ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 71

[Nova]

10ofRods, do you really think the WSU HR Department could have sanctioned that group "lynching" of BK by his immediate superior? I believe you if you say so, but I find it profoundly shocking. And what would be the point if the prof had already asked that BK be dismissed?

***

One of the professors for whom I was a TA had been denied tenure (which is akin to a "firing") and successfully fought it (well before my time, but see my remarks above on gossip in academia). And the Byzantine procedures were much as you describe them.

But as I mentioned above--and I never saw a TA actually fired--TA positions were treated by those in power more like scholarships than jobs. Although I'm sure there is oversight and some sort of appeals process, I'm not sure it would be exactly the same as being fired from a formal university position. The one time I had a serious problem with a TA, it was handled much more informally than when a few students cheated.

This is probably a moot point. However, WSU handled it, I'm sure it was unpleasant and stressful.

 

[Nova]

So your case they shard the contents of his disciplinary letter?
If so I am schooled.

I don't doubt anything 10ofRod posts, but I too am surprised. Few corporations these days will openly admit having fired somebody: it's usually just start and end date, for fear of lawsuits. I'm very surprised that universities are more lax than private businesses.

 

[10ofRods]

MOO it had to come from come from HR, MPD/DA or BK/defense.
These leaks are terrible really. So unprofessional. Wonder if the info was sold to a reporter.

Not true in most colleges, IME. Once the person is terminated (we just had a high profile termination), it means that the Chancellor or designee has signed off on the termination and usually, it has been brought in a list of termination to a closed session of the Board of Trustees. Once the Board acts in closed session, the person is officially terminated.

At that point, it's up to the Chancellor or other official at the college, to decide what to say/do. Making a statement to the public or to a reporter is entirely within their legal duties and possibilities. I subscribe to the Journal of HIgher Ed, and, well, daily news bulletins reveal firings of college personnel all across the nation (once the relevant colleges release the information). The amount of information varies, of course.

Since he was already terminated, the Chancellor (and others) are free to speak about it. In the case at my college, you can bet that we're all speaking about it and yes, the student newspaper has done interviews (being smart people, no profs gave interviews, but the Chancellor did; and in other cases, college presidents and vice-presidents have dribbled some info to the press - or to the rest of us). We have regular public meetings as a college and administrators are called into answer questions about rumors/goings-on/terminations all the time. Once a person is fired, we are free to talk about them - and do. All the time. So the "leak" may well have come from the professor or from another student, for that matter. Sometimes, there's evidence of the person's malfeasance already in the public or other records of many other employees (emails, etc). It's hard to keep such things quiet and no one is required to give up free speech once the person is fired (and it's only administrators and HR who must remain quiet beforehand, per our employee standards for those categories). Students and faculty can continue to talk all they want about the process and the complaints they have filed.

All IMO.

 

[gliving]

Teaser for a program that will air tonight. They put their specials on youtube so we'll probably be able to watch the entire episode later.

Feb 8, 2023
Watch the full story on cold case files reopened in Pennsylvania after the murder of four University of Idaho students at 9 p.m. and 11 p.m.

 

[IDK]

Quick question here—since he was reportedly fired as a TA, does that also mean he would have been completely severed from the PhD program? Or would he have been able to continue his studies ( with private payment) ?
( in the event he wasn’t arrested for quadruple homicide)

Obviously in his case this is a moot point, but curious how that works.

 

[ktm44]

I agree. However, <modsnip: Please don't reference specific conditions that are not diagnosed> add in an underlying low self-esteem or fear of rejection, and a repudiation or questioning of your abilities by an academic superior and a threat to your position might come as a real blow. From many academic sources on serial and thrill killers, challenges to the killer's authority or sense of self can play a serious role in pushing them from fantasizing to acting out.

I can only imagine that scene when the prof had the undergrads confront BK in class about his harsh marking must have been humiliating to someone who seems to have felt superior in knowledge and ability.

MOO of course.

Mental illness has crossed my mind but will not hang my had on it or consider it credible unless it's verified by a qualified professional.

I would strongly suggest that academic sources have based their opinions on fact based sources not internet speculation and it takes a great deal of work to assemble that information.

If investigators or BK's defence wishes to present this, I would still expect it to be backed by professional opinions and diagnosis, not something that somebody found using an email address that may or may not have actually belonged to BK when he was younger.

 

[10ofRods]

10ofRods, do you really think the WSU HR Department could have sanctioned that group "lynching" of BK by his immediate superior? I believe you if you say so, but I find it profoundly shocking. And what would be the point if the prof had already asked that BK be dismissed?

***

One of the professors for whom I was a TA had been denied tenure (which is akin to a "firing") and successfully fought it (well before my time, but see my remarks above on gossip in academia). And the Byzantine procedures were much as you describe them.

But as I mentioned above--and I never saw a TA actually fired--TA positions were treated by those in power more like scholarships than jobs. Although I'm sure there is oversight and some sort of appeals process, I'm not sure it would be exactly the same as being fired from a formal university position. This is probably a moot point. However, WSU handled it, I'm sure it was unpleasant and stressful.

I've seen HR do desperate things. We have a standing bulletin in our HR section that's basically "Safety First" and has a number of implausible (to me) suggestions about how to handle errant students or employees.

I've also seen faculty do desperate things when frightened. So it could be one or another. We're now hearing that BK had an "altercation" (which implies something physical - in which one person feels they need to flee; it could be just yelling or it could be advancing on someone - I've seen students grab profs by the necktie and have twice had to exit my classroom to help out; I've also seen a prof shoved to the ground and I know a prof who smacked his secretary several times; I also know several profs who have assaulted other profs and 2 who have assaulted students). I've been on college committees regarding these issues for, let's see, 30 years now?

I've also seen profs try to fight their tenure decisions, but at the places I've worked, not one has been successful

The "group model" of working things out is taught in sociology and psychology. It's supposed to provide a "safe space" for all involved to try and solve an issue with one person without invoking legal or HR sanctions. It never works, IMO. What is supposed to happen, of course, is that the person who is complained about apologizes profusely and promises to change. I won't say which disciplines I've seen this happen in, but let's just say "never in social science." I just watched a professor in a particular discipline try something a bit similar (not with her students, with her colleagues) and it was a disaster. I've heard she's also done this with her students, though, so I don't know what to say about her learning curve. And as an aside, now that I'm reflecting, I've never seen a man do this in class, it's always someone who is very proud of their "people skills." This prof I'm referencing says things like that out loud, "I'm a people person; I have people skills."

I would never say that. I'm trying to think if I've ever had a student so difficult (I have had a crazy stalker but when I realized it was so, I went through other channels to deal with it - it was scary and difficult, especially when I realized she had followed me home and knew where I lived). Of course, BK's situation involved student complaints (we no longer have TA's for the type of class I teach, but I can't imagine trying to do a group intervention - which is what the prof attempted to do - in a situation where I, myself, was one of the active players and, basically, in charge of the situation).

(I've also seen students throw things, shove over podiums, purposefully flip over desks on the way out, knock over rows of books, throw all collected papers onto the floor, etc but now that I think about it, it's been really infrequent/non-existent in the last decade or so - and our student discipline committee is much less active, convening less than once a year on average). I've also had guns in the classroom, knives, and police batons.

ALL IMO only.

 

[10ofRods]

Quick question here—since he was reportedly fired as a TA, does that also mean he would have been completely severed from the PhD program? Or would he have been able to continue his studies ( with private payment) ?
( in the event he wasn’t arrested for quadruple homicide)

Obviously in his case this is a moot point, but curious how that works.

Without the TAship, he would have to pay for things himself (although apparently the Criminology program at WSU has its own funding, so he would not have lost his tuition break - just his living expenses).

SO, this was the trigger for the events that followed (and I bet LE knew he was in this process by the end of November).

IMO.

 

[Moriarty]

Quick question here—since he was reportedly fired as a TA, does that also mean he would have been completely severed from the PhD program? Or would he have been able to continue his studies ( with private payment) ?
( in the event he wasn’t arrested for quadruple homicide)

Obviously in his case this is a moot point, but curious how that works.

IME, when I was doing my PhD, about half of the other grad students had TAships, another quarter had Reseacrh Assitanceships with a prof, and the rest were on their own...still grad students but had to find their own financial support, etc. The dept. always stated they would only take students they had the funding to support, but there were always a few more that didn't have anything in terms of positions, scholarships, etc.

 

[schooling]

This is all my opinion. And I have shared it before on here. But it's interesting see this fairly common defense tactic play out live in another case.

In the rap artist XXXTentacion case out of Broward County in the face of overwhelming evidence (video of the actual crime, one of the killers cooperating) the Defense has decided to use the "LE had tunnel vision and an overwhelming pressure to solve" approach. And is using social media posts and rap 'beefs' to show others also had motive to kill the rapper.

I think this is likely a preview of what's to come in the BK case.

LE had an overwhelming amount of Elantras, the internet was buzzing with rumors about those adjacent to the victims. The exBF, the Food Truck Video, Others in the media. And the overwhelming National pressure, the pressure from the University and the money it brings into the local economy etc....made them rush to BK.

That's the lens they want the jury to look at the evidence through. And they'll use that vector to attack the evidence or lack thereof.

I'm 110% believe he committed these crimes. I'm just saying this is their best bet. IMO

 

[NCWatcher]

So your case they shard the contents of his disciplinary letter?
If so I am schooled.

MOO That he was near fired by mid October is obvious, from hearing that his supervising professor tried save the situation by to putting together some kind of last ditch effort on his behalf with an intervention with the students. Maybe HR advised it.

Having worked in universities as a professor and as a grad student, it's hard for me to believe anyone would have advised a student intervention/"have at him" situation if there was a problem with a TA. It was so unprofessional. I expect it was all on the professor (and I believe he has boasted that it gave the students a feel for a courtroom-- which makes no sense to me. Courtrooms aren't "throw him to the lions" situations.)

At any rate I'd question the judgment of whoever came up with that stunt. I think it's possible the professor intended to push BK over the edge-- not so he'd murder but over the edge to quit. There are faculty who believe anything is fair if it's used to "weed out" students.

 

[IDK]

IME, when I was doing my PhD, about half of the other grad students had TAships, another quarter had Reseacrh Assitanceships with a prof, and the rest were on their own...still grad students but had to find their own financial support, etc. The dept. always stated they would only take students they had the funding to support, but there were always a few more that didn't have anything in terms of positions, scholarships, etc.

Ok thanks to both you and 10 of rods for the replies. So I guess for a regular student (who wasn’t facing murder charges) he could have used the Winter Break to pull himself together and returned to school for the next semester. I’m sure it would be humiliating to go back after losing the TA position, but seems like it would be possible to pull it off with the right mindset.

 

[10ofRods]

I don't doubt anything 10ofRod posts, but I too am surprised. Few corporations these days will openly admit having fired somebody: it's usually just start and end date, for fear of lawsuits. I'm very surprised that universities are more lax than private businesses.

I could start posting news articles about academic firings (which this was) from all over the nation, but that is way off topic.

I am guessing that most people don't realize that Ed Code and Ed Law is its own thing. Yes, we have tenure (a guaranteed job for life where I work - unless I'm convicted of a felony; when I was in administration I still had tenure/could be outspoken - but not a single other administrator had that security, all had been hired as administrators without faculty position beforehand - it was a major reason I could not stay in administration at my own college, it was legally and socially a difficult situation - I wasn't truly a part of the "the Team" of people who constantly fear termination).

We are governed by Boards of Trustees who have absolutely authority about who stays and who goes. Most firees have "moral turpitude" according to most Ed Codes. That doesn't have to rise to a legal standard of crime or even ngeligence. You can just be a rotten person and if enough people document and complain, you'll eventually be fired.

Where I work, both HR and the Chancellor have decided not only that honesty is the best policy, but that the public has a right to know when a teacher (and BK was teaching) is morally...off. So, when our college president was fired 4 years ago, once she was fired, the College made a statement to the press and the Chancellor spoke to reporters. I spoke to reporters too (but asked to remain off record). In the most recent firing (revealed just within the past 10 days, but of course, it occurred a couple of months ago) - the firee told everyone he was "retiring which was not untrue. However, our Chancellor (who has a passle of lawyers at his side - and the person in question IS a lawyer and also had his own lawyers) revealed the Board's decision just as any court would reveal its findings.

Moral turpitude includes lying. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, daily there is news of fired academics (including TA's) for moral turpitude. Rachel Dolezal was fired for lying about her ethnicity, even though that's not a crime. It was quite public.

Google "teacher fired" and you'll see that some places are quite revealing (and awful) about how they handle such matters.

IOW, Ed Code is law, Boards of Trustees ultimately are responsible for firings, Chancellors and Presidents can decide whether to speak or not. When a person goes out for a reason related to safety (such as harassment), I think it's right that the Colleges speak in some fashion.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

Having worked in universities as a professor and as a grad student, it's hard for me to believe anyone would have advised a student intervention/"have at him" situation if there was a problem with a TA. It was so unprofessional. I expect it was all on the professor (and I believe he has boasted that it gave the students a feel for a courtroom-- which makes no sense to me. Courtrooms aren't "throw him to the lions" situations.)

At any rate I'd question the judgment of whoever came up with that stunt. I think it's possible the professor intended to push BK over the edge-- not so he'd murder but over the edge to quit. There are faculty who believe anything is fair if it's used to "weed out" students.

But, that's just how the event has been characterized in media - and especially in this forum. We don't know what happened. For all we know, BK himself asked for this opportunity and agreed to it. It is a known technique and I saw it n use n law school and in medical school (where I had a post-doc). Certain disciplines are more prone to these confrontational styles, but I actually saw an entire group of professors attempt to use this on one very bad/errant professor - this was in the early 80's. It did not go well, although, it did achieve its central purpose (making everyone on campus ultimately aware). Since that was the only punishment this prof received, I didn't think too much about it at the time.

Having a "group event" in which "problems" are discussed is indeed a possible problem-solving tactic. Perhaps BK agreed to it, thinking he would be "exonerated" or that students were too terrified to speak. Perhaps he wanted a confrontation (likely). We simply do not know whose suggestion it is, but if you can't here some HR mid-level person saying, "Perhaps if you all discuss this as a group, it will help?" I don't know what to tell you.

At any rate, it went sideways and the person was not a stable person (and after years of working in mental hospitals and jail psych wards, as a researcher, can say that I view all people as potentially unstable, at least in my work life),

IMO. And you're right - law professors do this all the time. And I'll be quite honest. I dropped out of an excellent law school at the end of first year, because I just couldn't handle it (there were other issues in my life). I was never one of the ones wh was dragged in class (interrogated), but I had terrible anxiety that it could happen. I stopped sitting near the front of class, tried to make myself invisible, etc. Naturally, those are not the responses of someone who ought to be headed into law.

I don't know any criminologists, where I went to university if you search for "degree in criminology they have a web page response that says, "Go to law school". I suspect they're very similar. I've seen some academic profs (as opposed to professional program profs) do similar things. Sometimes it works. It always works best when an outsider is asked in to "moderate" the event. I haven't seen anyone do it in 20 years, but I can't believe it's completely died out as a technique.

It got confrontational, but perhaps the prof was one of those cheerful types thinks they have "people skills." One of my law school professors once apologized for making a student cry and leave class, by drily remarking, "Well, I'm not here to pump sunshine up people's a$$es"). Let's see. That was in 1978. And was tradition for this prof. He was just cross-examining the student, that's all.

IMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

But, that's just how the event has been characterized in media - and especially in this forum. We don't know what happened. For all we know, BK himself asked for this opportunity and agreed to it. It is a known technique and I saw it n use n law school and in medical school (where I had a post-doc). Certain disciplines are more prone to these confrontational styles, but I actually saw an entire group of professors attempt to use this on one very bad/errant professor - this was in the early 80's. It did not go well, although, it did achieve its central purpose (making everyone on campus ultimately aware). Since that was the only punishment this prof received, I didn't think too much about it at the time.

Having a "group event" in which "problems" are discussed is indeed a possible problem-solving tactic. Perhaps BK agreed to it, thinking he would be "exonerated" or that students were too terrified to speak. Perhaps he wanted a confrontation (likely). We simply do not know whose suggestion it is, but if you can't here some HR mid-level person saying, "Perhaps if you all discuss this as a group, it will help?" I don't know what to tell you.

At any rate, it went sideways and the person was not a stable person (and after years of working in mental hospitals and jail psych wards, as a researcher, can say that I view all people as potentially unstable, at least in my work life),

IMO. And you're right - law professors do this all the time. And I'll be quite honest. I dropped out of an excellent law school at the end of first year, because I just couldn't handle it (there were other issues in my life). I was never one of the ones wh was dragged in class (interrogated), but I had terrible anxiety that it could happen. I stopped sitting near the front of class, tried to make myself invisible, etc. Naturally, those are not the responses of someone who ought to be headed into law.

I don't know any criminologists, where I went to university if you search for "degree in criminology they have a web page response that says, "Go to law school". I suspect they're very similar. I've seen some academic profs (as opposed to professional program profs) do similar things. Sometimes it works. It always works best when an outsider is asked in to "moderate" the event. I haven't seen anyone do it in 20 years, but I can't believe it's completely died out as a technique.

It got confrontational, but perhaps the prof was one of those cheerful types thinks they have "people skills." One of my law school professors once apologized for making a student cry and leave class, by drily remarking, "Well, I'm not here to pump sunshine up people's a$$es"). Let's see. That was in 1978. And was tradition for this prof. He was just cross-examining the student, that's all.

IMO.

You are right that we only have reports in the media to go by. But if the professor really said "have at him" to a class of 150 undergrads as that student claimed, I don't find that an acceptable intervention. It's not only the likelihood of an unacceptably negative effect on BK, but I fail to see how that sort of setup benefited the undergrads or the future TAs who would encounter those students. I don't see it as equivalent a "Paper Chase" scenario in a law school class of peers or a lab discussion where research is critiqued and must be defended by grad students or post-docs.

I've never seen HR have much to do with TA/RA employment-- it's mostly the Grad School in my experience. But IF the issue was sexism and differential grading standards, I fail to see why anyone would think a discussion in a group of 150 people would be the way to go. The only way for students to make an effective point it would seem would be to reveal their grades to the class. Students shouldn't be pressured to do that. And BK couldn't discuss specific grades (FERPA) So I fail to see the point except to maybe force him out. (And usually asking a student to agree to something doesn't give the professor with the power an out.)
JMO

 

[Dotta]

"A psychiatrist has penned a letter to a woman who has been writing to Bryan Kohberger, the suspect in the slayings of four University of Idaho students."

Psychiatrist pens letter to Bryan Kohberger's "lovesick" admirer

Brittney J. Hislope, apparently a single mother from Kentucky, has written lengthy posts about her feelings for Kohberger on Facebook.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Helechawagirl]

If I remember correctly, wasn't he back in PA by then? They were pulled over on 12/15. I think they were back in PA on the 16th.

Yes he was in PA when fired.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Not true in most colleges, IME. Once the person is terminated (we just had a high profile termination), it means that the Chancellor or designee has signed off on the termination and usually, it has been brought in a list of termination to a closed session of the Board of Trustees. Once the Board acts in closed session, the person is officially terminated.

At that point, it's up to the Chancellor or other official at the college, to decide what to say/do. Making a statement to the public or to a reporter is entirely within their legal duties and possibilities. I subscribe to the Journal of HIgher Ed, and, well, daily news bulletins reveal firings of college personnel all across the nation (once the relevant colleges release the information). The amount of information varies, of course.

Since he was already terminated, the Chancellor (and others) are free to speak about it. In the case at my college, you can bet that we're all speaking about it and yes, the student newspaper has done interviews (being smart people, no profs gave interviews, but the Chancellor did; and in other cases, college presidents and vice-presidents have dribbled some info to the press - or to the rest of us). We have regular public meetings as a college and administrators are called into answer questions about rumors/goings-on/terminations all the time. Once a person is fired, we are free to talk about them - and do. All the time. So the "leak" may well have come from the professor or from another student, for that matter. Sometimes, there's evidence of the person's malfeasance already in the public or other records of many other employees (emails, etc). It's hard to keep such things quiet and no one is required to give up free speech once the person is fired (and it's only administrators and HR who must remain quiet beforehand, per our employee standards for those categories). Students and faculty can continue to talk all they want about the process and the complaints they have filed.

All IMO.

Just coming back after an absence. Your post is so informative. Thank you. So it is true, BK was fired from WSU? And i thought it was just a rumor. Was the date of firing really the 19th?

 

[10ofRods]

Well, a major catalyst, anyway. I keep thinking about how his term in Pullman seems to have been BK's first time living beyond driving range of his parents. That had to be stressful, too.

I think it was his first time living outside his parents house.

I've always thought that his performance as a grad student was a factor in his complete decompensation (and let's keep in mind that this was not a top criminology program - I think WSU is the only Pac-12 school to have it; it's ranked middle of the pack, as far as I can tell).

I figure he was feeling a mixture of suicidal and homicidal impulses (that's the null hypothesis in a case like this, IMO).

When people feel suicidal, a wise psychiatrist knows that they are thinking about killing an actual human being (in BK's case, he has mentioned depersonalization, though - which makes the situation even more complex).

So your case they shard the contents of his disciplinary letter?
If so I am schooled.

MOO That he was near fired by mid October is obvious, from hearing that his supervising professor tried save the situation by to putting together some kind of last ditch effort on his behalf with an intervention with the students. Maybe HR advised it.

I didn't hear that they released the contents of his disciplinary letter. Do we have those contents on a link here? I'd appreciate it.

I heard that he was terminated. Which, IMO, takes an action of the governing board to actually take effect (a person can be on unpaid leave indefinitely until that decision is made), and the process of making the decision is supposed to be confidential.

Once the decision is made, it's up to the leaders of the institution to decide what to do, publicly. As I keep saying, teachers' firings are announced all over the US, quite frequently. It's considered a matter of public interest and no institution has an obligation to remain silent about the fact that a person is no longer working for them. At any rate, having watched both faculty and administrators fight to keep details out of the press (and the guy I know lost his battle - and his lawsuit against the college was dismissed), I figure it's a case by case basis. What I've noticed is that our Chancellor and our College Presidents do make a statement when there's an issue involving harassment, discrimination, fraud, embezzlement, etc. Although I also know personally of a case where a dean was given the option to quit or they'd go public once they'd fired her. She quit (retired).

Ok thanks to both you and 10 of rods for the replies. So I guess for a regular student (who wasn’t facing murder charges) he could have used the Winter Break to pull himself together and returned to school for the next semester. I’m sure it would be humiliating to go back after losing the TA position, but seems like it would be possible to pull it off with the right mindset.

Although he did leave his computer tower and his Fire stick in his apartment, IMO

I've always thought that seemed to indicate he was coming back, but he might have done this to keep his father in the dark. His first step had to be to tell his parents that he didn't have a salary to pay for his apartment come January (even in the best case scenario that he was not yet arrested).

What I'd like to know is whether the Dean of the program got on board, such that he was terminated with cause and therefore ineligible to ever TA again at that institution. I figure the answer is yes, the Dean pushed this through (probably after the altercation with the professor but also may have talked to some of the students - another grad student is reported in MSM as having left the room after feeling harassed by BK...IMO).

It is possible, even likely, that HR gave some vague intermediate instructions to the Dean, who would then convey them to the professor. "Try and find a mutually agreeable solution, whereby the TA and the students feel they can go forward." This was interpreted literally by the prof to mean "we should all get together."

I'll never buy that the prof intentionally wanted a big ole confrontation, but I've seen many well-intentioned discussions on all kind of things go south quickly. And I will say that when I was a young professor, I had a couple of discussions go crazy in ways I never anticipated (I teach human evolution). I was of course mad, but I also went on my own to all kinds of training to try and develop a better classroom management skillset. The problem with teaching human evolution has not gone away (but now the students get trigger warnings, ). I don't know this prof's age, of course, but since they are teaching a large class in an introductory sequence, they might be quite young. Similar techniques are used every day without incident - I believe it was BK who turned it confrontational (which of course the prof should have anticipated - and they will hopefully learn something from this).


IMO.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I could start posting news articles about academic firings (which this was) from all over the nation, but that is way off topic.

I am guessing that most people don't realize that Ed Code and Ed Law is its own thing. Yes, we have tenure (a guaranteed job for life where I work - unless I'm convicted of a felony; when I was in administration I still had tenure/could be outspoken - but not a single other administrator had that security, all had been hired as administrators without faculty position beforehand - it was a major reason I could not stay in administration at my own college, it was legally and socially a difficult situation - I wasn't truly a part of the "the Team" of people who constantly fear termination).

We are governed by Boards of Trustees who have absolutely authority about who stays and who goes. Most firees have "moral turpitude" according to most Ed Codes. That doesn't have to rise to a legal standard of crime or even ngeligence. You can just be a rotten person and if enough people document and complain, you'll eventually be fired.

Where I work, both HR and the Chancellor have decided not only that honesty is the best policy, but that the public has a right to know when a teacher (and BK was teaching) is morally...off. So, when our college president was fired 4 years ago, once she was fired, the College made a statement to the press and the Chancellor spoke to reporters. I spoke to reporters too (but asked to remain off record). In the most recent firing (revealed just within the past 10 days, but of course, it occurred a couple of months ago) - the firee told everyone he was "retiring which was not untrue. However, our Chancellor (who has a passle of lawyers at his side - and the person in question IS a lawyer and also had his own lawyers) revealed the Board's decision just as any court would reveal its findings.

Moral turpitude includes lying. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, daily there is news of fired academics (including TA's) for moral turpitude. Rachel Dolezal was fired for lying about her ethnicity, even though that's not a crime. It was quite public.

Google "teacher fired" and you'll see that some places are quite revealing (and awful) about how they handle such matters.

IOW, Ed Code is law, Boards of Trustees ultimately are responsible for firings, Chancellors and Presidents can decide whether to speak or not. When a person goes out for a reason related to safety (such as harassment), I think it's right that the Colleges speak in some fashion.

IMO.

Your posts give me such an education. I really like the Ed code. However, as far as going to law school, I couldn’t handle it. I’m much too sensitive. I love debating but whew, you have to be tough skinned to survive law professors, i am sure.