> Possibly, but the fact that they are refusing to tell him why he’s being removed makes this suspicious.
Besides his claim, what basis do you have for describing this as a “fact”?
> Seems like they would not need to hide it if the reason was “you’re being removed due to excessive litigation against the school and your peers”. They would have a reason to hide “you’re being removed because you disagree with us”.
Seems like if he was going to misrepresent the reason he was being fired, misrepresenting the information he was or was not given by the people firing him would very likely be part of that. (Of course, even his account has him being given notice previously of potential cause of adverse career consequences of specific actions.) He contends that he choose to refuse to participate in the investigation he was asked to because he did not have adequate information about its content, but he does not seem to dispute that such refusal is defined as insubordination in the staff handbook nor does he allege that there is anything in University policy that entitles him to more information than he had received prior to participating in an investigation. Private employment in the US generally doesn’t come with due process rights beyond those in the employment contract. You’d think a conservative law prof, even if they weren’t working in a private institution, would know that.
Your other points may be valid, I was just speculating. There may be additional protections here other than the handbook since he seems to have tenure, which brings additional special protections (obligatory "I'm not a lawyer")
Besides his claim, what basis do you have for describing this as a “fact”?
> Seems like they would not need to hide it if the reason was “you’re being removed due to excessive litigation against the school and your peers”. They would have a reason to hide “you’re being removed because you disagree with us”.
Seems like if he was going to misrepresent the reason he was being fired, misrepresenting the information he was or was not given by the people firing him would very likely be part of that. (Of course, even his account has him being given notice previously of potential cause of adverse career consequences of specific actions.) He contends that he choose to refuse to participate in the investigation he was asked to because he did not have adequate information about its content, but he does not seem to dispute that such refusal is defined as insubordination in the staff handbook nor does he allege that there is anything in University policy that entitles him to more information than he had received prior to participating in an investigation. Private employment in the US generally doesn’t come with due process rights beyond those in the employment contract. You’d think a conservative law prof, even if they weren’t working in a private institution, would know that.