I don’t see how it’s in the university’s interest to malign and railroad a professor, presumably because he challenged the orthodoxy a bit with respect to its sexist policies. Especially when the cost is him more-or-less idle for the better part of the year (but still paid) as well as the cost for all of these administrators and lawyers fabricating nonsense for over a year. Further, the employee in this case had tenure protection; the university abuses Title IX and other policies to railroad him out of his position.

If there is an inconsistency, it’s that the folks who love reducing everything to power dynamics are somehow not analyzing this as a clear-cut case of powerful university administrators abusing their considerable power over an employee. I mean, the provost made the unprecedented move of prosecuting a case that her underlings were adjudicating and flouted the requirement that she present her argument a week in advance. The author provided lots and lots of verifiable supporting evidence.