

Michael K said...

I don't know if it is related to the karaoke culture or some other thing, but this guy doing a silly or even suggestive performance may have been expected by the host university.

This may, in fact, be an issue. Kentucky and its U may now be a laughingstock in parts of China.

dreams said...

We are the ones we've been waiting for and this is all there is. What the hell!

Birkel said...

I want the Trump Administration to institute 'The Althouse Rule' by hiring really sexy women -- Trump may know some from his pageant days -- and sending them into federal agencies.

Anybody who makes what can be deemed offensive comments by those most easily outraged will be give an 'administrative process' and will lose their jobs. Both women and men will be subjected to these 'administrative processes' so there should be no disparate impact.

'The Althouse Rule'

Amadeus 48 said...

I read this, and I'm with Althouse: I don't know what happened. The potential for disaster here is yyuge, but it could be merely lame, or it could be completely innocent and funny in a goofy, old guy way.

I modestly suggest that Althouse's junior high school teacher with the enthusiasm for miniskirts mentioned above was being a bit creepy, too, although it is not clear what Althouse thinks (other than she was eager to wear miniskirts).

Jupiter said...

"An employer does have some power over an employees speech. There are many things an employer might tell employees they can't do."

"In my case, I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me. My message was turned into an open records request by UK’s legal office. A few days later I received a two-page letter denying my request."

So, it appears that this is more a case of there being some things an employer *won't* tell their employees they can't do. I think a guy named Kafka wrote something about that.

richlb said...

Speaking of a song being covered by the Chipmunks, there was a Chipmunk Punk album from the early 80's that contained a cover of The Knack's "Good Girls Don't," which is a fantastic song and is dirty as can be just below the surface. My wife still has a cassette copy of that album, and I've ripped it to MP3 since she loves it so much.

traditionalguy said...

The 1960s dealt with love between men and women. The a-sexuals, the bi-sexuals, the trans-sexuals, the homosexuals and the Aphrodites were getting their feelings hurt. We were so selfish once. So I suppose this Title 9 Mythology is our just punishment.

Oso Negro said...

Althouse the ageist!

"especially when males are singing about females their own age who are not their students."

In my lifetime, Progressives have managed to mainstream homosexuality, formerly thought to be a sexual deviancy, and demonized relationships between younger women and older men - because MALE PREDATION! At the age of 59, there are American dating apps that prevent me from seeing the profiles of women under 39 years of age.

My response? FUCK YOU, I will go international and escape the leftist neo-Puritan busybodies.

Ann Althouse said...

"So, it appears that this is more a case of there being some things an employer *won't* tell their employees they can't do. I think a guy named Kafka wrote something about that."

Wait. He totally knows what he did! He knows the accusation.

What he doesn't know is who reported him.

Keep the facts straight, please.

EDH said...

Meade said...
"There's no popular song about offended girls, is the trouble."

You must've missed The Police - Don't Stand So Close To Me


Isn't that a song ostensibly about a male teacher "seduced" by a young female student, at least in his mind?

Young teacher, the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be
Inside her there's longing
This girl's an open page
Book marking, she's so close now
This girl is half his age

Her friends are so jealous
You know how bad girls get
Sometimes it's not so easy
To be the teacher's pet
Temptation, frustration
So bad it makes him cry
Wet bus stop, she's waiting
His car is warm and dry

Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staffroom
The accusations fly
It's no use, he sees her
He starts to shake and cough
Just like the old man in
That book by Nabakov

Mike Sylwester said...

I recently read a superb book, titled River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze, by Peter Hessler, who was a Peace Corps volunteer assigned to teach English for two years at a teacher's college in Fuling, China. He was one of two such Peace Corps teachers there.

Some of the college's administrators were wary and easily offended by these two young American teachers, both of whom were modest, moderate, idealistic young men who were just trying to be helpful.

Hessler tells a hilarious story about the other teacher, who was teaching a class on international literature. For a graduation party, the other teacher assigned his class to put on a skit on how Don Quixote's Man of La Mancha might have been told in a Chinese setting. The Chinese students themselves developed and wrote a skit that caused the entire audience to laugh hysterically.

One element of the novel is that Don Quixote promised to give Sancho Panza an island as payment for accompanying him. In the Chinese skit, the Don Quixote character promised to give the Sancho Panza character the island of Taiwan. This joke was entirely the idea of the Chinese students.

Although the entire audience loved the skit, one of the college administrators decided to make a political issue of it, complaining to the Peace Corps that this American teacher was agitating his Chinese students about sensitive political matters.

I suppose that something similar happened in this Title IX case.

Ann Althouse said...

"At the age of 59, there are American dating apps that prevent me from seeing the profiles of women under 39 years of age."

It's just the free market. How do you build a dating app? You have to get people to participate. I don't know the various problems, but I assume that getting enough women in there is important, and how do you attract them? Maybe it works to cause them not to see any old men, to make the place feel full of healthy/vibrant/good-boyfriend material.

Use another app if you don't like that one. I'm sure there are apps for young women looking for father-figure type boyfriends.

Why do you think women's selectivity is "Puritanical"?

I think "I will go international" sounds... creepy. What do you mean? You'll reject American women because we are too aware of our power and freedom? You want someone made more vulnerable by need?!

Meade said...

"Isn't that a song ostensibly about a male teacher "seduced" by a young female student, at least in his mind?"

The mind is exactly the place where the sexual seeker forms the necessary ideation to become sexual predator.

richlb said...

Chipmunks sing Good Girls Don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQT8tM1JHFI

Birkel said...

Althouse,

Let's get back to the idea that a state actor can deprive people of property without due process. I would like to read more. Shall we follow that rabbit down that hole?

And the myriad reasons people like another somebody number in the millions. Who judges them creepy? I say old people wanting old people is creepy. Next!

Henry said...

There's no popular song about offended girls, is the trouble

These boots are made for walking

Those are the words. The video is something else entirely.

Scratchy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

As the people in Kentucky might say about Scratchy:

Bless your heart.

SGT Ted said...

Look, policing heterosexual male expression, especially that of non-hunk men, is what modern progressives and feminists do.

Women, on the other hand, are free to have slut walks and call all men rapists with the expectation that there will be no repercussions to them socially or professionally.

Althouse is all for policing speech like that by males, however innocuous, because some female was uncomfortable. And we all know that civil rights are subordinate to what women desire. It's in the Constitution.

JAORE said...

"Wait. He totally knows what he did! He knows the accusation.

What he doesn't know is who reported him."

Two out of three correct. He certainly knows what he did. He does not know who reported him. There are the two correct statements.

"He knows the accusation".

Oh really? Her is a quote from his article, "I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me."

Since the article is the only evidence before us:

He not only does not know the accuser, he apparently does not know exactly what the accusation included. Was the song the only accusation? Were there details of his demeanor like he was leering, he leaned over a female student as he sang...? Was the song described accurately? Were other acts alleged? And, if so, were they accurately depicted? Did the accusation state he treated female students differently or single out a female?

Nope, two out of three is the best score I can give.

Fortunately I grade on a curve.





Michael K said...

Wait. He totally knows what he did! He knows the accusation.

What he doesn't know is who reported him.

Keep the facts straight, please.


I wonder if you recall how a famous British scientist was accused of a sexist remark in a speech in Korea ?

Certainly the speed of the dispatch of Hunt – who won the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology for his work on cell division – from his various academic posts is startling.

He is a Nobel Prize winner and was speaking in Korea,. Rather similar circumstance.

However, his accuser was NOT Korean but a SJW agitator.

“I was told by a senior that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked – though I was told it would be treated as a low-key affair. Tim duly emailed his resignation when he got home.

Eventually, he was to get some degree of justice.

In the audience was a black, female journalist called Connie St. Louis. Shortly after Hunt had finished she took to Twitter to tell the world about some of the finer details of his speech, most notably his antiquated views on women.”

Then evidence began to appear.

A transcript made by a European Commission official in attendance told the full story.

Then a recording of the offending joke emerged. In it, the last sentence of the above transcript is heard to be uttered followed by a round of warm laughter. That’d be the laughter that never happened, according to St. Louis, a lie she repeated in her column in The Guardian.

You see how that goes, Ann ? Maybe evidence will appear,

It was recently announced that Hunt was reinstated by the Royal Society, a position he was asked to resign from at the height of the furore. His new role at a Japanese university eclipses anything he had at UCL, who admit they regret having to accept his resignation to quell the baying mob.

Collins has also landed a prominent position in Japan as well. For a couple who weathered this terrible storm it is a just reward and it should be reported as such, rather than a testament to the power of lies and the liars who make up stories to collect straight white male scalps.


Britain's loss will be Japan's gain.

hstad said...

This comment from Althouse is unbelievable? "..... I'm just not going to be herded into finding him innocent....?" Your predicate is dumb! He is "innocent" until proven guilty! Your use of the word "finding him innocent..." is another political correct version of you trying to side with a bunch of idiotic administrators in college. You're too close to the college tribe!

Oso Negro said...

Althouse asks:

Why do you think women's selectivity is "Puritanical"?

I do not think women's selectivity is Puritanical. I think that the feminist campaign to demonize male sexuality is of a piece with Puritanism, though inspired by different texts. I have friends who STILL fear the religious right. I point out to them that curtailment of my personal sexual freedom in my lifetime has come from feminism, and not Christianity.

Althouse asks
I think "I will go international" sounds... creepy. What do you mean? You'll reject American women because we are too aware of our power and freedom? You want someone made more vulnerable by need?!


Ha ha ha ha ha! Is it "creepy" when people seek freedom or opportunity in another country that they lack in their own? Or only when someone is doing it for reasons you don't like? Spoiled American women may see a "creep", where women in other countries see a successful man. Diversity! Globalism! The free market at work! I was WAY ahead of my time on this one, and quit dating American women in the early 1990s. I cannot imagine circumstances under which I would ever date an American woman again. And if you ever met my ex-wife or daughters you would see the absurdity of calling them "vulnerable". They are fierce and beautiful! Cleanly descended from the Scythians whose women so frightened the mincing Greeks.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Why do you think women's selectivity is "Puritanical"?

Exactly, Professor, you get 'im: women's selectivity is to be celebrated & supported, they're guardians of the gene pool, etc.

Men's selectivity? That's sexism, straight up.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...The question is: What did he do? Do you know? I don't. That's my point. I'm not finding him guilty. I'm just not going to be herded into finding him innocent.

Just so. Why should we presume anything--certainly anything as serious as innocence. What a strange and potentially harmful norm that would be!

Mark O said...

I saw the Beach Boys in concert numerous times. They had great difficulty singing in key and the start of this video is a perfect example.

The New Puritans are here. Cotton Mather, call your office.

rightguy2 said...

Well, he didn't do Zappa's Dinah Moe Humm.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

Althouse said: "It's just the free market... Use another app if you don't like that one. I'm sure there are apps for young women looking for father-figure type boyfriends."

Let's see if this holds up after making a few substitutions.

"It's just the free market... Use another [baker] if you don't like that one. I'm sure there are [bakers] for [gay couples] looking for [wedding cakes]."

Still good, right?

tim maguire said...

Prof. It seems to me the process you ask for here is irrelevant. The process that matters is the one used by the university--which, according to him, is no process. That is what is on trial at this stage. Not him and his song.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Meade said...You must've missed The Police - Don't Stand So Close To Me

From that song--from the lyrics--how do you get "offended girls?" The only people we're told are upset are the teacher (presumably a guy) and people in "the staffroom" (presumably adults). Which girls are offended? The other girls are "jealous," but jealous <> offense.

The singer/narrator is 3rd person. I've always thought the line "You know how bad girls get" is interestingly ambiguous (do I know bad girls and how they get or do I know how bad all girls get?) but that one still doesn't get you to "this song is about or involves offended girls."

Seems like (at least) one of us needs to think deeply...

Ken B said...

Am I reading the same article as Althouse?

Her: "The question is what process is due."
Him: "When I inquired about my due process rights, I was told by the provost that I didn’t have any... ' Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.'"

Him: "UK’s three-month investigation of my case revealed no student complaints."
Her: "He totally knows what he did!"

Actually that last quote is even nore awful when presented in in full: "Wait. He totally knows what he did! He knows the accusation."
You can only infer someone knows what he is accused of from his knowing what he actually did if the accusation is true. Otherwise you cannot infer he *knows* the accusation. So Althouse simply and undeniably is assuming the accusation is true.

Meade said...

"Seems like (at least) one of us needs to think deeply... "

All true, HooDoo. If I were you, I wouldn't over deeply think about it. It was mostly just me counter-trolling rh.

Fernandinande said...

A commenter at www.kentucky.com wrote:
"There is more to this story… And it happened over a year ago." linked to a pdf with lots of black bars:

"While there is no allegation of sexual relationship, there were allegations of XXXXXXXXXXXX. Of significant concern XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. A few of the faculty described seeing Mr. Ryan and XX walking early one morning and she was wearing one of his UK shirts.
...
Also of major concern and embarrassment to all those I talked to was the song that Mr. Ryan sang at the closing ceremony; inserting the names of Chinese cities into the XXXXXXXX."
(X = redacted in PDF).

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Wait. He totally knows what he did! He knows the accusation.
What he doesn't know is who reported him. Keep the facts straight, please.


This feels...needlessly argumentative. He knows what he did (from his perspective, in his opinion) and presumably he thinks what he did wasn't wrong. He knows he was accused of doing something wrong and he doesn't know who reported him...but more importantly he doesn't know HOW the authority in question determined that he did something wrong. That's the problem, and that's obviously what he's making a due process claim about. He knows he was accused of something and he knows he was punished. He asked for the specifics of the complaint against him, and he was denied that information.
You're asking for more information--so is/was he! You say he knows the accusation, but from his article he says he does not know the specifics of the complaint (just the regulation he is supposed to have violated).
From his article:
In my case, I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me. My message was turned into an open records request by UK’s legal office. A few days later I received a two-page letter denying my request.

The dean who issued my punishment never talked to me.


He doesn't know details of the complaint--who was offended, on what basis, etc. You want more details, but so does he!

Jim S. said...

The Chipmunks also sang "My Sharona":

"Never gonna stop, give it up, such a dirty mind
I always get it up, for the touch of the younger kind"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OpjNavBgrc

Václav Patrik Šulik said...

Jim Watt approves. "These are the wrong element."

Ann Althouse said...

"I modestly suggest that Althouse's junior high school teacher with the enthusiasm for miniskirts mentioned above was being a bit creepy, too, although it is not clear what Althouse thinks (other than she was eager to wear miniskirts)."

The same teacher also spoke with approval of this new drug, LSD, and encouraged our interest in James Bond books, which everyone at the time thought of in terms of the sex scenes.

"Let's get back to the idea that a state actor can deprive people of property without due process. I would like to read more. Shall we follow that rabbit down that hole?"

No, the question is what process is due. Think clearly, and look into courts actually analyze due process. Sometimes your employer can limit your speech, otherwise the people who work at Whole Foods wouldn't always ask you if you found everything you were looking for.

A teacher doing a segment of a ceremony for his institution isn't free to say just anything he wants. And to make his segment about male enthusiasm for pretty girls really is arguably a problem of making the education conditions significantly different for males and females. It's not about anyone being offended in the sense of being shocked at sex. It's about demanding that the educational environment treat women and men as equally worthy. And I remember when this was not required. I went to an art school where it was understood that a particular professor believed women shouldn't be there and would therefore only give them a B at most. I went to a high school where girls who participated in school plays were excluded from the lighting crew. I heard numerous stories about how female law students were treated differently (before my time in law school). I went to high school when you were forced to drop out if you got pregnant. There has been serious inequality and Title IX is the legal structure for dealing with it.

I don't see the reason to think that a teacher must be permitted sing songs about how women dress and how they look in a bikini and how they kiss! Seriously, why did he think that was okay? To express his feelings? What else would you let him express about how he finds women sexy? Come on! You know there's a point that you would find intolerable.

"He certainly knows what he did. He does not know who reported him. There are the two correct statements. "He knows the accusation". Oh really? Her is a quote from his article, "I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me.""

Why is the identity of the complainant relevant to the accusation? What he did he did publicly. It wasn't about a private interaction. The school is protecting the witnesses. I don't know why the freedom of information request was denied. I'd like to see the details, but it's possible that it was denied because their identity made no difference. He writes: "In my case, I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me. My message was turned into an open records request by UK’s legal office. A few days later I received a two-page letter denying my request." What did the 2-page letter say? He doesn't tell us.

"The dean who issued my punishment never talked to me." I'm a little confused by that. The dean is a different person from the Title IX coordinator? Did that person talk to him? I'm just not convinced that we are hearing the whole story.

"He doesn't know details of the complaint--who was offended, on what basis, etc. You want more details, but so does he!"

Fine, but that is my point. I'm not against him, and I'm not opposed to his having more process than he got. I'm just pointing out that we're getting a one-sided presentation of the story and showing you where I think there is missing or skewed information.

SukieTawdry said...

According to public interest law professor John Banzhaf in a letter to The Daily Caller:

“A state university is required by the Constitution to provide a person with his due process rights, in the form of a wide variety of procedural protections in an evidentiary hearing, before he can be deprived of property, or, in addition, what the courts have called a ‘liberty interest'.

Both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment provide that no person shall be ‘deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law'” and “even small amounts of money, or inexpensive personal items, constitute ‘property'". I hope Ryan sues the bastards."


Unlike Ann, I don't care about the full lyrics to the song. I think, instead, Title IX coordinators should be taken to the quadrangle and summarily executed.

I graduated from high school in the mid-60s. No one wore mini skirts to my school. It was against the dress code. I was sent home once because when I knelt, the hem of my skirt didn't quite touch the floor. I don't know what any of this has to do with the subject at hand, though. Except maybe that since the young teenage Ann seemed quite susceptible to what doesn't even amount to a suggestion, teachers should watch what they say when girls are present.



Ken B said...

Althouse will not directly address the point raised by me and HoodlumDoodlum. She wrote

"Wait. He totally knows what he did! He knows the accusation."

This just shows Althouse has decided he's guilty of something. Was the accusation he grabbed his crotch? did a fake cunnilingus face? There's all kinds of false accusations that can be made about what one did in public. He can only know the accusation without being told the accusation is there is something *obvious* that he *did*.

Unknown said...

Interestingly, universities do NOT consider that their professors are bringing disrepute upon their school when 80 some faculty declare the Duke lacrosse players guilty without justification, or declare that Trump is Hitler, or weep publicly, or say white people are the devil and should be killed, or that all males are rapists. Surely those things are a little more outrageous than singing the Beach Boys?

Darrell said...

A world of secret hungers,
Perverting the men who make your laws
Every desire is hidden away,
In drawer, in a desk,
By a Naughahyde chair
On a rug where they walk and drool
Past the girls in the office

You see in the back, of the City Hall mind
The dream of a girl about thirteen
Off with her clothes and into a bed,
Where she tickles his fancy all night long

His wife's attending an orchid show
She squealed for a week to get him to go
But back in the bed his teenage Queen
Is rocking and rolling and acting obscene
Baby! Baby! Baby! Baby!

And he loves it! He loves it! It curls up his toes!
She bites his fat neck, And it lights up his nose,
But he cannot be fooled, Old City Hall Fred,
She's nasty, she's nasty, She digs it in bed!

Do it again, and do it some more!
That does it, by golly, it's nasty for sure!
Nasty-nasty-nasty! Nasty-nasty-nasty!
(Only thirteen, and she knows how to NASTY)

She's a dirty young mind. Corrupted, corroded...
Well she's thirteen today, And I hear she gets loaded

If she were my daughter I'd...
What would you do, Daddy?
If she were my daughter I'd...
What would you do, Daddy?
If she were my daughter I'd...
What would you do, Daddy?
Smother my daughter in chocolate syrup,
And strap her on again, Oh baby!
Smother that girl in chocolate syrup,
And strap her on again!
She's a Teenage Baby, and she turns me on,
I'd like to make Her do a nasty
On the White House Lawn!
Going to smother that daughter in chocolate syrup,
And boogie till the cows come home!

Time to go home, Madge is on the phone
Gotta meet the Guerneys And a dozen gray attorneys
TV dinner by the pool I'm so glad I finished school
Life is such a ball I run the world from City Hall

--Frank Zappa
Brown Shoes Don't Make It

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Why is the identity of the complainant relevant to the accusation? What he did he did publicly. It wasn't about a private interaction. The school is protecting the witnesses. I don't know why the freedom of information request was denied. I'd like to see the details, but it's possible that it was denied because their identity made no difference.

You keep implying that knowing the accuser is the only motivation for his wanting more info, Professor, but it manifestly is not. No one is arguing that the guy has a full Confrontation Clause right to know and cross-examine his accuser (though I'm sure he'd like that) in this case. Central to the due process idea behind the 6th (and, indeed, vital to most conceptions of the rule of law itself) is the right to know the nature of the accusation, right? Do you think that doesn't apply here--that the school can just say "you violated this section of the rules in some way, you know what you did, we know what you did, you'll be punished?" I really have a hard time believing you'd accept that kind of thing if you were the one found guilty of some offense.

The guy's giving his own, sympathetic version of events. Sure, ok. You want more info and you aren't taking his assertions at face value. Sure, ok, great. Employers have some say over what expression their employees may engage in. OK, we all probably agree with those general terms. Now what? According to the guy he's tried to get more info and been denied. The thing striking some of us as odd, Professor, is that you seem to be taking the school's position (assuming the guy is guilty and deserved to be punished) without seeing much evidence. Since most of the time we presume people are innocent, and since (as you admit) we don't have much evidence one way or the other here...well, the implication is that you think the guy's behavior, by his own description (which, apart from the school's finding against him in a black box process, is all the evidence we really have) is enough to convince you of his (probable) guilt.
Is that understanding of your judgement here incorrect?

Static Ping said...

Ann, I completely agree with you that a one-sided story is insufficient to make judgments on the case. We've seen too many hoaxes recently to believe anything at face value. That said, his claims are indeed serious and should be taken as such. The song is harmless in itself and basically a church hymn compared to some of the stuff out now. Either there is a lot more to this story or the UK has a lot of answering to do.

Unknown said...

>I saw the Beach Boys in concert numerous times. They had great difficulty singing in key and the start of this video is a perfect example.

It's especially difficult with 1960s tech where you can't hear yourself sing. But there's a session clip of "Wendy" where Brian isn't satisfied with what he's hearing, stops the backing track and runs the guys through the chorus live. Pure magic. Pretty sure it's on youtube somewhere, but I'm in a B&N cafe now, so I can't go searching through audio. Also, check out the difficult vocalese coda to "Good Vibrations" on "Live In London". You can even hear one of them laugh at how well they nailed it..

Birkel said...

Bull shit, Althouse! Pretending that Whole Foods and the state of Kentucky are similarly situated is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is stupid for you to compare the two.

The state of Kentucky is bound by the 14th Amendment, through the Incorporation Doctrine, to grant due process. Whole Foods is in no way similarly bound.

You sound like a fool. And you sound like the unintended consequence of losing a lawsuit, losing credibility in the wider community (stakeholders matter, right?) and the marginalization of the academy generally are of no import to you.

Birkel said...

Althouse, above at her most patronizing: "You know there's a point that you would find intolerable.

Maybe you should"(t)hink clearly, and look into courts actually analyze due process instead of writing about what would make somebody uncomfortable in a classroom. That is not at issue. Changing the subject is poor form.

Birkel said...

Althouse: "...protecting the witnesses..."

And here I assumed a right to confront witnesses was due process. You are watching institutions destroy their own credibility.

As a conservative, I cheer the destruction.

Birkel said...

HoodlumDoodlum: "Do you think that doesn't apply here--that the school can just say "you violated this section of the rules in some way, you know what you did, we know what you did, you'll be punished?"

I think the rules must comply with applicable law. Telling me something is against the rules is not even a good start.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Michael K: Your update about Hunt and Collins made my day. Thank you.

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

I believe it was, FTR, Woody Woodbury who first did dirty nursery rhymes, 25 or 30 years prior to Clay. Back in the old days of "Ft. Liquordale."

Amadeus 48 said...

"The same teacher also spoke with approval of this new drug, LSD, and encouraged our interest in James Bond books, which everyone at the time thought of in terms of the sex scenes."

Thanks for the additional information. Definitely creepy. Wrong speaker, wrong audience.

kentuckyliz said...

Surely there is a video somewhere of this closing ceremony? I can imagine lots of ways where the song could be appropriate in context, especially if discussing contrasts of American and Chinese culture and illustrating it with the ridiculous example of California Girls with Chinese cities named. It points out that Chinese culture is conservative by comparison and they would have never originated this pop song. Perhaps the esteemed blogress only favors freedom for visual arts and not verbal arts. Also, there is a big assumption about a woman wearing a T shirt. Perhaps she spilled tea on her shirt and wanted to soak it before it stained. I don't like the jumping to conclusions about her. I find it interesting that only faculty brought complaints. No complaints or even interviews by the T9 officer of any student whatsoever. I know this guy's piece is an Op Ed and he could be minimizing his own behavior and not telling the full story. I am open to more information but this process is horrible and I think he should proceed with the lawsuit. The only reason why he wouldn't is if he knows he engaged in terrible behavior that would merit discipline. If it is unmerited, I am sure the AAUP and other faculty friendly organizations would even fund the lawyer, out of a shared concern for fairness for all faculty.