by David Dessler - Thursday, July 15, 2021
This story, this struggle is about student rights and the welfare and wellbeing of William & Mary undergraduates.
It is not about me.
The story about my removal from W&M is very hard to believe. It has bizarre, unique features. The articles listed in the attachment, "Flat Hat articles student mental health," offer a number of examples. (The Flat Hat is the College's newspaper.)
The story is also long, dense, and very complex. The narrative arc featuring me extends back to October 26, 2015. That is 2,089 days ago--5 years, 8 months, 19 days.
Third, very unfortunately, the story is so horrific, monstrous, and upsetting that just learning it--simply listening to someone tell it to you, if you haven't heard it yet--can be overwhelming.
Finally--and this is the key to understanding, it is the single most important truth, and also the fact that people find easiest to forget--the story is not about me. In particular, the story is not the dispute over my employment at the College. Because of the way the legal system is set up, and also the type and number of available laws that could possibly be used to defend the innocent, and also given who the victims were, their age, status, and power, it fell to me to pursue the legal dispute. The story is about the abuse and control of undergraduates, their marginalization, and the denial of their rights by powers that harm students, threaten them, and undermine the fundamental values of the academic community.
These powers are opposed to the College of William & Mary. They oppose President Rowe's Alma Mater of the Nation. I am still in a struggle I did not want but was forced on me. In late October 2015, I was sent home with a promise I would be back in the classroom the next day, only to learn that while I was driving home, I was suspended, my classes were taken away without me being told, and a no-trespass order was issued against me. I did not want a fight. But the most fundamental principles that hold a university together are at stake. No one can deny that. Those who engineered my forcible removal from campus, and those who passively supported this removal. not only do not represent the College, but oppose the core values that hold the community together, and today they work to undermine the president. They insist on being disrespectful of the president. For example, they work to prevent the most basic axioms of university governance from gaining acceptance, such as this one:
The story is also long, dense, and very complex. The narrative arc featuring me extends back to October 26, 2015. That is 2,089 days ago--5 years, 8 months, 19 days.
Third, very unfortunately, the story is so horrific, monstrous, and upsetting that just learning it--simply listening to someone tell it to you, if you haven't heard it yet--can be overwhelming.
Finally--and this is the key to understanding, it is the single most important truth, and also the fact that people find easiest to forget--the story is not about me. In particular, the story is not the dispute over my employment at the College. Because of the way the legal system is set up, and also the type and number of available laws that could possibly be used to defend the innocent, and also given who the victims were, their age, status, and power, it fell to me to pursue the legal dispute. The story is about the abuse and control of undergraduates, their marginalization, and the denial of their rights by powers that harm students, threaten them, and undermine the fundamental values of the academic community.
These powers are opposed to the College of William & Mary. They oppose President Rowe's Alma Mater of the Nation. I am still in a struggle I did not want but was forced on me. In late October 2015, I was sent home with a promise I would be back in the classroom the next day, only to learn that while I was driving home, I was suspended, my classes were taken away without me being told, and a no-trespass order was issued against me. I did not want a fight. But the most fundamental principles that hold a university together are at stake. No one can deny that. Those who engineered my forcible removal from campus, and those who passively supported this removal. not only do not represent the College, but oppose the core values that hold the community together, and today they work to undermine the president. They insist on being disrespectful of the president. For example, they work to prevent the most basic axioms of university governance from gaining acceptance, such as this one:
How can anyone think the dispute is about me, or that the fight is against William & Mary?
e t
The strategy being used to keep me from fight for principle--in particular, for faculty rights, and for the students whose rights, welfare, and wellbeing depended on the vindication of principle--depended on the use of force and nothing else. It was used to silence me, intimidate me, and, if possible, drive me away. The only way I could get the ability to defend myself, and to force those at the College responsible for my removal to defend themselves, was to make my employment at the College the issue.
In truth, I knew as soon as I had been arrested that reinstatement at the College was impossible. Also, I knew that I could not win a legal battle against the College, given its overwhelming institutional and reputational power in the Commonwealth. I made my employment the issue because it was the only issue where I had the ability to gain the ability to defend myself and force those at the university who are opposed to the College's values to defend themselves. I have always been fighting for the students--my students, and the undergraduates in general. This truth became clear as soon as my pursuit of the employment case gave me the platform to speak and to be listened to on campus. The employment case was a means to and end.
My only option, if I wanted to defend the fundamental principles on which any university depends, as well as the core values of the College, was to pursue an employment dispute in a forum provided by the EEOC. In the United States, an employee needs the permission of the EEOC to sue an employer. But the charges I filed with the EEOC, and the lawsuit filed against the College and its attorney, the CAO, did not mean the dispute was about my job, and more importantly, it did not mean the dispute was between me and the College.
The obvious truth is, I have never been opposed to the College of William & Mary and the College has never been opposed to me.
To suggest that I have ever been opposed to the College, or that the College has ever been opposed to me, is incoherent, given what I had done at the College for more than three decades and what was known to be my character as my fourth decade of service began. I was elected President of the Faculty Assembly in the first year of my fourth decade. Everyone knows that is a job that sounds much more important that it is. But everyone also knows that the essential qualification for that office is to be known and respected for being committed to the College and having proved one's reliability in working on the most important issues it faces. I was removed from campus by people who are opposed to the interests of the College and the values on which it depend, using the use of force and nothing else, just 118 days--less than four months--after then end of a successful year as Assembly president, and just 20 days after the Provost, expressing the confidence he had in me after my year as FA president, gave me the most most important assignment of my career: to assume the Chair of the National Liberal Arts Subcommittee of the Planning Strategic Committee and solve the problem of defining "undergraduate research."
e t
The strategy being used to keep me from fight for principle--in particular, for faculty rights, and for the students whose rights, welfare, and wellbeing depended on the vindication of principle--depended on the use of force and nothing else. It was used to silence me, intimidate me, and, if possible, drive me away. The only way I could get the ability to defend myself, and to force those at the College responsible for my removal to defend themselves, was to make my employment at the College the issue.
In truth, I knew as soon as I had been arrested that reinstatement at the College was impossible. Also, I knew that I could not win a legal battle against the College, given its overwhelming institutional and reputational power in the Commonwealth. I made my employment the issue because it was the only issue where I had the ability to gain the ability to defend myself and force those at the university who are opposed to the College's values to defend themselves. I have always been fighting for the students--my students, and the undergraduates in general. This truth became clear as soon as my pursuit of the employment case gave me the platform to speak and to be listened to on campus. The employment case was a means to and end.
My only option, if I wanted to defend the fundamental principles on which any university depends, as well as the core values of the College, was to pursue an employment dispute in a forum provided by the EEOC. In the United States, an employee needs the permission of the EEOC to sue an employer. But the charges I filed with the EEOC, and the lawsuit filed against the College and its attorney, the CAO, did not mean the dispute was about my job, and more importantly, it did not mean the dispute was between me and the College.
The obvious truth is, I have never been opposed to the College of William & Mary and the College has never been opposed to me.
To suggest that I have ever been opposed to the College, or that the College has ever been opposed to me, is incoherent, given what I had done at the College for more than three decades and what was known to be my character as my fourth decade of service began. I was elected President of the Faculty Assembly in the first year of my fourth decade. Everyone knows that is a job that sounds much more important that it is. But everyone also knows that the essential qualification for that office is to be known and respected for being committed to the College and having proved one's reliability in working on the most important issues it faces. I was removed from campus by people who are opposed to the interests of the College and the values on which it depend, using the use of force and nothing else, just 118 days--less than four months--after then end of a successful year as Assembly president, and just 20 days after the Provost, expressing the confidence he had in me after my year as FA president, gave me the most most important assignment of my career: to assume the Chair of the National Liberal Arts Subcommittee of the Planning Strategic Committee and solve the problem of defining "undergraduate research."
Assignment I accepted on October 6, 2015, less than three weeks after being forcibly removed from campus
The story invented to justify my removal does not make any sense. The most implausible of its plot elements is the suggestion that I was somehow opposed to the College.
Those who were, in fact, opposed the College, and were shown to so opposed in the lawsuit, included two key administrators who worked at the College. The College does not consist of its employees, and employees sometimes work to oppose the College. After all, I was an employee of the College, and it was argued that I was acting in opposition to it.
The third major figure targeted in my lawsuit--the one who played the most significant role in damaging the university and who worked the longest and the hardest to undermine the principles of community on which it depended--was the local Commonwealth's Attorney. Surely everyone will admit that to oppose the CAO is not to oppose the College of William & Mary, even if he is the College's lawyer.
My side of the story in my individual fight is the full story of my career. No alternative truth exists.
The one and only narrative of what happened regarding me in this episode is the one I tell. There was once another, opposed story; it vanished in 2017 and became part of my synthetic and comprehensive narrative: that clearly invented account, obviously not credible from the start, was a lie intended to hide the truth of my removal from my post and the assault on me that followed. The plan was to eliminate me within a year, and if that plan had succeeded, the invented story would have stood (though still obviously false) as the last word. My ability to stay alive, file EEOC charges, get the EEOC's authorization to sue, file a lawsuit, and agree to a settlement that would end the dispute also cemented in place my narrative as the only account of these events, which events over the past three years have only expanded, consolidated, and amplified. My lawsuit exposed previous lies and ended any pretense to there being another story.
Why no one can speak my name on campus
Because my narrative is the one and only story, it enforces silence among faculty and administrators at the College. No one on campus is willing to utter one word about me. After all, to talk about me would risk being confronted with the truth about me, and the truth reveals significant wrongdoing and dereliction of duty on campus. No one can acknowledge that I once existed there. Meanwhile, my narrative continues to expand and occupy new ground. The story of the students in this episode, which is the only important story, is also moving forward. It can be recognized only where mine is accepted as true (insofar as it is true).
=
Those who were, in fact, opposed the College, and were shown to so opposed in the lawsuit, included two key administrators who worked at the College. The College does not consist of its employees, and employees sometimes work to oppose the College. After all, I was an employee of the College, and it was argued that I was acting in opposition to it.
The third major figure targeted in my lawsuit--the one who played the most significant role in damaging the university and who worked the longest and the hardest to undermine the principles of community on which it depended--was the local Commonwealth's Attorney. Surely everyone will admit that to oppose the CAO is not to oppose the College of William & Mary, even if he is the College's lawyer.
My side of the story in my individual fight is the full story of my career. No alternative truth exists.
The one and only narrative of what happened regarding me in this episode is the one I tell. There was once another, opposed story; it vanished in 2017 and became part of my synthetic and comprehensive narrative: that clearly invented account, obviously not credible from the start, was a lie intended to hide the truth of my removal from my post and the assault on me that followed. The plan was to eliminate me within a year, and if that plan had succeeded, the invented story would have stood (though still obviously false) as the last word. My ability to stay alive, file EEOC charges, get the EEOC's authorization to sue, file a lawsuit, and agree to a settlement that would end the dispute also cemented in place my narrative as the only account of these events, which events over the past three years have only expanded, consolidated, and amplified. My lawsuit exposed previous lies and ended any pretense to there being another story.
Why no one can speak my name on campus
Because my narrative is the one and only story, it enforces silence among faculty and administrators at the College. No one on campus is willing to utter one word about me. After all, to talk about me would risk being confronted with the truth about me, and the truth reveals significant wrongdoing and dereliction of duty on campus. No one can acknowledge that I once existed there. Meanwhile, my narrative continues to expand and occupy new ground. The story of the students in this episode, which is the only important story, is also moving forward. It can be recognized only where mine is accepted as true (insofar as it is true).
=