Marquette’s Suspension of Marquette Warrior Violated Marquette’s Own Rules
The “suspension” is a bit of a joke, since it’s Christmas break and we aren’t teaching. We are only working on a manuscript, and are allowed to go to campus to do that.
Leave aside issues of academic freedom, and the fact that Marquette, when faced with a brouhaha that was dying down, chose to heat it up to white hot. There is the fact that in suspending us Marquette violated its own rules, which can be found here.
Section 307.03In fact, all of Section 1 was violated by the letter of suspension we got, which did not specify the statute allegedly violated, the date of the alleged violation, the location of the alleged violation, and any of the supposed facts of the violation.
In all cases of nonrenewal, suspension, or termination for absolute or discretionary cause, except Section 307.02(1) and (3), death, and permanent, total disability, the appropriate appointing authority of the University shall notify the faculty member in writing of the University's action. The notice shall include:
(1) The statute allegedly violated; the date of the alleged violation; the location of the alleged violation; a sufficiently detailed description of the facts constituting the violation including the names of the witnesses against the faculty member.
(2) The nature of the University’s contemplated action, with a specification of the date or dates upon which such action is to become effective with respect to faculty status, duties, salary, and benefit entitlements, respectively.
(3) Such notice shall be personally delivered and service shall operate from date of such delivery; if in the exercise of reasonable diligence it is not possible to personally serve the faculty member, it may be served by certified mail addressed to the faculty member’s last known place of residence, and service shall operate from date of mailing.
Since this was about a blog post, there were plenty of witnesses, but none of them were named.
We were also told that the “university is continuing to review your conduct” but were not told the nature of any “contemplated action.”
Did university officials rattle off the letter without consulting counsel?
Did they think they could blow off their published rules? In any legal action, Marquette’s failure to follow its own rules will have negative consequences.
We have first rate legal counsel: Rick Esenberg and his colleagues at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
Marquette’s inept handling of this whole issue has been obvious. They appear to be on track to get into yet more trouble.