I want to thank all of you for taking the time to attend this meeting. The subject is very serious.

Today was the funeral of John Lewis, and it is the Jewish holiday of Tisha B’Av. It is a serious

day, and a fitting one, to think about justice, about fairness, and about doing what is right.

To put it bluntly, the administration is asking you to sentence me to “the academic death

penalty.” If you do that, you will be ending my career, here or anywhere, forever - a career

dedicated to antidiscrimination law and to educating lawyers of color. You will also be

overruling the unanimous vote of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. Those are

two things I hope you will be very reluctant to do. They are not in anyone’s best interests - not

mine, and not La Verne’s. I hope to show you why.

I want to begin with the matters the Provost has set before you. They are all undated, perhaps

intending to suggest they are recent. In fact, all but one arose from the fall 2017 semester.

The first two items involve three students who failed a class I taught in the fall of 2017. None of

them has yet passed the bar exam. None of them made any complaints whatsoever about this

class while they were enrolled in it. None of them challenged their midterm grades, or any other

aspect of the class.

One of the three, Ms. Dagstanyan, was unable to re-enroll in the class in the spring of 2018,

because it would have resulted in an “overload” for her. She sought permission to enroll in extra

units in her final semester, but this request was denied - not by me. This, and this alone, delayed

1
her “time to degree.” Had it been up to me, I’d have allowed her to retake the class, as others

were doing, with no delay. When the overload was denied, the student decided to challenge the

failing grade she had earned in the course - the lowest failing grade awarded that semester. She

sought to meet with me multiple times to have me re-grade her exam, but the Associate Dean

prohibited me from doing that. I will concede that I did not meet with her as often as I might

have, to make that clear to her. However, the meeting requirement is one the administration

could freely waive. I do not know why they did not, and instead, had a different professor

re-grade her exam, after prohibiting me from doing so. Even then, the re-graded exam shows she

was, at most, entitled to 5 additional points, which would not have changed her grade to passing -

but she was awarded 12 instead, and a passing grade. The unfortunate consequences that she

later suffered, due to the delay, are the consequences of failing a course with no units to spare in

her last semester, not any “dereliction” by me. At most, my failure to meet with her delayed the

resolution of the matter, and for that I am genuinely sorry. I am also sorry that this student did

not take her academic responsibilities more seriously - but I stand behind the grade she earned.

The other two students who failed were able to re-enroll. The COL sets a maximum number of

permitted absences before a student is automatically dropped. At the first class meeting of the

semester, only one of the two students was on the roster. He attended. I allowed him to sign in

and leave early, without being marked absent. It seemed only fair, since the other student, who

hadn’t yet enrolled, would not “use up” a permitted absence, even though he did not attend. By

the second month of the semester, they had both missed so many classes they were dropped.

Then they went to the Dean and, as desperate students sometimes do, blamed their teacher. They

2
told him that I had said I would allow them to miss class without being marked absent. I don’t

know why the Dean believed them - after all, they were dropped because I ​did ​mark them absent.

The most charitable interpretation is that the students somehow misunderstood my one-time

permission for one of them to leave early as permission for them both to skip class all semester.

Of course, even if they thought I would allow that, they should still have attended. The Provost

calls this “cavalier encouragement of students to falsify attendance records.” But I did not

encourage students to falsify attendance records, and they didn’t. What has jeopardized these

students’ careers, if anything has, is their poor work ethic, their dishonesty, and ultimately, their

inability to pass the bar exam.

The last 2017 item is the Provost’s claim that I made a “veiled threat against students as they

were filling out student course evaluations for a class in which [I] underperformed.” This too is

false. I made no threat of any kind, “veiled” or otherwise, and no student has said that I did.

Here is what actually happened. In the summer of 2017, a student course evaluation for the

summer Professional Responsibility course stated, falsely, that a course assignment required

students to violate federal copyright law, and also stated, falsely, that I had taken credit

improperly for student work published in a blog post. The associate dean is responsible for

reviewing student evaluations at the end of each semester, and following up on them as needed.

But he did not do so. When the course was offered again in the fall, I was concerned that that

student had shared these uninformed views with others. On that basis, I reminded students of the

importance of being careful in statements of fact, as distinct from opinion, on evaluations. This

is hardly a threat. As a teacher of Professional Responsibility, I frequently discuss with students

3
the importance of care in expression. These discussions are not “threats.” I encouraged students

to evaluate the course with candor, and they did - many students were dissatisfied with the

course. (This, by the way, does not mean that I “underperformed,” as the Provost asserts. It is

well-established that student satisfaction with a particular course is not a reliable measure of the

teaching effectiveness of that professor or the course.) In any event, no one reported feeling

threatened by the instruction I gave. Never before or since have I found myself in a position

where I felt this instruction was necessary. To this day, I have no idea why this accusation was

leveled at all.

The Provost’s last basis for stripping me of tenure is his claim that I admitted that I “intended to

and [was] willing to assassinate Assistant Dean Saada.” That is a grotesque and horrible

mischaracterization of what I said, what I meant, and what I admitted. What the Provost

insultingly refers to as “spinning” my comment is, in fact, simply an honest explanation of how I

came to make that remark.

Back in late November, 2019, the Faculty Ad Hoc Committee related to the Cal Bar transition

held a meeting. I was an elected member of that committee, and the primary drafter of the

materials that committee submitted to this Board. Discussion at the Board level included serious

allegations of incompetence among the College of Law tenured faculty. Emotions were running

high. The committee discussed whether and how to respond to those charges - whether to defend

our competence. We also discussed whether we should address perceived shortcomings of the

Center for Academic and Bar Readiness (CABR), run by Assistant Dean Saada. It was our

4
understanding that she was the source of some of the Board’s views about the competence of the

tenured faculty, or the lack of it. As CABR’s leader, and the person to whom its staff reported,

Ms. Saada “was” CABR. Leaving that meeting, I remarked, to my colleague Chuck Doskow, in

my characteristic hyperbolic and metaphorical fashion, that the FAHC needed to decide “if we

were willing to assassinate Jendayi,” and that, “if so, I’m willing to do it.” What I meant - ​of

course -​ was that the committee needed to decide whether to include in its next report a section

critical of CABR. Prof. Doskow understood me perfectly. In fact, he shared my sentiments.

The FAHC later discussed this issue, and a first draft of those materials was prepared.

Ultimately, a discussion of CABR was not included. That is all there is to this. That is not

“spin.” That is what happened. I no more threatened the life of a colleague than a person who

says, in annoyance, “I could kill that guy,” actually means to kill anyone.

The suggestion that I actually threatened the life of a colleague is almost hard to take seriously,

and the idea that I ​admitted​ an intent to carry out that threat, even more incredible. That is not

what Chuck understood me to be saying, and he has said so. It is not what I meant. It is not

what the people who overheard me ​thought​ I meant. It is not what Ms. Saada herself thought I

meant. In fact, in response to a prior criticism I made of her, Ms. Saada accused me of trying to

“assassinate” her character. She obviously meant it metaphorically - as did I. For the Provost to

put this before you as an admission that ​I actually intended to kill someone,​ to murder a fellow

employee, is truly mind-boggling. It is also, I am afraid, not something the Provost himself

actually believes. It is simply a pretext to get rid of a troublesome professor.

5
I understand, as well as anyone, that in this intense, racially-charged time in our country, ​any

statement by a White professor about a Black professor, that seems in ​any​ way to suggest

violence, is unacceptable. Perhaps my denial that I intended any such thing seems self-serving.

But in fact, it is the contemporaneous reaction of others that really demonstrates that no one took

this seriously as a threat. The people who overheard it did not report it to law enforcement, or

even to campus security. They did not even tell Ms. Saada about it. They called HR. Human

Resources waited weeks to investigate. The outside investigator, to whom I admitted the

statement, concluded that it was a breach of a civility code, not even applicable to faculty, and

not an unlawful threat. No police report was made about it, until approximately 7 weeks after

the comment was made, a month after Ms. Saada learned of it. The police waited three days to

contact me. I had a 15 minute conversation with a police detective, on January 9, 2020, and have

heard absolutely nothing since that time. Ms. Saada filed a sworn declaration with the San

Bernardino County Court seeking a restraining order - and then no-showed her own hearing, and

the matter was dismissed. This all happened in January. There has been no follow-up at all. So

far as I know, no additional security of any kind was ever requested or provided to Ms. Saada.

Real threats of violence must be taken seriously. So please ask yourself, if ​any​ of the people

who now claim I meant to threaten her, really believed I ​intended to kill​ her, why didn’t ANY of

them do ANYTHING AT THE TIME to protect her? That seems shockingly irresponsible,

doesn’t it? Why didn’t they, at the very least, contact her that very day - at least to inform her?

Why didn’t they call the police? The Provost now wants you to believe that I admitted not just a

6
willingness but AN INTENT TO KILL a fellow University of La Verne employee. And yet,

what did the Provost of the University of La Verne do to protect her? Absolutely nothing.

I fear that some people at the University of La Verne believe that taking this remark anything

less than literally will appear to tolerate “hate speech” or discriminatory conduct. If so, that is

very unfortunate. It is of the utmost importance that all of us, and especially those in academic

and educational institutions, be able to ​distinguish​ between an intemperate, even uncivil, figure

of speech - like the one I used - and genuine threats to the well-being of our students and faculty

of color.

I hope I have shown you that the Provost’s allegations against me, when not simply untrue, have

been grossly exaggerated, and taken out of context. Over and over, statements I’ve made have

been given the worst possible interpretation, even when that strains credulity beyond the

breaking point. The incidents in that letter do not, on any plausible interpretation, constitute

grounds for stripping me of tenure.

Our university documents state that loss of tenure is appropriate for repeated, uncorrected serious

misconduct. It is reserved for wrongs so grave that they threaten the ability of the university to

carry out its mission (Chap. 4.3.1). The Handbook you adopted ​requires ​the administration to

show this before a faculty member is stripped of tenure. The burden is on the administration. I

do not think they have met it.

7
The three items of alleged misconduct from 2017 are minor infractions, at worst. The last was a

single intemperate comment. None of them have happened before or since. No prior or

subsequent similar conduct is alleged. If they needed to be remediated, they have been. And so,

they cannot be used, under our Handbook, as the basis for the involuntary loss of tenure.

Why, then, is the administration seeking to remove me?

Because I am in the way, and they don’t like me. Since the fall of 2017, I have been the

highest-profile advocate for faculty governance at ULV. I was a member of the Policies

Committee, charged by the Provost with updating the Faculty HB to bring it into compliance

with AAUP principles. I was the primary drafter of much of the new language in the HB - in

fact, I am the primary drafter of Chapter 4, the chapter currently applicable to my own

termination and the COL transition. The process of revising those documents brought me

frequently into conflict with the ULV administration, especially the Provost, who had very

different ideas about faculty rights and faculty governance.

I am also the president of ULV’s AAUP chapter - a chapter I revived at La Verne in 2018 and

helped build into the largest private-university advocacy chapter in California. The AAUP is

known for protecting professional values including those surrounding tenure, shared governance,

and academic freedom. These are values I believe in, and have fought for. The more

knowledgeable and influential I became, the more determined the administration became to get

rid of me.

8
Let me give you an example. You may recall some student protests in 2018-2019, led by a group

called “Decolonize ULV.” Students who were part of that group complained about specific

racist or racially insensitive behavior of specific faculty members, and also, administrators. So

far as I know, ​none​ of those faculty members was ever investigated, or placed on leave, or

deprived of their salary, or threatened with the loss of tenure. In March and April of 2019, ULV

was embroiled in the aftermath of what appeared to be some “hate crime” incidents on the main

campus. They later turned out to be a hoax, perpetrated by an LFCE student.

During that same academic year, a former faculty member, closely associated with some of the

students involved in these protests, came up for a very accelerated promotion and tenure vote,

after just three years of teaching. Despite the significant reservations of some of the tenured

faculty of his college - and despite the unanimous vote of the University Promotion and Tenure

Committee ​against​ this early award of tenure, in the end, he received it - and promptly left ULV.

In April of 2019, certain members of the LFCE tenured faculty and the University P&T

Committee came to me and the AAUP chapter vice president, with grave concerns about the

process surrounding this promotion. They shared their concerns with us. They asked for my

assistance in drafting a letter to be circulated among the LFCE tenured faculty only, possibly

destined for the Faculty Senate. I gave them that assistance. The facts recited in that letter were

provided by them. Although I circulated the letter, they signed it. Ultimately, though, they

decided not to forward it.

9
The letter they signed contains some damaging allegations about the conduct of both the Dean of

LFCE, and the Provost. This includes having entered into an improper acceleration agreement,

concealing information from the tenured faculty, interfering with the promotion process, and

attempting to subvert the independence of LFCE faculty members on the University P&T

committee. Perhaps most damaging, it reports explicitly race-based statements made by the

Provost about this candidate, which suggest or imply the use of improper race-based criteria for

hiring and promotion at ULV. He also accused tenured faculty members of racism for failing to

vote as he and the Dean of LFCE wished them to.

After the letter detailing this conduct was circulated among the LFCE tenured faculty, the

Provost contacted the President of the University and HR and expressed an intention to discipline

me - and me alone - for this matter. Not the LFCE faculty members who came to me and shared

this information, whether confidential or otherwise. Not the faculty members identified by

students as far back as November 2018 as having engaged in racist or racially insensitive

conduct. Just me, the person who helped faculty identify the violations of governance in his

conduct. The letter from the Provost to the President and HR lists a number of concerning

incidents that do not involve me at all. But rather than actually addressing the underlying racial

issues, at LFCE or ULV more generally, the Provost’s strategy was apparently to make me a

“scapegoat.” Because I was the president of the ULV AAUP chapter, this was also a direct attack

on AAUP principles related to academic freedom, shared governance, and tenure.

10
Sure enough, in September 2019, I received a disciplinary letter accusing me of breach of

confidentiality in relation to the LFCE matter. It cited Chapter 4.3.2 specifically. It appears that

HR carried out the Provost’s directions from April, and instructed the Interim Dean to discipline

me. I immediately responded and disputed that characterization of the facts, and the conclusions

drawn from them, as the Faculty HB gives me the right to do. Other faculty members involved

in the matter also wrote to the Dean and HR to describe what had actually happened. My effort

to defend myself was ignored. The letters from LFCE faculty colleagues were ignored.

Yet on numerous occasions in the fall of 2019, public statements were made implicating me,

personally, in a breach of confidentiality - as if it had been proved or admitted to, when neither

was the case. It was used as the basis for the attempt to impose a “Last Chance Agreement” on

me - a form of discipline not provided for by our faculty HB - even though it was never proved.

This alleged breach of confidentiality - by me - was also asserted to be the basis for subsequent

extremely onerous confidentiality agreements imposed on faculty members engaged in various

governance-related activities completely unconnected to this. The virulence with which this was

pursued against me was shocking and unwarranted - and I believe, was not based on my conduct,

but on the conduct by the Provost and the Dean of LFCE as revealed in that letter, and the

inability, or unwillingness, of the Provost to meaningfully address real issues of racial concern at

ULV.

I believe that is also the reason this matter has suddenly “disappeared” after being alleged against

me over and over - in order to keep it from coming to ​your​ attention. Since I was first

11
disciplined for this, I have been more than willing to discuss and defend my conduct. I do not

believe I breached confidentiality in any way, nor do I believe the faculty members who sought

my assistance did so. I have nothing to hide. The same, it would appear, cannot be said for the

administrators involved.

The precipitating event for my discipline happened in December 2019. On Monday, December

16, in response to ongoing concerns about the status of tenure in the COL transition and some

other faculty issues, the Faculty Senate voted no-confidence in University President Devorah

Lieberman and the upper level administration by a vote of 17-3 with 1 abstention. I was a

Faculty Senator, and a primary drafter of that Resolution. The Faculty Senate also agreed to

move the issue forward to the faculty at large in early January. Later the very same day, I was

notified that the “Last Chance Agreement” I was presented with in October, but had not signed,

was now in effect. On Tuesday, I was called in to meet with an investigator. That same day, my

Senate colleagues and I formed a subcommittee to present the no-confidence materials to the

Assembly. But on Friday, December 20, 2019, immediately after my meeting with the

investigator, I was summarily escorted off campus by Security, put on leave, and completely

barred from communicating with my colleagues. My role in those events at the Faculty Senate -

and my years of faculty governance activism on campus - provide a much better explanation for

my discipline than a few isolated incidents from two years before, and a stray metaphorical

comment.

12
Faculty discipline at ULV is supposed to ​begin​ with the presentation of evidence to a faculty

committee. Not with an indefinite unpaid leave imposed unilaterally by a Dean. Unpaid leave is

allowed by our HB ​only ​when it is part of a proper process. And even then, it is an

extraordinarily unusual and harsh punishment for a tenured faculty member. In numerous cases

around the country, tenured faculty members have been accused of serious crimes - have been

arrested by state or federal authorities, on charges including national security issues and

large-scale financial misconduct - and yet were placed on ​paid​ leave by their institutions,

pending an investigation or the outcome of a criminal proceeding. Why? Because in America

we believe in “innocent until ​proven​ guilty.” We do not punish someone before a trial, based on

accusations alone. Cutting off someone’s pay places the faculty member at a tremendous

disadvantage, that gets worse the longer it lasts. Without an income, how can someone obtain

and pay counsel? Or pay their bills? It is painful, frightening, and humiliating. It also

eliminates any incentive for the university to move swiftly to resolve the matter. It allows a

university to try to “starve someone into submission,” to force someone to give up and quit their

job, even if they are wrongly accused and eager to defend themselves. It is no way to treat a

tenured professor. But that is what ULV has done to me, after fifteen years of service to the

University of La Verne.

But the university did more than just cut off my means of financial support. It also cut off any

form of moral support, by imposing a total communications ban on me, between me and any

faculty, staff, or student at ULV, that has never been lifted. And then, after imposing a gag order

on me and ejecting me from faculty bodies to which I’d been elected, the university began

13
accusing me, publicly, of engaging in criminal conduct - ​none ​of which has actually been

pursued by law enforcement in any way, because it never happened.

I expected the disciplinary process to move swiftly. I was eager to defend myself. Instead, the

Dean waited months to present any evidence to the COL tenured faculty so they could set a

hearing. Various groups of faculty, including the Faculty Senate, wrote to the Dean, imploring

him to restore my salary at least until there was a hearing. They were ignored. These violations

of basic fairness were serious enough that the national AAUP repeatedly wrote to ULV about

them. They too were ignored.

The evidence ultimately presented by the Dean to the COL committee was not organized in

accord with our Faculty Handbook (which lays out the bases for involuntary surrender of tenure

at Chapter 4.3). None of it was dated after early January, but it wasn’t presented until late

February. No argument was made by the Dean as to how any of it warranted involuntary

removal of tenure, or how it fell into the categories in our Handbook. There was no evidence

related to any attempt to remediate the conduct, or how those attempts had failed. (Chap. 4.3.1)

There was no evidence of how my conduct jeopardized the ability of ULV to carry out its

mission. I had to determine for myself what was being alleged against me, and organize all the

evidence. I had to guess which of the incidents described in various emails and other documents,

going back years, were thought to be the basis for stripping me of tenure. Requests for

clarification were ignored.

14
At the video hearing with the COL tenured faculty in late March, more than two months after the

unpaid leave began, the Dean made no presentation or argument. I was not allowed to present

witnesses or to ask any questions of the Dean. I was asked only one minor question. Only seven

of the nine tenured faculty members showed up, two of them half an hour late. Those who

participated were in the middle of negotiating their own futures at La Verne, and were naturally

afraid to put themselves at risk by resisting what the administration demanded. At the end of

March, I learned that a majority of that committee - perhaps just four of them? - voted to go

along with the Dean’s recommendation. The COL committee’s “report” provided no reasons for

their decision whatsoever. I still have no idea which items of evidence or incidents of conduct

were the basis of their decision, or of my ongoing punishment.

After the COL report and the Dean’s recommendation, the process again inexplicably stalled. I

remained unpaid, month after month. At some point, the University Promotion and Tenure

Committee met, in secret, to consider the same evidence presented to the COL. The Provost’s

letter says they “agreed to hear my appeal.” That is not accurate. There was no appeal. The HB

states that I am entitled to a full and fair opportunity to participate at every stage. But I was

never told anything about it until it was over. To their credit, a committee of faculty members

whose positions were not in jeopardy disagreed with the COL majority and made the opposite

recommendation. By a vote of ten to nothing. They reviewed the administration’s case, and my

rebuttal evidence, and recommended that I retain my tenure. That recommendation, unlike the

COL’s, was unanimous.

15
Why does that matter? Because faculty status at this university, including the grant and removal

of tenure, is supposed to be a matter for which the faculty has “primary responsibility” (Chap.

2.2). If you overturn the unanimous judgment of the only independent faculty body to hear the

case, you will also violate that principle.

The Provost does not mention that vote. He also doesn’t mention that that committee report

submitted to him in late May never been provided to me. The Provost’s letter says he “give[s]

more deference” to the COL than to the University committee. But this is meaningless, because

the COL provided no reasons for their recommendation. The COL faculty, fearing for their own

jobs, deferred to the administration’s agenda. How can he claim now to be “deferring” to them?

I’ve been a law professor for 20 years, and the last seven months have been the saddest and most

dispiriting time in my professional life. I was awarded tenure in 2009, and that meant everything

to me. This is the only job I have ever wanted to have - since I was in kindergarten, and read a

story to my class. I miss the classroom, and I miss my colleagues, profoundly. I am an educator.

I have dedicated myself to this profession completely, and I have contributed a great deal to the

University of La Verne these past 15 years.

I have provided you with my updated CV and you have my course evaluations from the past few

years. I believe they compare favorably with any professor here. If that seems irrelevant, it

shouldn’t. Like the grant of tenure, which is based on an evaluation of a faculty member’s entire

body of work, and their potential for future contributions, the decision to strip someone of tenure

16
is the same. It is the most extreme measure possible. Even if you feel that the incidents

identified in the Provost’s letter warrant discipline of some kind, isn’t the punishment I’ve

already suffered, that can’t be undone - the loss of my livelihood; the loss of my friends on the

faculty, who are not allowed to talk to me; being silenced and disgraced while held up to scorn

and condemnation with no way to defend myself, and of course, not being allowed to ​teach​ -

isn’t this more than sufficient?

I am in my early 50s. Under ordinary circumstances, I would be looking forward to 15 or 20

more years as a productive scholar and teacher. If you strip me of tenure, I believe it will be very

difficult, if not impossible, for me to find any future employment. The long-term ramifications

for me are catastrophic.

I would also like to convey to you how personally and professionally devastating the specific

accusation related to Ms. Saada has been. I have been a teacher, scholar, and activist around

anti-discrimination issues my entire career. I began teaching at a historically black

college/university. I have been proud to teach at a Hispanic-Serving Institution. I am proud to

have contributed to the diversification of the legal profession through my teaching and

scholarship. I have served on numerous COL and University Diversity Committees; I was a

recipient of the “Spirit of La Verne” Diversity and Inclusivity Award in 2016. In serving on

Admissions Committees at the COL and University levels, I have worked to advance diversity

initiatives and insure that ULV continues to serve communities of color. I have participated in

curriculum reform efforts around diversity; I have written about race issues in the law for many

17
years. Just this year, I published an article arguing for a change in the rules of professional

responsibility to allow attorneys to better serve communities of color; and two articles exploring

slavery law in history. Here at ULV, in 2019, when I was asked to chair the Diversity

Committee, I declined, in order that two more junior colleagues of color have that leadership

opportunity.

The idea that I made a remark - metaphorical, to be sure, and inappropriate - that was even

susceptible to an interpretation of racial insensitivity, much less any actual threat of violence - is

absolutely abhorrent to me. I am not a violent person. I have a big mouth. I can be very critical,

and very harsh. But I have never been accused of anything like this. In twenty years of teaching,

predominantly students of color, I have never been accused of so much as one

racially-insensitive remark. I have had students dislike me - sometimes intensely! But never

have I been accused of racism. To be accused, falsely, of racist and violent criminal conduct,

and then prevented from defending myself against that accusation, for months, is one of the

worst things that has ever happened to me in my life. I feel worse every time I think about it.

I deeply regret my choice of words. My remark was insensitive. It was inappropriate. But I

never​ threatened anyone. And I never would. I ​never​ admitted ​any​ intent to kill someone. It is

unthinkable to me. I believe the Provost knows this. To strip me of tenure for it would require

you to deliberately choose to misunderstand what was said. Please do not do that. Please do not

treat a careless comment as a criminal threat, and end my career over it.

18
The unanticipated loss of an entire semester of salary, and the isolation and strain caused by this

ongoing and unfair process, have been financially and psychologically crushing. But the

administration is not satisfied, and wishes to ruin me forever. How is this good for the

University of La Verne? I’ve been punished severely. Although it saddens me greatly, I have

accepted that I will not be a part of the future of the University of La Verne College of Law.

What I cannot accept is having ​no​ future, being stripped of tenure, having my entire life’s work

invalidated and my reputation destroyed. If you do that, you will leave me no alternative but to

continue to litigate the matter as vigorously and tirelessly as I have engaged in all my

professional activities.

That is not what I ​want​ to do with the remaining years of my career. I would much rather find a

different way to move on, and a productive, creative future both for me and the institution I have

served for 15 years. I seek a way to end my time here with my tenure intact. All other issues are

negotiable, and I believe, could be negotiated swiftly and relatively easily.

The alternative will be more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, for everyone. The

treatment I have received, and the real - not the pretextual - basis for it, is the reason I have filed

a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, and filed suit for judicial intervention and

damages against the University of La Verne. But I would greatly prefer to resolve this by parting

company with my tenure intact, on economic terms that can be negotiated. Stripping me of

tenure is devastating and ruinous, for me - and the University of La Verne will gain nothing by it.

19
The charges made against me are flimsy at best, and in no way constitute legitimate grounds for

stripping me of tenure. My years of activism, and the antagonism that created towards me

among administrators, are what really stand behind this. The violations of our Handbook process

I’ve described, and others too numerous to detail here but easy to document, show it. The

University Promotion and Tenure Committee unanimously supported me; as do other objective

faculty groups and faculty rights organizations. The court is likely to, as well.

And because stripping me of tenure will overturn the unanimous opinion of the University

Promotion and Tenure Committee, it will communicate to the National Labor Relations Board

that administrators alone, and not the faculty at ULV, govern the university.

The Provost seeks your approval to end the career of a productive, dedicated tenured faculty

member, on a pretextual basis, in violation of our governance documents. The administration

perhaps anticipates that you will simply assent in this extraordinary, unprecedented act of

discipline, and thus has not bothered even to try to meet the standards our own policies lay down.

The administration may also have suggested to you that this months-long process has worn me

down, and that I will give up.

The administration is wrong - wrong in seeking to strip me of tenure, and wrong in their

judgment of me. I hope they are wrong about you, too. I hope that you, as the Board of

Trustees, will exercise your own judgment about what is in the best interests of ULV, and

conclude that what has been alleged against me does not warrant the penalty being sought.

20
The Church of the Brethren, the founders of ULV, are a peace church. John Lewis’s last words

called for peace. At a time of so much strife in our country and the world, let us find a way to

part in peace. The University P&T Committee got it right. If you must defer to anyone, I hope it

will be to them. Please do not strip me of tenure. Please let us work together in peace to find

another way. Thank you for your time.

21