This is all just speculation of course.
His past behavior is likely causing the administration to be very, very cautious about what is said by who and where because anything touching this individual will likely result in legal action.
The university is also refusing to tell them the nature of their "investigation."
(The non-profit organization FIRE and the legal firms involved here are extremely reputable. If the university is afraid of being sued, their apparent aversion to anything resembling due process would seem to be having the opposite effect.)
Since he hasn’t contested that the refusal to participate itself was a termination-eligible offense per the staff handbook, and since he hasn’t offered any indication of anything in the staff handbook or other material that would form part of the employment contract that entitled him to know about the subject of the investigation, I don’t see how that’s material. He has not disputed that he committed an offense that is in black and white an offense justifying termination, and seems mostly to be (even if you accept his explanation in its entirety as to the facts known to him) speculating only on the context of that offense, and then suggesting that that speculative context is the real motive for firing him, not the uncontested firing-worthy offense.
Yeah, yeah, it sucks for everyone (well, everyone in private employment, without a better contract that Gerber apparently had) in this country that private employment doesn’t come with the same type of due process rights that having adverse consequences imposed by the State has. But Gerber’s a law prof, so presumably he knew that already, and, anyway, he’s not making a complaint about the legal structure of private employment relations, so, I’m really not sure what the point is beyond an argument that he is entitled to special treatment outside of the contract even though there is no general entitlement to such treatment.
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.
None other than the same info is repeated by a third party as another commenter noted: https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-suspended-reasons-unk...
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")
FWIW this sounds normal to me. Many lawyers consider standard operating procedure with litigious individuals to be: "Give them as few specifics as possible".